Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!dtix!darwin.sura.net!uvaarpa!cv3.cv.nrao.edu!laphroaig!cflatter From: cflatter@nrao.edu (Chris Flatters) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Restrictions on free UNIX / 386BSD (R Message-ID: <1992Aug20.165735.23617@nrao.edu> Date: 20 Aug 92 16:57:35 GMT References: <9208192303.21@rmkhome.UUCP> Sender: news@nrao.edu Reply-To: cflatter@nrao.edu Organization: NRAO Lines: 50 In article 21@rmkhome.UUCP, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes: >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? If a library is distributed under the GPL then a program that is linked against it is legally regarded as a derivative work. The GNU Library Public License (GLPL) makes an explicit distinction between a "work based on the library" (where you go in and hack the sources to the library) and a "work that uses the library" (an executable linked with the binary). You do not need to distribute the source to a work that uses the library nor make it available. You do have to make the source for the library available however and distribute a linkable object file (and any special tools that may be necessary to build a new executable). The last clause is intended to insure that the recipients of the work can link it against a new and improved version of the GNU library if they so wish. A library may be placed under the GLPL or under the more restrictive GLPL at the option of the author (so look carefully at which license is actually used). Note that the complete texts of both the GPL and the GLPL are available for anonymous ftp from prep.ai.mit.edu as COPYING and COPYING-LIB. Chris Flatters cflatter@nrao.edu