If for some odd reason I ever want to sell a product that uses
SQLite/Ruby, I am no longer obliged to distribute my product's source
along with it.  Of course, with an interpreted language, source must
accompany a program, but if it is running online, for example, it
doesn't need to be released.  But under the GPL, as far as I
understand it, if I were to sell some online service that used GPL
source code, I would be required to make my source code available in
some manner, be it through download, CD-ROM, or even 100 floppy disks.
 Speaking of which, how would that be for some crazy bad-faith
sidestepping of the GPL?  Say you are a stupid company and you want to
fulfill the terms of the GPL while still making the source code
essentially inaccessible?  How about distributing it in extremely fine
print on regular paper with all unncessary whitespace removed?  Or
distributing it on 5' 1/4" floppies? (I'm being facetious, of course)

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 08:40:03 +0900, Robert <catcher / linuxmail.org> wrote:
> In what way? Just curious...
> 
> Robert
> 
> "Carl Youngblood" <carl.youngblood / gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e5ed7b69040909132166036bc / mail.gmail.com...
> > Thanks.  It does to me.
> >
> > On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 05:08:10 +0900, Jamis Buck <jgb3 / email.byu.edu> wrote:
> > > One more thing I should have mentioned in the announcement: the license
> > > for SQLite/Ruby 2.0.0 has changed from the GPL to BSD. If that makes any
> > > difference at all to any of you. :)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jamis Buck
> > > jgb3 / email.byu.edu
> > > http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis
> > >
> > > "I use octal until I get to 8, and then I switch to decimal."
> >
> >
> 
>