Newsgroups: comp.sys.apollo
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!umich!terminator!pisa.citi.umich.edu!rees
From: rees@pisa.citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Subject: Re: postscript preview
Message-ID: <51f0f914.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu>
Sender: usenet@terminator.cc.umich.edu (usenet news)
Reply-To: rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees)
Organization: University of Michigan IFS Project
References: <1991May31.155935.6043@cs.cmu.edu> <51e5d5ff.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu> <1991Jun2.025712.1595@digi.lonestar.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 91 02:06:16 GMT

In article <1991Jun2.025712.1595@digi.lonestar.org>, kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes:

  In article <51e5d5ff.1bc5b@pisa.citi.umich.edu> rees@citi.umich.edu (Jim Rees) writes:
  >I would love to make a binary available to you, but the gnu license
  >prohibits me from doing so.

  You misunderstand the gnu license (GPL).  You can distribute binaries if you
  wish.  Many ports of GNU software are distributed this way, especially MS-DOS
  ports.  However, the license does say that you must make the source changes
  you made to generate the distributed binary available to anyone who receives
  the binary and would also like your changes to the source.

The GPL seems pretty clear to me.  I don't think I misunderstood it.  One of
the terms of the gnu general license (as described in a file that comes with
ghostscript) is as follows:

  3. You may copy and distribute Ghostscript (or a portion or derivative
of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the
terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the
following:

    a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of
    Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,

    b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal
    shipping charge) a complete machine-readable copy of the
    corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of
    Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,

    c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the
    corresponding source code may be obtained.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form alone.)

So a binary distribution is only possible under b) or c) above.  Since I
received ghostscript as source, I'm restricted to b).  Even if you assume
"written" can mean "machine-readable" (and I don't read it that way), I'm
still required to make guarantees valid for three years, which I certainly
can't do.

The way I read this, gnu software can only be distributed in source form.  I
believe that's the way Stallman intended it.  If you have a different
interpretation, I would like to hear it.