Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!rang From: rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License Message-ID: Date: 22 Dec 89 00:10:18 GMT References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <6055@ubc-cs.UUCP> Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu Organization: UW-Madison CS department Lines: 24 In-reply-to: manis@cs.ubc.ca's message of 21 Dec 89 02:10:34 GMT In article <6055@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: >After reading the GPL very carefully, I am unable to see *anything* >different in kind from a standard licence agreement for a programming >language. It's very, very simple. If I buy a Pascal compiler (including its runtime library), I expect to be able to sell compiled programs that I write using it. I may have to pay a royalty to the compiler author (though most companies have done away with this), but in any case, I can sell the compiled programs which I have written. If I use, say, GNU C and the GNU C library (which I believe isn't finished yet, so this doesn't apply at this moment), I will still be able to sell a program I write. But I will also have to give the purchaser source code, and they will be able to do anything they want with it (including give it away). Whether this is a good thing or not is a religious issue. :-) Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+