Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!brandx.rutgers.edu!webber
From: webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: COPYRIGHT NOTICES (on program sources, of course)
Message-ID: <337@brandx.rutgers.edu>
Date: Sat, 22-Aug-87 18:23:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.337
Posted: Sat Aug 22 18:23:54 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 13:24:50 EDT
References: <6236@brl-smoke.ARPA> <25095@sun.uucp> <12133@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <14152@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 27
Summary: even more fun is ...

In article <14152@topaz.rutgers.edu>, ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes:
> > [someone else]:
> > By the way, as I read the GNU COPYING rules, they act like an
> > infection:  Suppose I packaged GNU EMACS along with a bunch of
> > other "free" software into some sort of user-contributed tape.
> > The GNU rules would spread to cover the entire package.  Then
> > suppose I wanted to distribute the user-contributed tape as a
> > "freebie" along with an operating system (like Gould's "D4"
> > tape).
> 
> I think you're reading the license wrong.  The closest part that
> I see is the comment on including GNU EMACS into your own programs.

[generic disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and both me and the lawyers
seem happy with that.]

Even more fun, think about compiling GNU C in on some other C
compiler.  At any given time, a snapshot of the compiler execution
would include pieces of Gnu code in buffers.  Since in a language like
C, the distinction between instruction and data is highly artificial,
the compiler probably falls under the GNU license during that time
period.  Also, since the resulting binary is a translation, isn't the
compiler responsible for transferring appropriate license information
as well (not that that is our worry, since GNU now licenses both
compilers)?

---- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutger.edu!"
M"