🚀 go-pugleaf

nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:

>In article <1992Jan9.225416.6466@nntp.hut.fi> r36110m@kaira.hut.fi (Mika Matti Jalava) writes:
>>In article <iRNaeB6w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
>>>If you link your programs with a library under the GLPL, you have to supply
>>>object code for your programs.
>>
>>Do you see this as a problem?

>The companies that financed us, being big old companies with large law
>staffs, would never have stood for such a restriction on the source that
>they got.  So the option is not an option.  In general, the bigger the
>company the harder and more expensive this becomes.

Remember that the restriction only applies if the big old companies
resell your program.  And the restriction amounts to their having to
make object code available and to having a code license that does not
prohibit reverse engineering.  I don't see that making the object code
available is any more onerous or more of an administrative headache
than providing updates for a fee.

What happens if you present it to the big old companies as a choice:
accept these restrictions, or get a product without them that will
take an additional month to write and cost correspondingly more money?
It's not obvious to me what choice they will make, although I admit to
a lack of wide experience with big companies.
-- 
Ian Taylor                 ian@airs.com                 uunet!airs!ian
First person to identify this quote wins a free e-mail message:
``Hagenbeck sent a special expedition to Lake Bangweolo; unfortunately
  this expedition did not even find the lake.''