karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry.) (07/22/89)
Peter da Silva asks about the licenses for Bison and GCC being different, and brings up a point about how small the GNU-made code sequence must be for the work to qualify as ``derived''. I believe that the following is accurate, but it may not be. I am neither rms nor the FSF's lawyer. David Keppel has it right about Bison; because the result contains a substantial amount of GNU code that did not come from the original source, the result is copylefted, and must be freely distributable. Peter's remark that ``this makes Bison useless for commercial software developers'' is true (at least as long as commercial software developers don't want to let people see their source). But rms started GNU to promote free software, not to help people who want to hoard software. GCC, on the other hand, produces almost no code that is not derived from the original source. The exception is gnulib. Its routine are explicitly not copylefted, because they are too small to possibly qualify for copyright. When the GNU runtime libraries are released, a final binary that incorporates the libraries will have to be freely distributable, just like Bison. (Yes, a hoarder can get around this by distributing only object code for his/her program, source for the GNU libraries, and having the user do the link. Let's not get sidetracked.) In other words, the result of a compilation with gcc -c is not copylefted. (Emacs, just to forestall any queries about this (this whole discussion has just taken place on gnu.gcc; perhaps you can retrieve the archives from prep.ai.mit.edu), produces nothing that is not derived from the original source. That is, editing a file with Emacs doesn't somehow make the file FSF property. That would be absurd.) Finally, Dave Sill says that ``Stallman and the FSF have better things to do than sue people who try to use their products.'' If someone bases a program on GNU software, and does not make the result freely available under the copyleft, but rather hoards it then it is likely that they will be sued. rms has said this many times. (I believe that NeXT has developed a C++ compiler using GNU software, and is now trying to get out of the copyleft, so this is not entirely an academic point. I hope that NeXT decides to make their compiler freely available, if they haven't already.) I hope this clarifies the situation. Remember, this is not a definitive legal document :-). karl@umb.edu ...!harvard!umb!karl
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/24/89)
In article <873@umb.umb.edu>, karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry.) writes: > Peter's remark that ``this makes Bison useless for commercial software > developers'' is true (at least as long as commercial software developers > don't want to let people see their source). But rms started GNU to > promote free software, not to help people who want to hoard software. I'll let the derogatory terms pass... So, can I take it that the FSF folks will stop asking us commercial software developers why we don't use GCC? It gets awfully irritating to have them rave on about how good the GNU software is and put down folks who don't use it on the one hand, and deny us the use of it on the other. Deal? > distributing only object code for his/her program, source for the GNU > libraries, and having the user do the link. Let's not get sidetracked.) Come on, that's hardly workable. > If someone bases a program on GNU software, and does not make the result > freely available under the copyleft, but rather hoards it then it is > likely that they will be sued. Bingo. -- 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
ltf@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) (07/24/89)
In article <873@umb.umb.edu> karl@umb.umb.edu (Karl Berry.) writes: >GCC, on the other hand, produces almost no code that is not derived from >the original source. The exception is gnulib. Its routine are >explicitly not copylefted, because they are too small to possibly >qualify for copyright. When the GNU runtime libraries are released, a >final binary that incorporates the libraries will have to be freely >distributable, just like Bison. (Yes, a hoarder can get around this by >distributing only object code for his/her program, source for the GNU >libraries, and having the user do the link. Let's not get sidetracked.) >In other words, the result of a compilation with gcc -c is not >copylefted. So, if I get this straight, if I compile my program using GCC, then link with GNU's runtime library, I have to give away my source code to anybody who asks for it. On the other hand, if I write my own runtime library, or put together one from public-domain, freely-redistributable source code (there's a good amount of it floating about, without such "copyleft"s), I'm then in the clear to distribute my executable as I wish...without having to give my source out...correct? Interesting possibilities here...I could then market my own runtime library for use with GCC, so that commercial developers could then use GCC for their projects and distribute executables...not exactly "politically-correct" in FSF's eyes, I imagine, but perfectly legal. Hmmm...anybody want to get together on a nice little shareware project? :-) Lance > -- +-------------------------+ +------------------------------------------+ | Lance T Franklin | | "And all who heard should see them there, | ltf@attctc.DALLAS.TX.US | | And all should cry, Beware! Beware! +-------------------------+ + His flashing eyes, his floating hair!"
diamond@csl.sony.JUNET (Norman Diamond) (07/24/89)
Why do gnu copyleft provisions cause so much confusion? Anyone with a sense of ethics, if producing software for sale, will pay other software-for-sale producers for all of their tools. Even for emacs. Too bad ethics are so rare. There is only one case where the copyleft provision is a problem. If someone wants to produce truly public domain software but does not volunteer the effort to keep providing copies of source [even if he can be paid for volunteering that effort], it seems to me that if such a person uses free tools, he is still being ethical. Unfortunately copylefted tools are not free in this case. -- -- Norman Diamond, Sony Computer Science Lab (diamond%csl.sony.jp@relay.cs.net) The above opinions are inherited by your machine's init process (pid 1), after being disowned and orphaned. However, if you see this at Waterloo or Anterior, then their administrators must have approved of these opinions.
taylor@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Charles Taylor) (07/27/89)
In article <8743@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> ltf@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) writes: >So, if I get this straight, if I compile my program using GCC, then link >with GNU's runtime library, I have to give away my source code to anybody >who asks for it. Not only do you have to give away your source code with your program (software houses now will sell source code along with binaries) but anybody who gets your program may give it away to anybody else without compensating you. This does _not_ only affect software developers. Consider a typical Programming Systems class (CS217 at Princeton, my alma mater) which uses GCC and the libraries. The copyleft means that Jock Bonehead, who's running a low C- average, can demand that Joan Von Neumann give him her A+ final programming project, complete with source code. {Indeed, at Princeton, this class was instructed to use a locally-developed ANSI compiler, despite the fact that GCC was readily available and perfectly suitable, and generated better code. I wonder...} Whatever the legality of this matter, this doesn't sit right with me. How can the mere linking of my program with copylefted libraries abrogate _my_ rights to _my_ code? Copyrighted material with power over other material---this doesn't seem right. >| Lance T Franklin | | "And all who heard should see them there, Matt Kennel kennel@cognet.ucla.edu
pardo@june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (07/27/89)
[The original discussion has been going on for a while in comp.lang.misc: why is linking with copylefted GNU runtiime library code `special'? Here I speak for myself, not for the Free Software Foundation.] kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: >Consider a typical Programming Systems class [...] which uses GCC and >the libraries. The copyleft means that Jock Bonehead, who's running >a low C- average, can demand that Joan Von Neumann give him her A+ >final programming project, complete with source code. I think that the copyleft requires something slightly different. The requirement is that if Joan Von Newumann distributes her .o files linked with GNU runtime libraries, then she must also distribute, free of charge (except for "nominal" copyiing costs), the source. If she does not distribute the .o (a.out) files, then she is not obligated to do anything with her source code. For example, she can burn it, if she likes. If she distributes her .o files but does not link them with GNU runtime libraries, then she can, say, dump her sources in hydrochloric acid. The particular case of `gcc' is that if she just distributes the .o files, and nothing linked with the GNU runtime libraries, then she is *not* required to redistribute the source code, becuase C .o files are `derived' from the input source, and *not* from the compiler. If she used `bison', then she would be obligated to distribute the parse.y file along with the parse.o, but if the parse.o isn't linked to the rest of the files, then she's not required to distribute source for any of the other .o's. To make an anlogy: compiling code with GCC is akin to editing text with gemacs. It doesn't matter which editor/compiler you use, you get the same result. Using bison is taking an existing, copylefted, program (bison.skel) and modifying it (based on the contents of parse.y). Since you are modifing GNU code, you are agreeing to the terms of the copyleft (if you distribute the .o, you must also freely distribute the sources). >How can the mere linking of my program with copylefted libraries >abrogate _my_ rights to _my_ code? Copyrighted material with power >over other material---this doesn't seem right. In short, you lose no rights by linking your code with copylefted code. If you link your code with GNU copylefted code and then distribute the result, then you are *agreeing* to follow the GNU rules for distribution of GNU code. You are losing no rights. If you don't want to distribute source to your programs, then distribute your programs so that they are not linked with GNU code. For anybody who is interested, you can get additional information on the GNU project and the GNU manifesto by anonymous ftp to prep.ai.mit.edu. ftp prep.ai.mit.edu login: anonymous passwd: <username> cd pub/gnu get GETTING.GNU.SOFTWARE cd etc get APPLE get DISTRIB get FTP get GNU get INTERVIEW get SERVICE bye The "etc" files are as follows: APPLE - Background information on the FSF position on the Apple vs. Microsoft/HP lawsuit. DISTRIB - How to get software from the FSF, (lack of) warranty information, and reporting bugs. FTP - How to get GNU software via. anonymous ftp and uucp. GNU - The GNU manifesto : What is GNU, who *is* Richard Stallman, why people contribute, and who benefits, common objections to GNU's goals. INTERVIEW - BYTE discussion with RMS about GNU. MACHINES - Machines that GNU Emacs runs on. MAILINGLISTS - GNU Project (electronic) mailing lists. MOTIVATION - Motivation vs. Reward (from the Boston Globe). SERVICE - People who offer GNU spoort, some for a fee, some for free. SUN-SUPPORT - Running gemacs under Sun windows. If you are getting anything larger than a small text file, please do it before 0800 EST or after 01800 EST. Followups to gnu.misc.discuss ;-D on ( I just GNU it! ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,gnu.misc.d Subject: Re: The GNU license. Summary: Expires: References: <873@umb.umb.edu> <8743@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> <26027@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> Sender: Reply-To: pardo@uw-june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) Followup-To: gnu.misc.d Distribution: na Organization: University of Washington, Computer Science, Seattle Keywords: [The original discussion has been going on for a while in comp.lang.misc: why is linking with copylefted GNU runtiime library code `special'? Here I speak for myself, not for the Free Software Foundation.] kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: >Consider a typical Programming Systems class [...] which uses GCC and >the libraries. The copyleft means that Jock Bonehead, who's running >a low C- average, can demand that Joan Von Neumann give him her A+ >final programming project, complete with source code. I think that the copyleft requires something slightly different. The requirement is that if Joan Von Newumann distributes her .o files linked with GNU runtime libraries, then she must also distribute, free of charge (except for "nominal" copyiing costs), the source. If she does not distribute the .o (a.out) files, then she is not obligated to do anything with her source code. For example, she can burn it, if she likes. If she distributes her .o files but does not link them with GNU runtime libraries, then she can, say, dump her sources in hydrochloric acid. The particular case of `gcc' is that if she just distributes the .o files, and nothing linked with the GNU runtime libraries, then she is *not* required to redistribute the source code, becuase C .o files are `derived' from the input source, and *not* from the compiler. If she used `bison', then she would be obligated to distribute the parse.y file along with the parse.o, but if the parse.o isn't linked to the rest of the files, then she's not required to distribute source for any of the other .o's. To make an anlogy: compiling code with GCC is akin to editing text with gemacs. It doesn't matter which editor/compiler you use, you get the same result. Using bison is taking an existing, copylefted, program (bison.skel) and modifying it (based on the contents of parse.y). Since you are modifing GNU code, you are agreeing to the terms of the copyleft (if you distribute the .o, you must also freely distribute the sources). >How can the mere linking of my program with copylefted libraries >abrogate _my_ rights to _my_ code? Copyrighted material with power >over other material---this doesn't seem right. In short, you lose no rights by linking your code with copylefted code. If you link your code with GNU copylefted code and then distribute the result, then you are *agreeing* to follow the GNU rules for distribution of GNU code. You are losing no rights. If you don't want to distribute source to your programs, then distribute your programs so that they are not linked with GNU code. For anybody who is interested, you can get additional information on the GNU project and the GNU manifesto by anonymous ftp to prep.ai.mit.edu. ftp prep.ai.mit.edu login: anonymous passwd: <username> cd pub/gnu get GETTING.GNU.SOFTWARE cd etc get APPLE get DISTRIB get FTP get GNU get INTERVIEW get SERVICE bye The "etc" files are as follows: APPLE - Background information on the FSF position on the Apple vs. Microsoft/HP lawsuit. DISTRIB - How to get software from the FSF, (lack of) warranty information, and reporting bugs. FTP - How to get GNU software via. anonymous ftp and uucp. GNU - The GNU manifesto : What is GNU, who *is* Richard Stallman, why people contribute, and who benefits, common objections to GNU's goals. INTERVIEW - BYTE discussion with RMS about GNU. MACHINES - Machines that GNU Emacs runs on. MAILINGLISTS - GNU Project (electronic) mailing lists. MOTIVATION - Motivation vs. Reward (from the Boston Globe). SERVICE - People who offer GNU spoort, some for a fee, some for free. SUN-SUPPORT - Running gemacs under Sun windows. If you are getting anything larger than a small text file, please do it before 0800 EST or after 01800 EST. Followups to gnu.misc.discuss ;-D on ( I just GNU it! ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
mccalpin@masig2.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) (07/27/89)
In article <ref above> kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: >This does _not_ only affect software developers. Consider a typical >Programming Systems class (CS217 at Princeton, my alma mater) which >uses GCC and the libraries. The copyleft means that Jock Bonehead, >who's running a low C- average, can demand that Joan Von Neumann give >him her A+ final programming project, complete with source code. This is utter bullshit.... The GNU copyleft says nothing at all about your own personal use of your own programs -- and a classroom assignment certainly qualifies as personal use. The GNU copyleft _does_ say that: *if* you _distribute_ a program produced by way of the GNU software, then you have to distribute the source for that program also, for at most a copying fee. I'll leave it for others to decide whether run-time libraries are reasonably included in this (I think not), but the agreement clearly covers _distribution_ of programs, not merely their creation. -- John D. McCalpin - mccalpin@masig1.ocean.fsu.edu - mccalpin@nu.cs.fsu.edu mccalpin@delocn.udel.edu
zuhn@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (david d [zoo] zuhn) (07/27/89)
In article <26027@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (Matt Kennel) writes: >In article <8743@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> ltf@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) writes: >>So, if I get this straight, if I compile my program using GCC, then link >>with GNU's runtime library, I have to give away my source code to anybody >>who asks for it. Wrong. You only have to do this if you are making your binaries available to the general public. Then (and only then) do you need to make your source available. If you are only writing for yourself, then there is no need to make source available. But go ahead, do it. >Not only do you have to give away your source code with your program >(software houses now will sell source code along with binaries) but >anybody who gets your program may give it away to anybody else without >compensating you. Sure. Why not. But if someone wants support for your product, offer it to them (for a fee). Do *you* want to use a system for which you don't have support from the manufacturer. No? Then buy support from someone for the software you got for free. But what if I don't want support? Why should I not be able to get the free code for free. >This does _not_ only affect software developers. Consider a typical >Programming Systems class (CS217 at Princeton, my alma mater) which >uses GCC and the libraries. The copyleft means that Jock Bonehead, >who's running a low C- average, can demand that Joan Von Neumann give >him her A+ final programming project, complete with source code. >{Indeed, at Princeton, this class was instructed to use a >locally-developed ANSI compiler, despite the fact that GCC was readily >available and perfectly suitable, and generated better code. I wonder...} This is a bogus example. If Joan's software is not made freely distributable (which given the environment, is a reasonable thing to do), then she can just tell Jack to go away: this code is hers. Or she can give it to him (after the program is due). The GNU software states that if you modify and redistribute the code, you must clearly note this (the modifications) in each file. So if Jack turns in Joan's code, let him. He just won't get credit for this since Joan's statement at the beginning which places that work under the GPL indicates the she is the author of this code. If Jack does modify the code and not indicate the origins, then he has broken the copyright restrictions and is subject to academic discipline (at my school anyway). It's common sense: No credit for work which you don't do. >Whatever the legality of this matter, this doesn't sit right with me. >How can the mere linking of my program with copylefted libraries >abrogate _my_ rights to _my_ code? Copyrighted material with power >over other material---this doesn't seem right. > >>| Lance T Franklin | | "And all who heard should see them there, > >Matt Kennel >kennel@cognet.ucla.edu If it doesn't sit right with you, then don't use the tools. It's as simple as that. If you support software hoarding, then don't use the tools that you haven't bought. If you use the GNU tools, and try to weasel your way around the GPL, then you may not violate the law, but you are being hypocritical in your views. No one says that you must use the software that is freely available. It's your choice not to. It's my choice to do so. David D "Zoo" Zuhn // University of Minnesota \\ Twin Cities Computer Science Systems Consultant, EE/CS 4-204 zuhn@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu, zuhn@umn-cs.UUCP, ..rutgers!umn-cs!zuhn
cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) (07/27/89)
In article <MCCALPIN.89Jul26162658@masig2.ocean.fsu.edu>, mccalpin@masig2.ocean.fsu.edu (John D. McCalpin) writes... >The GNU copyleft _does_ say that: *if* you _distribute_ a program >produced by way of the GNU software, then you have to distribute the >source for that program also, for at most a copying fee. This is not the case of compiling something with GCC. If you compile using GCC it is still a salable product. If you excerpt code from GCC and put that code into your product then the product must be copyleft. Actually the case is if you include any copylefted code then the product must be copyleft. >I'll leave it for others to decide whether run-time libraries are >reasonably included in this (I think not), but the agreement clearly >covers _distribution_ of programs, not merely their creation. In a prior article it was stated that the run-time libraries are *not* copylefted. If this is the case then a product can be made using the GNU run-time libraries without having to copyleft. Why don't we just post the GNU license in misc.legal and ask if one of the lawyer types who reads it can explain under what conditions code contamination occurs? Believing the GNU license is probably a little too stringent, shades ============================================================================ | But I that am not shaped for sport- | Geoffrey D. Cooper | | ive trick, nor formed to court an | cooper@vlab.enet.dec.com | | amorous looking glass... | business (508) 467-3678 | | | home (617) 925-1099 | ============================================================================ Note: I'm a consultant. My opinions are *MY* opinions.
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (07/27/89)
In article <8808@june.cs.washington.edu> pardo@uw-june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) writes: >To make an anlogy: compiling code with GCC is akin to editing text >with gemacs. It doesn't matter which editor/compiler you use, you get >the same result. (I hate analogies.) But you *don't* get the same result, at least if you consider the size of the resulting binary or the speed at which it runs. For all but the simplest programs, the result of an optimized compilation will be as unique as a fingerprint. But that's just a weakness in your analogy. -- Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
cliff@ficc.uu.net (cliff click) (07/27/89)
With all the GNU talk floating around, I figure somebody can answer this. Can I send my $10 ($100, whatever) to somebody, and have them mail me MS-DOS disks with the GNU C compiler source? I don't have access to ftp, or anything other than email and snail mail. -- Cliff Click, Software Contractor at Large Business: uunet.uu.net!ficc!cliff, cliff@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5368 (w). Disclaimer: lost in the vortices of nilspace... +1 713 568 3460 (h).
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/28/89)
In article <3777@shlump.nac.dec.com>, cooper%vlab.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com (g.d.cooper in the shadowlands) writes: > Why don't we just post the GNU license in misc.legal and ask if one of > the lawyer types who reads it can explain under what conditions code > contamination occurs? GNU CC GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (Clarified 11 Feb 1988) Copyright (C) 1988 Richard M. Stallman Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license, but changing it is not allowed. You can also use this wording to make the terms for other programs. 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. To make sure that you get the rights we want you to have, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. Hence this license agreement. Specifically, we want to make sure that you have the right to give away copies of GNU CC, that you receive source code or else can get it if you want it, that you can change GNU CC or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things. To make sure that everyone has such rights, we have to forbid you to deprive anyone else of these rights. For example, if you distribute copies of GNU CC, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must tell them their rights. Also, for our own protection, we must make certain that everyone finds out that there is no warranty for GNU CC. If GNU CC is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not what we distributed, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on our reputation. Therefore we (Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation, Inc.) make the following terms which say what you must do to be allowed to distribute or change GNU CC. COPYING POLICIES 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of GNU CC source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy a valid copyright notice "Copyright (C) 1988 Free Software Foundation, Inc." (or with whatever year is appropriate); keep intact the notices on all files that refer to this License Agreement and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the GNU CC program a copy of this License Agreement along with the program. You may charge a distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a copy. 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: a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change; and 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). c) You may charge a distribution fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. Mere aggregation of another unrelated program with this program (or its derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other program under the scope of these terms. 3. You may copy and distribute GNU CC (or a portion or derivative of it, under Paragraph 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or, b) accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party free (except for a nominal shipping charge) a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Paragraphs 1 and 2 above; or, c) accompany it with the information you received as to where the corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form alone.) For an executable file, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains; but, as a special exception, it need not include source code for modules which are standard libraries that accompany the operating system on which the executable file runs. 4. You may not copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU CC except as expressly provided under this License Agreement. Any attempt otherwise to copy, sublicense, distribute or transfer GNU CC is void and your rights to use the program under this License agreement shall be automatically terminated. However, parties who have received computer software programs from you with this License Agreement will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance. 5. If you wish to incorporate parts of GNU CC into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the Free Software Foundation at 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139. We have not yet worked out a simple rule that can be stated here, but we will often permit this. We will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software. Your comments and suggestions about our licensing policies and our software are welcome! Please contact the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, or call (617) 876-3296. NO WARRANTY BECAUSE GNU CC IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, WE PROVIDE ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE STATE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING, FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC, RICHARD M. STALLMAN AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE GNU CC "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF GNU CC IS WITH YOU. SHOULD GNU CC PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW WILL RICHARD M. STALLMAN, THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, INC., AND/OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND REDISTRIBUTE GNU CC AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY LOST PROFITS, LOST MONIES, OR OTHER SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS) GNU CC, EVEN IF YOU HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY. -- 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
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/28/89)
In article <14700@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU>, zuhn@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (david d [zoo] zuhn) writes: > If it doesn't sit right with you, then don't use the tools. It's as simple > as that. If you support software hoarding, then don't use the tools that > you haven't bought. If you use the GNU tools, and try to weasel your way > around the GPL, then you may not violate the law, but you are being > hypocritical in your views. I don't. I won't. BUT: > No one says that you must use the software that is freely available. It's > your choice not to. It's my choice to do so. They do. All the time, there are people telling us that we're idiots for not using GCC. All I'm trying to do... all I'm trying to do... is explain why we'd be idiots to use it. If you can't see that, then at least have the courtesy to refrain from flaming my explanation. I write freely redistributable software. I suppose I could put some nasty insert in there to the effect that you couldn't use it in any software that falls under the GNU copyleft. But that would be just as childish. -- 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) (08/02/89)
In article <10596@riks.csl.sony.JUNET> diamond@csl.sony.co.jp (Norman Diamond) writes:
<There is only one case where the copyleft provision is a problem.
And that case doesn't really exist.
<If someone wants to produce truly public domain software but does not
<volunteer the effort to keep providing copies of source [even if he
<can be paid for volunteering that effort], it seems to me that if such
<a person uses free tools, he is still being ethical. Unfortunately
<copylefted tools are not free in this case.
Let's see: I use copylefed tools, and produce some program. If the
sofware is a "derivative work" of the copylefted tool (note: this may
include binaries, but not the original sources), then I can't make it
public domain, because that would involved doing the same to the parts
of the copylefted tool that it was derived from. So let's say I just
want to distributed it under the terms of the GPL. Then I have three
options:
1) Give people all the sources needed to build that tool, all
copylefted. I have no further obligations to them.
2) Give them only binary, along with a written offer to provide
sources for up to three years. If you take this route, that could put
someone in the bind you mention.
3) accompany it with the information you received as to where the
corresponding source code may be obtained. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form alone.)
In other words, someone is only stuck with being in a position of
having to provide source to the copylefted tools after they choose not
to if they chose the second option. The first option works quite well
for many of these people. Normally, your sources isn't a derivative
work (even if your binary isn't), so you don't have to provide sources
to the copylefted tools - just sources to your program.
So where's the problem?
<mike
--
ICUROK2C, ICUROK2. Mike Meyer
ICUROK2C, ICWR2. mwm@berkeley.edu
URAQT, I WANT U2. ucbvax!mwm
OO2EZ, I WANT U2. mwm@ucbjade.BITNETmarc@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Marc[e] Sabatella) (08/02/89)
>Normally, your sources isn't a derivative >work (even if your binary isn't), so you don't have to provide sources >to the copylefted tools - just sources to your program. > >So where's the problem? The problem is, most people don't *want* to give away sources to their program. Many writers of software depend on the writing of computer programs to make a living. Imagine if the writer of LOTUS 1-2-3 had to give away his source. Within two days, it would be on a public BBS, and he would never make another dime from the years that went into LOTUS. Even if the person to whom you gave the source were prevented by law from disclosing the source to anyone else who hadn't bought LOTUS, that probably wouldn't stop it from finding its way onto a BBS soon enough anyhow, and the LOTUS writer would be forced to go to court to reclaim damages from someone who probably doesn't have the money anyhow. If he hadn't had to give away the sources to begin with, he could sit around and collect his royalties like any sane capitalist.
Marc[e].Sabatella@mamab.FIDONET.ORG (Marc[e] Sabatella) (08/06/89)
-- Fidonet: Marc[e] Sabatella via 1:363/9 Internet: Marc[e].Sabatella@mamab.FIDONET.ORG Usenet: ...!peora!rtmvax!libcmp!mamab!Marc[e].Sabatella