peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/07/90)
In article <10612@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes
a bunch of stuff about shareware and FSFware.
GNUware and Shareware, while similar, are not directly comparable. Shareware
is basically an alternate form of commercial software. The advantages and
disadvantages of shareware have been debated at excruciating length. The
folks who use scary licences to try to push people to paying for their
shareware offerings are, IMO, fooling themselves. There are those of us who
distribute shareware with an "if you like it, send some cash" message. No
scary copyright notices.
FSFware is like the shareware with the scary copyright notices, except that
it's also surrounded with an odor of sanctity... because the donations they
require are less tightly connected to the almighty dollar. But the bottom line
of GNUware is no less coercive than the "scareware" that John is complaining
about.
Those of us into *really* free software, either voluntary shareware, PD stuff,
or freeware would do well to hold both camps in disdain.
--
_--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
/ \
\_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure!
v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (03/07/90)
In article <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >FSFware is like the shareware with the scary copyright notices, except that >it's also surrounded with an odor of sanctity... because the donations they >require are less tightly connected to the almighty dollar. But the bottom line >of GNUware is no less coercive than the "scareware" that John is complaining >about. the only difference between FSFware and "Freeware" is you can't steal FSFware and pretend you wrote it. that's about the only practical difference. >Those of us into *really* free software, either voluntary shareware, PD stuff, >or freeware would do well to hold both camps in disdain. both have their place. something small and easily re-implmentable i'd rather do as PDware. but a large offering would certainly be FSFware. as for "donations", i believe they are happy with code contributions as donations. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/07/90)
In article <18111@rpp386.cactus.org> jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: > the only difference between FSFware and "Freeware" is you can't steal > FSFware and pretend you wrote it. that's about the only practical > difference. You can't "steal" many of my freeware programs and pretend you wrote them, but I don't require that you make any program you incorporate them in freeware as well. For example, I require that anyone using my Amiga file requestor credit me (as in, file requestor by Peter da Silva somewhere in the docs), but otherwise they're free to use it for any purpose. Other stuff I've written is completely PD, but DP and freeware aren't synonymous. FSFware, on the other hand, may not be used in commercial software (well, you can if you want... but you have to give away the source). That's a big difference. > both have their place. something small and easily re-implmentable i'd > rather do as PDware. but a large offering would certainly be FSFware. Not real freeware? > as for "donations", i believe they are happy with code contributions as > donations. They effectively *require* code contributions. Any product distributed using any FSF code must be placed under the FSF General Public License. -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ "I've about decided that the net is not the place to do the right v thing. It might violate a charter somewhere ..." -- Spenser Aden
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (03/08/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: |In article <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: |>FSFware is like the shareware with the scary copyright notices, except that |>it's also surrounded with an odor of sanctity... because the donations they |>require are less tightly connected to the almighty dollar. But the bottom line |>of GNUware is no less coercive than the "scareware" that John is complaining |>about. |the only difference between FSFware and "Freeware" is you can't steal |FSFware and pretend you wrote it. that's about the only practical |difference. This is 100% off base. GNUware has far more restrictions than most freeware, and the license strongly resembles a virus. It is quite coercive, to the point where I won't use it in my distributions. 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
b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) (03/08/90)
In article <TU129ZCxds13@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <10612@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes > a bunch of stuff about shareware and FSFware. > > FSFware is like the shareware with the scary copyright notices, except that > it's also surrounded with an odor of sanctity... because the donations they > require are less tightly connected to the almighty dollar. But the bottom line > of GNUware is no less coercive than the "scareware" that John is complaining > about. > > Those of us into *really* free software, either voluntary shareware, PD stuff, > or freeware would do well to hold both camps in disdain. GNUware is coercive ? That's utter rubbish. No one forces you to use it. The only restriction on your use of it is that *you* in turn do not restrict anyone else's rights. *That* is why it's not public domain, but rather is governed by a very comprehensive copyright (actually, "copyleft"). To my mind, it's as free as anything else. Or could it be that you just don't like the idea of any improvements you make to code in turn being free ? -- bjh Univrsity College Dublin, Ireland. "There's no future in time travel"
richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (03/10/90)
>You can't "steal" many of my freeware programs and pretend you wrote them, but >I don't require that you make any program you incorporate them in freeware >as well. For example, I require that anyone using my Amiga file requestor >credit me (as in, file requestor by Peter da Silva somewhere in the docs), but >otherwise they're free to use it for any purpose. Other stuff I've written is >completely PD, but DP and freeware aren't synonymous. If I can include your programs in mine then all I need to do to "steal" them is to wrap them in a few lines of my own code. It doesn't sound like your programs are protected from "theft" at all. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/10/90)
> To my mind, it's as free as anything else. Or could it be that you just don't > like the idea of any improvements you make to code in turn being free ? I have no problem with them retaining the rights to their code, and any improvements. What I'm talking about is how the whole of any software that contains any GNU code is considered as no more than such an improvement. That includes (say) a 300K line compiler that happens to use GNU Getopt for command line parsing. Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the point. -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/11/90)
> If I can include your programs in mine then all I need to do to "steal" them > is to wrap them in a few lines of my own code. It doesn't sound like your > programs are protected from "theft" at all. You can't steal something I'm giving away. As for whether you can hide them in your code so I can't look at your program and say "hey, he's using my file requestor in his program"... you can do as much with GNU code, or AT&T Trade Secret code for that matter. I can't claim any magic ability to spot violations any more than anyone else can. -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (03/11/90)
In article <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just
a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the
point.
No one is claiming rights to your code. The copyleft simply insists
that you distribute copylefted code according to the copyleft. So if
you're using a GNU library routine, you must respect its copyright.
It's no more (or less) unreasonable than requiring royalties.
I suppose you rail against libraries that require the payment of royalties
also, but I've never seen you do it.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemsfrk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (03/11/90)
In article <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
#
#Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just
#a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the
#point.
#--
# _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>.
#/ \ 'U`
#\_.--._/
# v
I am afraid that I do not see the point. Especially since you trumpet
this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) in several news groups.
It just looks like the general impression of you on the net as just a
petty little ankle biter is so very true. For you to ask for toleration
of your opinion is the height of arrogance, given the complete lack of
toleration you display towards others.
Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What, you want money for
this software you wrote (or product you created)? How dare you?"
Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/12/90)
In article <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >In article <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: ># >#Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just >#a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the >#point. > >I am afraid that I do not see the point. Especially since you trumpet >this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) in several news groups. >It just looks like the general impression of you on the net as just a >petty little ankle biter is so very true. For you to ask for toleration >of your opinion is the height of arrogance, given the complete lack of >toleration you display towards others. > >Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What, you want money for >this software you wrote (or product you created)? How dare you?" > >Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com) Not at all Frank. And I, for one, find it amusing that you attempted to redirect discussion of this point out of comp.sources.d. I think that Peter has a valid point. You can disagree with it if you like, but it's his point of view and is just as valid as anyone else's. Ad-hominen attacks don't help your case. Let's stick to the issues -- the Gnu license in this case. I have heard several reasoned voices saying that it is in many ways a "virus", in that it tends to infest code that comes in contact with it. Look at the bison parser skeleton. If you create something using it, and make a binary out of it, you have just Copylefted your code -- whether you want to or not. That would be analogous to AT&T saying that you can't sell binaries of programs for their line of computers (3b2 now) without paying them a royalty, since you linked their libraries in with your original code to create the package. Obviously AT&T and other systems vendors don't do this. They would be destroying their market if they did -- no software for sale means no hardware sold, at least in a commercial environment. Now that Richard Stallman and GNU have a philosophy is OK. That they want to (and do) put out reasonable software to use is also OK. But one should be very careful not to confuse GNU with "Free" software. GNU is not free of encumberances, as is public domain code. The encumberances that come with GNU code are very subtle and insidious at times, and subject to much misunderstanding. I don't object to the requirements in the GPL that say you must let people know that the original source is available freely, and even that you must tell people where they can find it. I do object to >your< code coming under it's grasp when you run it through Bison, or when you link it with their libraries (if and when they ever become stable and available). My response is not to improve GNU packages. Those we find useful, we compile up and use. Support and enhance them? No bloody way, since we then HAVE TO GIVE AWAY OUR ENHANCEMENTS TO ANYONE WHO ASKS. Support is also in this picture, since support often entails bug fixes, modifications for specific user needs, and enhancements -- all of which GNU expects us to give away. The only exceptions are those few packages which we make trivial changes to, and don't mind giving away the enhancements. Once we put more than an hour or so into the changes, we stop. Simple enough. Tell me -- let's say you could get GNU C freely, OR you could buy a GNU C-based compiler for $500 from some company, but the enhanced version could not be distributed. Why object to that? If you don't like the fee, get the free version! Of course, the free version doesn't include the efforts of the people who enhanced it later on. Such is the price of the enhancements; you're not being forced to buy them! That, I think, is the point of Peter's and others objections. (Donning asbestos flame-proof suit!) -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/12/90)
In article <NELSON.90Mar10121402@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > I suppose you rail against libraries that require the payment of royalties > also, but I've never seen you do it. You've never seen me rail against libraries that require royalty payments simply because I haven't seen any since long before I even heard of the GNU manifesto. It's a red herring. OK, I didn't plan on getting sucked into another pointless debate on whether the GNU copyleft is a good thing or not. You obviously have the right to put whatever terms you want on the redistribution of your code that you want. But by saying that your software is free because you don't demand money in exchange for it has lead to the following two misapprehensions: (1) The terms freeware and GNUware are equivalent. (2) The only way to keep people from stealing your code is to put it under the GNU Public License. Is it OK for me to point out that these two statements are false without being flamed for it? -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) (03/12/90)
In article <1990Mar11.192604.7216@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:
Ah, Mr. Denninger, we cross swords again. Well, lets have at it.
#Let's stick to the issues -- the Gnu license in this case. I have heard
#several reasoned voices saying that it is in many ways a "virus", in that it
#tends to infest code that comes in contact with it.
#
Let me make you aware of the following:
CMU distributes MACH with the restriction that any enhancements made to
it are to be returned to CMU, to be included in further MACH distributions.
This may sound familiar.
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.
These are just two instances that I know of, of academia protecting
themselves from the commercial world. These concepts, like those in
GNU, are not the first, nor will they be the last, of people trying
to protect their interests.
I find the examples that you and peter have chosen (of getopt and bison)
to be somewhat contrived. Setting aside the issue of including GNU
source into your programs for the moment, we are left with the following:
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.
There are no such complications with the GNU assembler (GAS) or the GNU
loader (GLD). Nor with all the numerous utilities.
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.
So the "nasty" virus-like qualities you and peter attribute to GNU
just do not really exist for the use of the GNU programs.
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.
#My response is not to improve GNU packages. Those we find useful, we
#compile up and use. Support and enhance them? No bloody way, since we
#then HAVE TO GIVE AWAY OUR ENHANCEMENTS TO ANYONE WHO ASKS. Support is
#also in this picture, since support often entails bug fixes, modifications
#for specific user needs, and enhancements -- all of which GNU expects us
#to give away. The only exceptions are those few packages which we make
#trivial changes to, and don't mind giving away the enhancements. Once we
#put more than an hour or so into the changes, we stop. Simple enough.
You object to giving away your enhancements to something you acquired
for nothing. I find that bizarre. If it were not available you would
have nothing to enhance. I have seen plenty of your postings on the net
criticizing SCO and Interactive for bugs in their software. They do not
provide you the source, so you cannot fix or enhance their products.
You have made all of us aware of your displeasure in this case.
#Tell me -- let's say you could get GNU C freely, OR you could buy a GNU
#C-based compiler for $500 from some company, but the enhanced version could
#not be distributed. Why object to that? If you don't like the fee, get the
#free version! Of course, the free version doesn't include the efforts of
#the people who enhanced it later on. Such is the price of the
#enhancements; you're not being forced to buy them!
But this is what we have now. You can buy compilers like GNU (without source),
and you cannot distribute them. GNU is just providing the other option.
What is YOUR objection? GNU now gives you access to the numerous enhancements
that have been added by others, and people continue to enhance it. The
quality of the current GNU programs exceeds what you can get commercialy, and
I can only see that situation continuing. In the future I see GNU will
outpace commercial products in quality and functionality. The loss of any
enhancements by people turned off to the GNU license is just a myth. You
would not be able to get them free in any case, so who cares about them.
#(Donning asbestos flame-proof suit!)
#
#--
#Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl)
#Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910]
#Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
Nice suit. I remember a hue and cry raised about you signature a year ago.
After complaints about you advertising there, you removed the ad. I
notice that the ad is back. Perhaps you have a short memory. We don't.
Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)coolidge@cassius.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) (03/12/90)
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 :-) >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. >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. >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. >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. --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.
dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (03/12/90)
In article <1142@mtxinu.UUCP>, frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: > In article <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > >Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just > >a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the > >point. > > Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What, you want money for > this software you wrote (or product you created)? How dare you?" > Let us pose these statements in a slightly different though I would argue equivalent fashion. My bricks are free. If you use my bricks I require anyone who you must compensate uses any of my bricks <-> me. in a building to give away the building for free. Oh yeah. These sound real equivalent to me. Sure.... If you believe that I also have some ocean front property in Kansas for you. Note that if I want to do commercial work these bricks are USELESS. Works that require compensation I can use they just require that I pay them their just due. These two concepts are in no way, shape, or form equivalent. And I do love how adolescent people can get when accusing others of adolescent behavior. -------- I'm intrigued, however, by a previous poster's assertion that the GNU copyleft doesn't actually extend to cover code that you wrote but rather only covers the GNU code which you used. If that is actually the case then you could still use the library but, if someone asked for it you would have to give them the sources for the GNU library not including any of the code that you created. I would think the same would hold for Bison, i.e. you would have to supply the naked parser skeleton source if requested but, not the filled in one. The filling after all, is really just a translation of your code in the same fashion that an executable oject image is the translation of C code you created. I'm going to have to go re-read the copyleft to see if I believe that is really what it says. That wasn't the impression I came away with last time I waded through it. David Albrecht
c9h@psuhcx.psu.edu (Charles M. Hannum) (03/12/90)
I think the most important thing is that *I* don't get PAID for enhancing GNU products. A person working for GNU *does*. GNU gets grants up the wazoo to continue their work. Even if I completely overhaul GNU CC, I wouldn't get a SINGLE CENT for it. While that may be all fine and dandy in *your* eyes, it's *not* in mine. Getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (monetary or otherwise) for my work just doesn't appeal to me. - Charles Hannum c9h@hcx.psu.edu
karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) (03/12/90)
Note: followups redirected to alt.flame (yes, I warn you now) In article <1150@mtxinu.UUCP> frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >In article <1990Mar11.192604.7216@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > >Ah, Mr. Denninger, we cross swords again. Well, lets have at it. How about discussing the issues rather than dueling? >#Let's stick to the issues -- the Gnu license in this case. I have heard >#several reasoned voices saying that it is in many ways a "virus", in that it >#tends to infest code that comes in contact with it. ># > >I find the examples that you and peter have chosen (of getopt and bison) >to be somewhat contrived. Setting aside the issue of including GNU >source into your programs for the moment, we are left with the following: > >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. For now. What happens when there is a real libc.a? Not that it matters; the solution is simply not to develop for GNU C if you want to keep your code free of external encumberances. >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. So why does GNU have the restrictions at all? >So the "nasty" virus-like qualities you and peter attribute to GNU >just do not really exist for the use of the GNU programs. > >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. Yep. My complaint is that people are >not aware< of the ramifications of all of this until after the fact, and that the GNU people have promoted their software as "Free" when in reality it is a way to make other people's software "Free" -- by their definition. As in the "Free Software Foundation". It sounds awfully contrived. As I said before, but you carefully omitted from your followup, I do not object to the FSF itself, or the code, or the restrictions themselves. I OBJECT TO MISLEADING PEOPLE WITH TERMINOLOGY. It is not GNU that I object to, or their code. I am not Peter. I object to misleading statements or innuendo. Is that such a terrible thing? Now we have that straight, yes? >#My response is not to improve GNU packages. Those we find useful, we >#compile up and use. Support and enhance them? No bloody way, since we >#then HAVE TO GIVE AWAY OUR ENHANCEMENTS TO ANYONE WHO ASKS. Support is >#also in this picture, since support often entails bug fixes, modifications >#for specific user needs, and enhancements -- all of which GNU expects us >#to give away. The only exceptions are those few packages which we make >#trivial changes to, and don't mind giving away the enhancements. Once we >#put more than an hour or so into the changes, we stop. Simple enough. > >You object to giving away your enhancements to something you acquired >for nothing. I find that bizarre. If it were not available you would >have nothing to enhance. I have seen plenty of your postings on the net >criticizing SCO and Interactive for bugs in their software. They do not >provide you the source, so you cannot fix or enhance their products. >You have made all of us aware of your displeasure in this case. So what? ISC at least has been very good about fixing those bugs, and SCO has been too with their Xenix product. Let me ask you -- what is the response when there is a bug in a GNU product? Is "fix it yourself" an option, even for those with source, in a commercial production environment? Is the response "hire a programmer"? There went the "free" in the Free Software Foundation..... Do you see me flaming about GNU product bugs? Nope. Why not? We didn't pay anything for them or the code that they contain. Why would I complain about the bugs? You see, we can fix them, and in addition I had no expectation of quality, since the code was >free<. Do you find that bizarre? >#Tell me -- let's say you could get GNU C freely, OR you could buy a GNU >#C-based compiler for $500 from some company, but the enhanced version could >#not be distributed. Why object to that? If you don't like the fee, get the >#free version! Of course, the free version doesn't include the efforts of >#the people who enhanced it later on. Such is the price of the >#enhancements; you're not being forced to buy them! > >But this is what we have now. You can buy compilers like GNU (without source), >and you cannot distribute them. GNU is just providing the other option. >What is YOUR objection? GNU now gives you access to the numerous enhancements >that have been added by others, and people continue to enhance it. The >quality of the current GNU programs exceeds what you can get commercialy, and >I can only see that situation continuing. In the future I see GNU will >outpace commercial products in quality and functionality. I can't say that in many cases the quality of the GNU products exceed that of those which are commercial, especially if you start counting security holes (ie: the problem with GNU-EMACS which allows anyone to become root in a few minutes, no I will not elaborate further). I suppose that if you don't count security as important you might have a point.... You feel that the quality of GNU software exceeds that which is available for a price. I understand your opinion.... but you are omitting the fact that commercial software houses, which by definition are in business to make a profit, have slightly important things like a operational kernel, all the standard Unix utilities, etc..... and GNU does not at this time. They also have "load and go" distributions for different machines; an important thing if you want to have other than "hackers" use the stuff. I'm sure funding has something to do with that; their functionality exceeds GNUs by a rather large margin when taken as the sum of the pieces rather than each individual piece. GNU has been around for quite a while. Where's the kernel that has been talked about? Where's the packaged implementation? How are you going to convince >business< to use it? The cost of a Unix binary license from ISC, DEC, or anyone else (or even a source license from AT&T!) pales beside the expense of keeping a high-caliber kernel and utility programmer on-staff to port, maintain and enhance the GNU packages! As I said before, my objection is not with GNU packages, or even with the FSF itself. Nor is it with Richard Stallman. It's with misleading people into thinking that Copylefted code is truly free. It most certainly is not free -- in the truest sense of the word. It doesn't come with a pricetag, true, but it does come with all kinds of encumberances and costs which lurk waiting for the unsuspecting. The code which I want to be freely available, without encumberances, I do not Copyleft. I Copyright it with specific conditions -- usually with the conditions that the code not be sold, my notices and name be left in, and disclaim warranties. The code which I do this to is more "free" than that covered under the GPL. Using or distributing it doesn't obligate anyone to do anything. >The loss of any >enhancements by people turned off to the GNU license is just a myth. You >would not be able to get them free in any case, so who cares about them. Really? Is it a myth? How do you back up that statement? Why don't you state it as your opinion instead! I'd like you see your evidence, since you state this as an axiom. >#(Donning asbestos flame-proof suit!) ># >#-- >#Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) >#Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] >#Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" > >Nice suit. I remember a hue and cry raised about you signature a year ago. >After complaints about you advertising there, you removed the ad. I >notice that the ad is back. Perhaps you have a short memory. We don't. Frank, how soon you forget. I took a survey on the signature line. It was overwhelmingly in support of leaving it alone (over 80% in favor; I still have the responses here). Thus I did exactly that -- the line was never removed in the first place. Sheesh. Talk about off the subject! Perhaps it is time to redirect followups to alt.flame.... -- Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, <well-connected>!ddsw1!karl) Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price"
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (03/13/90)
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: |No one is claiming rights to your code. The copyleft simply insists |that you distribute copylefted code according to the copyleft. So if |you're using a GNU library routine, you must respect its copyright. |It's no more (or less) unreasonable than requiring royalties. And Russ calls this "free" software? Bah, humbug! -- *** 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
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (03/13/90)
frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: |In article <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: |#Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just |#a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the |#point. |I am afraid that I do not see the point. Especially since you trumpet |this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) in several news groups. |It just looks like the general impression of you on the net as just a |petty little ankle biter is so very true. For you to ask for toleration |of your opinion is the height of arrogance, given the complete lack of |toleration you display towards others. Just because you can't see a point isn't grounds for flaming someone in comp.sources.d. If you're going to get into petty insults, post your ORIGINAL article to alt.flame, not just the followups. 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
robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) (03/13/90)
In article <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >In article <HL42IIggpc2@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >#Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just >#a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the >#point. >I am afraid that I do not see the point. Especially since you trumpet >this line of reasoning (if you can call it that) in several news groups. >It just looks like the general impression of you on the net as just a >petty little ankle biter is so very true. For you to ask for toleration >of your opinion is the height of arrogance, given the complete lack of >toleration you display towards others. Having a bad day Frank? I admit I don't read all news groups but any postings of seen of Peters where reasoned arguments supporting his view; I've never, for instance, seen him call anybody a "petty little ankle biter". (aside: Don't ya just *really* hate people who post flames with redirection to alt.flame!) >Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What, you want money for >this software you wrote (or product you created)? How dare you?" Actually his statement is equivalent to "What, you want ALL the money from this software I wrote (or product I created)? How dare you?". I have no problems with the existance of FSF; I don't agree with it, and hence I don't use it. BUT it really bothers me that people keep misrepresenting what FSF software is. Freeware is: "here it is, do with it what you want". FSFware is: "here it is, use it however you want, but if distribute modified FSFware or anything that includes any FSFware, it is then FSFware, and you MUST distribute the source for media costs forever and ever". Shareware is "here it is, it's mine so if you try it out and want to continue to use it you must send me money". Donateware is "here it is, it is mine, use it and if you like it and you are a nice guy, send me a donation, please" Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it. Only freeware has NO restrictions. Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF. Rob. -- Robert A. Osborne {...uunet!mnetor,...utzoo}!lsuc!isgtec!robert
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (03/13/90)
As quoted from <1990Mar12.060117.2305@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> by coolidge@cassius.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge): +--------------- | frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: | >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. +--------------- I'm pleased to hear this; if it's true, I'll remove the nastygram from the shell script wrapper to gcc on telotech. Said nastygram saying approximately "don't compile Unify 2000 stuff with this on pain of immediate dismemberment by opposing factions at the FSF and Unify Corp. trying to assert copyright on each other". If the FSF had a Unify 2000 clone, this might be different. (Let it be noted that I have some plans to look at the feasibility of such a clone, but on my schedule it won't be available until about 2050.) +--------------- | 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++ +--------------- ack. So much for porting g++. (Well, maybe. I don't expect anything approximating production code for a looooong time.) [I'm still trying to make gdb work on the Altos, btw. Wish I knew more about such things. (The System V/386 port appears to want an incompatible stack frame, even with the System V/386 gcc.)] +--------------- | 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. +--------------- You are forgetting that AT&T and others learned long ago that such restrictions are a way of shooting oneself in the foot. ++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!" ;-)
marc@dumbcat.UUCP (Marco S Hyman) (03/13/90)
In article <316@toylnd.UUCP> dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes:
Let us pose these statements in a slightly different though I would argue
equivalent fashion.
My bricks are free. If you use my bricks
I require anyone who you must compensate
uses any of my bricks <-> me.
in a building to give
away the building for
free.
As long as we're playing games... the GNU analogy, at least with emacs and
GCC, is quite different. I'd put it this way:
My tools are free.
You can use my tools
to make your own If you use my tools you must
building. However, compensate me. If you make
If you make the building <-> a building out of my tools
out of my tools you we'd better have an agree-
must then make the ment in writing.
building free also.
But it's really irrelevant. I have strong doubts that this thread will
change anybody's mind about shareware, GNUware, freeware, or any other type
of ware likely to appear in comp.sources.all.
// marc
--
// {ames,decwrl,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marc
// pacbell!dumbcat!marc@lll-winken.llnl.govdca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (03/13/90)
In article <1150@mtxinu.UUCP>, frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: > In article <1990Mar11.192604.7216@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: > 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. I can agree about getopt. However, obviously I haven't been traveling the same streets. Given that my box isn't MSDOS compatible or possibly isn't even Unix (though I can at least read a MSDOS disk) please be so kind as to enumerate some of these plethora of parser generators which I can purchase or at least point me in the direction of a periodical from whence I can see them for myself. David Albrecht
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (03/14/90)
I'd like to comment on what I think are a couple of minor misapprehensions:
In article <306@isgtec.UUCP> robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes:
: Freeware is: "here it is, do with it what you want".
:
: FSFware is: "here it is, use it however you want, but if distribute
: modified FSFware or anything that includes any FSFware, it is then FSFware,
: and you MUST distribute the source for media costs forever and ever".
The GPL doesn't actually say "media costs". It says, in one spot, "You may
charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy," and in another
spot, "except for a nominal charge for the cost of distribution". I would
interpret this to mean (or at least interpret this to be interpretable
as meaning) that if you have to hire someone at $35,000 a year to make the
distribution, and you expect to distribute 10 copies in that year, a nominal
charge would be $3500 plus media costs. I exaggerate slightly, of course. :-)
: Shareware is "here it is, it's mine so if you try it out and want to
: continue to use it you must send me money".
:
: Donateware is "here it is, it is mine, use it and if you like it and
: you are a nice guy, send me a donation, please"
Please send me $100,000 if you like Perl and if you are a nice guy... :-)
: Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it.
: Only freeware has NO restrictions.
: Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF.
Two points to make here. First, the GPL doesn't say you have to give
your code to FSF. It merely says it has to be distributed under the
terms of the same license. You can retain ownership of your code.
This leads to the second point, which is that you should make another
class of software, which I'd call GPLware. I use the GPL for Perl, not
because I'm interested in giving Perl to FSF (I'm not), nor because I
want to force everyone to give their code to me (I don't), nor because
I think the GPL is perfect for any and every piece of software (it ain't).
I personally feel that FSF would better accomplish their goals by letting
their libraries be linked to proprietary products. That's pragmatics, not
religion. More like seduction than rape.
I don't think that small items such as might fit into a single Usenet
article should use the GPL. It's like pretending /bin/true is proprietary,
which nobody in their right mind would do.
But for a package like Perl, which is self-contained and doesn't trigger
the so-called "virus", the GPL is close to what I want. It provides
a framework of protections for everyone involved. Since I own the
copyright, it doesn't prevent me from taking a piece of my own code and
using it however I like (including giving it away with a copyright
instead of a copyleft). But it prevents someone from taking the code
and making some kind of travesty of it, then duping innocent people
into thinking it's the real thing, and making them pay for their ignorance
to boot. This has happened to me before. I can't say that I like it.
But I agree that people shouldn't call each other ankle-biters in this
newsgroup. (Even if it's true. :-)
Larry "$GPL != $FSF" Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.govbstempleton@watmath.waterloo.edu (Brad Templeton) (03/14/90)
It is worth noting that if you feel (as some here have indicated) that the shareware licence concept is meaningless and need not be respected, the same applies to the freeware licence, "You may use this program for free for non-commercial purposes." -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software, Waterloo, Ont. (519) 884-7473
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (03/14/90)
In article <7401@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes:
But for a package like Perl, which is self-contained and doesn't trigger
the so-called "virus", the GPL is close to what I want. It provides
a framework of protections for everyone involved.
I feel exactly the same way about my 'Freemacs' text editor (for MS-LOSS)
and the 'Packet Drivers' (again, for MS-LOSS). Both are self-contained
and give the contributors and I some protection from misappropriation.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemsbitbug@lonewolf.sun.com (James Buster) (03/14/90)
It seems to me that what is perhaps missing from this discussion is that if
I place my code under GPL, I am still the copyright holder. The fact that
the FSF distributes its code under a license with the same wording in no way
changes this. So distributing my code under GPL does not remove my rights as
copyright holder.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
James Buster (Domain) bitbug@lonewolf.ebay.sun.com
Mad Hacker Extraordinaire (UUCP) ...!sun.com!lonewolf!bitbug
---------------------------------------------------------------------seanf@sco.COM (Sean Fagan) (03/14/90)
In article <2168@psuhcx.psu.edu> c9h@psuhcx.psu.edu (Charles M. Hannum) writes: >1.MCS.COM> < >I think the most important thing is that *I* don't get PAID for enhancing GNU >products. A person working for GNU *does*. GNU gets grants up the wazoo to >continue their work. Even if I completely overhaul GNU CC, I wouldn't get a >SINGLE CENT for it. While that may be all fine and dandy in *your* eyes, >it's *not* in mine. Getting ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (monetary or otherwise) for my >work just doesn't appeal to me. Uhm, quite a few of the people who contribute to the FSF don't get paid. Michael Tiemann, author of G++ and porter to several different architectures, didn't get paid for quite a bit of the work he did (he did get paid for some, I think, and now he gets paid to do it all the time). Not all of us care about money, you see. Sure, it's nice, and it pays the bills, but that's why we have jobs 8-). Seriously, the reason I disagree with the copyleft is because it *steals* code, in a sense. (For examples, see previous articles by myself and Peter, among others...) Shareware is getting lots of flack because it steals resources. Most news articles offer little, but, then, they expect little (as I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't ask anybody to send me money if they read this message); shareware offers a possibly useful program, but, then, it also expects money in return, in addition to eating up resources (disk space in the spool directories, phone time, etc.). This is very contrary to UseNET customs (where, traditionally, either public domain or "freely distributable" programs are posted; sadly, there are some notable exceptions). -- Sean Eric Fagan | "Time has little to do with infinity and jelly donuts." seanf@sco.COM | -- Thomas Magnum (Tom Selleck), _Magnum, P.I._ (408) 458-1422 | Any opinions expressed are my own, not my employers'.
robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) (03/15/90)
In article lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >In article <306@isgtec.UUCP> robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert Osborne) writes: >: Donateware is "here it is, it is mine, use it and if you like it and >: you are a nice guy, send me a donation, please" > >Please send me $100,000 if you like Perl and if you are a nice guy... :-) I don't like Perl :-) (actually I've never used it) > >Two points to make here. First, the GPL doesn't say you have to give >your code to FSF. It merely says it has to be distributed under the >terms of the same license. You can retain ownership of your code. If the source will be distributed to all who ask for it, I don't think you've "retained ownership", except in the "I'm proud to say this is mine" way. >But for a package like Perl, which is self-contained and doesn't trigger >the so-called "virus", the GPL is close to what I want. Hmmh, I never thought of this situation. PD, useble for commecial development, but protected from commercial software takeover. I may have to change some of my ideas about the GPL. Rob. -- Robert A. Osborne {...uunet!mnetor,...utzoo}!lsuc!isgtec!robert
b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) (03/15/90)
In article <306@isgtec.UUCP>, robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) writes: > I have no problems with the existance of FSF; I don't agree with it, > and hence I don't use it. BUT it really bothers me that people keep > misrepresenting what FSF software is. > > > Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it. > Only freeware has NO restrictions. > Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF. > It bothers me, too when people refer to GNU software copyleft disparagingly as a "snare". The simple answer is - you don't like GNU software because the FSF won't let you make money from what was ultimately other people's work. Okay, so you modified it. Big deal - if you made such extensive changes, and feel the need for some profit from that, why use any GNU source code in the first place ? [I'm not referring to Rob here] People misunderstand the purpose of the FSF - it exists so that ordinary users can have the benefit of decent software (often better than commerecial products) at a nominal cost. People like you obviously don't appreciate this principle. Fine. But don't attack the FSF because of it. Cheers, bjh
jeff@samna.UUCP (jeff) (03/17/90)
In article <7401@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >I don't think that small items such as might fit into a single Usenet >article should use the GPL. It's like pretending /bin/true is proprietary, >which nobody in their right mind would do. >Larry "$GPL != $FSF" Wall Thought this was kinda amusing: "cat /bin/true" on my AT&T 3B2 produces all kinds of warnings to the effect that "This is unpublished *proprietary* source code," etc. (I won't post the specifics for fear of the dread AT&T copyright lawyers :-). However, there is not a single executable statement in the file. Jeff
" Maynard) (03/19/90)
In article <852.25ff8253@ccvax.ucd.ie> b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) writes: >In article <306@isgtec.UUCP>, robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) writes: >> Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it. >> Only freeware has NO restrictions. >> Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF. >It bothers me, too when people refer to GNU software copyleft disparagingly >as a "snare". The simple answer is - you don't like GNU software because >the FSF won't let you make money from what was ultimately other people's >work. Okay, so you modified it. Big deal - if you made such extensive >changes, and feel the need for some profit from that, why use any GNU >source code in the first place ? [I'm not referring to Rob here] The FSF won't let me distribute MY work freely if it includes a small part of their work. They require me to include the whole of my work under their terms. The whole of my program falls under their license just because I (possibly unknowingly) used their getopt routine, for example. I'm not interested in making money from their code. I don't believe they should be able to force me to support their utopia, either. >People misunderstand the purpose of the FSF - it exists so that ordinary >users can have the benefit of decent software (often better than commerecial >products) at a nominal cost. People like you obviously don't appreciate >this principle. Fine. But don't attack the FSF because of it. Go read the GNU Manifesto again. The FSF exists to make Stallman's utopia a reality. He's welcome to the idea, but don't force me into the same mold. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. attctc, RIP. It was nice knowing ya +---------------------------------------- "Klein bottle for sale. Inquire within." - Charles Hannum
sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (03/20/90)
b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) writes: |People misunderstand the purpose of the FSF - it exists so that ordinary |users can have the benefit of decent software (often better than commerecial |products) at a nominal cost. People like you obviously don't appreciate |this principle. Fine. But don't attack the FSF because of it. I doubt if anyone here misunderstands the purpose of FSF. That purpose is twofold: 1. To provide source code access to their utilities. 2. To prevent anyone from incorporating FSF code into a distribution who does not wish to also provide the same level access to the rest of that distribution. The gripe most people have is with #2. Lots of people have different ideas about distribution restrictions. FSF code isn't actually "free", because before you can distribute it, you have to compromise your own code. Sorry folks, but that means FSFware isn't free. It means FSFware is a tool for pushing their political view on how software should be distributed. "Free" would mean they have room for other views, but they don't. My copyright is less restrictive than theirs, but I can't use it if I wish to incorporate their code. If FSFware were free, it wouldn't require other code to conform to their copyright, and therefore their political views. "Freedom" means room for diversity of thought and opinion, not one way to do everything. 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