Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:572 alt.religion.computers:1159 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!bu-cs!lll-winken!sun-barr!decwrl!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: Because you think I misrepresent RMS, it's OK to misrepresent me? Message-ID: Date: 19 Dec 89 23:40:26 GMT References: <2558@flatline.UUCP> <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> <1913@texsun.Central.Sun.COM> <1989Dec7.075641.13191@news.acc.Virginia.EDU> <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> <3084@cello.UUCP> <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: Sorry, that's not correct. Paragraph 2b of the GPV specifically forces you to place all of your program under its terms if you use any GNU code in it. This is the virus effect I refer to. That's mostly correct. It's wonderful. If I write code for Digital, it belongs to them, and there's much work involved in releasing it to the world. If I use GNU code, then the work has already been done, and I can release it as is. The one thing you've got wrong is that you don't have to place your code under the GNU license if you don't release it. Since Digital can't use their standard technics to make $s off code under the GPL, they don't lose anything by allowing the release of such code.