🚀 go-pugleaf

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to sage:
>>> RCPT To:<phil@iseng.compnews.co.uk>
<<< 550 User unknown
550 phil@iseng... User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from icdoc.UUCP by hyperion.cps.compnews.co.uk; Sat, 8 Feb 92 06:16:13 GMT
Original-Via:  uk.ac.uknet  ; 8 Feb 92 5:52 GMT
Received: from news.cis.ohio-state.edu by eros.uknet.ac.uk via EUnet 
          with SMTP (PP) id <8963-0@eros.uknet.ac.uk>;
          Sat, 8 Feb 1992 05:39:45 +0000
Received: by news.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.911008) id AA28849;
          Thu, 6 Feb 92 23:09:42 -0500
Received: from USENET by news.cis.ohio-state.edu with netnews 
          for gnu-misc-discuss-mail@cis.ohio-state.edu (gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu);
          contact usenet@news.cis.ohio-state.edu if you have questions.
To: gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu
Date: 7 Feb 92 04:06:15 GMT
Message-Id: <kp41dnINNr7m@network.ucsd.edu>
Organization: Intstitute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
From: Matt Kennel <mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu>
Original-Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@edu.ohio-state.cis
References: <28526@vedge.UUCP>, <DJM.92Feb6223820@frob.eng.umd.edu>xa
Subject: Yet more GNU licensings...
Original-Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-post@cps.compnews.co.uk



Ok, time for all you gnurds out there:

Here are a few questions... I'll start out easy, but get harder, and
end with a "zinger". 

	Suppose gnu.o is covered by the normal (GPL) license, say
gnu.o is a part of emacs.

Q1:	If I write matt.o and sell matt.o and gnu.o and gnu.c,
        intending for them to be linked, must I provide matt.c?
        Must I allow the recipient to in turn give away all of these
	without giving anything to me?

Q2:	Repeat with GPL->LGPL.

Q3: 	Suppose, using the LGPL version of gnu.o, I provide in addition,
        executable "matt" which is simply matt.o and gnu.o linked together
	for a certain architecture.  Does anything change?  (I think it
	stupid if this makes a difference, personally)

Q4:	Now, suppose I write version 1 of Magic Frobozz Compiler-Compiler
	Meta-Compiler Construction Kit Interpreter, and give it away
	under the GNU GPL license.

	A little while passes, and after a while I rewrite things to
	be version 2, with some more enhancements, etc.  Am I allowed to
	sell this version in software "hoarder" fashion to Bill "I sold
	my soul to the devil for 5 gigabucks" Gates, under traditional
	proprietary license?  In other words, does the GNU virus infect the
	original owner?  Does anything change, if I incorporate into V2,
	improvments that the general public at large have sent in during their
	use of V1.* ?


Q5:	Does GNU have a position on the subject of entertainment "software",
	a.k.a. CD's and soon, digital video?  With the advent of cheap,
	identical digital copying, is there any real difference between CD's
	and computer programs?

	For example,
	"People will no longer be able to make money by hoarding and selling
	 recorded music data files, which can be copied at no physical cost
	 just like computer programs, but the good ones will be able to sell
	 their expertise at making good recordings and choosing pleasing
	 arrangements, for concerts, weddings, or radio-station play lists.
	 Musicians can still give live concerts, but won't be able to
	 prohibit digital recording of these concerts.  Bootleg will be a
	 thing of the past, and there will be a larger array of truly Free
	 music for public benefit.

	 ...

	 Anytime somebody uses a theme from a GPL protected piece, they
	 must provide their entire work in both recorded (binary) format, as
	 well as in source (music notation) for minimal charge, and cannot
	 prohibit others from freely redistributing their work."
	


Matt Kennel
mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu