From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from tug.org ([158.121.106.10] ident=root) by imladris.mvhi.com with esmtp (Exim 2.12 #1) id 113BN2-0000eg-00 for mtd@infradead.org; Sun, 11 Jul 1999 05:37:44 +0100 Date: Sun, 11 Jul 1999 00:46:51 -0400 Message-Id: <199907110446.AAA10065@psilocin.gnu.org> From: Richard Stallman To: David.Woodhouse@mvhi.com CC: jgg@deltatee.com, mtd@infradead.org In-reply-to: (message from David Woodhouse on Fri, 09 Jul 1999 22:16:43 +0100) Subject: Re: Response from M-Systems Reply-to: rms@gnu.org References: Sender: owner-mtd@imladris.demon.co.uk List-ID: A couple of months ago, I asked our lawyer a similar question: whether someone could permit distribution of a GPL-covered program, but then use a patent to try to restrict the running of the program. Such a possibility would be disastrous, since it would mean that the program was not really free, despite the use of the GPL. The lawyer told me that licensing the distribution of a program automatically licenses users to run it. I was relieved. I cannot be certain that the case I asked him about is entirely equivalent to this one. What I can say is that IF a program can be restricted in the way you suggest, it is not free software. That is not a solution, it is a danger. I don't think this danger exists, but if it does, I will do my best to safeguard against it with changes in the next version of the GPL. To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe mtd" to majordomo@imladris.demon.co.uk