Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1384 gnu.misc.discuss:751
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!sunic!tut!santra!santra!sja
From: sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <SJA.90Jan20170637@sirius.hut.fi>
Date: 20 Jan 90 15:06:37 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>
	<NELSON.90Jan16164120@image.clarkson.edu>
	<SJA.90Jan17142417@sirius.hut.fi> <NELSON.90Jan18165545@image.clarkson.edu>
Sender: news@santra.uucp (Cnews - USENET news system)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Lines: 24
In-Reply-To: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu's message of 18 Jan 90 21:55:56 GMT


> You could put your work in the public domain, and anyone could link
> it to any gcc-compatible back end.

Sounds like a lot of extra trouble just to keep someone from putting
their fave set of restrictions on my free program.  I should rather
write a back-end as well to keep others from having the same problems.

Some lawyers say user-does-the-link you suggest can not be used to
defeat the GPL (section 2b.)  Some say it can.  Is there an official
FSF policy?

If it can be done, what is the value of section 2b (the "virus" bit)
of the GPL?  I assume it is trying to say something, no?  If giving
users a set of diffs and a couple of new (proprietary or PD) files is
enough to get around 2b then why does it exist?

Would someone from the FSF comment?  Would someone else want to bet if
they will? :-)

> That's utter nonsense.

At this point I remain unconvinced.
									++sja