Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ogicse!ucsd!sdcc6!jclark
From: jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os9
Subject: Re: more GNU software available...
Keywords: gnu, copyleft
Message-ID: <19131@sdcc6.ucsd.edu>
Date: 8 May 91 16:35:57 GMT
References: <1991Apr27.085521.2074@bernina.ethz.ch> <34@kilroy.UUCP>
Organization: University of California, San Diego
Lines: 31

In article <34@kilroy.UUCP> ekuns@kilroy.UUCP (Eddie Kuns) writes:
+I believe the exact restriction is that you must supply source if and only
+if you compile using the GNU libraries.  If you use the GNU compiler but
+Microware libaries, then you are under no copyleft requirement to supply
+source.

I believe it goes like this, if you pass a binary of a GNU tool on
to someone else you must make 'arrangements' for the original source
to be available to that persone(entity). If you compile a 'new'
program and use GNU libraries, you are required to provide sources
for the GNU library and if you don't pass on your source, get a
lawyer to tell you that. My reading of the general terms and
conditions of GNU software implies that such 'derivative' works come
under general T&C and thus is required to be distributed 'freely' in
source form.

The T&C do not prevent you from charging a fee for 1) distribution
2) support of ether GNU tools or your own derived work. Remember
free here means 'free from restricted access to source'. Currently
one can get tape made by various archive agency for $200-$300. This
is definately of the $20-$40 absolute minimum for blank tapes, so a
fee can cover time/materials/overhead but $10000 would probably get
one in to trouble in so far as the 'freely' available for a
'nominal' cost concept goes.

As a matter of principle, one should probably make 'easily'
available any mods or extensions or derived work.
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu