🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Fn&_k341@cs.psu.edu>, schwartz@groucho (Scott E. Schwartz) writes:
>
>In article <DRW.90Jul22212107@zermelo.mit.edu> 
> drw@zermelo.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley) writes:
>
>   I recently unpacked and tested Gnu diff, and it's quite a lot faster
>   than Sun's diff.  However, the documentation gives a reference to an
>   article in Comm. of the ACM that describes the algorithm used.
>   Unfortunately, CACM is not free information, and so the reference will
>   have to be expunged.  Unfortunately, that will make the code
>   incomprehensible, unless FSF details someone to write a complete
>   description of the algorithm.
>
>My copy of that issue is at home now, but from another issue of CACM:
>"General permission to republish, but not for profit, all or part of
>this material is granted provided that ACM's copyright notice is given
>and that reference is made to the publication, to its date of issue,
>and to the the reprinting privileges were granded by permission of the
>Association for Computing Machinery."
>
>If you don't like that, write away and get some tech reports instead.

So it all depends on the definition of 'for profit'.

I wonder if it is possible to take the CACM article as a whole and
include it in the GNU diff distribution.  I suppose yes, if you
consider GNU distribution as the distribution by anonymous ftp and
such, but what about the people who sell GNU software and announce it
in magazines etc ?  Is that 'for profit' ?  Perhaps not, because the
actual product they sell is the distribution of GNU software, not GNU
software per se.  But then again, I'm not a lawyer and lawyers might
disagree.

Any informed opinions (like people from CACM itself) ?

//Jyrki