mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (06/10/88)
In article <5910001@hplsla.HP.COM>, jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) writes: > Well, as long as we're complaining about naming conventions, how > about complaining about "Free Software Foundation" ??? > Free means Free. > Free does not mean you have an obligation to send someone bucks. You don't. You can get a copy of GNUware from anywhere you find it, with no obligation to send money to anyone as far as the FSF is concerned. > Free does not mean that you are forced to buy into someone else's > political/economic philosophies before one is allowed to use his/her > software. You aren't. I don't have to agree with RMS's notions about software and economics to use GNU Emacs, for example. > Free does not mean you're going to threaten to sue the ass off anyone > who says or does something you don't like. Who's been threatening such? > Free does not mean you take someone else's software that was given to > you without restriction, and add your own licensing restrictions. If 'twas really given to you without restrictions, then you can distribute with added restrictions. Of course, other distribution channels may make identical software available without those added restrictions, but that's irrelevant. But that's all beside the point, because most of the GNUware was either produced expressly for GNU or was given to RMS in the expectation that it would go into GNU, and with the understanding that this would imply that distribution of it would carry GNU redistribution conditions. > Free means free. ...haven't we heard this somewhere before? "Free" seems to have shifted from the "price zero" meaning to the meaning that gives us "freedom" as a related word. Fine, as long as we recognize that it's happening.... > Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having to > consult with a lawyer first. > Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having the > one you're talking about sending his/her lawyer to come talk to you. What's this got to do with GNU? "Normal" commercial vendors are much closer to being this sort of spectre because of non-disclosure and trade secret and all that. > Free means being able to charge a buck for one's efforts, if one > feels the marketplace is willing to pay you a buck for those efforts. This is the only point I feel RMS is going too far on: he's trying to force everyone else into his mold. I agree with his ideals, more or less, but I resist being forced into any molds, even when I sort of like the shape. He's not going very far in that direction, fortunately. I can, for example, use GNU Emacs to write a program and then proceed to use that program in any way I please, including selling it with restrictive license agreements. (This is based on a reading of the GNU Emacs license approximately five minutes ago. If you have read that license and disagree, feel free to explain in what way I have erred.) However, gcc appears to be different. I don't have the gcc license on hand at the moment, but if it's as similar to the emacs license as I expect, a good case could be made that anything compiled with gcc (or *certainly* anything linked with the gcc-distribution library routines) cannot be distributed for-profit or otherwise contrary to Richard's ideals as embodied in the license. Sorry, but I can't live with that. Not that I want to make megabucks off my programs (though I wouldn't object to it! :-); in fact I've posted some of my software to the net and would post more if it weren't for all the local library routines. I just resist being told I *have* to do it that way. > Free means being able to put one ideas in the public domain, if that > is what one chooses to do, for the betterment of all man-kind, > without restriction, to do with as they might. What's this got to do with the FSF? der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
idall@augean.OZ (Ian Dall) (06/14/88)
In article <1144@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: ->In article <5910001@hplsla.HP.COM>, jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) writes: -> ->> Well, as long as we're complaining about naming conventions, how ->> about complaining about "Free Software Foundation" ??? ->However, gcc appears to be different. I don't have the gcc license on ->hand at the moment, but if it's as similar to the emacs license as I ->expect, a good case could be made that anything compiled with gcc (or ->*certainly* anything linked with the gcc-distribution library routines) ->cannot be distributed for-profit or otherwise contrary to Richard's ->ideals as embodied in the license. Is the gcc licence agreement more restrictive than commercial (say AT&T for example) compiler licences. On my system all the include files have AT&T Copyright notices on them. My (binary only) licence doesn't say anything about exemptions for libraries or include files. Arguably giving/selling a program compiled on my system is redistributing stuff that my licence forbids. It would have major ramifications for the whole industry if anyone tried to enforce such an interpretation. -- Ian Dall "In any argument there will be people on your side who you wish were on the other side." idall@augean.oz
cliff@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM (06/24/88)
idall@augean.UUCP writes: > Is the gcc licence agreement more restrictive than commercial (say AT&T > for example) compiler licences. On my system all the include files > have AT&T Copyright notices on them. My (binary only) licence doesn't > say anything about exemptions for libraries or include files. Arguably > giving/selling a program compiled on my system is redistributing stuff > that my licence forbids. It would have major ramifications for the > whole industry if anyone tried to enforce such an interpretation. My Schedule for AT&T Unix System V, Release 3.0 licensing fees says: (v) Use of any portion of [UNIX] in deriving a SUBLICENED PRODUCT will require payment of the full fee for that extansion except as listed below: - Routines from the files in usr/src/lib whose pathnames end in .o or .a may be included in the object-code format in customer developed applications software without payment of a sub-licensing fee to AT&T. - Routines in directories usr/src/head may be used to interface to routine in usr/src/lib whose pathname end in .o or .a or files in usr/lib whose pathnames end in .a without payment of a sublicensing fee to AT&T. It sounds to me as though AT&T isn't such a bad guy after all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Van Dyke cliff@ssd.harris.com Harris Computer System cliff%ssd.harris.com@eddie.mit.edu 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. ...!{mit-eddie,uunet,novavax}!hcx1!cliff Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-1892 Tel: (305) 974-1700
simmons@applga.uucp (Steve Simmons) (06/24/88)
In article <5910003@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes: >[[Various good and true things about using binaries from libraries > in products, which can be summarized as saying "If your licence does > not say you can do it, you can't." and "If your compiler licence does > not say you can sell the output of the compiler, you can't." -- > this is my summary of his remarks. scs ]] You're likely to take some flamage over this, but you're absolutely correct. Corporate lawyers I've spoken with at Bell Northern Research, ADP, and Schlumberger all agree. Those who want to stand up and yell "but that's stupid/insane/unenforcable" should take their flames to the vendors who wrote the licences. In AT&Ts defense, let me point out that last year they lifted the restriction on their libraries and compilers, explicitly allowing you to build the libraries into commercial products and use the output of their compilers in commercial products without restrictions. This was a good move on their part, and one which other vendors should follow. >I do not pretend to know what common industry practice is in these >regards. Actual real-world usage is for developers to include the libraries and compiler output in products; the vendors have turned a blind eye. I remember hearing several years ago someone tried to get royalties from products developed by other folks using their compiler, but don't know the result. Sorry, can't remember names but I think the language was a Pascal. >In general, I believe the FSF license is about as restrictive as other >commercial software [note -- I consider FSF software to be commercial >software] I don't consider FSF to be commercial S/W, but it is as restrictive as most commercial licences I've seen. Stallman has said in an interview in Byte that he does not like the output from GCC used in commercial software, but was not planning on formally restricting it. Bear in mind, tho, that "not planning" does not mean he couldn't do it some time in the future. If I were developing S/W using GCC, I'd get this point cleared up in writing first. >I do know that on the commercial projects I have worked on, >my managers have consistently worked VERY carefully and diligently >to make sure we always clear, clean, legal title to ALL, every >last bit of binary code that goes into our software products. >To do so is frankly a royal pain in the b*tt, and keeps us from >using many otherwise good products. Living proof that there are development companies and compiler vendors both which understand the licencing restrictions. Thanks for the example. >PS: I HATE LAWYERS TOO. [except when they save my *ss] Even sharks have a place in the food chain. -- +- Steve Simmons UNIX Systems Mgr. Schlumberger CAD/CAM -+ + simmons@applga.uucp ...umix!applga!simmons + +- "Opinions expressed are all my own, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc." -+