🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <976:Apr2909:03:3890@stealth.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:
>A more specific applicable decision is the Federal decision in Louisiana
>a few years back that shrink-wrap licenses are unenforceable. This is
>really a question of warning: if people using GPL-covered code were
>adequately informed of the real extent of their rights under the GPL
>before they received copies of the code, then it probably wouldn't
>qualify as a shrink-wrap license.

With shrink-wrap licensing, you pay money before seeing the license.
Gnu software is free; if you read the license and don't like the terms,
you're free to delete the code.  If you paid for a tape, you've paid
a fee for distribution (the labor of making the tape, the cost of the
tape, and the cost of shipping).  Your precedent doesn't seem to apply.

>A much more general principle making the same point extremely clear
>appears in a section of the United States copyright statutes: an author
>can never be unwillingly deprived of his exclusive copyrights. It's a
>real shame NeXT didn't try this tack when they were bulldozed into
>distributing their compiler for free because they hadn't realized the
>effects of the GPL.

Anyone at Next who thought otherwise must believe in free lunches.
I'll bet 80% of lines of source code in Next's compiler were written
by Richard Stallman.  Why should NeXT get to use this work for free?
The license is really very simple -- if you want to keep your source
private, you can.  You can even use Gnu Emacs to edit it and GCC to
compile it.  But everything you ship must be your own product.

>If you're an author, and you've been selling a
>product derived from GNU code without realizing the effects of the GPL,
>and now the FSF is trying to steal your profits: Read 17 USC!

Give it up.  If the above applies to you, you're either incredibly stupid
or a thief.  Every module of every GNU program is clearly labeled.  You've
been informed that you can't sell GNU software as your own.

The only case where a software vendor could be confused is if he doesn't
realize that some GNU code has been linked in as part of a library,
and according to Michael Tiemann (author of G++) the FSF is planning
some loosening up in this area, which is the only one where people
have legitimate problems.

The GNU Public License doesn't force you to give your code away; you
have several options:

	1) Distribute your code with the GNU code according to the
	GNU License.

	2) Develop with Gnu tools, but make sure that everything you
	ship is your own.

	3) Use your combined software within your own organization,
	but don't distribute it to anyone else.
--
--
Joe Buck
jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!ohm.berkeley.edu!jbuck