Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm
From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Selling GNU software
Message-ID: <27032@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 7 Aug 89 10:18:44 GMT
References: <1447@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <79700024@p.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 30

In article <79700024@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
<
<Re: Workstations that come with GNU software
<
<The NeXT workstation's cc man page says that cc is a version of gnu_cc
<extensively modified to support objective C.  I am hard-pressed to
<understand how they can charge money for the NeXT workstation, when
<the central piece of software was developed by GNU.  Isn't this
<"selling" GNU software?

Whatever makes you think you can't sell GNU software?

You're free to do whatever you want with it providing that any
derivative works you distribute are distributed under the terms of the
GPL. This includes distributing binaries and charging whatever you
feel like for them.

Of course, NeXT did stumble over one problem with the GPL - that they
have to offer sources to derivative works, along with not preventing
others from distributing the binaries. To avoid this, they were forced
to ship .o files, and have the end user build the derivative work.
Since NeXT didn't distribute the resulting binary, the GPL doesn't
apply to it.

	<mike
--
Estant assis, de nuit secrette estude,			Mike Meyer
Seul, repose sur la selle d'airain,   			mwm@berkeley.edu
Flambe exigue, sortant de solitude,   			ucbvax!mwm
Fait proferer qui n'est a croire vain.			mwm@ucbjade.BITNET