🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <CHRISB.95Feb24101654@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> chrisb@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Chris Bitmead) writes:

>   In article <3htgbq$ah@mtnmath.mtnmath.com> paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com (Paul Budnik) writes:
>
>   >Paul Budnik (paul@mtnmath.mtnmath.com) wrote:
>   >
>   >: My impression is that Congruent is trying to abide by the letter if not
>   >: necessarily the spirit of the GPL. If they do not provide the source
>   >: for the DLL then this violates the intention of the GPL.
>   >
>   >Apparently I was mistaken. The claim is that the DLL only provides support
>   >for Unix system calls that were already in the GNU code. *If* this is true
>   >then the DLL is a sort of operating system extension rather than
>   >modifications to the GNU source and it is not necessary to release the
>   >source code for it.
>
>   I agree with you in principle, that perhaps such a DLL should not need to
>   be subject to the GPL. But is there any technical reason why it shouldn't?
>   Is there anything in the GPL which would exclude it?

  Let me tell you exactly what occured.  Our initial plans were to both 
release the source code for the dll and assign it to the FSF.  Prior to
that occuring we got involved in a discussion with the FSF regarding 
the interpertation of what was a very minor point in the GPL.  To say
that the position taken by the FSF was doctrinaire doesn't approach a 
true representation of how inflexible they were.  At that point we 
decided that there was no reason to do anything more then the minimum
required under the GPL. 

--

----

Art Kreitman				Congruent Corporation
artk@congruent.com                      110 Greene Street
212-431-5100                            New York, New York 10012
fax 219-1532