Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: service for gnu software (was: Re: C++ 2.0 pricing and licensing policy)
Message-ID: <6590199@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 14 Jul 89 18:11:33 GMT
References: <4294@tekcrl.LABS.TEK.COM>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 22

>/ hplsla:comp.lang.c++ / trost@crl.labs.tek.com (Bill Trost) /  9:33 am  Jul 12, 1989 /
>In article <1481@ns.network.com> hughs@ns.UUCP (Jim Hughes) writes:
>"I would pay for that service (porting to my machine) especially
>if the source is still provided. Is that against copyleft?"
>
>Not only is that permissible under the copyleft, it is being actively
>encouraged by the FSF.  The "GNU manifesto" has something to say on
>the issue:

I believe the only sticker is that neither the person paying for the port
can keep the person doing the port from propagating the software, nor can
the person doing the port prevent the person paying for the port from propagate
the software.  These people are even allowed to charge a reasonable fee to
propagate the port to other people.  They just can't put restrictions on
the software preventing the people who recieve it from further propagating
it.....

This all may well be acceptible, if someone is willing to pay a consultant
for the priviledge of being the first with a port to their machine, and
if the consultant can keep finding new machines to do ports to [and people
will to pay him/her for the priveledge of being the first on their block
to have a g++ port]