home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!usenet.coe.montana.edu!news.u.washington.edu!carson.u.washington.edu!tzs
- From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:09:13 GMT
- Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
- Lines: 29
- Message-ID: <1iik7pINN4qf@shelley.u.washington.edu>
- References: <9LPywB26w165w@mantis.co.uk> <1993Jan7.112550.22626@uwasa.fi>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu
-
- vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
- >If X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer *would have to* give me
- >the source. There is no escape to that. I don't care if their
- >support is bad, as long as there is an alternative. Since I can't get
- >the source, there really is no alternative as of now.
-
- Or they would have implemented their own version, not using GPL'ed code.
-
- There is also the possibility that they would simply arrange things so that
- the source you get is not all you need. Suppose, for example, someone wanted
- to use GNU Emacs in a proprietary editor for Microsoft Windows. What would
- stop them from doing the following:
-
- 1. Find the places where they want to make proprietary changes to
- GNU Emacs.
-
- 2. Rewrite those parts so that they depend on a DLL (dynamic link
- library) to perform the functions that they want to do
- proprietarily (sp?).
-
- 3. Distribute the modified GNU Emacs under GPL.
-
- 4. Implement a proprietary DLL, which is not distributed under
- GPL.
-
- Is this a violation of GPL?
-
- --Tim Smith
-
-