Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Restrictions on free UNIX / 386BSD (R Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!sdd.hp.com!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Organization: The Man With Ten Cats Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 04:02:22 GMT Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Message-ID: <9208192303.21@rmkhome.UUCP> References: <1992Aug18.015903.8526@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1992Aug18.234401.2087@nrao.edu> Lines: 30 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. > >>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. >From what I understand, the Hurd, in and of itself, is not really an OS, but a UNIX-like environment that will sit on top of Mach 3.0. Part of the duo will be controlled by CMU licensing specifications, and part by the GPL. Since the Hurd will assuredly use the GNU libc.a, it would seem that all binaries would come under the separate GPL library license. What is the difference between the libc.a license and the "normal" GPL? -- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP