Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Restrictions on 'free' UNIX / 386BSD (R
Message-ID: <1992Aug19.024427.27373@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1992Aug18.015903.8526@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Aug18.234401.2087@nrao.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 02:44:27 GMT
Lines: 49
In article <1992Aug18.234401.2087@nrao.edu> cflatter@nrao.edu writes:
>In article 8526@fcom.cc.utah.edu, terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>>Does [the GPL] mean that I can't sell my own program (we'll call it '/usr/bin/true')
>>for $500.00, and then give away GNU Hurd in order to run it, but don't tell
>>anyone what the program is (except you all know now ;-)), offer to send source,
>>like in GPL, but say they can't copy it because they can't distinguish my
>>part from GNU's part?
>
>You don't have to supply source for your own /usr/bin/true because you stuck
>it in the same packet with the GNU Hurd (unless of course it is a modified
>version of a GNU /usr/bin/true). You still have to supply source for the
>Hurd and you can not restrict the rights of anyone who gets the source from
>you to make further copies of the Hurd source.
Ah! But I then *can* warn my users that it doesn't have the bugfixes I put
in (my /usr/bin/true, which "operates better than the orignal" 'cause it's
mine)! And that they can have the original unmodifies sources, but they
will have to find and fix the bugs themselves. Then, on the AT&T theory, I
can sue them for "look and feel" if they diff the binaries after install on
another machine and copy my /usr/bin/true.
>>Because Hurd is an OS, does this mean that *any* application that runs on it
>>is a derivitive work and falls under GNU Public License?
>
>No. Even a lawyer would think that that was silly.
So you are saying that 'true' is a piece of software, above and apart from
hurd itself? Thus I can piecemeal replace things until there isn't enough
to run?
You seem to be implying that 'hurd' is not a unit; thus I do not need to give
them sources to the pieces I remove from hurd and rewrite, since they do not
constitute an "improvement" (derived work) of the GNU code.
I find this hard to believe, and harder to beieve that GNU wouldn't have a
lawyer call up and draw the line for me, were I to do this.
Terry Lambert
terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
terry@icarus.weber.edu
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------