Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Restrictions on free UNIX / 386BSD (Re: Message-ID: <9208192314.11@rmkhome.UUCP> Date: 20 Aug 92 04:14:06 GMT References: <9208181753.32@rmkhome.UUCP> <1992Aug19.011831.3079@nrao.edu> Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Organization: The Man With Ten Cats Lines: 21 In article <1992Aug19.011831.3079@nrao.edu> cflatter@nrao.edu writes: >In article 32@rmkhome.UUCP, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >>Software houses such as Lotus and Wordperfect want complete assurance that >>their product is secure under the law when it goes out the door. There is >>no court record to show what happens when the buyer of a commercial software >>product demands source from the author because it was compiled using GCC, >>and should fall under the GNU Copyleft. > >Compiling a program with GNU C does not automatically place it under the >GNU General Public License. It might help cut down on the bandwidth here >if people actually read the GPL before posting. I'm not saying that it does. I'm just saying that the GPL Copyleft is an untested licensing concept. Apparently there are four versions of the GPL in circulation. -- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP