Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000 13:22:25 -0800 From: Arun Sharma <adsharma@sharmas.dhs.org> To: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: On "intelligent people" and "dangers to BSD" Message-ID: <20000321132225.A27738@sharmas.dhs.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003220133470.1180-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in>; from Rahul Siddharthan on Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:41:32AM %2B0530 References: <200003211925.MAA02448@usr06.primenet.com> <Pine.BSF.4.20.0003220133470.1180-100000@theory1.physics.iisc.ernet.in>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 22, 2000 at 01:41:32AM +0530, Rahul Siddharthan wrote: > > > Dunno about lawyers but the GPL nowhere insists that you must > > > redistribute -- only that if you do so, it must be under the GPL. > > > > It is my understanding that IBM bought Whistle instead of Cobalt > > because of fears of the GPL resulting in dillution of their > > patent portfolio. > > That may be true but we were talking of the claim that if A gives > software to B under the GPL, A must also give the software to > anyone else who asks for it. That is not true. As I said earlier, I'm no lawyer. But this is what I heard from lawyers. Perhaps, smaller companies may be doing this, because they don't have much to lose. The ones with deeper pockets are careful not to get into this territory. Are you sure that Cygnus does this ? A common trick is to send employees of company A to work as contractors in company B. This does not trigger GPL. The key issue is - defining "Redistribution". GPL doesn't seem to do it well. -Arun To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000321132225.A27738>