frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (03/12/90)
Subject: What does free mean. [ rn dies when I try to followup to this article, so I re-posted ] In article <1990Mar12.060117.2305@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cassius.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: #frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: #>Kyoto Common Lisp requires that you sign a license to get their free #>lisp system with C source. You have access to the source before they #>recieve the license. This license requires, among other things, #>that you get permission from them before you can distribute any #>modified copies to others. # #This is a non sequitor. If you have access to the source before you give #them the license, then there's no way they can force you to file the #license. A license is _only_ binding if 1) it is agreed upon _before_ #transfer of goods, and 2) there is a transfer of "valuable consideration" #on both sides. In other words, you have to execute the license _before_ #you get the source code, and you have to give the KCL people something #in exchange for the source, or the license is non-binding. NOTE: this #is "Business Law" law --- it could be wrong, but my Business Law prof. #might be unhappy to find that out. In other words, I'm not a lawyer :-) # Listen carefully. The source is available through anonymous ftp. You are on your honor not to steal it. When you sign and mail the license you can access the source, without waiting for them to recieve and process it. If you have a problem with this procedure, don't take it up with me. #>The GNU C compiler has only the restriction that the inclusion of the runtime #>library in your program then subjects your program to the GNU license. #>This library consists of a handfull of machine dependant math routines, #>and can be rewritten in a day. So, in effect, the GNU C compiler has #>no real restrictions on its use. # #The 'gnulib' library, which comes with GCC, is _explicitly_ not covered #by the copyleft restrictions --- or so the FSF says every few months when #this comes up on the gnu.* newsgroups. # Thank you for helping my case. I was not aware that gnulib was not covered, however it makes no difference. #>There are no such complications with the GNU assembler (GAS) or the GNU #>loader (GLD). Nor with all the numerous utilities. # #libg++ _is_ explicitly under the copyleft, and anything linked with it #must (if released) be covered by the copyleft. In fact, the FSF claims #even stronger protection for libg++ (and other Gnu code): any package #designed to link with libg++ or the source to a Gnu tool _must_ be #covered by the copyleft. Furthermore, any libg++-compatible library #must also be covered by the copyleft. This was all posted to gnu.g++ #and/or gnu.misc.discuss (by the authors of the respective packages). #I have major doubts about the both the legality and the ethics of #this stance, but it's the current position. # Fine, I forgot about libg++ because I do not use it. I have no problems with the legality or the ethics of their position. Like you, I am not a lawyer either. #>So getopt and bison are really special cases in that the generate code #>to be included or are themselves included in your programs. If you #>look around you, the streets are almost crawling with parser generators, #>that you can purchase for little money. It is not a loss to not have #>access to bison. The exists a public domain getopt in the net source #>archives. Getopt is likewise expendable. # #What if AT&T libc carried a similar restriction (namely, that any code #linked with it would fall under the AT&T copyrights)? In that case, #building GCC would place it under the AT&T copyright. In other words, #your "it's not a problem, there are other sources" attitude works for #the small case, but breaks badly in the larger scheme of things. # This comment of yours makes absolutely no sense. I see nothing breaking badly in your statements. #>Including GNU source on the other hand, does subject your code to the #>provisions os the GNU license. I see nothing wrong with this. In our #>legal system of property rights, you have to put restrictions on in order #>to protect your work. That is just how life is in our case. # #I think everything is wrong with the idea that including GNU source in my #program puts my code under the provisions of the GNU copyright (copyleft). #My code is _my code_, and I hold the copyright to it. I don't think the #copyleft is how things work (legally) or how they should work (ethically). #I think the FSF has a perfect right to demand that their code be exchanged #freely --- it's their code, and they have a right to control how it's #distributed. On the other hand, I think the FSF has _no_ right to control #how _my_ code is distributed, _even_ if it's linked with a FSF-supplied #program. As long as I distribute, in full and with full source, the FSF #source code I use, I should (and probably do --- cf many discussions in #gnu.misc.discuss) have the right to distribute _my_ code in binary-only #form. That's what _my_ copyright on my code allows _me_ to do. # Noone forces you to link with the GNU code. Noone forces you to jump off a cliff either. You do both at your own risk. You are aware of the consequences of both (I hope). Others of us happen to agree with the FSF position. Given our legal system, they either have the restrictions they do, or people can subvert their intentions to keep their code free. Our legal system gives us choices like this. Take it up with the government if you disagree. #--John # # #-------------------------------------------------------------------------- #John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge #Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) #Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. #You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well. # Your signature carries the GNU philosophy. The intent of both is to retain the rights. I find it amusing that you object to the FSF. Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (03/13/90)
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: |Listen carefully. The source is available through anonymous ftp. You are |on your honor not to steal it. When you sign and mail the license you |can access the source, without waiting for them to recieve and process it. |If you have a problem with this procedure, don't take it up with me. Making something available via anonymous FTP is (arguably) distributing it to the public. It's like a counter set up outside a store with a sign "Free: Take One". That's why they call it anonymous FTP, you know, because you are placing something up for grabs by anonymous people. Anything you legally own and distribute to the public is not "theft" if they decide to keep it. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** "Well, heck's farr, Jim, it gives mah computer sumthin' to do when *** Ah'm out brandin' capacitors." -DM
coolidge@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (03/13/90)
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >In article <1990Mar12.060117.2305@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> I write: >#frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >#>Kyoto Common Lisp requires that you sign a license to get their free >#>lisp system with C source. You have access to the source before they >#>recieve the license. This license requires, among other things, >#>that you get permission from them before you can distribute any >#>modified copies to others. ># >#This is a non sequitor. If you have access to the source before you give >#them the license, then there's no way they can force you to file the >#license. >Listen carefully. The source is available through anonymous ftp. You are >on your honor not to steal it. When you sign and mail the license you >can access the source, without waiting for them to recieve and process it. >If you have a problem with this procedure, don't take it up with me. My previous comments on licenses were partially goofed up, sad to say (it's what I get posting at that time of day :-) ). However, it would appear, from this discussion of the KCL setup, that what they're doing is offering a non-binding license agreement. It's entirely up to each user to decide whether or not they want to follow the license. Such a license is not legally enforceable. I don't "have a problem" with this, I'm just pointing out that "on your honor" isn't a legally binding form of protection. >#>There are no such complications with the GNU assembler (GAS) or the GNU >#>loader (GLD). Nor with all the numerous utilities. ># >#libg++ _is_ explicitly under the copyleft, and anything linked with it >#must (if released) be covered by the copyleft. In fact, the FSF claims >#even stronger protection for libg++ (and other Gnu code): any package >#designed to link with libg++ or the source to a Gnu tool _must_ be >#covered by the copyleft. Furthermore, any libg++-compatible library >#must also be covered by the copyleft. This was all posted to gnu.g++ >#and/or gnu.misc.discuss (by the authors of the respective packages). >#I have major doubts about the both the legality and the ethics of >#this stance, but it's the current position. >Fine, I forgot about libg++ because I do not use it. I have no problems >with the legality or the ethics of their position. Like you, I am not a >lawyer either. My problem with legality (see below) is that the FSF is illegally tampering with my copyright to my code. My problem with ethics is that the FSF has come out against proprietary user interfaces many times, but yet they're trying to argue for proprietary library interfaces. I consider this unethical behavior and bad for programmers in general. >#What if AT&T libc carried a similar restriction (namely, that any code >#linked with it would fall under the AT&T copyrights)? In that case, >#building GCC would place it under the AT&T copyright. In other words, >#your "it's not a problem, there are other sources" attitude works for >#the small case, but breaks badly in the larger scheme of things. ># >This comment of yours makes absolutely no sense. I see nothing >breaking badly in your statements. Hmm. I think it's rather clear. Once again, slowly. What if AT&T's libc carried with it terms like those on libg++ (link with this library and you agree that your source code is covered by the AT&T copyright and cannot be redistributed except with express permission of AT&T and under AT&T's terms --- license agreements, fees paid to AT&T, etc). Had this been done, there never could have been an FSF. Of course, Unix as we know it wouldn't exist either, but that's beside the point. What I said "breaks badly in the larger scheme of things", what I meant was fairly simple. You show that the FSF's policy of "link with my stuff and your stuff is covered by my rules" is harmless in a few small cases. I show an example of where the same policy could do great damage. In this way I hope to show that the policy itself is fatally flawed, since it permits great evil to be done. Simple, no? >Noone forces you to link with the GNU code. Noone forces you to jump off >a cliff either. You do both at your own risk. You are aware of the >consequences of both (I hope). Others of us happen to agree with the >FSF position. Given our legal system, they either have the restrictions >they do, or people can subvert their intentions to keep their code free. >Our legal system gives us choices like this. Take it up with the >government if you disagree. The problem is that the FSF's restrictions are almost certainly illegal. Linking with another piece of code does _not_ force other code to be covered by the same copyright. As someone pointed out in gnu.misc.discuss a short while back (someone who _was_ a copyright lawyer), the link- therefore-copyleft argument violates the section in the copyright act which governs transfer of copyright. I already have the copyright to my code _before_ I link with the FSF's code, and they already have the copyright to their code. After the link, it is equally as silly to say that my code falls under their copyright as it is to say that their code falls under my copyright, or that either set of code falls under the AT&T copyright (since I did, after all, link both sets of code with an AT&T-derived libc). The FSF still owns their code and controls the way it can be distributed (with full source). I still control my code and control the way _it_ can be distributed (with full source, maybe; maybe with _no_ source), and AT&T still controls _their_ code and its rules of distribution (no source, of course). If you don't follow this line of reasoning --- if you say that, once something is linked with FSF code, full source distribution of the entire package is required, then the binary-inclusive distributions of gnu tools (yes, _even_ those done by the FSF) are in violation of their own copyleft. You see, they contain bits of AT&T-derived libc and other libraries, and those who pass them on _cannot_ give out source to those libraries. >#Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. >#You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well. >Your signature carries the GNU philosophy. The intent of both is to retain >the rights. I find it amusing that you object to the FSF. No. If I was following the FSF's philosophy, my signature would require that your article _also_ be freely distributable. I do not --- I merely require that 1) you give me attribution, and 2) that my article itself (and not any amendments to it) be freely distributable. It's _exactly_ the same as my views on free software. In any case, I hardly "object to the FSF". I use FSF tools all the time, and I maintain and submit bug fixes to their code. What I object to is silly reasoning that would lead to disaster if applied to anyone but the FSF. What I object to is the occasional bit of FSF hypocrisy wrt proprietary interfaces. And what I object to, most of all, is the idea that it is legal, ethical, and legally enforcable for some strange sort of compilation copyright to come out of the act of linking together disjointly copyrighted pieces of code. --John
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (03/15/90)
My main problem with the FSF philosophy, is that it devalues my time. If I am
not able to get money to put food on the table---or even have a table to put
food on---I must do something for which I can earn money. The FSF proposes,
however, that my main saleable commodity must not be sold, and intends that
that philosophy become *the* philosophy. I conclude that I'd better go get a
job as a bricklayer. Of course, if that leaves me unable to write software
because e.g. too tired or not enough time in the day, etc., too bad.
Or I can work to stop the FSF's position from being accepted in general; which
will no doubt get me into a lot of trouble with people who prefer not to think
about the sudden increase in the rolls of the unemployed if the FSF gets its
way. (*They*, of course, need not worry about it; *they* get grants. Faugh.)
Not to mention the fact that I can find quite a few more things to do with my
time than recreational programming. If I'm even remotely like other program-
mers, there's liable to be a sharp drop in the number of new programs.
The FSF may win the moral victory; but everyone else will lose in that case.
This is, of course, to be desired; or so I gather from the FSF's philosophy.
(sarcasm on) I'm glad to hear it. (sarcasm off)
++Brandon
--
Brandon S. Allbery (human), allbery@NCoast.ORG (Inet), BALLBERY (MCI Mail)
ALLBERY (Delphi), uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery (UUCP), B.ALLBERY (GEnie)
BrandonA (A-Online) ("...and a partridge in a pear tree!" ;-)bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (03/17/90)
In article <1990Mar14.234322.16167@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: |My main problem with the FSF philosophy, is that it devalues my time. If I am |not able to get money to put food on the table---or even have a table to put |food on---I must do something for which I can earn money. The FSF proposes, |however, that my main saleable commodity must not be sold, and intends that |that philosophy become *the* philosophy. I conclude that I'd better go get a |job as a bricklayer. Of course, if that leaves me unable to write software |because e.g. too tired or not enough time in the day, etc., too bad. There is nothing which prevents you from selling software which contains FSF-licenced code. What you are prohibited from doing is to conceal the source code from the customer. Now this certainly has some economic implications, but they are for the most part not the same problems as the ones you fear mistakenly. |Or I can work to stop the FSF's position from being accepted in general; which |will no doubt get me into a lot of trouble with people who prefer not to think |about the sudden increase in the rolls of the unemployed if the FSF gets its |way. (*They*, of course, need not worry about it; *they* get grants. Faugh.) You can't be taken all that seriously when you make such useless (and inaccurate) generalizations. |Not to mention the fact that I can find quite a few more things to do with my |time than recreational programming. If I'm even remotely like other program- |mers, there's liable to be a sharp drop in the number of new programs. There are quite a few more things to do with your time than recreational poking at software idealists. Give it a rest, Brandon - you're shooting from the hip on this one and not hitting anything... -- (__) Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario w \@@/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb _/ \_ "So far from God, so close to the United States" - Old Mexican proverb
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (03/20/90)
I don't see what's wrong with separate commercial and non-commercial code domains. If I were releasing a commercial package, I would eat live eels rather than include GNU or public domain code in it! Have we no pride in our work any more? Maybe you could make an argument that FSF is messing with freeware but commercial developers haven't got a leg to stand on criticizing it. -- "DO NOT, repeat, DO NOT blow the hatch!" /)\ Tom Neff "Roger....hatch blown!" \(/ tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (03/20/90)
As quoted from <6110@becker.UUCP> by bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker): +--------------- | In article <1990Mar14.234322.16167@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes: | |My main problem with the FSF philosophy, is that it devalues my time. If I am | |not able to get money to put food on the table---or even have a table to put | |food on---I must do something for which I can earn money. The FSF proposes, | |however, that my main saleable commodity must not be sold, and intends that | |that philosophy become *the* philosophy. I conclude that I'd better go get a | |job as a bricklayer. Of course, if that leaves me unable to write software | |because e.g. too tired or not enough time in the day, etc., too bad. | | There is nothing which prevents you from | selling software which contains FSF-licenced | code. | | What you are prohibited from doing is | to conceal the source code from the customer. +--------------- Which, of course, means that people can then get the source code themselves and suddenly nobody's buying from me because they can get it for free. This, of course, is somehow not supposed to be a problem. +--------------- | |Not to mention the fact that I can find quite a few more things to do with my | |time than recreational programming. If I'm even remotely like other program- | |mers, there's liable to be a sharp drop in the number of new programs. | | There are quite a few more things to do with | your time than recreational poking at software | idealists. +--------------- See above. +--------------- | Give it a rest, Brandon - you're shooting | from the hip on this one and not hitting | anything... +--------------- Because there's nothing to hit but emptiness where there should be some intelligence. Again, see above; and explain how this is supposed to magically not happen, eh? The upshot is that I can charge all I want, but I'd better be fully compensated on the first purchase because a second isn't all that likely. And nobody will buy at the resulting price, so I may as well stay home. I repeat: my time has been (effectively) devalued by the FSF. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery (human), allbery@NCoast.ORG (Inet), BALLBERY (MCI Mail) ALLBERY (Delphi), uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery (UUCP), B.ALLBERY (GEnie) BrandonA (A-Online) ("...and a partridge in a pear tree!" ;-)
michael@stb.uucp (Michael Gersten) (03/20/90)
In article <6110@becker.UUCP> bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes:
:There is nothing which prevents you from selling software which
:contains FSF-licenced code.
:
:What you are prohibited from doing is to conceal the source
:code from the customer.
:
:Now this certainly has some economic implications, but they are for
:the most part not the same problems as the ones you fear mistakenly.
What is does imply is that I cannot sell a given program twice. Therefore,
there is no reason to write re-usable software for sale. Each program,
in order to be sellable, must be different from the previous, and it is
my individual changes each time that I am selling.
^^ THAT ^^ is that I don't like.
I have no objection to requiring the source code to be made availible;
however, I want to own the copyright on the source, and not let the
person I sell to own that copy (and in turn give it away or sell it to another
person, etc).
Unless I've mis-understood the copyleft, this is not possible; the source
comes under the copyleft, and its distribution cannot be prevented.
Michael
--
Michael
denwa!stb!michael anes.ucla.edu!stb!michael
"The 80's: Ten years that came in a row."nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (03/20/90)
In article <1990Mar20.005906.21181@NCoast.ORG> allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
The upshot is that I can charge all I want, but I'd better be fully
compensated on the first purchase because a second isn't all that
likely. And nobody will buy at the resulting price, so I may as
well stay home.
The way to sell GNUware is to find a user group who will pay for your
software *in advance*. As you say, people are unlikely to pay for it
once you've distributed it.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemsjejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (03/21/90)
In article <NELSON.90Mar20094646@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >The way to sell GNUware is to find a user group who will pay for your >software *in advance*. As you say, people are unlikely to pay for it >once you've distributed it. I promised myself I'd stay out of this, but I guess I'm succumbing. Sorry. The question then is, how does one find such a group? If I were a potential group, I'd say "let the other guy pay for it, since then I can get it for nothing afterward." The only groups who would pay for software under such circumstances would be 1. Anyone for whom there might be some advantage in having the software first, for however long it takes until someone redistributes it. How long will that be, unless members of the group are bound by some trade secret agreement, and what does that in turn do to the high-sounding philosophy behind GNUware? 2. Ideologically-motivated groups, e.g. some non-profit organization that funds software so that it can be given away. James Jones