Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!pp!milano!cadillac!vaughan@mcc.com
From: vaughan@mcc.com (Paul Vaughan)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: boosting libg++ (was Re: g++ vs. cfront 2.0 in the Real World)
Message-ID: <1949@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM>
Date: 27 Jul 89 16:19:40 GMT
References: <318@gt-eedsp.gatech.edu> <6590198@hplsla.HP.COM> <1117@nih-csl.UUCP>
Sender: news@cadillac.CAD.MCC.COM
Reply-To: vaughan@mcc.com (Paul Vaughan)
Organization: MCC VLSI CAD Program
Lines: 17
In-reply-to: keith@nih-csl.UUCP (keith gorlen)


	Regardless of whether the copyleft would be enforced in the
courts, it's in our best and most ethical interests to see that it
stays out of the courts by obeying the letter and spirit of the GNU
Manifesto.  After all, it's their stuff.  My personal belief is that
they should be able to put whatever restrictions they like on it.
Just because we know about it and want it doesn't mean we have to use
it.  Only if it became difficult to avoid (such as a virus) as opposed
to requiring effort to obtain would we have any ethical recourse.
	Now for an interesting question.  If someone created a program
that used Gorlen's OOPS in conjunction with lib-g++, would it be legal
(and ethical) to distribute the resulting binary under any terms?  How
about a non PD, non GNU, but partially distributable library and lib-g++,
where the copyleft and the copyright are in conflict?

 Paul Vaughan, MCC CAD Program | ARPA: vaughan@mcc.com | Phone: [512] 338-3639
 Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!vaughan