Message-ID: <3C202C41.152E48E@ponyexpress.net> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 23:51:04 -0600 From: "David P. Engvall" <davideng@ponyexpress.net> Subject: [Fwd: Software Developed Under GPL]
Mal <<
Now this one seems to get to the point if a little bit curdely.
Take Care,
Dave
attached mail follows:
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 09:26:37 -0600 From: JD Runyan <Jason.Runyan@nitckc.usda.gov> Subject: Re: Software Developed Under GPL Message-ID: <20011217092702.A8381@katya>
Just tell him that is a bunch of crap. There is no requirement in the
GPL that gcc is written under that says you have to do anything with
your resulting binary, unless you embedded gcc in the project itself.
IT WILL ONLY BE OPEN SOURCE IF HE MAKES IT SO, OR IF HE CHOOSES TO USE
AN ALTERED VERSION OF AN OPEN SOURCE PROJECT, AND THEN ONLY THE ALTERED
PROJECT CODE HAS TO BE OPENED UP. IF HE CHANGES THE CODE TO SAY REGEX
TO, AND PLANS ON SELLING THE PRODUCT THAT HE IS SHIPPING THAT WITH, THEN
HE MUST SEND GNU IN THIS CASE THE SOURCE CHANGES HE HAD MADE. NOTHING
MORE IS REQUIRED.
On Sun, Dec , at 04:26:55PM -0600, David P. Engvall wrote:
> kclug <<
>
> A friend of mind is a Windows software developer. He tells me that he isn't interested
> in developing
> anything using Open Source tools because anything he develops will also be open source
> and he
> wouldn't be able to sell it. I think there is a way to use Open Source tools and not
> necessarily be required
> to release the source for the resulting software. Can you give some advice that I can
> pass along to him and/or
> refer me to links that discuss this subject.
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
-- JD Runyan "You can't milk a point." David M. Kuehn, Ph.D.