Re: [open-cobol-list] Another open source cobol

[David Essex]

Yesterday, at my e-mail request, I received a copy of the sources 
cobol-it version 1.2.9b and VB-ISAM version 2.1.

I'm not a lawyer, and since this discussion is getting too detailed, I 
think it would be better to let this matter drop.

I will agree that this OC fork, by any other name, is unfortunate.
I will probably be a deterrent to future open source contributors.

As for VB-ISAM, assuming the found a solution for the Win32/64 locking 
problem, would be an ideal solution for OC indexed files.


Joseph James Frantz (Aoirthoir) wrote:
> Since OC is GPL V2, they are compliant. If it were v3, then they
> would have to provide a link to the source in the same way they did
> the binary. Not just, on request.
> As far as the customer version, they still have to provide code 
> upon request, if they distribute the binary. If they do not,
> well that's another case.
> However, they also cannot sign NDAs or other agreements preventing
> the customer from asking for code.
> To be able to answer if they are compliant with the customer 
> version, we'd have to know just what that version is, and what are
> they distributing.