This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Possible GPL violation?
- From: Bernd Jendrissek <berndj at prism dot co dot za>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: gnu-misc-discuss at gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 12:17:06 +0200
- Subject: Re: Possible GPL violation?
- References: <200208281902.MAA12481@atrus.synopsys.com>
[Cc'ed to gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org from gcc@gcc.gnu.org]
On Wed, Aug 28, 2002 at 12:02:55PM -0700, Joe Buck wrote:
> I wrote:
>
> > > Please see the web page
> > >
> > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
>
> Fredrik Persson writes:
[lost context - fp seems to have tried to get source to a GCC derivative]
> > I've done that. The FSF "GPL violation dept." (or whatever it may be called)
> > had been in contact with these guys before and they (OpenTV) were not very
> > cooperative. They've promised to work with me if the situation doesn't
> > improve.
Previous attention by the FSF police notwithstanding, XYZZY Inc. is not
obliged to give you the source if it didn't already give you binaries. I.e.
the GPL does not *require* you to distribute to anyone. Just that when you
do, it specifies how and how much.
> > I'm thinking; don't get mad, get even. I may put this stuff on
> > sourceforge if I get it.
Hasn't Eben Moglen been hinting that he might like the idea of finally
"proving" the GPL in court? A repeat offender wouldn't get much sympathy,
I imagine...
> > Or... emailing it to the gcc core team may be a better idea.
>
> Sorry, we can't add anything to GCC without an assignment from its
> copyright holder; you may as well save the bandwidth.
Not even in contrib/ ?
--
berndfoobar@users.sourceforge.net is probably better to bookmark than any
employer-specific email address I may have appearing in the headers.
Vanity page: http://www.tsct.co.za/~berndj/