Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!iuvax!purdue!decwrl!shlump.nac.dec.com!decwrl.dec.com From: cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: The GNU license. Message-ID: <3777@shlump.nac.dec.com> Date: 26 Jul 89 23:23:19 GMT Sender: news@shlump.nac.dec.com Distribution: na Organization: DEC Advanced CI Development, Marlboro MA Lines: 33 In article , mccalpin@masig2.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes... >The GNU copyleft _does_ say that: *if* you _distribute_ a program >produced by way of the GNU software, then you have to distribute the >source for that program also, for at most a copying fee. This is not the case of compiling something with GCC. If you compile using GCC it is still a salable product. If you excerpt code from GCC and put that code into your product then the product must be copyleft. Actually the case is if you include any copylefted code then the product must be copyleft. >I'll leave it for others to decide whether run-time libraries are >reasonably included in this (I think not), but the agreement clearly >covers _distribution_ of programs, not merely their creation. In a prior article it was stated that the run-time libraries are *not* copylefted. If this is the case then a product can be made using the GNU run-time libraries without having to copyleft. Why don't we just post the GNU license in misc.legal and ask if one of the lawyer types who reads it can explain under what conditions code contamination occurs? Believing the GNU license is probably a little too stringent, shades ============================================================================ | But I that am not shaped for sport- | Geoffrey D. Cooper | | ive trick, nor formed to court an | cooper@vlab.enet.dec.com | | amorous looking glass... | business (508) 467-3678 | | | home (617) 925-1099 | ============================================================================ Note: I'm a consultant. My opinions are *MY* opinions.