On Thu, 07 Jun 2001, Jeffry Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, as long as it's strictly use, there is no debate - GPL only
> covers redistribution. You can USE a GPL'd program however you want,
> including mixing it with proprietary programs.
> From the GPL:
>
> Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
> covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Good (that's the phrase I was alluding to, when I said I guess it's OK).
Let me ask a couple of questions that have been nagging me, perhaps
you've addressed them in your discussions.
1) How "helpful" can I (a proprietary program distributor) be in getting
the "arbitrary GPL'd program" (that my proprietary program needs to
function) to the end-user?
- I can certainly indicate a link to get the GPL program, (no?!)
- can I supply it on my website, nearby my program tarball?
- can my installation program, when it detects the GPL program
is missing from the end-user's system, offer to download and
install it for them?
2) If a sys-admin downloads software and sets things up so the 2000
employees at the company can use it, is that "distribution"?
If he does this (say simultaneously) for "my proprietary program" +
"the arbitrary GPL'd program it needs" is there a problem? Are there
other sorts of problems with this sort of "sysadmin distribution"
Sorry to all who think these are nits...
> CORBA and other forms of linking are a question that RMS has stated he's
> working to address in the next version of the GPL.
Glad to hear it is not just myself seeing a fuzziness here that can
hopefully be made more clear.
Thanks,
Karl
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
