tneff@bfmny0.BFM.COM (Tom Neff) (01/29/91)
It seems to me that rms is entitled to his alternate distribution method if he wants it. It's a reasonably sane method of preventing others from reselling, for profit, code that was written to be distributed for free. If you want to make money off software, write it or buy it. Only a software "industry" accustomed to glomming freeware into salable product would seem likely to feel offended by GNU. In the meantime, here's a chance to make Adam Smith proud. Write competing packages that do everything GNU does, and sell them cheap. Astound your friends, make the cover of TIME. :-)
oz@nexus.YorkU.CA (Ozan Yigit) (01/29/91)
[this article appeared in a gnu newsgroup, and it is thought to be very illuminating for those following the progress of FSF, and its politics, from either supportive or non-supportive positions. enjoy... oz] --- From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Why we use copyleft Message-ID: <9101282011.AA20121@mole.ai.mit.edu> Date: 28 Jan 91 20:11:23 GMT Lines: 37 Currently we don't let people turn our software into proprietary software. Some people consider our policy "taking away freedom". But freedom to do what? Only the freedom to be a software hoarder and undermine the freedom of others. Thus, the question is whether we defend freedom best by trying to prevent others from taking it away, or by passively letting everyone else do whatever they want. Some people are pacifists; they believe in being peaceful even to murderers, rapists or tyrants. It would be fully consistent for a pacifist to believe in putting software in the public domain. But I'm not a pacifist. (Most of you are not pacifists either.) I think it makes sense to have policemen try to stop or catch murderers, and armies or revolutions try to stop or catch tyrants, even if they have to shoot. Likewise, though on a different scale of intensity, I think it makes sense to use the weapons of software hoarding (such as copyright) against hoarders to prevent hoarding. Think of this as economic sanctions--offering aid in exchange for progress in recognizing particular human rights. If that means we lose business, that's ok. We also lose business when we refuse to trade with South Africa or Iraq. The purpose of the GNU project is not to maximize the amount of use of GNU software. It is to promote freedom. The example of X Windows shows what would happen without the copyleft. Most users who get X Windows get just a binary. They can't get the source for the version they are running. The MIT source may not interoperate with it, since it may not contain the changes needed for the particular operating system in use. The result is that X Windows is not free for most users. (I myself have had this problem.) And many improvements made to X Windows are kept proprietary and do not get back to the community. GNU software avoids this problem, while being nonetheless well accepted. This shows that the copyleft is working. It would be silly for us to drop our sanctions now.
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (01/30/91)
Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims; rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. Hence, his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its software to further his goals. This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my programming. This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors (even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to license their code under non-utopian terms. Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (01/30/91)
In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >programming. It's a shame that you're so paranoid. Be sure to not buy a computer from NeXT or DG or Convex -- they're out to taint your work by shipping GPV-protected source code with their operating system.
de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (01/30/91)
In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > >Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in >maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public [License] claims; >rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. It means he's not willing to compromise his belief in the advantages of Free software to benefit a group that doesn't share that belief. To do otherwise would be counterproductive to his, and the FSF's, goals. >Hence, >his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of >buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. Not selling someone else's product without their consent is hardly a stiff price to pay. You're asking people to not only give you their code, but to give you their rights to it. >I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its >software to further his goals. I find it rather clever that we're able to fight fire with fire. >This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >programming. This is sheer alarmist nonsense. There's no more danger of GNU-license legal challenges than there is from any other licensed product. In fact, I'd think a megabucks/megalawyer operation like AT&T would be more likely to enforce it's System V source licensing. Are you paranoid about *all* licensed code, or just GNU-licensed code? If you sold source to your products, how would it be licensed, and what protection would your customers have against it "infecting" *their* product? >This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not >acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll >be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors >(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to >license their code under non-utopian terms. What's a shame is that you've got such a paranoia about the GNU license that you won't even use any of the GNU tools. Do you think, perhaps, that a snippet of GNU code might inject itself into your product? I suspect that, in fact, you're really *not* that afraid, and you're just trying to make a point. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.
cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) (01/30/91)
In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > >Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in >maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims; >rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. Hence, So, what's your point? >his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of >buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. >I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its >software to further his goals. > He wrote the software. He owns it and can do whatevery he wishes with it. Most others write software to further their own goals too (namely to maximize their own personal monetary gain). He just chooses to pursue his own goals. >This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted Do you mean that you are using the ownership of your software to further your own goals? >by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >programming. Well, that is your right. You don't have to use his code. >This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not >acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll >be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors >(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to >license their code under non-utopian terms. That too is your right. Conway Yee, N2JWQ yee@ming.mipg.upenn.edu (preferred) 231 S. Melville St. cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (forwarded to above) Philadelphia, Pa 19139 yee@bnlx26.nsls.bnl.gov (rarely checked) (215) 386-1312
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (01/30/91)
>>>>> On 29 Jan 91 16:24, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) said:
Jay> This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected
Jay> code on my computer, since I cannot risk having the source of
Jay> some of my income tainted by association with GPV code; whether
Jay> or not it's infected by the GPV, I can't afford the legal
Jay> representation I'd need to defend my rights in my programming.
Interesting. Companies such as Commodore, Data General, NeXT, etc, are
able to handle the problem (they all distribute GCC, DG and NeXT as
the *only* C compiler for their system).
Do you have the same problem with having SysV source code, or other
properitary information?
Jay> This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
Jay> acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more
Jay> likely that I'll be able to reimplement them more easily than I
Jay> could convince their authors (even those not directly associated
Jay> with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to license their code under
Jay> non-utopian terms.
GPL is not utopian. It works. DG contributed a 88k port to GCC. That
was the *price* they had to pay in order to use and distribute GCC
with the AViiON. A healthy deal for all parties involved.
Jay> Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,...
Sure. You're free *not* to use these tools if you like.
/Lars
--
Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Beauty is a French phonetic corruption
CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | - FZccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) (01/30/91)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) wrote: > Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in > maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims; > rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. Sigh. Was there ever reason to believe he wanted anything else? Everyone wants the world to be more like their ideal world. Is this surprising? > Hence, > his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of > buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. > I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its > software to further his goals. I agree that's his expressed ambition, and it's something I have reservations about myself (mostly a fear of the unknown), but you certainly don't have to buy in to anything. All you have to do is propagate the conditions (you get full source, this propagation constraint, and no other constraints) you got it under. It's designed to further RMS's declared milestone of a full software environment with source that people can give to others. But you don't have to like it (I don't like having to licence BSD 4.3 from AT&T!), or take any action which furthers his goals (no local hacks -> no increased value for Gnuware). >This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >programming. This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not >acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll >be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors >(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to >license their code under non-utopian terms. Why? If it becomes "tainted", you can untaint it, as long as you haven't distributed it, and the legal risks are much less, due to the FSF's funding restrictions, than having commercial source around. What would AT&T do if some of its source got into your product? What can't you do with the tools that you'd like to, except for the licencing. Integrating them into software which you hold the copyright to doesn't advance RMS's goal of building more software with distributable source, so you can expect he won't like it. But it's also contrary to other companies' objectives of keeping their trade secrets or extorting gobs of money, so it's not as if the restriction is unusual. >Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,... Really, I can't see the fuss. If you just want to *use* them, you don't need to keep source on-line at all if you're paranoid. I've heard Lotus (which RMS has picketed a few times) uses gcc, I've had people at Microsoft tell me they'd use it for product development if it could generate workable 8086 code (MS uses an interpreted Pcode for non-core parts of their apps for space reasons; the C compiler to this is a notorious hack and replacing it with GCC has been seriously considered). The company I worked for a few years ago, when bringing up their Unix-like platform ported Gnu tools like crazy as the best way to satisfy customer demand for the functionality. NeXT based their objective-C compiler on GCC. They got what they wanted, source is available if you want it (although most are waiting for GCC 2 with everything merged more comfortably), and everyone's happy. Oh, well, it's well known that there will always be *some* people who are unhappy. All the revolutions in the planet's history ever seem to accomplish was to move that set around. -- -Colin
lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) (01/30/91)
In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
: This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my
: computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted
: by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I
: can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
: programming.
Oh, and I can? Sheesh.
: This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
: acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll
: be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors
: (even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to
: license their code under non-utopian terms.
I'll say it again for the logic impaired. I'm willing to give away pieces
of perl code without restriction upon request. I'm also willing to talk
about different licensing for perl that would give you unrestricted use as
long as you don't redistribute. Nothing more viral than a commercial license.
Shoot, I might even have to charge you $1 to make it legal. Hmm, make
that $1000. No, $50,000. Yeah, that's the ticket... :-)
Frankly, I think the GPL is a better deal, personal phobias notwithstanding.
: Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
: jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'm trying, believe you me.
Larry Wall
lwall@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.govsrc@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) (01/30/91)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >by association with GPV code; 'any' ?? i get the impression that you didn't read the GPL (carefully). -- Heiko Blume <-+-> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de <-+-> (+49 30) 691 88 93 public source archive [HST V.42bis]: scuzzy Any ACU,f 38400 6919520 gin:--gin: nuucp sword: nuucp uucp scuzzy!/src/README /your/home
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (01/30/91)
Yea, verily, my mailbox runneth over. I've gotten a flood of comments, both here in comp.misc (I don't get any of the gnu.* groups) and by email, generally blasting me for contending that the FSF may not be snow-pure because of what I see as an unreasonable license policy. My problem is with the part of the GNU General Public Virus that causes "the whole of any work" that contains any GPV-infected code to fall under the terms of that license. There are problems with that provision, but the FSF has stood firmly behind their right to dictate others' disposition of code that the FSF didn't provide. I'll answer Dave Sill's comments here, since they're representative of what has been flooding my mailbox. In article <1991Jan29.182433.10585@cs.utk.edu> de5@ornl.gov writes: >In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in >>maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims; >>rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. >It means he's not willing to compromise his belief in the advantages >of Free software to benefit a group that doesn't share that belief. >To do otherwise would be counterproductive to his, and the FSF's, >goals. That's great as far as it goes...but why does he exhort people to place their code under the GPV, claiming that doing so would maximize the sharing and reuse of code? It's having the opposite effect in practice: people have removed GPV-infected code from their work when they discovered its effects. >>Hence, >>his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of >>buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. >Not selling someone else's product without their consent is hardly a >stiff price to pay. You're asking people to not only give you their >code, but to give you their rights to it. As opposed to the GPV, which doesn't ask me if I want to surrender my code, but rather demands it. I don't want to sell GPV-infected code. I simply want to use it, as others can do with the full consent of the FSF. >>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >>by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >>can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >>programming. This statement has apparently confused some folks (though not Dave). They've reminded me that compiling my program with gcc doesn't mean that the program is infected. I understand that; my problem is from another angle: Having GPV-infected code on my computer leaves me open to the charge that I have used that code in my program. I must defend myself from this charge, with the attendant legal expense and hassle *whether or not the charges are true*, or else release my code to the clutches of the GPV. Since I cannot afford the former, as can such corporate giants as DG, NeXT, and others who ship gcc as the standard C compiler, and do not wish to do the latter, that leaves me unable to have the code on my machine at all. >This is sheer alarmist nonsense. There's no more danger of >GNU-license legal challenges than there is from any other licensed >product. In fact, I'd think a megabucks/megalawyer operation like >AT&T would be more likely to enforce it's System V source licensing. >Are you paranoid about *all* licensed code, or just GNU-licensed code? >If you sold source to your products, how would it be licensed, and >what protection would your customers have against it "infecting" >*their* product? I have no non-PD source code on my computer that I am not licensed to use to develop programs without restrictions. Further, I will not have any such code there unless I am satisfied that the license provisions do not leave me in a similar position. I do not provide source to my programs under any conditions. Further, none of my customers has ever asked about it. >>This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not >>acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll >>be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors >>(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to >>license their code under non-utopian terms. >What's a shame is that you've got such a paranoia about the GNU >license that you won't even use any of the GNU tools. Do you think, >perhaps, that a snippet of GNU code might inject itself into your >product? No, but I have no assurance that the FSF might not think so at some point in the future. As Michael C. Berch put it, I'd rather not have the status of my programs depend on what RMS had for breakfast. >I suspect that, in fact, you're really *not* that afraid, and you're >just trying to make a point. I'd love to be able to use the FSF's code; I understand that it's quite good and usable. I simply find the potential cost too high. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (01/31/91)
In article <1991Jan30.024116.2260@scuzzy.in-berlin.de> src@scuzzy.in-berlin.de (Heiko Blume) writes: >jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >>by association with GPV code; >'any' ?? i get the impression that you didn't read the GPL (carefully). Au contraire. I've read the GPV most carefully, and my conclusions are consistent with others' who haven't bought into the FSF utopia. I've been told in email that there's a version 2 of the license, though; I reserve the right to change my opinion if the new version has been disinfected. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) (01/31/91)
In article <4613@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: |>I do not provide source to my programs under any conditions. Further, none |>of my customers has ever asked about it. Really ? We always want at least a source escrow agreement. If you refuse to offer that as part of your 'under any conditions', I pity your customers. Henry Troup - BNR owns but does not share my opinions | The .signature is the P.O. Box 3511, Stn. C. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1Y 4H7| lowest form of humour uunet!bnrgate!hwt%bwdlh490 HWT@BNR.CA +1 613-765-2337 |
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (01/31/91)
In article <5501@bwdls58.UUCP> hwt@bwdlh490.BNR.CA (Henry Troup) writes: >In article <4613@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay >Maynard) writes: >|>I do not provide source to my programs under any conditions. Further, none >|>of my customers has ever asked about it. >Really ? We always want at least a source escrow agreement. If you refuse to >offer that as part of your 'under any conditions', I pity your customers. I would not object to a source escrow agreement. Nobody's asked about one of those, either. Primarily, I do not wish my customers to use my source code to compete with me. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (02/01/91)
In article <1682@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: >Lots of people modify public domain software and then resell it. The original >author(s) receive nothing for their original blood, sweat, and tears, even though >a substantial portion of the final modified product was left untouched. I object to FSF taking something like ghostscript and putting it out as freeware. I don't mind people taking a minor part of an interface (eg, the behaviour of 1-2-3 menus, say, or the picture of a trashcan) and using the idea in their own software. I don't object to people reimplementing software where the majority of the work does *not* have to do with "look and feel" (eg, a C compiler). I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. Adobe spent mucho bucks coming up with a language that is flexible and fairly easy to implement efficiently. XEROX PARC spent literally decades working Smalltalk into a useful and easy to use package. FSF takes their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I think this is wrong. This is not competition. This is merely theft of other people's research and development, merely taking advantage of the current legal situation. No wonder FSF is fighting against "look and feel" copyright suits and the software patents: much of the freeware is clearly "ripped off" from products developed by other companies. Think: originally, the first "look and feel" case was between two greeting-card manufacturs. The first had a staff of dozens of artists and copywriters. The process of making a new card required weeks of work, communication, management approval, and so on. The second company had one artist and no copywriter: this owner would go into card stores, look at what the competition did, return to work, and describe it to the artist, who would then duplicate the card. The court decided that this was an infringement, and I suspect that most of you would, also, if you were the originating company. How different is this from what FSF is doing? If all software were free, we would see very little software becoming available: look at any country without copyright laws. FSF's goals are only obtainable when somebody else is footing the bill for the original development. Also, they are only obtainable when programs are *not* free (but rather are controlled by liscencing). RMS has fallen into the same trap as many software pirates do: I can copy it for $5, so why should I spend $50 to buy it? The problem is the *first* time you copy it it costs $50,000. If it costs me 5000 hours to port an OS to another machine, and the first time I give it to somebody, I will never get any more money for it, who would pay me $50,000 for my time? More humble opinions from and only from -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
tmb@ai.mit.edu (Thomas M. Breuel) (02/01/91)
In article <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: |> I object to FSF taking something like ghostscript and putting it out as |> freeware. [...] |> I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. |> [...] XEROX PARC spent literally decades |> working Smalltalk into a useful and easy to use package. FSF takes |> their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I |> think this is wrong. Most kinds of research results and paradigms are not protected by law. There are good reasons for this. Without the ability to build on previous results, and without the ability to form public standards from successful developments, scientific research would come to an end. Only in specific cases, in order to provide additional economic incentives for development efforts, does the government grant limited protection in the form of patents and copyrights. There is simply no generally recognized a fundamental right to make profit from a published idea or an intellectual work you have developed.
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (02/01/91)
In article <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. Adobe >spent mucho bucks coming up with a language that is flexible and fairly >easy to implement efficiently. XEROX PARC spent literally decades >working Smalltalk into a useful and easy to use package. FSF takes >their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I >think this is wrong. Postscript and Smalltalk are programming languages. Ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk are just implementations of the languages. A language specification is not the same thing as an implementation design. Do you have evidence that anyone actually stole Adobe's design when developing Ghostscript, as opposed to designing the implementation by themselves based only on the published spec? If not, I suggest you hesitate before making such accusations. As for Smalltalk, from the very beginning Xerox has been *promoting* independent implementations. They have published books containing papers by third parties, explaining various implementation strategies, for the express purpose of allowing others to make use of these ideas and build upon them. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) (02/01/91)
In article <43397@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: ->In article <13109@life.ai.mit.edu> tmb@ai.mit.edu writes: ->>In article <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: ->>|> FSF takes ->>|> their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I ->>|> think this is wrong. ->> ->>Most kinds of research results and paradigms are not protected by law. -> ->I realize that these things are legal. I just think it's wrong. I ->also don't know that it encourages *new* work very much. I may be ->wrong, but I don't know of anything that FSF has published that isn't a ->clone of somebody else's work. I wouldn't at all object to seeing ->something new truely published as FSFware, but I don't think that's ->going to happen very often. Building on history to produce new ->scientific works is one thing; directly reimplementing a program such ->that you can even use the same manual page is not it. In what way is ->this "advancing science"? Are you also going to flame Sun, DEC, etc., for their rewrites of UNIX into their particular OS's. The differences are that Sun licenses their product (since it is not a complete rewrite, only 90%) and you have to pay Sun. -- Doug O'Neal, Distributed Systems Programmer, Johns Hopkins University doug@jhuvms.bitnet, doug@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu, mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!doug Like many of the features of UNIX, UUCP appears theoretically unworkable... - DEC Professional, April 1990
meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) (02/01/91)
In article <43397@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: | I realize that these things are legal. I just think it's wrong. I | also don't know that it encourages *new* work very much. I may be | wrong, but I don't know of anything that FSF has published that isn't a | clone of somebody else's work. I wouldn't at all object to seeing | something new truely published as FSFware, but I don't think that's | going to happen very often. Building on history to produce new | scientific works is one thing; directly reimplementing a program such | that you can even use the same manual page is not it. In what way is | this "advancing science"? Of course how do you classify GNU emacs? RMS was the original author, of course they didn't have GNU back then. Also, while it's not written by a FSF'er, Perl is distributed under the copyleft, and the FSF redistributes it, and it's not a clone of a single program (more like an irish stew of different languages). And of course you don't use BSD or System V personally, because they are clones of the original UNIX'es from AT&T...... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?
pml4791@rouge.usl.edu (Landry Patrick M) (02/02/91)
In article <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. Adobe >spent mucho bucks coming up with a language that is flexible and fairly So how long should the person who wrote the first C compiler been able to be the only person allowed to write a C compiler? -- patrick
msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) (02/02/91)
In <1682@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: >In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >> >>[stuff deleted] >>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >>by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >>can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >>programming. This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not Are you trying to say that if for some reason you were accused of illegally using FSF code and taken to court, your defense would be to state that you don't have any GNU stuff installed on your machine? I'd be convinced.... Even if you could prove that that was true, you could very easily have seen the source elsewhere. -- Michael Pereckas * InterNet: m-pereckas@uiuc.edu * just another student... (CI$: 72311,3246) Jargon Dept.: Decoupled Architecture---sounds like the aftermath of a tornado
mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (02/02/91)
>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >by association with GPV code; But you can still use the tools. Go to one of the companies that make a living supporting GNU software, and ask them to provide binary-only versions of the pieces you want. Make sure you make it explicit that you're doing this for protection from the GPL, so they can't provide anything that could contaminate your product. That gets you the same thing that you get by buying commercial software. If you want insurance against lawsuits - well, except to pay for it, just like you'd have to if you were asking for it for your commercial software. <mike -- Kiss me with your mouth. Mike Meyer Your love is better than wine. mwm@pa.dec.com But wine is all I have. decwrl!mwm Will your love ever be mine?
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (02/02/91)
In article <1991Feb1.232305.4895@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> msp33327@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Michael S. Pereckas) writes: >In <1682@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: > >>In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>> >>>[stuff deleted] >>>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >>>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted [...] >Are you trying to say that if for some reason you were accused of >illegally using FSF code and taken to court, your defense would be to >state that you don't have any GNU stuff installed on your machine? >I'd be convinced.... Even if you could prove that that was true, you >could very easily have seen the source elsewhere. Ahhh, yes. But he would also be able to prove easily that he has posted his intent to never use or look at or approve of anything from FSF... 13,192 times at least. Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions.
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (02/03/91)
In article <4678@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >The difference is that Borland and Microsoft don't claim ownership rights in >my software just because I used their libraries. The FSF does. (At least for >now.) That's why they're working on a separate license specifically for libraries. They realized that it was unreasonable to assert undue control over your software just because you link with their library (just as they don't have any control over software you edit with GNU Emacs). -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
cbrown@eeserv1.ic.sunysb.edu (Charles T Brown) (02/03/91)
In article <4678@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: [in response to some other posts:] >The difference is that Borland and Microsoft don't claim ownership rights in >my software just because I used their libraries. The FSF does. (At least for >now.) That's far, far worse than having a software company claim the right >to revoke the license to use the compiler at any time - for that still would >not result in my losing my rights in my code. Ok. You don't like it, don't use it, for chrissakes. I mean, ANYBODY can write the same library functions the FSF has written, right? It would be worse if you were forced by law to use the FSF libraries. But you aren't. > >I have no problems whatsoever using Turbo C to write commercial software, >because Borland is reasonable about my right to earn money. I wouldn't >use gcc or g++ to do so, since RMS is rabid about taking away my right to earn >money for writing software. Hmm? 'Your right' to earn money. Granted. However, the Borland programmers are paid to write commercial software. At last look, the FSF programmers ( I am assuming that RMS means FSF? If I am wrong, please ignore me :-) weren't getting paid to write code... As for being reasonable about your God-granted right to earn money, how about you being reasonable about their God-granted right to say what they want to do with the fruits of their hard labor? > >>"Me thinks you complain too much!" > >Why? Because I refuse to let the FSF force me into their utopian ideals? Utopian ideals, they may be. However, they're not doing so badly so far... As well, as I believe I pointed out above, you can just as well write your own C or C++ compiler for yourself... > >-- >Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can >jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. >"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret >Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein "My friends, never argue with a Texan." --Titus -- "Never put off until tomorrow, that which can be done the day after tomorrow" -- C. Titus Brown, anonymous student, brown@max.physics.sunysb.edu UNIX is good, you say? Which UNIX, say I!
floyd@ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) (02/03/91)
In article <4678@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > > ... I wouldn't >use gcc or g++ to do so, since RMS is rabid about taking away my right to earn >money for writing software. > Could you explain how using gcc would affect your ownership? (I know that g++ would in fact do as you say, but gcc???) Also how does that relate to the fact that in many previous postings you have stated that you won't even have any FSF source code on your computer and won't use any FSF software. The only problem that I know of with any of this is related to the g++ libraries. And you and I are both free to buy some other c++ system and use it! Whats the big deal? Floyd -- Floyd L. Davidson | floyd@ims.alaska.edu | Alascom, Inc. pays me Salcha, AK 99714 | Univ. of Alaska | but not for opinions.
hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de (Horst Laumer) (02/05/91)
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >>by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >>can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >>programming. >It's a shame that you're so paranoid. Be sure to not buy a computer >from NeXT or DG or Convex -- they're out to taint your work by >shipping GPV-protected source code with their operating system. Well, according to my opinion, both are right *AND* both are wrong. As Jay states correctly, part of his income may be affected by the thing called COPYLEFT. It truly is a good idea by FSF to inhibit the, let's call them feeders, from taking away anything of the sources provided by FSF. It's also a good idea to have all the experience flow back to the developer to have it revised and add it to a future release. So far, so good. How does this look in practise (at least for me on the other side of the globe) ? I get a version, however new it may be (measured with my local environment) and try to install it. I get it running on my OS, and I'm happy. Few weeks later the updates flow through the net (see also the .gnu group) and I am rather forced to check them out, thus not getting more familiar with the tools I installed. But, software development is not only my hobby, IT'S MY JOB ! Now look at the other side of the medal, the use of such software. So if I design let's say a News reader, using GNU Emacs in a version tailored for my needs as editor (which surely means some hours of work !), I'm restricted by copyleft ! I think, that's the fact Jay stated, the FSF software may be as good as can be. No, Greg, you are not completely right with what you say. True is, NeXT and others are shipped with FSF software, BUT - that's a snapshot of the ever approving (really ?) FSF software - NeXT, DG and others take warranty for what they shipped ! That's my favorit style : I get something, including source, that is tested to work as it is shipped, but I am free to tailor it to suit my needs, thus loosing warranty on what I produced. And if I get nothing to work and threw away the originals...... Well, I think only idiots do that more than once! sincerely horst -- ============================================================================ Horst Laumer, Kantstrasse 107, D-1000 Berlin 12 ! Bang-Adress: Junk-Food INET: hotte@sunrise.in-berlin.de ! for Autorouters -- me -- UUCP: ..unido!fub!geminix!sunrise.in-berlin.de!hotte
zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) (02/05/91)
In Article <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >This is not competition. This is merely theft of other people's >research and development, merely taking advantage of the current legal >situation. No wonder FSF is fighting against "look and feel" copyright >suits and the software patents: much of the freeware is clearly >"ripped off" from products developed by other companies. This is not why the FSF exists, it's just a side-effect. Keep in mind that Stallman's major beef with the commercial vendors has to do with availability of source licenses, not cost. The commercial vendors could make the FSF obsolete by making source licenses available for ALL software, at prices end-users could afford-- subject to non-disclosure, of course, but allowing exchange among other licensees. The number of end-users who would know what to do with a source license may be a minority, but they are Stallman's target audience. How many non-programmers have even heard of the FSF? When source licenses are readily available to end-users, you have to ask: What is the value of the improvements contributed by users? The "commercial" view is that their value is so low that users can do without them-- in other words, if you need to alter the program to meet local needs, tough luck, you're a minority so you don't count (thus creating a constituency for the FSF). The GPL takes the opposite approach: contributed improvements are so valuable that the initial development is relatively unimportant-- any deficiency can be fixed, eventually. The GPL is extreme because the alternative is also extreme. An intermediate approach would be messy and complicated, but as long as *either* extreme exists, the other will exist to counteract it. Thus, the balance of nature is preserved :-). ================== zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) {harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod Secrecy Is Theft
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (02/06/91)
In article <1991Jan29.201935.840@watdragon.waterloo.edu> ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) writes: >jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) wrote: >> Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in >> maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims; >> rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. >Sigh. Was there ever reason to believe he wanted anything else? Everyone >wants the world to be more like their ideal world. Is this surprising? If he's not interested in maximizing the reuse of software, then he should remove the claim that people should place their code under it so that reuse will be maximized and mankind will therefore benefit. >What would AT&T do if some of its source got into your product? I don't know. Fortunately, that's next to impossible; I have no access to AT&T source, and cannot afford a source license. >But it's also contrary to other companies' objectives >of keeping their trade secrets or extorting gobs of money, so it's not as >if the restriction is unusual. Sorry. I don't view charging money for one's work as extortion. >>Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,... >Really, I can't see the fuss. If you just want to *use* them, you don't need >to keep source on-line at all if you're paranoid. Except that I still have to install them, and hack them up to get them going on my SysVr2-based system. Therefore, I have to have seen their source code. Microsoft, Lotus, et al can afford to have separate people for installation and maintenance of GPV-infected code. There's only one of me (I can hear several "Thankfully!"s around the net now... :-). >Oh, well, it's well known that there will always be *some* people who >are unhappy. All the revolutions in the planet's history ever seem >to accomplish was to move that set around. All that'd have to happen to make me happy is to disinfect the virus. I realize that's not going to happen, though...since RMS wishes to coerce others into his utopia. Oh well. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (02/06/91)
In article <11227@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lwall@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall) writes: >I'll say it again for the logic impaired. I'm willing to give away pieces >of perl code without restriction upon request. I'm also willing to talk >about different licensing for perl that would give you unrestricted use as >long as you don't redistribute. Nothing more viral than a commercial license. >Shoot, I might even have to charge you $1 to make it legal. Hmm, make >that $1000. No, $50,000. Yeah, that's the ticket... :-) Larry, I'm genuinely curious. Why did you change from truly free code, as in patch and rn, to the GPV? You were ta great example of the spirit of free software. Then you crossed over to the Dark Side. I've read the README file from the perl distribution, and your stance in that file (that you don't view code added to perl that doesn't change perl's basic function as falling under the GPV) is highly reasonable - in fact, it closely matches what I feel should be the real effect of a free software license - but it's in conflict with paragraph 2b of the GPV, which demands that the whole of any work containing GPV-infected code be placed under the GPV. Good intentions are one thing; legalities in a license are another. >Frankly, I think the GPL is a better deal, personal phobias notwithstanding. What makes it a better deal? -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton) (02/07/91)
In article <4678@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >In article <1682@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: >>If you use Turbo C or Microsoft C, you are bound by similar constraints. Both >>Borland and Microsoft claim to still own the software they are letting you use >>for a fee. They have strict rules about how you may transfer use of that software >>and both companies reserve the right to revoke the license at any time. Indeed, if >>they choose to revoke the license, whatever the reason, you have no recourse but >>to comply. The GPL, on the other hand, does not attempt to impose such sweeping >>unlimited control over your right to use their product. > >The difference is that Borland and Microsoft don't claim ownership rights in >my software just because I used their libraries. The FSF does. (At least for >now.) That's far, far worse than having a software company claim the right >to revoke the license to use the compiler at any time - for that still would >not result in my losing my rights in my code. > >I have no problems whatsoever using Turbo C to write commercial software, >because Borland is reasonable about my right to earn money. I wouldn't >use gcc or g++ to do so, since RMS is rabid about taking away my right to earn >money for writing software. > >>"Me thinks you complain too much!" > >Why? Because I refuse to let the FSF force me into their utopian ideals? > >-- >Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can >jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. >"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret >Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein perhaps someone is missing the point here, when you purchase a compiler from Borland or Microsoft, you are agreeing to use a binary form of their software. On the other hand, FSF provides the source code for whatever the product is. Borland does provide the source code for their libraries, at a price GREATER than the original product, AND with a different license agreement. are there any bets as to whether or not the license agreement for the runtime library source code also includes provision for royalties for products sold including portions from the runtime source? Neither Borland or Microsoft would even think of supplying the source code for the compiler!!! There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between using a compiler package to generate your own executables (including linking in runtime libraries), and stealing parts of the source code from the compiler/libraries, putting them in your source and calling it your own. Think about it. Borland and Microsoft don't even allow you the chance of being dishonest, but you bitch and complain about FSF because they GIVE you the source code, and expect you to be honest in abiding by their rules. John Burton (jcburt@cs.wm.edu)
gl8f@astsun7.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (02/07/91)
In article <4687@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: >Sorry. I don't view charging money for one's work as extortion. Neither does rms. Ask him what his consulting rates are these days. Big $$. He just reserves the right to not do things he doesn't want to.
new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (02/08/91)
In article <7459@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) writes: >Are you also going to flame Sun, DEC, etc., for their rewrites of UNIX into >their particular OS's. The differences are that Sun licenses their product >(since it is not a complete rewrite, only 90%) and you have to pay Sun. I was just going to let this die, having said my say, but several people also brought this up in email. My gripe is not only that "rms" takes other people's designs, but that he does not liscence them from the originators (as Sun does). Also, and PRIMARILY, he states something along the lines of "I don't like people who take something free, like TeX, modify it to work better or on a different computer, and then sell it, since TeX is free." But what does he do instead? He takes somebody's design, which wouldn't be free if copyright laws were interpreted more librally, rewrites it, and sells it without paying anything to the designer. He lets the designers of a new product take all the financial risks and spend all the development costs, and then because designs cannot be protected, he can rewrite it and give it away. Even if Sun didn't pay AT&T, I doubt that they would say "Well, out of the goodness of our heart, we avoided any AT&T code so that you don't have to pay that evil nasty company for their UNIX." Clearly neither Adobe nor ParcPlace wish to give away their designs; this has been clear from day one. Knuth decided to give away TeX. Now RMS complains that people are using TeX and making money off it without paying Knuth, but then uses Adobe's and XEROX's resources to design and market a product which he then takes the design for and rewrites. GNU Smalltalk an Ghostscript would never have been written for/by FSF if Adobe and XEROX had not invested large sums of money. And RMS complains that people make money off of what other people are *giving away*. That is the hypocrasy which I object to. I would not object nearly as much if RMS said "Since I like to have source and most commercial releases don't include source, I'm reimplementing it myself because the designs cannot be legally protected. With enough work, every company will make source available or fear that I will take their design and give away for free a competing product." How many companies would invent new stuff if FSF *in advance* said "if you write this, we will rewrite it and give it away free within six months"? Look at something like PacMan or Tetris. Either of these is trivial to implement. The difficult part is the original creative design and the marketing, and since FSF does not need to pay for either of these, they can afford to produce quality software for free. Anybody who has done and major systems knows that the design is more than half the battle; if you had all the user's manuals and an example system in front of you, duplicating it would be comparatively easy. Yet FSF behaves as if those evil companies paying for all that R&D and marketing are nasty because they don't give him source, and his response is to ride their coattails. The hypocracy is what I object to, and if he wasn't hypocritical, I suspect much (but not all) of his work would find much less support. -- Darren -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) (02/08/91)
In article <44020@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
My gripe is not only that "rms" takes other people's designs, but that
he does not liscence them from the originators (as Sun does).
There are a number of companies that have written AT&T-free Unices.
None of them have made a noticable dent, even though a number of them
sold systems (at one time, one of them claimed to have more licenses
than AT&T). Are you going to roast them on the same burner as rms, or
is it just his reusing designs while claiming that turning PD software
proprietary is bad?
Also,
and PRIMARILY, he states something along the lines of "I don't like
people who take something free, like TeX, modify it to work better or
on a different computer, and then sell it, since TeX is free."
I suspect he never said any such thing (you got an actual quote
somewhere?), but said that he didn't like people taking free software,
and turning it into something proprietary. That's not hypcritic with
design reuse; it's a recasting of the same philosophy in different
terms - that software should be free to anyone who wants it.
if you had all the user's manuals and an example system in front of you,
duplicating it would be comparatively easy.
You've just described how a critical piece of software in a majority
of the computers being sold these days was developed. It's called the
"clean-room" technic, and most IBM PC clones use a BIOS that was
developed that way. Those people turned the IBM PC market into a
commodity market, which drove down the prices of lots of things you
can hang off of those machines, and made for a software base that
makes anything predating it seem pitiful. It also drove down the price
of _other_ computers and their software, as they have to compete
against much cheaper machines with a much broader software base.
The inability to protect design - at least in this case - was a major
benefit to society.
<mike
--
Tell me how d'you get to be Mike Meyer
As beautiful as that? mwm@pa.dec.com
How did you get your mind decwrl!mwm
To tilt like your hat?new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) (02/08/91)
In article <MWM.91Feb7134124@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@pa.dec.com (Mike (My Watch Has Windows) Meyer) writes: > and PRIMARILY, he states something along the lines of "I don't like > people who take something free, like TeX, modify it to work better or > on a different computer, and then sell it, since TeX is free." > >I suspect he never said any such thing (you got an actual quote >somewhere?), but said that he didn't like people taking free software, >and turning it into something proprietary. There is a quote along those lines in the GNU Emacs manual I borrowed from somebody when I wrote this. The example used was TeX. I don't remember whether he specifically wrote "proprietary" or "selling" but I could look it up and give the exact quote. >it's a recasting of the same philosophy in different >terms - that software should be free to anyone who wants it. Except that when it really is free, instead of controlled by GPL, it doesn't get written. See China, for an example. >The inability to protect design [IBM BIOS]- at least in this case - was a major >benefit to society. IBM clones are a benefit? :-) :-) :-) Actually, IBM could have easily put all the clone manufacturers out of business, as they have patents on the keyboard interface, the 8087 interface, and several other critical hardware components that much software depends on. The fact that they failed to enforce these patents is a business decision that IBM chose for themselves. Again, Pheonix didn't try to take a high moral stand by saying "IBM clones should be cheap so we will do this." Pheonix said "This makes good business sense and we think we can get away with it." This does not bother me (much). -- --- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware --- ----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas ----- =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
mzellers@starnet.uucp (Mark Zellers) (02/10/91)
In article <1682@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: > >RMS (and FSF) are offering to let you have and use their software without charge, >provided you do not attempt to make a personal profit by re-selling all or part >of their work. Just because they do not charge to let you use it does not mean >that they have to give up their ownership rights! By and large, I agree with the aims of the FSF. There are areas where I think the line gets a little murky. In particular, the fact that the Bison skeleton parser is covered under the GPV means that the only way to use Bison to produce code which you might want to sell without infecting it is to rewrite the parser yourself. I don't know what the issues would be with the gcc (and it's library if any). I guess the way I would look at it, reselling Bison (or gcc) would clearly be wrong, but I would like it to be possible to use tools (rather than sell them) and yet retain rights to my own code. Would including the skeleton parser in source, along with the output of Bison with my own code satisfy the requirements of the GPV without infecting the rest of the code that I wrote on my own? Note that this is an academic discussion for me, since I don't have a real product which uses Bison or it's parser. Mark H. Zellers decwrl.dec.com!voltaire!bwayne!mark
david@indetech.com (David Kuder x2003) (02/12/91)
In article <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu> new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes: >I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. Adobe >spent mucho bucks coming up with a language that is flexible and fairly >easy to implement efficiently. XEROX PARC spent literally decades >working Smalltalk into a useful and easy to use package. FSF takes >their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I >think this is wrong. In article <1991Feb1.034801.24207@Think.COM> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes: #As for Smalltalk, from the very beginning Xerox has been *promoting* #independent implementations. They have published books containing papers #by third parties, explaining various implementation strategies, for the #express purpose of allowing others to make use of these ideas and build #upon them. And, last I heard, PostScript level 1 was "freed". There is a level 2 of course, but level 1 shouldn't cause any problems. -- David A. Kuder Looking for enough time to get past patchlevel 1 415 438-2003 david@indetech.com {uunet,sun,sharkey,pacbell}!indetech!david
ccplumb@rose.uwaterloo.ca (Colin Plumb) (02/17/91)
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) wrote: > If he's not interested in maximizing the reuse of software, then he > should remove the claim [from the GPL] that people should place their > code under it so that reuse will be maximized and mankind will > therefore benefit. My apologies; I wasn't addressing the issue properly. To see if the GPL encourages software reuse, compare it to the public domain: the GPL scares off some people (less code reuse), but encourages others to distribute their code when they might not bother if it was public domain (which promotes reuse). NeXT's objective-C patches and Intel's i960 port of GCC come to mind; there are certainly other cases. To be fair, I know of examples for the other case. Some Microsoft code in development I know of uses Henry Spencer's regexp code. I don't know enough to say which side of this equation wins, but I don't think it's obvious. Even if it's a net loss now, as more GNUware is used successfully (becuase it's shipped by OS vendors, for example), fewer people will be inhibited, and the balance may shift. (I don't claim that this decline goes to zero, however.) > Except that I still have to install them, and hack them up to get them > going on my SysVr2-based system. Therefore, I have to have seen their > source code. Microsoft, Lotus, et al can afford to have separate people > for installation and maintenance of GPV-infected code. There's only one > of me (I can hear several "Thankfully!"s around the net now... :-). This is not an issue. First, the FSF is not going to use its limited funds to sue you for something as weak as that. Second, there was one part of the Intel/NEC microcode suit that's relavent (in the U.S.). The judge ruled that, even though the author of the NEC microcode had made a detailed analysis of the Intel microcode (this is a lot more than looking at it; he wrote a paper on the subject), the knowledge he gained was "background" and its use in his writing of the functionally equivalent NEC microcode (which had some similar parts) did not infringe Intel's copyright. In other words, reading someone's code does not contaminate you. Even if you have carnal knowledge (i.e. very intimate) of someone else's code, and write an exact clone with some obvious similarities, you don't infringe their copyright. See the "Micro Law" column in past issues of IEEE Micro for an analysis of the decision. Take heart, compile GNUware, and be happy. For example, I've had discussions with Microsoft's compiler authors regarding the innards of GCC vs. MSC. At Microsoft, there are no clean-room procedures surrounding GNUware. > All that'd have to happen to make me happy is to disinfect the virus. I > realize that's not going to happen, though...since RMS wishes to coerce > others into his utopia. Oh well. I don't know whether RMS wishes he could coerce others into his utopia or not, but he can't. He can try to make it easy to enter and hard to leave, but coerecion reminds me of a quote from Gerald Durrell's siblings over breakfast (_My_Family_and_Other_Animals_, probably): Margo: [My weight] "is all your fault, forcing me to eat all that rich food." Larry: "It's just being put on the table - nobody's forcing you to eat it." Margo: "Well, you know I can't say no, so it's forcing." -- -Colin