Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!munnari!otc!metro!basser!natmlab!dmsadel!augean!idall
From: idall@augean.OZ (Ian Dall)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: "Open" Software Foundation: GNU
Message-ID: <355@augean.OZ>
Date: 14 Jun 88 07:04:02 GMT
References: <4630@hoptoad.uucp> <5910001@hplsla.HP.COM> <1144@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: idall@augean.OZ (Ian Dall)
Organization: Engineering Faculty, University of Adelaide, Australia
Lines: 23

In article <1144@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
->In article <5910001@hplsla.HP.COM>, jima@hplsla.HP.COM (              Jim Adcock) writes:
->
->> Well, as long as we're complaining about naming conventions, how
->> about complaining about "Free Software Foundation" ???
->However, gcc appears to be different.  I don't have the gcc license on
->hand at the moment, but if it's as similar to the emacs license as I
->expect, a good case could be made that anything compiled with gcc (or
->*certainly* anything linked with the gcc-distribution library routines)
->cannot be distributed for-profit or otherwise contrary to Richard's
->ideals as embodied in the license.

Is the gcc licence agreement more restrictive than commercial (say AT&T
for example) compiler licences. On my system all the include files
have AT&T Copyright notices on them. My (binary only) licence doesn't
say anything about exemptions for libraries or include files. Arguably
giving/selling a program compiled on my system is redistributing stuff
that my licence forbids. It would have major ramifications for the
whole industry if anyone tried to enforce such an interpretation.
-- 
 Ian Dall           "In any argument there will be people on your
                     side who you wish were on the other side."
idall@augean.oz