Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!kth!sunic!dkuug!freja!skinfaxe!seindal
From: seindal@skinfaxe.diku.dk (Rene' Seindal)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: libg++ and copylefts
Message-ID: <4664@freja.diku.dk>
Date: 19 Jul 89 14:15:53 GMT
References: <2053@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <6590203@hplsla.HP.COM> <904@accuvax.nwu.edu> <914@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Sender: news@freja.diku.dk
Lines: 30

morrison@accuvax.nwu.edu (Vance Morrison ) writes:

> Both views are reasonable, here is my solution.

> 1) The software developer designs his code using the GNU libraries.  
> 2) He then compiles his modules into object files.   
> 3) He sells his software but distributes it with a linker and the
> 	gnu software libraries and gnu source.
> 4) Part of the installation process is linking his code to the GNU code.

> Note that the software developer is now selling HIS software object 
> files and distributing his stuff and the GNU stuff.  This is all
> legal and the software developer keeps his stuff off the copyleft
> (which is his goal), on the other hand, the GNU stuff gets distributed
> and since the end user is informed that that part is free, and can
> be used and distributed for other uses.  

> What do you think?



I think it will make the binaries the customer has linked freely
distributable, since they are derived from GNU software (the libraries).  The
software developer no longer has to make the source code available, but can't
prevent customers from redistributing the binaries.  That'll harm the
profitability of the product.



Rene' Seindal (seindal@diku.dk).