Re: GPL (was Re: Free software companies and stock options)

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2000 at 10:58:33PM -0700, dodobh@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> This means that I can make any changes to gcc, but I am not required
> to distribute those changes, as long as I am the only one using that
> particular version of gcc. If I distribute binaries of my version,
> then I am required to make the source available, not otherwise.

As I've said before on this list, "distributing binaries" is an
ill defined term in legal parlance. If bank A has to install the
modified software at a customer site, which happens to be a
different legal entity, some lawyers say, the code suddenly is
subject to GPL, requiring bank A to disclose sources.

Apart from that, Bank A has to put up with all the innuendo and
smear campaigns of well known GPL mongers on slashdot and elsewhere.

Further, RMS has demonstrated an unwillingness to remove such
legal ambiguities in GPL. Case in point: Python license. The
CNRI lawyers have a valid point in that a license is meaningless
unless you specifically say which set of rules it will be interpreted
in. And all that they wanted to do was specify that the license will
be interpreted according to the laws in the state of virginia.

And that makes it "incompatible" with GPL. As some anonymous
coward said, the only thing that is compatible with GPL is the
GPL itself :)

	-Arun "Say no to GPL" Sharma