Re: [PROPOSAL] Full text of GPL must be included

[Rando Christensen <illuzion@xanthor.net>]

On Wed, 29 Nov 2000, Brian Frederick Kimball wrote:

> At 09:35 pm -0800 on November 29, 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> bfk@adsl-63-195-123-115:~$ strings /bin/ls | egrep -i gpl\|license
> bfk@adsl-63-195-123-115:~$
> 
> /bin/ls does not contain a "notice placed by the copyright holder
> saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public
> License."  Therefore it is not a "Program" as defined by section 0, it
> is merely a "work based on a Program" (again see section 0).  Section
> 1 requires giving "any other recipients of the Program a copy of this
> License along with the Program" if one wishes to also have the right to
> distribute the source code to the Program.  Section 1 does not place any
> similar restrictions on distributing a "work based on the Program", like
> /bin/ls.  Therefore one can distribute /bin/ls without being required to
> give recipients of /bin/ls a copy of the GPL.  Yay. :-)

look a little harder:

xanielle:/bin% strings ls
<Much snippy here>
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR 
PURPOSE.


    /-----------------------------------------------------------\
   <         <What Am I Doing? I'm Quietly Judging You.>         >
  <                      <Rando Christensen>                      >  
 < <illuzionz@xanthor.net> <eyez@xanthor.net> <eyez@fragments.net> > 
\-------------------------------------------------------------------/