jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) (05/26/88)
While I am not a lawyer, nor has the following been discussed with a lawyer, conversations with Stallman have clarified that use of libg++ in commercial products can indeed lead to serious entanglements. The simple answer is that people writing "commercial" code are not "free" to use libg++, since libg++ comes with serious restrictions on its commercial use. Yet, like C, C++ compilers are only half complete if one does not have a compatible set of libraries one can use. But suppliers of compilers seem very reluctant to allow users of those compilers to include code from the required libraries in commercial products developed by compiling code on those compilers. This is a major difficulty in developing code for commercial products. Many of the better compilers one might want to use come with these library entanglement problems, so one is not "free" to us them, and has to settle for second best compilers and/or languages. ??? Does anyone have a truly "public domain" set of compatible libraries for C++ compilers, or would anyone be willing to make such a set of libraries available to the general public ??? If anyone was able and willing to make such a set of libraries available, the commonality and portability of C++ programs between compilers and various operating systems would be greatly enhanced. Any comments or suggestions on this problem would be appreciated. The above casual comments reflect the concerns and feelings of this author only, who would like very much to be able to use C++ in his day-to-day work. - Jim Adcock, Hewlett-Packard, Lake Stevens -
laub@hub.ucsb.edu (Matt Wette (mwette%gauss@hub.ucsb.edu)) (06/03/88)
In article <6590056@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) writes: >After further thought, I feel I must further >extend my caution to the use of gcc and g++ to >compile code, with or without the use of Gnu >libraries. > >In that the act of compiling code under these machines >may [will probably] inject compiled copies of parts of these >compilers in your code, and that the compilers themselves contain >copies of the Gnu licensing restrictions, your code may >then fall subject to Gnu licensing restrictions. > >I can't say for sure. I am not a lawyer. Please construe >the above comments as encouragement for you to go see a >lawyer competent in software law before using this or >any other "free" software that contain legalese, or even >quasi-legalese statements. Please discuss the detailed >technical issues in how the tool works, and how you plan >to use the tool CAREFULLY with that lawyer. Some food for thought .... The following is an excerpt from emacs-18.51/etc/INTERVIEW, text of BYTE's interview with R. Stallman. GNU'S NOT UNIX Conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain UNIX-compatible software system with BYTE editors (July 1986) Copyright (C) 1986 Richard Stallman. Permission is granted to make and distribute copies of this article as long as the copyright and this notice appear on all copies. . . . BYTE: Do you obtain any rights over the executable code derived from the C compiler? Stallman: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from the compiler, so it doesn't give me a way to say anything about that, and in fact I don't try to. I don't sympathize with people developing proprietary products with any compiler, but it doesn't seem especially useful to try to stop them from developing them with this compiler, so I am not going to. BYTE: Do your restrictions apply if people take pieces of your code to produce other things as well? Stallman: Yes, if they incorporate with changes any sizable piece. If it were two lines of code, that's nothing; copyright doesn't apply to that. Essentially, I have chosen these conditions so that first there is a copyright, which is what all the software hoarders use to stop everybody from doing anything, and then I add a notice giving up part of those rights. So the conditions talk only about the things that copyright applies to. I don't believe that the reason you should obey these conditions is because of the law. The reason you should obey is because an upright person when he distributes software encourages other people to share it further. Matt
jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) (06/04/88)
| For those who prefer to form their own opinions, I have appended the | text of the license that applies to G++. | | I always find it strange that software developers wish to benefit from | using freed software, but don't wish to past that benefit on. I consider the issue of whether certain software tool or library is "free" to be used or not to be a valid technical issue -- just as much as a warning that the "turkey" program might distroy your file system is a valid technical issue to bring up among users who might unknowingly get their hands on the "turkey" program. If comp.lang.c++ is not the right forum to discuss possible problems with g++ and libg++, then pray tell, what would be the right forum ??? Regards the license, the problems seem to primarily center around the issue of when is an independent software work developed using FSF tools a derivative of those FSF tools, or not. If the act of compiling your independent software program using FSF tools places coded versions of FSF code in the generated results, then there might be some claim that your work is a derivative work of the FSF tool. But most compilers and libraries DO in fact do this. If FSF wanted program writers to be free to use gcc or g++ to compile whatever independent programs they develop, for whatever ends they choose -- then presumably FSF would be willing to make a statement to that effect. We have not had any luck getting this. On the contrary. I personally would be happy to pass on the benefits of "free" software use to other software developers. I would happily give some of my own salary to "free" software developers who develop tools that I am "free" to use. But in general, I and most of software writers are not "free" to allow our software development work to be usurped by proponents of "free" software. Any software that we choose to place in the "free" domain must be a conscious rational choice on our part, not an act of coercion, nor a "mistake" made on our part as a result of our misunderstanding of legal licenses. And in general, we are not "free" to do with our software development work what we please, since in general we work for one or another company, which puts restrictions on our actions. This is a choice we choose to make. Stallman made a different choice. But surprisingly or not, many of these same companies ARE willing to allow much of our work to pass into the public domain. Much software developed at these companies does become the common property of software developers everywhere. Many ideas developed at these companies are published in public journals, for use by everyone. Many of these companies, and employees of these companies donate millions, if not billions of dollars to charitable organizations, organizations that work for the benefit of everyone. But these charitable actions must be conscious, rational decisions on our part, not the result of our mistaken assuptions about various legal licenses. If I or others screw up in our understanding of these licenses, at the very least we could lose our jobs. At the worst we could get personally sued. And that doesn't sound very "free" to me. My own opinions only, and not a substitute for competent legal advice.