🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9001292002.AA02924@adiron.adiron> gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes:
>Len - we have been following the discussions regarding copyleft on the
>net.  In particluar I would like to receive clarification on a statement
>you made recently:

>   > Our lawyers have informed FSF that attempting to avoid the GPL by
>   > having one's customers do the linking is illegal under the GPL and
>   > applicable laws.

>Our corporate attorney has reviewed the GNU Public License. He
>concludes [the opposite (summary by MF)]

A couple of other questions.

I.  Say I produce a product.  Let's assume that it is a large financial
application because that is the type of work I do.

Now part of my product requires a text file produced by the user, so I
link in EMACS.  This isn't a real problem because I link EMACS to only
one of the fifty or so executables in my product.  I provide this
file, with its source code, to anyone who asks for a nominal
duplication charge.  

II.  Say I produce a product.  It needs an editor so I provide our own
rather brain dead editor, but I also include directions on how to link
in EMACS instead.

III.  Once more I produce a product, but it just uses the standard
system editor, calling it much like rrn.  But I distribute a bunch of
elisp functions that make EMACS much more useful for this product.  In
fact, any other editor or even plain vanilla EMACS is pretty useless
with my product.  I freely distribute the elisp source.


---

All of these examples assume that I am making people pay for my code,
withholding my source, and making then sign licensing agreements.

Which of these violate the GPL and which do not?
--
The passing of Marxism-Lenninism first from China and then from the
Soviet Union will mean is death as a living ideology ... .  For while
there may be some isolated true believers left in places like Managua,
Pyongyang, or Cambridge, MA ...   - Francis Fukuyama