SOS license

[Alex Nicolaou]

Bruce Perens wrote:
> 
> From: Alex Nicolaou <anicolao at cgl.uwaterloo.ca>
> > What you seem to be suggesting is that the GPL doesn't restrict what I
> > can do in the privacy of my own system; however, as I read the GPL it
> > does. In order to modify the code, even for personal use, I must accept
> > the license.
> 
> The GPL doesn't restrict use at all. I think you could make a case that
> modification not followed by distribution is a GPL violation but 1. there
> are fair-use issues 2. you couldn't get evidence to prosecute against it
> anyway, and 3. since the GPL doesn't restrict use you could go on using
> the software even if you'd broken the license by modifying it.

I didn't mean that the GPL restricts use; it doesn't. But it restricts
modifications to those which do not violate the license, and the license
requires the banner which appears during gdb's startup that says that it
is free software and that the *end user* is granted rights under the
GPL's license. So I was trying to say that you are in violation of the
license if you remove that banner from the "most usual way of starting
the program", even if you never ship your modified version of gdb. That
means I can't produce a gdb patch that you're allowed to apply, if I
wish to charge you from it and restrict you from giving it to a friend.
This I think is the GPL's intent: the point is to make it so that I
can't make money selling patches to GPL software. My intent is not to
restrict this type of change.

alex