renner@m.cs.uiuc.edu (01/18/90)
There has been a lot of talk about the "infectious" properties of the GPL.
Now, I'm not an Evil Software Hoarder, but I can think like one. As I read
the GPL, there's nothing in it to bother an inventive hoarder.
Let's take the worst case first. Suppose I want to sell my modifications
to GNU Emacs and prevent them from being given away. Impossible, right?
Not to the inventive hoarder. When you purchase a copy of PervertedEmacs,
you receive:
1. An archive containing compiled, modified GNU Emacs code. You are of
course free to redistrubute this archive. But it isn't executable,
because the modifications are simply calls to external functions not
included in this archive. This is the whole of the GNU Emacs derivative
work. Nobody said it has to be executable.
2. A written offer to send you the source code on tape. The price is
whatever nominal charge FSF is currently charging for their
distribution tape.
Note that at this point I have complied with the GPL in every respect.
3. You also get, on separate floppies or whatever, an archive containing
binaries of my proprietary Emacs extensions which are called by the
modifications in part 1. I have to be careful writing these functions,
of course, to be sure that they aren't derivative code--but hey, FSF is
based on legitimate reverse engineering, right?
4. You get a license to use the archive in part 3. It's pretty
restrictive: you can link it to anything you like and run the resulting
executable on one machine; you can't copy it, distribute it,
dissassemble it, etc.
5. You get a linker, if you need one.
6. You get an INSTALL program that if you choose to run it will perform
the linkage and do other installation stuff.
7. And, of course, you get whatever documentation I want to send, etc.
The principle works for any software you produce using GNU. *Give* the GNU
parts away, *charge* for a licence to use the parts you write, and have the
end user perform the linking.
I am interested in receiving informed opinions as to the legality of this
approach.
============
Scott Renner USENET: pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ARPA: renner@cs.uiuc.edutower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (01/19/90)
Errors-To: gnu-misc-discuss-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@cis.ohio-state.edu Date: 18 Jan 90 01:42:06 GMT From: renner@m.cs.uiuc.edu I am interested in receiving informed opinions as to the legality of this approach. ============ Scott Renner USENET: pur-ee!uiucdcs!renner University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign ARPA: renner@cs.uiuc.edu 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. enjoy -len