🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Bitmead (chrisb@stork.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au) wrote:

: >there is one company (Congruent) which at some point supplied a port
: >of most of GNU tools to NT. But they didn't give out the sources other
: >than the registered users (meaning if you got the binaries but didn't
: >pay them something, you didn't get the sources, Isn't this against
: >the GPL ?) 

: I don't think it's against the GPL. On the other hand, if one person were
: to buy the product and obtain the source, they would have every right to
: put it up for ftp so that the rest of the world can have it. Any
: volunteers?

The congruent source and binaries are available at microlib.cc.utexas.edu
in /microlib/nt/gnu.

: >and in addition gcc and some other tools (maybe all?) 
: >require an NT dll which no one gets the source and you can't even
: >distribute it. 

I do not know about the source but the binary is available at that site.

: I would have thought this is against the GPL.

: >I haven't heard much about Congruent lately but it
: >really is a shame to see how they managed to pollute the idea of 
: >GNU/GPL with their greed.

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. Whether or
not the FSF could win a law suit over this is a question for lawyers
with expertise in this area.

Paul Budnik