From: slater@gandalf.nrlssc.navy.mil (Rick Slater) Subject: Re: Recent GPL interpretations and Linux Date: 8 Jul 1993 12:36:23 -0400
ps> On Tue, 6 Jul 1993, Paul Stodghill said:
ps> If you are willing to grant the mine is a _valid_ (not necessarily
ps> "correct", whatever that means) interpretation of RMS's interpretation of
ps> the GPL, then I think two things follow,
ps>
ps> 1) Software that most of us are quite happy to see running on Linux, like
ps> XFree86-1.3, may violate the GPL.
ps>
ps> 2) Given the uncertainty of the relationship between GPL'ed and non-GPL'ed
ps> code, it is unlikely that we will see much commercial software available
ps> for Linux
ps>
ps> If the Linux community is happy with this situation, then there's no
ps> problem. If not, then we may have a problem.
Not too long ago (March, 1993 to be exact), Unix World had similar misgivings
about the GPL, and recommended to X application developers that they be very
cautious about using GNU C to produce their products. Noah Friedman, of
Project GNU wrote back in May to try and explain that the license allowed
developers to do so and to say that that Unix World was wrong. The editor
responded by stating that he stood by his original article and once again said
"read the restrictions" to would be developers.
The point here is not to take sides in the GNU/UW argument, but to point
out that confusion and caution with respect to the GPL is evidently an ongoing
reality -- one that will indeed lead developers to choose to stay away
from things GNU, and by implication Linux.