Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!ais.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!linux0.unsl.edu.ar!ralsina
From: ralsina@ultra7.unl.edu.ar (Roberto Alsina)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: GPL
Date: 3 Feb 1997 12:44:24 GMT
Organization: Universidad Nacional de San Luis - Argentina
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <slrn5fbndf.5ml.ralsina@ultra7.unl.edu.ar>
References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <32ED1866.34F02393@indiana.edu> <5cl66d$l52@web.nmti.com> <5cmiuu$iud@garuda.synet.net> <5cokgi$alm@web.nmti.com> <L3U8y0gTz/TM091yn@ibm.net> <32F167BB.41C67EA6@freebsd.org> <0rnuc5.3e1.ln@zen> <5cvodo$hme@omega.gmd.de>
NNTP-Posting-Host: wwwsearch.unl.edu.ar
X-Newsreader: slrn (0.9.1.1 BETA UNIX)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:155896 comp.os.linux.networking:67108 comp.os.linux.advocacy:82227 comp.unix.bsd.misc:2211 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:51752 comp.os.os2.advocacy:265357
Followup-To:
In article <5cvodo$hme@omega.gmd.de>, Holger Veit wrote:
>In comp.os.os2.advocacy Robert Brockway <robert@humbug.org.au> wrote:
>: John S. Dyson (dyson@freebsd.org) wrote:
>
>: : > Too bad for them, because plenty of money can be made by giving code
>: : > away and selling professional services to support it.
>: : >
>: : Works great for BSD also. In fact, lots of money is being made selling
>: : GPLed code also, in the guise of support. Of course, you need the
>: : support to get the code... :-). (That is counter to the intent of GPL,
>
>: ??? The GPL says that your can't attempt to stop redistribution of
>: binaries or source under the license. So how can you say that you need
>: the support to get the code?
>
>Dream on. What's happening to me was the following: there is a company
>which has made a port of gcc to some embedded controller. They want
>DEM 3000 for a service contract and then give you binaries and sources
>of this port "as an addition". When you ask them "GPL and free software,
>and blurb, and blah, I would like to have the *free GPL'd* software" they'll
>tell you: we are not a software company, we sell consulting for that
>embedded controller, and some port of the gcc is just a courtesy, and
>no, you won't get the gcc, you can buy support...circle,circle,circle.
>Point is with software, that you may write it, but noone can force you
>to give it to everybody coming along, even if it is GPL. I am going to
>write my own code in my own chamber, and put a GPL label on it, because
>I think the CopyLeft header looks c00l, but this does not make it
>automatically public domain, so that you may request a copy from me.
What that company did is ok, and within the limits of the GPL.
But the GPL means you can find another 10 users of this company's
software, buy a copy of that gcc port, and share it. And then give it
away for free to anybody else that needs it.
>: Anyone can sell GPL'd s/w. But you can't attempt to stop redistribution.
>: So no ethical problem at all. And as far as i am concerned selling
>: support is perfectly valid (no, i don't do it for a living :-)
>
>If some company (and this is probably mainly the customership for the above
>mentioned tool) pays DEM 3000 for some software, they will care a shit
>about some GPL - they won't re-distribute it to anyone (maybe even to their
>competitors) for free (they didn't buy software, but "support", and before
>they risk this "support" implicitly by giving away the software received
>under the support contract, they'll simply behave as with any other
>arbitrary commercial software product. And this is then the way how
>the GPL idea of re-distribution is handled in real-world.
That's your problem, not GPL's. I don't see how a BSD style license on
gcc would help here, other than making *sure* you paid the DEM 3000 and you
*couldn't* give that software away.
The fact is that the GPL has made sure that a freely redistributable port
of gcc exists.
Anyway, it sounds like your company *doesn't* want that software to be
redistributed, and they don't redistribute it even when they could, so
why do you care that it isn't redistributed? I just don't get your
position here.
>--
> Dr.-Ing. Holger Veit | INTERNET: Holger.Veit@gmd.de
>| | / GMD - German National Research | Phone: (+49) 2241 14 2448 or 2039
>|__| / Center for Information Technology| Fax: (+49) 2241 14 2242
>| | / Schloss Birlinghoven | XFree86/OS2 goes public!
>| |/ D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany | V3.2 from ftp.xfree86.org
> WWW: http://borneo.gmd.de/~veit/ | /pub/XFree86/3.2/binaries/OS2
--
("\''/").__..-''"`-. . Roberto Alsina
`9_ 9 ) `-. ( ).`-._.`) ralsina@unl.edu.ar
(_Y_.)' ._ ) `._`. " -.-' Centro de Telematica
_..`-'_..-_/ /-'_.' Universidad Nacional del Litoral
(l)-'' ((i).' ((!.' Santa Fe - Argentina