Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 12:46:50 +0200 (MESZ) From: "Hr.Ladavac" <lada@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> To: Kees.Koster@nym.sc.philips.com Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Grand Unified Unix Message-ID: <199609231046.AA066815610@ws2301.gud.siemens.co.at> In-Reply-To: <2E9776D4395@NLNMG01.nym.sc.philips.com> from "Kees Jan Koster" at Sep 23, 96 08:53:22 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
E-mail message from Kees Jan Koster contained: > > I guess I will be bombarded with this GPL stuff now, and I don't have > it here. Is there anything in this GPL that keeps a major company > from actually _using_ gmake and bash? Or, if they publish a chunk of > source, expect the recipient to have GNU tools available?-------------------------------------------v- Internally, no problem. But you cannot safely make your product dependent on the extensions found in these because it can be construed that your product is therefore derived code (there is even a precedent; RMS tried to leverage even the use of hooks for readline code derivation) and must be delivered in machine readable source form to anyone who requires it. This is, of course, very paranoid reading of the GPL. The other problem is lacking cover-your-ass aspect of unsupported tools. This aspect is highly valued in the middle and higher management. /Marino P.S. this is a strictly personal opinion. Whether Siemens adheres to these rules or is even aware of their existence is an entirely different matter.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609231046.AA066815610>