peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/17/89)
In article <4996@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > ...So, the question is: do BISON and GCC have different > restrictions? If so, why? If not, what's the real story? > I'm not saying Stallman is wrong to have a restriction like this, > I'd just like to know what it means. In article <BOB.89Jul14073332@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu>, bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > As usual, you're asking and rumoring in the wrong place. Would you care to explain what you mean by this particular phrasing? Oh, you did... see below. > If you were to ask an original question on gnu.gcc you'd probably find > someone qualified to give you "the real story". % grep '^gnu' /usr/lib/news/active % > Or better yet, read the GNU General Public License first, which > addresses such matters directly. Yes. Now if documents such as this were self-explanatory there would be no need of lawyers (some might argue that anyway, but that's a horse of a different color). Paragraph 2: $ The license agreements of most software companies keep you at the $ mercy of those companies. By contrast, our general public license is $ intended to give everyone the right to share GNU CC... Most laudable. But here's the problem: Section 2b: $ 2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU CC or any portion of it, $ and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of $ Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: ... $ b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, $ that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU CC or $ any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third $ parties on terms identical to those contained in this License $ Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive $ warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option). This paragraph is what I'm asking about. I believe that this effectively prevents you from making any use, in however small a part, of any run-time library for BISON, GCC, etc... If the GCC compiler contains any literal code sequences, however small, that enter the generated object file then it can be argued that you are creating a derived work. How small a code sequence this involves is subject to debate, but given past legal decisions I would hesitate to use something as small as "JMP CRET". Lawyers (and judges, who are by and large lawyers) are notorious for obscure blindnesses. It's reasonable to assume that rewriting crt0.o and libc.a would do the job, but I wouldn't bet my company on it. > Don't ask me, because I'm not the right one to answer - I have nothing > to do with the FSF, so I can't represent their position. It just irks > me to see rumors being mongered in authoritative-sounding tones of > voice, but actually in a knowledge vacuum. #ifdef FLAME As you can see, *THAT IS NOT WHAT I'M DOING*. I have the GCC license. I don't have the BISON license, but you insist it's virtually identical. Get off your FSF high-horse. If you have nothing to contribute but innuendo, please abstain. #endif -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | Multiprocessors are just a Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | way of using up excess memory Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | bandwidth. - mark@mips.com
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (07/18/89)
In article <5035@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >Most laudable. But here's the problem: > >Section 2b: > >$ 2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU CC or any portion of it, >$ and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of >$ Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: >... >$ b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, >$ that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU CC or >$ any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third >$ parties on terms identical to those contained in this License >$ Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive >$ warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option). > >This paragraph is what I'm asking about. I believe that this effectively >prevents you from making any use, in however small a part, of any run-time >library for BISON, GCC, etc... First, being required to freely distribute code does not exactly prevent you from using the compiler. Second, a program compiled by GCC is not a derivative of GCC. It's certainly not a "modified copy or copies of GNU CC". >If the GCC compiler contains any literal code sequences, however small, >that enter the generated object file then it can be argued that you are >creating a derived work. How small a code sequence this involves is subject >to debate, but given past legal decisions I would hesitate to use something >as small as "JMP CRET". Lawyers (and judges, who are by and large lawyers) >are notorious for obscure blindnesses. Stallman and the FSF have better things to do than sue people who try to use their products. Get real, we're not talking about Apple or Microsoft here. They don't even *have* a legal department. -- Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (07/18/89)
In article <5035@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: In article <BOB.89Jul14073332@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu>, bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: ask... on gnu.gcc... % grep '^gnu' /usr/lib/news/active % I didn't know whether you got the gnu distribution or not. If not, then ask gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu via mail, which is the group of GNU developers who would be able to answer whatever questions you have. Or you might want to get on the mailing list info-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu, which carries the same traffic as the gnu.gcc newsgroup, and which is where the most recent round of licensing/etc. discussions happened. Not that gnu.gcc/info-gcc is an appropriate place either, but gnu.misc.d isn't set up yet, so gnu.gcc will have to do for now.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/19/89)
In article <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > First, being required to freely distribute code does not exactly > prevent you from using the compiler. If you're not a private hobbyist or a university (and not even always then) it sure does. > Second, a program compiled by GCC is not a derivative of GCC. That's the question innit? > It's certainly not a "modified copy or copies of GNU CC". Well a case could be made that the library isn't, either. If you extend the concept "modified copy or copies" to include library code, then you can extend it further. > Stallman and the FSF have better things to do than sue people who try > to use their products. Get real, we're not talking about Apple or > Microsoft here. They don't even *have* a legal department. And if they're not willing or able to enforce the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE it's not worth the paper it's printed on. The fact that it exists implies they're willing to do so. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "A char, a short int, and Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | an int bit-field were walking Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | through the forest..."
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/20/89)
In article <5077@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: >> Stallman and the FSF have better things to do than sue people who try >> to use their products. Get real, we're not talking about Apple or >> Microsoft here. They don't even *have* a legal department. > >And if they're not willing or able to enforce the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC >LICENSE it's not worth the paper it's printed on. The fact that it exists >implies they're willing to do so. I guess it isn't worth the paper it is printed on anyway. It appears to me me the only way Stallman can protect his software is use the legal procedures and obtain himself the copyrights. By the way I'm not a real gnuru but if I'm not mistaking there is a copyright statement in the gnu files. Mart van Stiphout Eindhoven University of Technology Dept. of Electrical Engineering -- Room EH7.34 P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl (Old-fashioned: mart@euteal.uucp or mcvax!hp4nl!eutrc3!euteal!mart) ------------------------------- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop (seen on a wall in Down by law)
mikko@titan.uucp (Mikko Tiusanen) (07/20/89)
In article <5077@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: >> First, being required to freely distribute code does not exactly >> prevent you from using the compiler. > >If you're not a private hobbyist or a university (and not even always then) >it sure does. [ some deleted material ] Could you expand on why this does prevent from using it? Given, of course, that as far as I understand, you are allowed to charge reasonable copying costs. Mikko Tiusanen I'm just asking my own (stupid?) questions.
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/23/89)
In article <23837@santra.UUCP>, mikko@titan.uucp (Mikko Tiusanen) writes: > In article <5077@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > >In article <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil>, dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) writes: > >> First, being required to freely distribute code does not exactly > >> prevent you from using the compiler. > >If you're not a private hobbyist or a university (and not even always then) > >it sure does. > Could you expand on why this does prevent from using it? If I'm not a private hobbyist or a university, then what is the purpose of writing this code? To make a profit off it, of course... either because it provides a competitive advantage, or because the code (or some system for which the code is part) is to be sold for profit. Stallman's Marxist dialectic notwithstanding, if I can't make a profit off the code (again speaking as a commercial software developer, not as the author of a popular shareware utility for the Amiga) I'm not going to write it. Since that's not an option (we gotta eat) then I'll have to use some other compiler. I'm not saying Stallman should give me GCC. Unlike him, I'm not going to deny anyone profit (and he does profit from GCC... maybe not directly financially, but it's only a Marxist fallacy that negotiable goods are the only form of profit). I'm just explaining why I can't use it. > Given, of > course, that as far as I understand, you are allowed to charge > reasonable copying costs. How many man-hours do "reasonable copying costs" involve? What about development costs? -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (07/24/89)
In article <5207@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
<If I'm not a private hobbyist or a university, then what is the purpose of
<writing this code? To make a profit off it, of course... either because it
<provides a competitive advantage, or because the code (or some system for
<which the code is part) is to be sold for profit.
Peter, you mentioned in passing a category of software developers, but
didn't really consider how the copyleft affects them. Since they are
the largest single group of software developers, I think this should
be fixed.
The in passing reference "either because it provides a competitive
advantage". In other words, the software is a tool that makes doing
some part of a job easier or faster, and lowers the cost.
Every place I've been employed has been in that category. Most of them
realized this, and put all software into one of two categories:
general tool, usefull to just about anybody; or specific to our
business, usefull only to us and our competion. Most of them were
reasonable enough to freely distribute stuff in the former category
(after all, they'd gotten their money's worth; why not let others us
it?). The stuff in the latter category they weren't going to let
anyone have, no way, no how.
Given that, copyleft doesn't affect them at all. The stuff they give
away, they give away sources to, thus meeting the requirements. The
stuff they don't let anyone have, they don't have to worry about the
copyleft, because it only applies if they let someone else have it.
<I'm not saying Stallman should give me GCC. Unlike him, I'm not going to deny
<anyone profit (and he does profit from GCC... maybe not directly financially,
<but it's only a Marxist fallacy that negotiable goods are the only form of
<profit). I'm just explaining why I can't use it.
Sorry, but copyleft doesn't deny you a profit on software. You're free
to charge anyone whatever you want for copies. However, if the
software is covered by copyleft, you must let them have source if they
want it, and you can't prevent them from giving away binaries & source
to people who haven't bought a copy from you.
There are a number of ways to make a profit on copylefted material.
The easiest is to use it to get a competitive edge, and never release
copies to anyone. Others can be found by looking at what the shareware
people are doing (no, I still don't condone shareware, but that
doesn't prevent me from pointing out that you can use it's technics).
The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about
the right to give away neat tools to our friends. That's why the
legalease talks about copying, and providing source, not about selling
or money. If you can't see a way to make a profit in that situation,
the failure in in your imagination, not in the License.
<mike
--
Tried to amend my carnivorous habits Mike Meyer
Made it nearly seventy days mwm@berkeley.edu
Loosing weight without speed ucbvax!mwm
Eatin' sunflower seeds mwm@ucbjade.BITNETpeter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/26/89)
In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about > the right to give away neat tools to our friends. No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws that are based on that right to deny it to other people. > If you can't see a way to make a profit in that situation, > the failure in in your imagination, not in the License. Look, I want to be able to sell software. I want to be able to buy software. This is what the vast majority of the software industry consists of: people buying and selling software. Whether it's explicit (say, the Lattice C compiler for the Amiga), implicit (say, the engine computer in your Pontiac Fiero M4), or whatever. If you can't prevent people from copying it and redistributing it you can't recoup your development costs. Sure, one can be creative and find a way to operate within the scope of the GNU copyleft, but by doing that one is putting oneself at a competitive disadvantage. 1. Your competitors can knock off your system. 2. Your would-be customers can become competitors. 3. Bad guys can modify the system (hot engine computer PROMS, for example), making you liable for damages. 4. People can learn about the internals of your product, and come to depend on them... making it impossible to make enhancements in the future (Apple's problems with people making direct calls to the Apple-II ROMS, for example). 5. And so on... I'm sure you can see other problems with that. If you can't see how giving up intellectual property rights can hurt you it's a failure in your imagination, not in the concept. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
zuhn@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (david d [zoo] zuhn) (07/27/89)
In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: >> The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about >> the right to give away neat tools to our friends. > >No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws >that are based on that right to deny it to other people. > >> If you can't see a way to make a profit in that situation, >> the failure in in your imagination, not in the License. > >Look, I want to be able to sell software. I want to be able to buy >software. This is what the vast majority of the software industry consists >of: people buying and selling software. Whether it's explicit (say, >the Lattice C compiler for the Amiga), implicit (say, the engine >computer in your Pontiac Fiero M4), or whatever. If you can't prevent >people from copying it and redistributing it you can't recoup your >development costs. But in many UNIX installations (where GNU is currently targeted), especially academic environments, free software (in terms of dollars) is the only real way that we (the users) can get our hands on code. Our department doesn't go out and but software for our UNIX boxes (not completely true, but for the most part). Software is gotten from the networks, and installed, and used. Many things developed here go back to the networks for others to use. No buying, no selling, just using of code. > >Sure, one can be creative and find a way to operate within the scope >of the GNU copyleft, but by doing that one is putting oneself at a >competitive disadvantage. > > 1. Your competitors can knock off your system. You then can knock off their systems. But I for one would much rather use a system for which I had complete sources. I intend to buy a box to run GNU when a kernel becomes available. > 2. Your would-be customers can become competitors. I don't want to spend lots of money paying for software. I'd much rather spend the extra $$$ for better hardware. And I generally don't see much use in writing code that has already been written, unless its something like GNU where the existing code isn't available. I'd rather write something completely new, using your code as a base. Which now means that I'll distribute my code, and let other people get your code and work from the same place that I did. > 3. Bad guys can modify the system (hot engine computer > PROMS, for example), making you liable for damages. If you read the GPL (my copy sits next to me at the moment), the authors claim that there is no warranty. If someone modifies your code, and then bitches at you that it doesn't work, then you shouldn't be held responsible for it. I don't know what the current legal status is of things like that, but since GNU will change many aspects of code availability, the absence of warranty should be given legal protection as well. If you want to give *your* code a warrantee, then you can charge for support,etc. But if someone modifies your code, it should be their responsibility not yours. > 4. People can learn about the internals of your product, > and come to depend on them... making it impossible > to make enhancements in the future (Apple's problems > with people making direct calls to the Apple-II ROMS, > for example). Then that's their problem. Microsoft has done many stupid things with their software, and it has broken under new releases. So you just blow it off as the developer's responsibility. If you publish guidlines as how to write code, then if someone's code doesn't follow them, it's their problem. But users have the full sources, so they can now make the code work, or *pay* someone else to make it work. No one is limited by the non-availability of source. > 5. And so on... Which means what? I'm a software developer (in college still, though) and even though I have some problems with some of the statements made by certain people within the GNU project, I still support the software. I am currently working on a project which will be made available, not under copyleft (not my choice) but under something similar. I'll be more than willing to work on making GNU software work on a particular system. Say that I work for manufacturer X. We make hardware (mostly). I am paid for writing new software. It is developed on our hardware. I try to make it work on others (by writing in a device-independent manner). But our company will support it if run on our systems. We also make it available so that other people could make it run on their systems as well. But if users want support (from *us*) then they get it by buying our machines or by buying support from us for their machines. Either way we make money and I get to eat when I go home at night. Not a bad deal. And in doing so, I have also created a body of code which can be used by anyone (if they so desire) to warp and twist to their heart's delight. It's no skin off of my back if it doesn't work for them - it's not guaranteed to. And I don't support code on other systems unless I feel like it (say if I get paid for it). >I'm sure you can see other problems with that. If you can't see how >giving up intellectual property rights can hurt you it's a failure >in your imagination, not in the concept. I don't think I have a failure in my imagination. I believe that it can work. What we need are hardware companies making the best hardware possible, and letting the GNU world work on the software. I don't support the outlawing of all property rights - if you want to hoard your software, then that is fine by me - but don't think that I won't use a free competitor if one is available. Or don't be too surprised if I write a package which is similar (providing the functions that I need) and make it freely available. >-- >Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. >Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world >Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." >Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (07/27/89)
In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >[I want to be able to sell software.] >[If you can't prevent people from copying, you can't recoup your investment] >[If you operate w/in the GNU copyelft, you may be at a competitive > disadvantage] As in any business, you should use the best tools. If using GNU software on some project puts you at a disadvantage, then don't use it for that project. If the GNU runtime library cost $10,000 and had exactly the same conditions, then you might not be complaining. Instead, you would be buying some cheaper piece of code and abiding by somebody else's terms. You still have that option! ;-D on ( Pass me the dotted line, please ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (07/27/89)
[Followups have been pointed to comp.misc.] In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about <> the right to give away neat tools to our friends. < <No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws <that are based on that right to deny it to other people. Well, it is about the right of intellectual property. It uses the busted laws to insure that all people have the right to the intellectual properties it covers. It in no way denies any intellectual property rights to anyone, any more than any other license agreement does. To claim otherwise is to lie. <Look, I want to be able to sell software. I want to be able to buy <software. Ok, you're a bit teched :-). Nothing wrong with that. <Sure, one can be creative and find a way to operate within the scope <of the GNU copyleft, but by doing that one is putting oneself at a <competitive disadvantage. < < [list deleted] Your imagination is still misfiring. Everything on that list is a problem only if you are trying to hoard your software, or because you've not understood the GPL. Don't hoard your software. There are other ways to make money off of it. <I'm sure you can see other problems with that. If you can't see how <giving up intellectual property rights can hurt you it's a failure <in your imagination, not in the concept. Your statement is ambiguous, and in either case makes an assertion I haven't said anything about. Interpretation 1) Me giving up my intellectual property rights to one or more pieces of software can hurt me. Obvious. On the other hand, it may also do me more good than harm. Interpretation 2) Doing away with all property right will hurt me. This is a completely different topic. What's amusing about all this is that the GPL isn't that much worse than licenses for commercial software that I've seen. How about $2000/year for the compiler (for an IBM PC!?!?), plus royalties on the library if you distribute binaries. For that matter, at least one FORTRAN 77 compiler had a license requiring that programs compiled with it say so. This requires me to change my user interface for them. I'd rather pay royalties. Even worse, copyleft is a _lot_ less restrictive than any of a large number of programs that are PA, which just say "freely redistributable, except for commercial purposes." Copylefted material is generally available for any commercial purpose, and the exceptions are clearly stated beforehand. Tell you what, Peter - from now on, I'll add one more condition to any software I release: that you can't use it. Will that make you happier? Actually, I won't do that - unless you explitictly tell me to. If you can use my code to turn out a bettter product, or turn it out faster so you can go on to something else, then we all win. Which is also part of what the GPL is about. <mike -- Round about, round about, in a fair ring-a. Mike Meyer Thus we dance, thus we dance, and thus we sing-a. mwm@berkeley.edu Trip and go, to and fro, over this green-a. ucbvax!mwm All about, in and out, over this green-a. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/28/89)
In article <14699@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> zuhn@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (david d [zoo] zuhn) writes: >But in many UNIX installations (where GNU is currently targeted), especially >academic environments, free software (in terms of dollars) is the only real >way that we (the users) can get our hands on code. Our department doesn't Why for Gods sake do you want to get your hands on the code. Working in an academic environment means that you're doing some more or less fundamental research. You're not supposed to change around in the operating system nor is it expected from you to find and fix bugs. I'm working in an academic environment and my work has never depended on stuff I got from the net. In fact that stuff often doesn't work (especially if X is involved). >You then can knock off their systems. But I for one would much rather use >a system for which I had complete sources. I intend to buy a box to run >GNU when a kernel becomes available. Why would any one be interested in knocking off other peoples systems? >I don't want to spend lots of money paying for software. I'd much rather >spend the extra $$$ for better hardware. And I generally don't see much >use in writing code that has already been written, unless its something >like GNU where the existing code isn't available. I'd rather write something >completely new, using your code as a base. This is a real misunderstanding. Nowadays hardware is getting cheaper and cheaper. You get more and more performance for your money. On the other hand software is becoming a bigger problem. Since hardware evolutates fast, computer firms have to invest large sums of money in maintaining software and making it available on newer generation machines. A lot of people have a job in doing this. What gnu does is rewriting the easy parts and give them away. Their support is nop. On our hp835 for instance, gcc is not running. If it would run it would probably be much slower than the hp compiler so why use it. By the way: Gnu is not unix but is it going to be a sys5 copy or bsd?? Or are they planning to make GNUX, a new free unix totally incompatible with either sys5 or bsd. I would prefer the last. >I don't think I have a failure in my imagination. I believe that it can work. >What we need are hardware companies making the best hardware possible, and >letting the GNU world work on the software. It's rather dumb to believe that a couple of students and some people who are wasting away their bosses time can provide all the software we need. I think the gnu stuff can only be usefull as supplementary software. It can never replace the base we need to do our work. Mart van Stiphout Eindhoven University of Technology Dept. of Electrical Engineering -- Room EH7.34 P.O.Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl ------------------------------- Disclaimer: is this gnuru rms really living in his room at mit???
jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) (07/28/89)
In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: >> The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about >> the right to give away neat tools to our friends. > >No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws >that are based on that right to deny it to other people. I find this argument very strange. What the so-called copyleft does is to put limits on how the software can be used. If you want to go beyone those limits, then you can't use FSF software. But a number of other people can work within those limits. If the FSF software were commercial software, as it is usually distributed, it would have much stronger restrictions, and many of the people who can now benefit from FSF software wouldn't be able to benefit at all. The FSF has simply chosen what sorts of use they want to support, which is perfectly within their rights and does not take away the rights of anyone else. All it does is not give away all of the rights that it's possible to give away.
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (08/10/89)
In article <95@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: >Why for Gods sake do you want to get your hands on the code. >Working in an academic environment means that you're doing >some more or less fundamental research. In academia, we teach courses. And some of the courses involve compilers, operating systems, etc. Not only that. Academics often write new compilers, operating systems, etc. and it's nice not to have to start from scratch. >I'm working in an academic environment and my work has never depended >on stuff I got from the net. In fact that stuff often doesn't work >(especially if X is involved). I use stuff from the net and GNU software all the time and it often works better than much of the commercial software I've used. So your experience is not universal. >What gnu does is rewriting the easy parts and give them away. When you say "the easy parts", you make it sound like GNU software isn't very good and, indeed, rather trivial. Perhaps you think C compilers are trivial. Gcc is one of the best C compilers I've seen. >Their support is nop. We get new releases fairly frequently. I've had much worse service for commercial software. >On our hp835 for instance, gcc is not running. If it would run it >would probably be much slower than the hp compiler so why use it. Maybe it produces better code. In any case, gcc is faster than the supplied C compiler for the machines I use, and the code is quite fast. >It's rather dumb to believe that a couple of students and some people who >are wasting away their bosses time can provide all the software we need. What are you talking about?
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/14/89)
In article <714@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >I use stuff from the net and GNU software all the time and it often >works better than much of the commercial software I've used. So your >experience is not universal. We have several commercial packages at our side and they all work well and have excellent support. >When you say "the easy parts", you make it sound like GNU software >isn't very good and, indeed, rather trivial. Perhaps you think C >compilers are trivial. Gcc is one of the best C compilers I've seen. Gnu starts out by relying on the vendor supplied !commercial! software they despise. If they were honest guys, they would start off with writing their own operating system. Anyone can write an editor or a diff remake or maybe even a C compiler. I guess their C compiler is so popular, mainly because it is better than the one supplied by Sun which is bad. By the way the Gnu C compiler doesn't run on any machine we have (hp, alliant, apollo). When you talk about the quality of the gnu software: several years ago we have been porting Emacs to our hp9000s500. It contained lots of bugs and faulty programming. Just think of how long ago this program was written. Its about time it worked. >>Their support is nop. > >We get new releases fairly frequently. I've had much worse service >for commercial software. Probably true but there are ok software vendors too. >>It's rather dumb to believe that a couple of students and some people who >>are wasting away their bosses time can provide all the software we need. > >What are you talking about? As far as I know, most of the gnu software is written by students and by people with a job during lunch breaks (don't take this too literally). Anayway I don't see why the gnu stuff must be better than commercial software. People writing programs make bugs. Ever scanned all the bug reports and fixes of gnu tools?? Mart van Stiphout ------------------------------- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop
jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) (08/15/89)
In article <105@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: >In article <714@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes: >>I use stuff from the net and GNU software all the time and it often >>works better than much of the commercial software I've used. So your >>experience is not universal. >We have several commercial packages at our side and they all work >well and have excellent support. So? I've used well-supported commecial software too. Nonetheless, the GNU stuff works better and is, in effect, better supported than quite a bit of the commercial software I've used. >>When you say "the easy parts", you make it sound like GNU software >>isn't very good and, indeed, rather trivial. Perhaps you think C >>compilers are trivial. Gcc is one of the best C compilers I've seen. > >Gnu starts out by relying on the vendor supplied !commercial! software >they despise. If they were honest guys, they would start off with writing >their own operating system. No, designing and manufacturing their own chips, and getting their own raw materials. Give me a break. >Anyone can write an editor or a diff remake or maybe even a C compiler. Hear that CS departments? No more practical courses. Maybe you can keep in business by teaching theory. Or can everyone do theoretical CS too? >Anayway I don't see why the gnu stuff must be better than commercial >software. Who said it must be better. But it's certainly not always worse. .
jeffa@hpmwtd.HP.COM (Jeff Aguilera) (08/16/89)
>As far as I know, most of the gnu software is written by students and >by people with a job during lunch breaks (don't take this too literally). >Anayway I don't see why the gnu stuff must be better than commercial >software. People writing programs make bugs. Ever scanned all the bug >reports and fixes of gnu tools?? Gee! I thought universities claimed ownership over all their students' code. You mean I can write software during lunch on my employer's computer and then give it to FSF for copylefting?
preston@titan.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) (08/17/89)
In article <105@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: >We have several commercial packages at our side and they all work >well and have excellent support. >Gnu starts out by relying on the vendor supplied !commercial! software >they despise. If they were honest guys, they would start off with writing >their own operating system. Anyone can write an editor or a diff remake >or maybe even a C compiler. I guess their C compiler is so popular, >mainly because it is better than the one supplied by Sun which is bad. >By the way the Gnu C compiler doesn't run on any machine we have >(hp, alliant, apollo). >When you talk about the quality of the >gnu software: several years ago we have been porting Emacs to our >hp9000s500. It contained lots of bugs and faulty programming. Just >think of how long ago this program was written. Its about time >it worked. >As far as I know, most of the gnu software is written by students and >by people with a job during lunch breaks (don't take this too literally). >Anayway I don't see why the gnu stuff must be better than commercial >software. People writing programs make bugs. Ever scanned all the bug >reports and fixes of gnu tools?? >Mart van Stiphout I'm glad your happy with commercial products. I use lots of commercially supplied software too, and I'm pretty happy too. However, I am sometimes (and I assume lots of people are) unhappy with certain aspects of different commercial tools. Compilers are easy to pick on, but other examples come to mind. If you have the source, you may be able to fix it. If you rely on commercial support, all you can do is report the problem and they may or may not fix it, perhaps within the next year. An easy non-compiler example: Yesterday a friend was debugging an incremental attribute grammer evaluator. He was using grep to wade through thousands of lines of debugging output. But grep (on our machine) truncates lines at 1000 or so characters, and this was a problem. GNU grep however, doesn't seem to have the same arbitrary limit. Even if it did, we could have edited the source and recompiled. You suggest that the FSF people are dishonest!? I've always thought they were scrupulously honest. And they are working on there own operating system; but first things first. I don't believe just anyone can write a {\em quality\/} editor, diff, make, compiler, ... ; there are so few examples extant. I expect GCC is popular because it is faster, and generates better code, and is cheaper, and comes with more source, than many commercial compilers. You wonder "why use GCC"; I would wonder "why (pay to) use another" (especially in a research setting). Lots of the GNU stuff was written by rms, who is not a student, nor is he an employee. Some GCC ports were performed by people who wanted the compiler to run on their system. This isn't illegal or even immoral. If we want to use C++ for a project, we can pay AT&T a lot of money (assuming they have a port to our system) or we can port GCC/G++ ourselves. My boss thinks that investing some time in a porting effort is not such a bad deal. From one of your earlier postings, I understand that you would rather not spend your time coding. I'd rather not have to re-invent the wheel either; but isn't that what FSF is all about? If the source is available, and of high quality, then we won't have to re-invent the wheel all our lives. Finally, why is FSF software necessarily of high quality? To some extent, it's better because rms (and others) have deliberately made it better. That is, they examine a tool (like grep) and say "What's wrong with this tool?" Well, it has thus and so limitations and it's too slow. Then they work hard overcome these obstacles. They don't clone tools; they make better tools (better mousetraps). And they make mistakes; so does everyone else. But GCC's bugs are published; commercial companies simply keep their buglists private. Preston Briggs preston@titan.rice,edu
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/22/89)
In article <738@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) writes: >So? I've used well-supported commecial software too. Nonetheless, >the GNU stuff works better and is, in effect, better supported than >quite a bit of the commercial software I've used. How can you make a du,b generalization like this `the GNU stuff works better'. Is there some physical law that says GTNU software is always the best??? >>Gnu starts out by relying on the vendor supplied !commercial! software >>they despise. If they were honest guys, they would start off with writing >>their own operating system. > >No, designing and manufacturing their own chips, and getting their >own raw materials. Give me a break. Didn't gnu intend to provide a new "free" unix version. Where is it? >Who said it must be better. But it's certainly not always worse. You yourself claim it is better. See your statement above. Mart van Stiphout
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/22/89)
In article <669@brazos.Rice.edu> preston@titan.rice.edu (Preston Briggs) writes: >I expect GCC is popular because it is faster, and generates better >code, and is cheaper, and comes with more source, than >many commercial compilers. You wonder "why use GCC"; I would >wonder "why (pay to) use another" (especially in a research setting). Because gcc is just not running on any of the machines we have at our group. Everyone keeps telling me that gcc is faster and generates better code. Compared to what? The old portable C compiler? The SUN C compiler. Why not port it to e.g. out hp9000s835 and see if its faster and better. I sure it is not. I have to agree with you on the bug fixes but then again I'm to busy with my research project to get into debugging C compilers. If a company doesn't fix a bug fast enough I just try to work around it (often you can). >Lots of the GNU stuff was written by rms, who is not a student, >nor is he an employee. So what is he then? >From one of your earlier postings, >I understand that you would rather not >spend your time coding. On the contrary, I enjoy coding and spent a lot of time on it. I just don't fancy coding a diff remake. It should be part of the system I get from my vendor. Mart van Stiphout.
richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) (08/25/89)
In article <107@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: >How can you make a du,b generalization like this `the GNU stuff works better'. Because, in general, it does. >Is there some physical law that says GTNU software is always the best??? Are you for real? -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin
jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) (08/25/89)
In article <107@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: >In article <738@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) writes: >>So? I've used well-supported commecial software too. Nonetheless, >>the GNU stuff works better and is, in effect, better supported than >>quite a bit of the commercial software I've used. > >How can you make a du,b generalization like this `the GNU stuff works better'. >Is there some physical law that says GTNU software is always the best??? Did you read my message? I said better than _quite a bit_ of the commercial software _I've used_. I did not say it was better than all commercial software or even than all commercial software I've used. Much less did I say it will always be better. Give me a break. >>Who said it must be better. But it's certainly not always worse. > >You yourself claim it is better. See your statement above. No, you see my statement above. You completely misread it. -- Jeff
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/25/89)
(I just noticed that there were discussions about GNU things going on over here, and thought I'd chime in with a point or two that I didn't see brought up before. Sorry if some of this is rather dated...) In article <95@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: In article <14699@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU> zuhn@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (david d [zoo] zuhn) writes: But in many UNIX installations ... [no-money] software ... is the only real way that we ...can get our hands on code. Why for Gods sake do you want to get your hands on the code. Because code that we receive, from whatever source, is often broken, or unsuitable to our environment. For example, rwho broke when we passed 255 (or some such number, I've forgotten by now) hosts because it had a static limit coded in. With source, it was quick enough to fix. For another less trivial example, a local communications components company uses GCC as a cross-compiler for code that's to be downloaded from a UNIX host to their own custom comm board processor. They need sources to tweak the compiler for their own needs. ...You then can knock off their systems... Why would any one be interested in knocking off other peoples systems? "Knock off" is an (American?) idiom for "copy", not for the Chicago gangster-style "kill". What gnu does is rewriting the easy parts and give them away. Their support is nop. After dealing with many vendors and dealing with the net, I'd rather have direct, free, rapid access to the developers than use most vendors' "support" structures. Have you followed comp.sys.sun over the years? Sun's one of the best, but questions to the net get better answers quicker. On our hp835 for instance, gcc is not running. ... yet. GNU tools are useful to lots of people on lots of other machines, though, and the set of supported machines is growing. By the way: Gnu is not unix but is it going to be a sys5 copy or bsd?? Or are they planning to make GNUX, a new free unix totally incompatible with either sys5 or bsd. I would prefer the last. It will be more like BSD. The best bet right right now is that GNU looks like it will be based on the Mach kernel. I think the gnu stuff can only be usefull as supplementary software. It can never replace the base we need to do our work. Right now, it is a lot of the base stuff I use to do my work. Most of the GNU tools that exist right now are software development stuff, used for making other tools and bigger systems (like a kernel). That's what I do. In article <103@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: In article <878@umb.umb.edu> karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry.) writes: When the standard C runtime library is released, it Does this mean that gcc uses a vendor supplied C library ???? It will link against anything that's out there, available for use. In article <13188@megaron.arizona.edu> cjeffery@arizona.edu (Clinton Jeffery) writes: ...And copylefting all works linked with the GNU runtime library is like copylefting all files edited with GNUemacs. This is not a useful comparison. If I edit a file, that file will contain my work, not FSF's, so FSF has no control over it. If I incorporate someone else's work into something that I then distribute as my own, then that other person has every reason to complain. If I like, I can apply a copyleft to that file. But how it was created is immaterial, and I must exert my own effort to copyleft it. In article <105@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: Gnu starts out by relying on the vendor supplied !commercial! software they despise. Any endeavor has a bootstrapping problem. The makefiles supplied with, (e.g.) gcc begin by compiling with the vendor-supplied cc. Then, in order to get purely gcc-generated code, gcc compiles itself. If they were honest guys, they would start off with writing their own operating system. Anyone can write an editor or a diff remake or maybe even a C compiler. They're working on writing, or acquiring, an operating system. First, they needed tools that they could use to work on the OS. I'd say they're doing a lot to improve the quality of life of the average programmer right now by distributing tools like Emacs and GCC. They could have kept that stuff in-house until the whole thing was finished, but then far fewer people would have contributed and that's the whole idea anyway: sharing the work and the results. When you talk about the quality of the gnu software: several years ago we have been porting Emacs to our hp9000s500. It contained lots of bugs and faulty programming. Just think of how long ago this program was written. Its about time it worked. It does. GNU Emacs has undergone a *lot* of change over the past several years. You might be pleasantly surprised by how much it has improved if you last worked on it several years ago. In article <107@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: Didn't gnu intend to provide a new "free" unix version. Where is it? It's in Pittsburgh, getting cleaned out.