On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 02:47:58PM +0200, Thomas Hood wrote: > Objection #2: This definition would make it harder to produce free > software using non-free tools. > > Answer: If your codebase is in a proprietary format and you work > on this using proprietary tools, and you release binary and source > in a non-proprietary format, then you are indeed in violation of > the license. Good. The GPL contains one important limitation > of what can be done with licensed code: No Distribution of Binaries > Derived From This Without Providing Source. Why does it have that > prohibition? In order to prevent private parties from taking > possession of free code through an embrace-and-extend strategy. > Your proprietary codebase gives you an advantage over the rest of > the free software community: perhaps enough of an advantage that > effectively people will be forced to pay you to make changes. Aha! > Do you plead that your contract with your tool vendor doesn't > allow you to make your codebase available along with the tools > for developing in it? Too bad: you can't distribute. I consider this to be an unreasonable restriction, and an inaccurate interpretation of the GPL. For example, as you have described it, it prohibits storing a GPLed application in a bitkeeper repository. Oops. > The GPL is > very clear about this. No it isn't. It is, at best, murky; a good lawyer should have no trouble getting a ruling the other way. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | Dept. of Computing, `. `' | Imperial College, `- -><- | London, UK
Attachment:
pgplI3z9p7RnQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature