Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!ucbvax!tardis.computer-science.edinburgh.ac.uk!gtoal
From: gtoal@tardis.computer-science.edinburgh.ac.uk
Newsgroups: comp.sys.acorn
Subject: Re: GhostScript/GNU licenses
Message-ID: <9105160913.AA16103@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 16 May 91 09:21:09 GMT
References: <1991May13.104350.14330@cl.cam.ac.uk> <7052@acorn.co.uk> <1991May15.110846.3065@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: Unix Anarchy, Edinburgh University.
Lines: 17

In article <1991May15.110846.3065@cl.cam.ac.uk> dahe@cl.cam.ac.uk (David Elworthy) writes:
>To make this clear, this is because of the terms of the Gnu licence (as I
>understood it at least).

Actually, I think you're overinterpreting it.  I'm sure it doesn't say anywhere
that all the bits have to be in the same package.  In fact I don't think
you're oblidged to include the source - just to make it available when asked
for.  Mainly the gnu license is about what happens *after* you've supplied
it once: that your 'customers' have the right to pass it on to third parties.

I'm sure it's perfectly compatible with the terms of the gnu license if you
were to post only minimal binaries, and leave the sources on Newcastle, for
instance.  Unless Ghostscript has extra conditions attached.

Having posted the sources once, you can *definitely* now just issue patches :-)

Graham