🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT
   From: uhnix1!splut!jay@cs.utexas.edu  (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
   Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX

   [I don't get gnu.* here...]

   In article <3084@cello.UUCP> sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) writes:
   >The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own
   >profit.
   >For anything other than the "GNU library" and "bison" issue:
   >    I fail to see how someone could unwittingly do this unless they
   >    havn't a clue.  Would you just snarf up code from ANY source with a
   >    copyright without at LEAST reading the copyright yourself.  You
   >    don't need a lawyer to figure it out.

   Well, for example, take a recent posting to alt.sources: GNU getopt
   ported to MS-DOS.

   It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus.

   Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses
   that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced
   to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and
   prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his
   knowledge.

This problem is NOT unique to the GNU General Public License.  It's
how the copyright law works.  You would have the same problem with
code from AT&T, Sun, Digital et al.

   I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV
   screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should
   be penalized.

He should be asked to post a corrected version, and his mistake
should be noted in the appropriate alt.all newsgroup.

thanx -len