From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: What the GPL actually means
Organization: Independent Network (UK)
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:36:26 GMT

In article <PCG.93Jan6174715@decb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>johnston> of the source for your program, yes, you are obligated to
>johnston> release all your source under the GPL.
>
>No, this is not required at all. For the mere incorporation of GNU sw
>into one's own there are no conditions whatsoever.

You don't need to tell anyone you have it, but that isn't the point.

>The GPL moreover specifies that only that third party has a right to get
>a copy of the sources alongside their binaries, and may then redistribute
>copies of those sources further.

Oh no it doesn't....  "all third parties"

[[ This is from one of the earliest FSF Licences... ]]

  %    b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
  %    that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of this
  %    program or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all
                                                                   ^^^
  %    third parties on terms identical to those contained in this
  %    License Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive
  %    warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option).
  .....
  %  3. You may copy and distribute this program (or a portion or derivative
  %of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms
  %of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
  
  %    b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
  %    years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal
                      ^^^
  %    shipping charge) a complete machine-readable copy of the
  %    corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of
  %    Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or,
  
>Note also that there is *no* condition imposed on the redistribution of
>the binaries themselves; these may or may not be covered by the GPL. In
>other words, the binaries can be totally proprietary.

Untrue.

>If you use GPL covered sources for in-house projects there is *no need*
>to release anything. The use of GPL covered sources, when they are not
>redistributed to anybody else, is not subject to *any* condition.

True in a meaningless sort of way.

But, if someone *does* get hold of a copy of your program...

>What the GPL actually says
>==========================
>
>Let me repeat this again, as it apparently virtually nobody understands
>these subtleties:
>
>the GPL states the condition that you can give copies of GPL covered
>sources, or their binaries, to third parties, all the sources
>involved in which they are must be covered by the GPL.
>
>* No conditions apply if you don't give anything to third parties.
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wrong.

>* No conditions apply on the binaries.

Wrong.

>* Nobody but the third party to which the binaries are given has
>  a right to get the sources from you, and then only if they
>  actually request them (but they must be informed in writing they
>  have this right).

Wrong.

>* You can sell the binaries under any conditions you want, for any
>  price you deem fit.

This is OK!

>* You can impose penalties, like withdrawal of warranty on the
>  binaries, if the third party actually demands the sources (but
>  the penalties cannot be excessive, like a fine).

Wrong.

>* If you distribute the sources alone, you can ask any price for the
>  service of supplying them; if you distribute the sources after the
>  request of somebody who got your binaries you can only ask for
>  reimbursment of expenses incurred.

Wrong!  You can ask for any reasonable expenses -- including, as far as I
can see, emplying someone at 100k/hour to do a one-off copy just for them.

>Examples
>========
>
>1) You are a large bank. You use GNU LIB C++ to develop a financial
>application that is considered confidential and proprietary to the bank
>and no copies are given to other parties.
>
>-> You have no obligations whatsoever under the GPL.

You do.  (Possibly the "library" version")

>2) You are a software developer. You build a JOVIAL compiler based on the
>GNU CC back end. You sell for $10,000 binaries of the compiler carrying
>your own copyright. With the binaries you give two years of maintenance
>and updates, a written offer to supply the sources of the whole compiler
>for reimbursment of the costs involved (media, personnel time,
>overheads), and a clause that the binaries must be deleted and the
>warranty expires as soon as the offer to get the sources is exercised.
>
>-> The binaries cannot be copied by the customer. If customers ask
>   for the sources, they are on their own. They must recompile the
>   sources and provide their own maintenance and support. They may
>   then redistribute either as they see fit.

Wrong.

>3) You are a source repository. You have a compilation of GNU sw.
>you are asked for a copy of the compilation.
>
>-> You are under no obligation to supply that copy. If you do, you can
>   ask any price for the service of supplying it. Once supplied, the
>   same compilation can be redistributed under the GPL without
>   restrictions.

"Mere aggregation does not..."  etc

>Comments
>========
>
>1) You can make any use whatsoever of GNU sw, if it is for own use.

You cannot.  *In case* it somehow leaks out...

>2) If you provide poor maintenance and support for JOVIAL compiler, or if
... and more "not so's" deleted...

>Basically Stallman thinks that work should be rewarded, not absentee
>landlordship.

There's very little in the way of "thank you" to the person who provided
the basis for gcc...  (Davidson, I think, who devised RTL around 1980)

>Piercarlo Grandi, Dept of CS, PC/UW@Aberystwyth <pcg@aber.ac.uk>

joe.
-- 
Joe Sharkey      joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk      ...!uunet!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
150 Hatfield Rd, St Albans, Herts AL1 4JA, UK        Got a real domain name
(+44) 727 838662           Mail/News Feeds (v32/v32bis): info@inet-uk.co.uk