tish@UUNET.UU.NET (Todd) (01/30/90)
Len - we have been following the discussions regarding copyleft on the net. In particluar I would like to receive clarification on a statement you made recently: > Our lawyers have informed FSF that attempting to avoid the GPL by > having one's customers do the linking is illegal under the GPL and > applicable laws. Our corporate attorney has reviewed the GNU Public License. He concludes that we can adhere to the license and not be forced to disclose sources for our own code/algorithms so long as we require our customer to purchase the GNU software (libraries, etc.) directly and compile all appropriate pieces. Does your organization concur with this interpretation of the GNU Public License? Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Tish Todd ...!uunet!adiron!tish PAR Technology Corporation (315) 738-0600, Ext. 622 220 Seneca Turnpike New Hartford, NY 13413
mfriedma@oracle.com (Michael Friedman) (02/01/90)
In article <9001292002.AA02924@adiron.adiron> gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu writes: >Len - we have been following the discussions regarding copyleft on the >net. In particluar I would like to receive clarification on a statement >you made recently: > > Our lawyers have informed FSF that attempting to avoid the GPL by > > having one's customers do the linking is illegal under the GPL and > > applicable laws. >Our corporate attorney has reviewed the GNU Public License. He >concludes [the opposite (summary by MF)] A couple of other questions. I. Say I produce a product. Let's assume that it is a large financial application because that is the type of work I do. Now part of my product requires a text file produced by the user, so I link in EMACS. This isn't a real problem because I link EMACS to only one of the fifty or so executables in my product. I provide this file, with its source code, to anyone who asks for a nominal duplication charge. II. Say I produce a product. It needs an editor so I provide our own rather brain dead editor, but I also include directions on how to link in EMACS instead. III. Once more I produce a product, but it just uses the standard system editor, calling it much like rrn. But I distribute a bunch of elisp functions that make EMACS much more useful for this product. In fact, any other editor or even plain vanilla EMACS is pretty useless with my product. I freely distribute the elisp source. --- All of these examples assume that I am making people pay for my code, withholding my source, and making then sign licensing agreements. Which of these violate the GPL and which do not? -- The passing of Marxism-Lenninism first from China and then from the Soviet Union will mean is death as a living ideology ... . For while there may be some isolated true believers left in places like Managua, Pyongyang, or Cambridge, MA ... - Francis Fukuyama
major@pyrmania.oz (MAJOR) (02/10/90)
adiron!tish@UUNET.UU.NET (Todd) writes: >Our corporate attorney has reviewed the GNU Public License. He >concludes that we can adhere to the license and not be forced to >disclose sources for our own code/algorithms so long as we require our >customer to purchase the GNU software (libraries, etc.) directly and >compile all appropriate pieces. Does your organization concur with >this interpretation of the GNU Public License? To do this would defeat the _purpose_ of the GPL even if it was within it's letter. If I were the FSF I would not be giving you any cause to relax, even if I thought you might get away with it in a court. Major major@pyrmania.oz.au