Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:5603 gnu.misc.discuss:1220
Path: utzoo!telly!philmtl!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sunybcs!boulder!pikes!aspen.craycos.com!jrbd
From: jrbd@craycos.com (James Davies)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Lotus 1-2-3 was compiled with GNU C compiler!?
Message-ID: <1990Jul13.164526.5289@craycos.com>
Date: 13 Jul 90 16:45:26 GMT
References: <17032@haddock.ima.isc.com> <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> <1990Jul11.164306.7313@sco.COM>
Organization: Cray Computer Corporation
Lines: 25

In article <1990Jul11.164306.7313@sco.COM> jim@iggy.UUCP (Jim Sullivan) writes:
>In article <2699D59A.D60@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>According to peterf@haddock.ima.isc.com (Peter Fischman):
>>> I recently came off a project that ported a DOS application,
>>> Lotus 1-2-3 (you may have heard of it), to System V and Xenix.
>>> We developed on 386/ix and used gcc and gmake.
>>
>>Oh, this is rich.
>>
>>Lotus ("We're Not Competitive, So We Sue Everyone") Corporation
>>compiles its flagship product... with the GNU C compiler.
>
>One can only hope that they screwed up, included part of the GNU source code,
>and will have to place the entire source code for Lotus into the General
>Public Licence!  Now that would be rich....:-)

If the port was done by ISC for Lotus, it is unlikely that the
source will become infected by the GPL virus.  ISC doesn't own the
rights to the source, and thus couldn't have transmitted these rights
(even accidentally) to someone else.  Now if Lotus distributes the
resulting binary directly, that would be a different story perhaps...

I personally have serious doubts about the enforcability of the GPL,
but only a court (or several courts, most likely) can decide things 
like this.  Maybe this is the opportunity to find out...