Re: GPL violation? (Was: v1.6 Enhanced SNACC Freeware)

[Andrew Marlow <apm35@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

rms@xxxxxxx writes:
>
>    I hope that eSNACC can continue, maybe under the LGPL.
>
>The copyright holders of SNACC would have to agree to the change in
>license.

The copyright seems to be with a number of people/organisations:-

Michael Sample (the original author)
Robert Joop (minor fixes)
The University of British Columbia

Tracking these down could prove a challenge.

>In general, code compiled by any
>compiler is not a derivative work of the compiler.  That general rule
>applies to GCC like any other compiler.
>
>What you are thinking of is that we make a special exception for some
>small libraries that accompany GCC, giving permission to include them
>in combinations with non-free software.

Yes, that's what I was thinking.

>    This would be a great pity because I think the world needs
>    a decent ASN.1 environment that does not prohibit commercial
>    development,
>
>The GNU GPL does not prohibit commercial development.  It says that
>extended versions of the program must be free software.  Including
>GPL-covered code in a commercial program is permitted as long as that
>commercial program is released under the GPL.  Perhaps when you wrote
>"commercial" you really meant "proprietary".

Yes, that's what I meant.
But if eSNACC was to go totally GPL then I think the users
would benefit from some sort of statement to make it clear
what is allowed from a proprietary software point of view.

>
>Proprietary, non-free software is designed to deny the user crucial
>freedoms.  It does not deserve our help or cooperation.

I'll take the fifth!

Regards,

Andrew Marlow
----
There is an emerald here the size of a plover's egg!