" Maynard) (09/14/90)
In article <12347@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: ^^^-> Do you speak for the FSF? >If FSUUCP's authors are using GNUUCP and are not distributing sources, >they are in violation of the GNU General Public License. This very subject was discussed on here a couple of months ago. The question came down to, "What sources do they need to distribute?" The entire FSUUCP package, or just GNUUCP? The author has stated in this group that, because of the possibility that they would have to distribute source to the entire package, that they had stopped using GNUUCP altogether and reimplemented the UUCP communications part of the package completely separate from anything tainted by the GPV. Here's one case where the GPV has acted in direct contradiction to its stated goals: it has decreased sharing of code, instead of increasing it. It's long past time for the soi-disant FSF to quit trying to coerce others to give away their source code. >Check with the authors by phone or postal mail (if you can't reach them >by email). The license specifies that either they must ship matching >sources with the binaries, or they must provide sources to anyone who >asks for them for a nominal charge. If they are doing neither, wave a >club at them and tell them to stop. FSF has never had to sue anyone >over copyleft violation but there's always a first time. Why doesn't FSF pick on someone their own size? The Clarkson packet drivers are distributed under the GPV (which is why I gave up on modifying their SLIP driver for my DG-1 laptop), yet (according to postings on comp.protocols.tcp.ibm-pc) Xircom, the company who makes the Ethernet adapter that plugs in to a PC parallel port, distributes a driver built on the Clarkson skeleton, and prohibits anyone from redistributing the source to it. This is a clear violation of the terms of the GPV. Why isn't the FSF howling at their door? Maybe it's because they're afraid that it will be unenforceable, and they'd rather use the specter of litigation to scare individual software developers into releasing their code? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. "I can't believe I really wrote +---------------------------------------- this." - Henry Spencer, about awf, his nroff -ms subset written in awk
djm@eng.umd.edu (David J. MacKenzie) (09/14/90)
In article <8YW.FW.@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
Here's one case where the GPV has acted in direct contradiction to its stated
goals: it has decreased sharing of code, instead of increasing it.
In the long run, the GPL penalizes people who (unsociably) don't share
their code. FSUUCP is *not* free software, and it is *not* being
shared, despite the term "shareware".
It's long past time for the soi-disant FSF to quit trying to coerce others to
give away their source code.
It's not coersion. FSF can put whatever terms of use they want on the
code that they distribute, and no one who doesn't use FSF code is
affected. Don't misrepresent the GPL, please. If you use my code,
you implicitly agree to abide by my terms. FSF's (the GPL) are
designed to improve the state of software and society; yes, those who
buck against them make extra work for themselves, but they bring that
upon themselves.
Why doesn't FSF pick on someone their own size? The Clarkson packet drivers
are distributed under the GPV (which is why I gave up on modifying their SLIP
driver for my DG-1 laptop), yet (according to postings on
comp.protocols.tcp.ibm-pc) Xircom, the company who makes the Ethernet
adapter that plugs in to a PC parallel port, distributes a driver built on
the Clarkson skeleton, and prohibits anyone from redistributing the source to
it. This is a clear violation of the terms of the GPV. Why isn't the FSF
howling at their door? Maybe it's because they're afraid that it will be
unenforceable, and they'd rather use the specter of litigation to scare
individual software developers into releasing their code?
You're confusing copyright ownership with licensing terms.
FSF only worries about *GNU* code distributed under the GPL; it's
Clarkson's problem if people are violating the license for code that
*they* (not FSF) are the copyright holder for. Not all code placed
under the GPL is copyrighted by FSF, silly! And only the copyright
holder can sue.
FSF *has* had to work with larger companies to get them to comply with
the GPL for GNU code. NeXT has released the Objective-C front end for
GCC under the terms of the GPL; it will be part of gcc version 2
(still under development).
--
David J. MacKenzie <djm@eng.umd.edu> <djm@ai.mit.edu>