On 5 Apr 1996, James McIninch wrote:
> Dave Love (d.love at dl.ac.uk) wrote:
> : >>>> On Thu, 28 Mar 1996 22:42:59 GMT, aimania at airmail.net (Walter Rothe) said:
>> : Walter> bernard at elsie.nci.nih.gov (Bernard Murray) wrote:
> : >> In article <4ivauu$oda at news-f.iadfw.net>, aimania at airmail.net says...
> : >>>
> : >>> mangalam at uci.edu (Harry Mangalam) wrote:
> : >>>
> : >>>> (altho, some would say that GNU is better than commercial quality :)
>> : Indeed. Gcc is, anyway, a commercial product.
>> It is not. As a matter of fact, the GNU public license under which the GCC
> compiler is distributed expressly prohibits the sale of GCC (I believe that
> the license permits distributors to charge $3.00 above the actual media cost
> as a copying fee).
>Sigh - no, that's _not_ what the GPL says. if you've ever looked at it
at all you'd know that it explicitly _allows_ sale of any GPLed software
for whatever you can get for it.. but you have to give your customers
the source code as well! Including any improvements/changes you've made.
And your customers are free to go ahead and sell copies of whatever
you've sold them. The original comment about commercial product perhaps
refers to Cygnus Software, who sell GCC and offer support to their customers.
Essentially, they sell support. They've also contributed many improvements
to GCC back to the free software community.
Ross J. Reedstrom
rjr at pharmacy.wisc.edu (608) 265-5591
School of Pharmacy or
University of Wisconsin-Madison (608) 265-2599
425 N. Charter St.
Madison, WI 53706