peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/28/89)
Round and round we go... In article <26695@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > <In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > <> The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about > <> the right to give away neat tools to our friends. > <No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws > <that are based on that right to deny it to other people. > Well, it is about the right of intellectual property. I thought you said it was about giving away neat tools to our friends. > It uses the > busted laws to insure that all people have the right to the > intellectual properties it covers. Let's analyse this statement. a) The license covers intellectual properties. Whose properties? Not mone, I didn't write them. It must be the Free Software Foundation's. OK. b) It ensures that everyone has a right to the FSF's intellectual properties. OK. c) Intellectual property laws are busted. That's a matter of opinion, so we can ignore it. You seem to have left out one part: It also covers any software that includes any FSF software. That is, it makes the wholly remarkable jump to including any such software as being the intellectual property of the Free Software Foundation. Don't you suppose that the author of a program that happens to have been compiled with the GCC compiler using the GNU libraries should have more right to the program than the FSF? If RMS just wanted to keep the FSF's properties inviolate he could just require they be distributed with the package, or made available on request. That's laudable. > It in no way denies any intellectual property rights to anyone, any > more than any other license agreement does. Sure it does. It denies property rights to the author of any software that includes any FSF software... including, say, a parser compiled with BISON that used the GNU skeleton. If you say this does not deny anyone any intellectual property rights then we're obviously not using the same language. > To claim otherwise is to lie. Let's analyse this statement. You're calling me a liar, right? > Don't hoard your software. There are other ways to make money off of > it. [I'll call this <statement A>] Not if other people are "hoarding" their software. > <I'm sure you can see other problems with that. If you can't see how > <giving up intellectual property rights can hurt you it's a failure > <in your imagination, not in the concept. > Your statement is ambiguous, and in either case makes an assertion I > haven't said anything about. No, it's not ambiguous. I can't see anything in it that would lead to interpretation two. I assume you're just playing logical games. > Interpretation 1) Me giving up my intellectual property rights to one > or more pieces of software can hurt me. Obvious. See <statement A> above. If it's obvious, why are you urging people to do so? > On the other hand, it may also do me more good than harm. It may, depending on the software. It may also not. > What's amusing about all this is that the GPL isn't that much worse > than licenses for commercial software that I've seen. How about > $2000/year for the compiler (for an IBM PC!?!?), plus royalties on the > library if you distribute binaries. How about $500 for the compiler with no royalties? That's the sort of license agreement you see these days. Market forces arising from the competition between different commercial compilers seem to be working just fine. > Even worse, copyleft is a _lot_ less restrictive than any of a large > number of programs that are PA, which just say "freely > redistributable, except for commercial purposes." This is a completely different subject and entirely irrelevent to this discussion. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/28/89)
[much heated debate removed along with attribution which is not important to the point I want to make.] >Don't you suppose that the author of a program that happens to have >been compiled with the GCC compiler using the GNU libraries should >have more right to the program than the FSF? Can someone explain to me how it is software vendors can assert control over what is done with a product once it is sold? (I mean the ~reasoning~ behind the law, not the law itself.) Simple soul that I am, I think in analogies. For example, I buy a Caddy rag top. The license from GM specifies "daily, domestic use only." This precludes going to a drive in and necking. However, for an extra fee, I can purchase an unrestricted nocturnal-use license that permits after-dark usage. I must, however, present a copy of the usage agreement every time I climb in the backseat. Unless I purchase "under the hood rights," I cannot (legally) open the sucker up to see how it works. Still less can I modify what I find there or trade chunks with anyone else. Simple soul that I am, I think in analogies (and repeat myself). Since most commercial software is about as reliable as GM automobiles (which is to say, not very), when you buy (or are given) it, as long as you do not kill anyone with it or prevent dogs from finding fire hydrants with it, you should be able to do whatever you want with the object in question.
bron@bronze.wpd.sgi.com (Bron Campbell Nelson) (07/29/89)
In article <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: > [much heated debate removed] > > >Don't you suppose that the author of a program that happens to have > >been compiled with the GCC compiler using the GNU libraries should > >have more right to the program than the FSF? > > Can someone explain to me how it is software vendors can assert control > over what is done with a product once it is sold? (I mean the > ~reasoning~ behind the law, not the law itself.) > > Simple soul that I am, I think in analogies. [Caddy analogy deleted] I think the problem with the analogy is that it talks about sales. Try to think about leasing instead. How about this: You rent me your car. The next day you ask me what happened to it. My reply? "I sold it." The point is that in the case of FSF at least, they are quite specifically NOT giving you full rights to the software. The "copyleft" spells out the rights that they are retaining, and that you must respect in order to use their software. You are NOT given the right to do whatever you want to with the software. Now, the rights that FSF has chosen to try and retain are about 180 degrees out of phase with the rights commercial establishments try to retain (instead of trying to prevent people from making a copy of the stuff, they try to prevent people from not being able to make a copy of the stuff), but I believe the principle involved is the same. The only thing that is unquestionably "sold" to you is the media itself. If you were to erase the tape, you could resell it to the highest bidder without FSF squawking about it. -- Bron Campbell Nelson bron@sgi.com or possibly ..!ames!sgi!bron These statements are my own, not those of Silicon Graphics.
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (07/29/89)
In article <5303@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26695@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <> <In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> <> The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about <> <> the right to give away neat tools to our friends. < <> <No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws <> <that are based on that right to deny it to other people. < <> Well, it is about the right of intellectual property. < <I thought you said it was about giving away neat tools to our friends. Correct. It uses one to allow people to do the other. So in a sense, it is about both of them. You can draw finer distinctions if you want. <You seem to have left out one part: < <It also covers any software that includes any FSF software. That is, <it makes the wholly remarkable jump to including any such software as <being the intellectual property of the Free Software Foundation. What's remarkable about that jump? That's what others have been doing for years - except instead of requiring you to share your software, they insist that you get their permission to distribute it in any way whatsoever. <Don't you suppose that the author of a program that happens to have <been compiled with the GCC compiler using the GNU libraries should <have more right to the program than the FSF? They do have more rights to the program than FSF. They have a copy, FSF doesn't. Now, if they want to distribute copies, they have to abide by the license agreement, just like they do with any other licensed software. <> It in no way denies any intellectual property rights to anyone, any <> more than any other license agreement does. < <Sure it does. It denies property rights to the author of any software <that includes any FSF software... including, say, a parser compiled <with BISON that used the GNU skeleton. If you say this does not deny <anyone any intellectual property rights then we're obviously not using <the same language. You should read what I wrote. You should also go back and reread the GPL. Things you've got wrong: They have complete rights to the parser they wrote using bison. The only thing they can't do is create binaries from it & distribute them if they wish to hoard the sources. That's because the resulting binaries are considered a "derivate work" under the terms of the law. Among other things, they authers can use a different parser generator, or rewrite the parts of bison they need to hoard their software. This does _not_ deny them intellectual property rights to the parser. Only to the code that comes out of it that uses FSF code. Or do you think that someone should lose the rights to their work just because it's not obvious that those works are being used in this case. You might also notice I added the phrase "any mor ethan any other license agreement does." Of course, there are license agreements that are less restrictive. There are also license agreements that are more restrictive. In general, the GPL is on the winning side, as it leaves me with more rights than any commercial license agreement that I've ever seen. <> To claim otherwise is to lie. < <Let's analyse this statement. < <You're calling me a liar, right? No, I'm saying you're lieing. You don't realize it, so I wouldn't call you a liar. <> Don't hoard your software. There are other ways to make money off of <> it. [I'll call this <statement A>] < <Not if other people are "hoarding" their software. This statemet is false. There are _lots_ of ways to make money off of software other than hoarding it. Providing it's usefull to begin with, that is. Even in the current atmosphere. That was my original point. <> <I'm sure you can see other problems with that. If you can't see how <> <giving up intellectual property rights can hurt you it's a failure <> <in your imagination, not in the concept. < <> Your statement is ambiguous, and in either case makes an assertion I <> haven't said anything about. < <No, it's not ambiguous. I can't see anything in it that would lead to <interpretation two. I assume you're just playing logical games. You assume falsely, and your statement is still ambiguous. However, since you've clarified things, the rest is immaterial. <> Interpretation 1) Me giving up my intellectual property rights to one <> or more pieces of software can hurt me. Obvious. < <See <statement A> above. If it's obvious, why are you urging people to <do so? Because you left out the rest of the statement. There are obvious harms. There are also obvious gains. I'm urging people to make the choice that is best for everyone. <> What's amusing about all this is that the GPL isn't that much worse <> than licenses for commercial software that I've seen. How about <> $2000/year for the compiler (for an IBM PC!?!?), plus royalties on the <> library if you distribute binaries. < <How about $500 for the compiler with no royalties? That's the sort of <license agreement you see these days. Market forces arising from the <competition between different commercial compilers seem to be working <just fine. Except that they can't seem to produce compilers & parser generators of the quality the FSF can. Otherwise, nobody would be bothered by the license agreement. They'd just go buy the commercial software. <> Even worse, copyleft is a _lot_ less restrictive than any of a large <> number of programs that are PA, which just say "freely <> redistributable, except for commercial purposes." < <This is a completely different subject and entirely irrelevent to this <discussion. Nope, it's part of the point. The GPL is _not_ incredibly restrictive. It just tweaks different rights than you're used to. So you have to do some thinking to be able to make a living off of the use of it, instead of doing things in a rote fashion. If this bothers you, well, then don't use the tools. <mike -- Can't buy happiness no matter what you do Mike Meyer Can't get to heaven on roller skates mwm@berkeley.edu Can't take a taxicab to Timbuktu ucbvax!mwm Life is hard. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
barkley@weiss.cs.unc.edu (Matthew Barkley) (07/29/89)
[Much discussion about the GNU Public License between peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) and, among others, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike Meyer)] It strikes me that the two side in this discussion are not talking about quite the same thing. "Using software to make a better product" (Mike) sounds good, but what if (as Peter seems to be saying) software IS the product? And no one has addressed the issue, raised by Peter, of development cost. Matt Barkley barkley@cs.unc.edu Any opinions expressed are not necessarily shared by anyone else, and may not even be my own. How an organization can have an opinion is beyond me.
ckd@bucsb.UUCP (Christopher Davis) (07/29/89)
In article <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes:
-[much heated debate removed along with attribution which is not important
-to the point I want to make.]
-
->Don't you suppose that the author of a program that happens to have
->been compiled with the GCC compiler using the GNU libraries should
->have more right to the program than the FSF?
-
-Can someone explain to me how it is software vendors can assert control
-over what is done with a product once it is sold? (I mean the
-~reasoning~ behind the law, not the law itself.)
-
-Simple soul that I am, I think in analogies. For example, I buy a Caddy
-rag top. The license from GM specifies "daily, domestic use only." This
-precludes going to a drive in and necking. However, for an extra fee, I
-can purchase an unrestricted nocturnal-use license that permits
-after-dark usage. I must, however, present a copy of the usage
-agreement every time I climb in the backseat. Unless I purchase "under
-the hood rights," I cannot (legally) open the sucker up to see how it
-works. Still less can I modify what I find there or trade chunks with
-anyone else.
-
-Simple soul that I am, I think in analogies (and repeat myself). Since
-most commercial software is about as reliable as GM automobiles (which
-is to say, not very), when you buy (or are given) it, as long as you do
-not kill anyone with it or prevent dogs from finding fire hydrants with
-it, you should be able to do whatever you want with the object in
-question.
Including use your "magic duplicating ray" to give away lots of GM cars?
The analogy fails because information is easy to duplicate at very low
materials cost, unlike cars.
To use it anyway (:-), what if Ford then offered a better car --for free--
that had the caveat that you could never use it to make money? AT ALL?
Interesting thought...
Crossposted to gnu.misc.discuss for those who get it, because this thread is
definitely suited for it... and left in comp.misc for those who don't.
Followups to gnu.misc.discuss (and remember, folks, if you don't get gnu.*,
there is a mailing list...).
--
/\ | / |\ @bu-pub.bu.edu <preferred> | Christopher K. Davis, BU SMG '90
/ |/ | \ %bu-pub.bu.edu@bu-it.bu.edu | uses standardDisclaimer;
\ |\ | / <for stupid sendmails> | BITNET: smghy6c@buacca
\/ | \ |/ @bucsb.UUCP <last resort> or ...!bu-cs!bucsb!ckd if you gotta.
--"Ignore the man behind the curtain and the address in the header." --ckd--peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/29/89)
In article <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: > Can someone explain to me how it is software vendors can assert control > over what is done with a product once it is sold? (I mean the > ~reasoning~ behind the law, not the law itself.) [ car == software analogy deleted ] You know the answer already, I'm sure. But... you can not give a car away and still keep it. The same is not true of software (or books, tapes, etc). Analogy thus falls apart. Tell me... how do you feel about other intellectual property laws? Copyrights on music, books, movies, etc...? -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | a quote-free zone..." Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch
cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/29/89)
In article <39129@sgi.SGI.COM> bron@bronze.wpd.sgi.com (Bron Campbell Nelson) writes: >In article <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >I think the problem with the analogy is that it talks about sales. Try to >think about leasing instead. How about this: You rent me your car. The >next day you ask me what happened to it. My reply? "I sold it." I can see your point, but if software vendors are to claim that they are in effect "leasing" rather than selling, then it would seem to a naive soul like myself that they should provide the services of an owner. If I lease a piece of equipment and its craps out, the leasing company does not ask me to pay extra for a later version, they provide a substitute that works. With leasing, maintenance is typically the responsibility of the owner, not the user. Moreover, the analogy breaks down for tax purposes. Unless I am mistaken, the IRS treats the usual acquisition of software as a purchase, not a lease. It seems to me that software vendors having been having it both ways -- asserting the rights of an owner while ducking responsibilities. Naive me would like to see a grass roots movement to nail the bastards: either you make a quit claim sale or your rent it with full responsibility for maintainance.
cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (07/29/89)
In article <5351@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >You know the answer already, I'm sure. But... you can not give a car away >and still keep it. The same is not true of software (or books, tapes, etc). > >Analogy thus falls apart. Perhaps the analogy falls apart on the issue of copying, but that was not my chief point. I was (and am) concerned with the attempt of software vendors to control what I do with the product other than copying. And the analogy holds at least partially in the car case. If I start cloning Caddies, GM can get on my tail. GM cannot, however, claim any interest in possible income streams generated by my use of that car, but software vendors do make such claims. If autos were sold like software, you'd pay a different price for your car depending on whether you were going to carry 1 person or 6, whether you were going to use it in your business or not, etc. You'd pay one price if you could buy it through a university agreement with the campus bookstore, another price if you bought it through a franchised dealer off campus. >Tell me... how do you feel about other intellectual property laws? >Copyrights on music, books, movies, etc...? As an academic, and one who teaches business history, I would like to see software-style licensing extended to my classroom lecturers. Students would pay one tuition rate for my classes if they agreed never to make any commercial use of the material presented. They would pay another rate for ~possible~ commercial usage with royalties for any ~actual~ commercial usage. Whenever they make use of any of ~my~ ideas in a commercial setting, they must announce that they are so doing. (The possible argument that there is a defacto royalty payment through taxes does not hold for foreign nationals and out-of-state students.) Earl H. Kinmonth History Department University of California, Davis 916-752-1636 (voice, fax [2300-0800 PDT]) 916-752-0776 secretary (bitnet) ehkinmonth@ucdavis.edu (uucp) ucbvax!ucdavis!ucdked!cck (telnet or 916-752-7920) cc-dnet.ucdavis.edu [128.120.2.251] request ucdked, login as guest, no password
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/30/89)
In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > In article <5303@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > <I thought you said it was about giving away neat tools to our friends. > Correct. It uses one to allow people to do the other. So in a sense, > it is about both of them. You can draw finer distinctions if you want. This is the silliest argument for the FSF that I've ever seen. I don't *need* the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE to give away neat software to my friends. I just do it. > <It also covers any software that includes any FSF software. That is, > <it makes the wholly remarkable jump to including any such software as > <being the intellectual property of the Free Software Foundation. > What's remarkable about that jump? That's what others have been doing > for years - except instead of requiring you to share your software, > they insist that you get their permission to distribute it in any way > whatsoever. Huh? They require that I get their permission to share my software? Who does? What others? > <Don't you suppose that the author of a program that happens to have > <been compiled with the GCC compiler using the GNU libraries should > <have more right to the program than the FSF? > They do have more rights to the program than FSF. They have a copy, > FSF doesn't. Now, if they want to distribute copies, they have to > abide by the license agreement, just like they do with any other > licensed software. But *my* software isn't licensed from the FSF. I wrote it myself. I'll gladly give people copies of the GNU software I use, but I'm totally flabbergasted at the claim that the FSF owns everything I write that might include any FSF software. The FSF software itself, sure. But *my own code*? "Arrogant" is about the mildest term I can think of. > <Sure it does. It denies property rights to the author of any software > <that includes any FSF software... including, say, a parser compiled > <with BISON that used the GNU skeleton. If you say this does not deny > <anyone any intellectual property rights then we're obviously not using > <the same language. > They have complete rights to the parser they wrote using bison. The > only thing they can't do is create binaries from it & distribute them > if they wish to hoard the sources. The sources to bison? No, the sources to their own code. > That's because the resulting > binaries are considered a "derivate work" under the terms of the law. > Among other things, they authers can use a different parser generator, > or rewrite the parts of bison they need to hoard their software. I.e., someone who can't afford to rewrite the BISON skeleton, either because they lack the time or the skill, must give away any software they wrote using bison. So, you're saying that only rich, well educated, and/or skillful programmers have the right to their own code? > This does _not_ deny them intellectual property rights to the parser. No, it just denies them the right to excersize those rights. > Only to the code that comes out of it that uses FSF code. Or do you > think that someone should lose the rights to their work just because > it's not obvious that those works are being used in this case. I've never said that they should. Why don't YOU go back and read what *I* wrote? I said that the FSF can put any restrictions they want on their code, but when they start extending them to other people's code... well, I think arrogant is how I referred to it. If they require that you make the GNU software you used available to your customers for "reasonable distribution costs", that's fine. When they require that you make the whole of any work, including the parts that aren't GNU code, available... that's unreasonable. > You might also notice I added the phrase "any mor ethan any other > license agreement does." Of course, there are license agreements that > are less restrictive. There are also license agreements that are more > restrictive. In general, the GPL is on the winning side, as it leaves > me with more rights than any commercial license agreement that I've > ever seen. This is complete bull. I haven't seen *ANY* commercial license agreement that claims to tell me what to do with my own source code. > <> To claim otherwise is to lie. > <Let's analyse this statement. > <You're calling me a liar, right? > No, I'm saying you're lieing. You don't realize it, so I wouldn't call > you a liar. OK, you're saying I'm incompetant. > This statemet is false. There are _lots_ of ways to make money off of > software other than hoarding it. Providing it's usefull to begin with, > that is. Even in the current atmosphere. That was my original point. For small-volume items, can you make enough to live on? I know RMS doesn't believe in living off software sales. Do you? > Except that they can't seem to produce compilers & parser generators > of the quality the FSF can. Otherwise, nobody would be bothered by the > license agreement. They'd just go buy the commercial software. But, I do. Oh yes... quality is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have the RAM to spare to run GCC. I wouldn't buy a commercial product that sucked up that much of my computer's resources. If they could get away with such waste they would probably be able to do as good a job. > Nope, it's part of the point. The GPL is _not_ incredibly restrictive. Yes it is. It imposes a restriction that is completely unprecedented outside of eastern governments. > If this bothers you, well, then don't use the tools. I don't. I can't afford the RAM to run them. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/30/89)
In article <4989@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>, cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: > If > I lease a piece of equipment and its craps out, the leasing company does > not ask me to pay extra for a later version, they provide a substitute > that works. With leasing, maintenance is typically the responsibility > of the owner, not the user. Software doesn't crap out. What happens is that new versions of the software come out. If I lease an '84 Porsche 928, does that mean I'm entitled to a free upgrade to an '88 model, just because it's got a better Cd? > Moreover, the analogy breaks down for tax purposes. Unless I am mistaken, > the IRS treats the usual acquisition of software as a purchase, not a > lease. In 1982 the IRS treated me as a permanent resident of the U.S.. I was a resident of Texas for tax purposes. That didn't mean I could go to the INS and get a green card instead of my F-1 visa, or that I didn't have to pay out-of-state tuition at state colleges. I.e., what the IRS says is irrelevant. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) (07/31/89)
There's a lot of confusion in this stuff. If I use BISON to create a compiler, is that compiler governed by the GNU liscence? Note that this is far different than creating a tool that itself incorporates some of the BISON code in it. I don't have BISON. My reading of the the Gnu-make liscense is that if you incorporate the code into anything, it's covered, but if you use gmake as a tool to build something, that something is not covered. If I write a book using an IBM PC and Wordperfect, that book is NOT a derivative work of IBM or WPCorp. I can't imagine how GNU could write an _enforcable_ license agreement for their products that covered works built by using (as oppossed to derivative of) their products. Disclaimer: I'm no attorney, and my opinions on these matters are rank speculation. My opinions are worth what you paid for them. -- Len Reed Holos Software, Inc. Voice: (404) 496-1358 UUCP: ...!gatech!holos0!lbr
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/01/89)
In article <1989Jul31.161755.1309@holos0.uucp>, lbr@holos0.uucp (Len Reed) writes: > If I use BISON to create a compiler, is that compiler governed by the GNU > liscence? If you used the BISON parser skeleton, yes. This has been explicitly stated. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/02/89)
In article <5361@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> Correct. It uses one to allow people to do the other. So in a sense, <> it is about both of them. You can draw finer distinctions if you want. < <This is the silliest argument for the FSF that I've ever seen. I don't *need* <the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE to give away neat software to my friends. I just do <it. Do you tell the people who hold the copyrights on those tools that you're doing that? <But *my* software isn't licensed from the FSF. I wrote it myself. I'll gladly <give people copies of the GNU software I use, but I'm totally flabbergasted <at the claim that the FSF owns everything I write that might include any <FSF software. The FSF software itself, sure. But *my own code*? < <"Arrogant" is about the mildest term I can think of. They don't claim they own it. They merely claim partial ownership of derivative works - which the law allows them to do. They don't let you distribute copies of those works unless you agree to their terms for doing so. This is _exactly_ what copyright is for - to control the conditions under which others can copy your works. <> That's because the resulting <> binaries are considered a "derivate work" under the terms of the law. <> Among other things, they authers can use a different parser generator, <> or rewrite the parts of bison they need to hoard their software. < <I.e., someone who can't afford to rewrite the BISON skeleton, either because <they lack the time or the skill, must give away any software they wrote using <bison. So, you're saying that only rich, well educated, and/or skillful <programmers have the right to their own code? Nope, only that such programmers are the only ones who can use the GNU tools and hoard the resuls. This should be compared with commercial tools, where it doesn't matter how skillfull you are, you just have to be rich. So if you're not a member of the privileged classes, you have two choices: use the GNU tools and abide by their terms, or don't use any tools at all. The commercial licenses have really helped them out a lot, haven't they? <> Only to the code that comes out of it that uses FSF code. Or do you <> think that someone should lose the rights to their work just because <> it's not obvious that those works are being used in this case. < <I've never said that they should. Why don't YOU go back and read what *I* <wrote? I said that the FSF can put any restrictions they want on their code, <but when they start extending them to other people's code... well, I think <arrogant is how I referred to it. You didn't say it, but I don't think I misreprestented your position. You don't want FSF exercising their copyrights on derivative works if it's not an obvious derivation. That you consider how they choose to exercise it arrogant is immaterial - you're denying them the very rights you accuse them of denying others. #> You might also notice I added the phrase "any mor ethan any other <> license agreement does." Of course, there are license agreements that <> are less restrictive. There are also license agreements that are more <> restrictive. In general, the GPL is on the winning side, as it leaves <> me with more rights than any commercial license agreement that I've <> ever seen. < <This is complete bull. I haven't seen *ANY* commercial license agreement <that claims to tell me what to do with my own source code. Correct. However, I don't see any commercial license agreement that doesn't require that either I buy time on the target hardware, or that the owner of the target hardware buy the commercial product, if I want them to have a trivial installation process. I'd much rather have someone control sources if they're derivative than my installation procedures - even if the works _aren't_ derivative. Of course, if you don't like people telling you what you can do with your source, you better not look at the AT&T System V binary license. It tells you that you can't accept derivative works - even in binary form - from anyone but the person who issued you the license. Which means that you can't sell/give/etc _binaries_ to a derivative work to anyone running a binary license who didn't buy it from you. <OK, you're saying I'm incompetant. Either that, or misininformed. Probably a mixture of both. <> This statemet is false. There are _lots_ of ways to make money off of <> software other than hoarding it. Providing it's usefull to begin with, <> that is. Even in the current atmosphere. That was my original point. < <For small-volume items, can you make enough to live on? I know RMS doesn't <believe in living off software sales. Do you? Yes, you can make enough to live on (quite comfortably) on small volume items. Check out the salaries people pay Unix systems programmers for maintenance positions. And do I what? Make a living off software sales? No. Believe that making a living off software sales is immoral? No - not so long as you don't hoard the software. <Oh yes... quality is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have the RAM to <spare to run GCC. Given the current memory prices, not buying a single commercial compiler would pay for that ram. <I wouldn't buy a commercial product that sucked up that <much of my computer's resources. If they could get away with such waste <they would probably be able to do as good a job. Of course, you're running sub-state-of-the-art hardware. Whereas GNU software is aimed at beyond state-of-the-art hardware. As a result, it sucks resources like crazy. On the other hand, the software production utilities outperform commercial utilities for the same target hardware. <> Nope, it's part of the point. The GPL is _not_ incredibly restrictive. < <Yes it is. It imposes a restriction that is completely unprecedented outside <of eastern governments. Sorry, but you're wrong. People have sold compilers with yearly rental fees and requirements for royalties. Those set a nice precedent. In any case, being told "you can't give away binaries that we own part of unless you give away sources" is no worse than being told "you can't give away all the tools somebody needs to build your product." Unless you want to do one of those two things and not the other, of course. <mike -- All around my hat, I will wear the green willow. Mike Meyer And all around my hat, for a twelve-month and a day. mwm@berkeley.edu And if anyone should ask me, the reason why I'm wearing it, ucbvax!mwm It's all for my true love, who's far far away. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) (08/02/89)
In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: | <You seem to have left out one part: | < | <It also covers any software that includes any FSF software. That is, | <it makes the wholly remarkable jump to including any such software as | <being the intellectual property of the Free Software Foundation. | | What's remarkable about that jump? That's what others have been doing | for years - except instead of requiring you to share your software, | they insist that you get their permission to distribute it in any way | whatsoever. Actually that's an experiment which ended about 15 years ago. Many vendors claimed a right to programs which were linked with their runtime library. Then a few started offering "no royalties on executable programs." Market pressure did the rest, and I can't remember when I saw junk like that. If you really want to read the copyleft "between the lines," I think I can make a good case that this applies to GNUemacs, too, and that if you edit one byte of a source file with GNUemacs you must give away the source with the program! This is fair? **************** workstation buyers **************** I am told that some workstations will be distributed with GNU software as the development set. Be sure that you and/or your managers are willing to give away and code you develop using these workstations, or that there is a change in the manifesto as applied to these workstations. People have been spoiled by the real UNIX(r) software license which makes no claims on the final product, and may not realize that these workstations are covered by a more (or less, depending on your view) restrictive agreement. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) (08/02/89)
As an addendum to my previous posting, I would like to clarify my view
on software ownership. If a piece of software I own does not have
obvious commercial potential, I usually release it. You will find my
software in the old mod.sources archives, and comp.sources.{unix,misc}
as well. I claim copyright and allow free distribution, but prohibit
selling the software or distributing any modified version of it. If
someone wants to distribute the original source and a diff file I have
no problem, as long as the next user gets the unmodified source and knows
that changes have been made.
I don't claim that I own software which has been distributed using my
version of shar, nor backed up using my backup programs. I don't care
if you charge people to play my games, as long as the games are sold.
If someone uses my enhanced version of getopt I am delighted to have
been useful. If the user's guide I wrote for zoo saves someone some
time, hurrah! That's my view on the world, you're free to use it, just
don't sell it or hack it up.
FSF has done a lot of good and put an incredible amount of effort into
releasing software. I disagree with their license, but it's their right
to do what they want. I would not use any GNU tools to develop software
for my company or which might be sold, because I don't want to risk loss
of rights to my source code.
I think that a lot of people who are most vocal on this are either
(a) people who have never sold a piece of software, or (b) have never
taken the time to properly give software away, with a man page,
makefile, ifdefs for at least BSD and USG, etc. If you don't know how
nice it is to get paid for software you don't see what there is to
lose, and if you haven't contributed anything yourself you're just a
greedy taker who wants even more for nothing. If this offends someone
(I realize that it may) you might want to reply by mail.
bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM)
{uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen
"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -mecck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (08/03/89)
In article <1447@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > >workstations. People have been spoiled by the real UNIX(r) software >license which makes no claims on the final product, and may not realize >that these workstations are covered by a more (or less, depending on >your view) restrictive agreement. I'm not sure that "real UNIX(r)" makes no claims on software developed under it. Some ATT shysters should speak to this. In any event, it has in the past. In 1980 I started writing a freeform database. This was originaly for my own use, but while crude, it had some features that allowed it to handle data that other products could not. After a brief mention in an academic journal, I started getting requests, both from academic and non-academic sources. My own inclination was simply to give the code away provided the user agreed to do the same to anyone who asked. Before doing this, I checked with the university computer center. They claimed that their ATT license precluded even giving away software unless the recipient had a similar ATT license. This may have been an artifact of the litigation ATT was then engaged in, but I believe similar restrictive arrangements cover some of the VAX machines the university has. I don't remember the details (I'll check if there is interest), but as I recall, if I use certain of the university DEC machines running **IX to develop software that I charge for, DEC will have a shit fit and send its legal buzzards after my carcass. I have two answers for this, one intelectual and one practical. (a) I really develop most of my software under SCO Xenix or MKS Toolkit/Borland Turbo C and only test compatability on the DEC machines. [This is the intellectual argument.] (b) DEC/ATT may have billions, but I don't have squat. So they sue my ass off. They get my Toyota with 101,200 miles on the odometer. I live within walking distance of work and don't drive anyway. Change of subject: I'm disappointed that there has been no response to one of my proposed threads. (a) I think many 'rights' claimed by software vendors are absurd; (b) if claimed, should be backed by acceptance of liability for damages resulting from bugs; (c) academics should be allowed to claim similar rights for lecture materials (differential pricing for commercial and non-commercial usage of material, restrictive covenants on usage, royalties for commercial usage, etc.). I think any programmer who learned a commercial useful technique from a comp-sci prof should be paying royalties (if that idea is not clearly in the public domain). Naturally, the prof should be able to duck all responsiblity for damage resulting from half-assed ideas and boring lectures, the same way software vendors duck all responsibility for bugs and simply dumb code.
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/03/89)
In article <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: >be rich. So if you're not a member of the privileged classes, you >have two choices: use the GNU tools and abide by their terms, or don't >use any tools at all. I need a lot more tools than gnu can provide me with. By the way, most tools I get from the gnu distribution already came with the system. Its totally redundant stuff. I'm glad not to be dependent on gnu software. >Of course, you're running sub-state-of-the-art hardware. Whereas GNU >software is aimed at beyond state-of-the-art hardware. As a result, it >sucks resources like crazy. On the other hand, the software production >utilities outperform commercial utilities for the same target >hardware. Don't make me laugh. We just bought some hp835 computers and I haven't seen gcc running on it. And if it would it certainly cannot generate faster code than hp's own compiler does. I haven't heard of gcc running on my Apollo and performing better than the Domain C compiler either. Have you got gcc running on our Alliant FX8 machine. No you haven't. And would it do better? I guess not. And don't tell me gcc is better than Sun's C compiler. It's probably because the Sun people can't write compilers rather than gcc being such a suberb tool. So what is all this crap of me being helpless without the gnu tape. I can do without gnu. I can't do without commercial software. Mart van Stiphout Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl ------------------------------- It's not the fall that kills you, it's the sudden stop
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/03/89)
In article <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > In article <5361@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > <In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: [ about GNU being about giving away neat tools to my friends ] > <> Correct. It uses one to allow people to do the other. So in a sense, > <> it is about both of them. You can draw finer distinctions if you want. > <This is the silliest argument for the FSF that I've ever seen. I don't *need* > <the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE to give away neat software to my friends. I just do > <it. > Do you tell the people who hold the copyrights on those tools that > you're doing that? Since either I own the copyrights on these tools, or they're stuff I got through comp.sources.* (of which a vanishingly small percentage are GNU stuff)... no. > They don't claim they own it. They merely claim partial ownership of > derivative works - which the law allows them to do. They don't let you > distribute copies of those works unless you agree to their terms for > doing so. This is _exactly_ what copyright is for - to control the > conditions under which others can copy your works. Semantics. Quibbling. If I can't do what I want with a compiler I wrote because I used Bison to compile it, I don't own it any more. I'll even give them the right to a version of, say, GNU-Emacs I might have hacked up. But when they extend this to sections of code that are purely intended for inclusion in another... such as a library or parser skeleton... that might be legal but it's neither fair, ethical, or moral. > ... [rich and/or highly skilled] programmers are the only > ones who can use the GNU tools and [control the use of] the resuls. This is fair? This is ethical? I have other words for this. > This should be compared with commercial > tools, where it doesn't matter how skillfull you are, you just have to > be rich. You keep making this claim, but it's not backed up by reality. The highly restrictive licensing agreements, where you have to pay huge amounts of royalties to distribute binaries, are a thing of the past. The *market* has spoken. Borland has done more for poor programmers than the Free Software Foundation. > So if you're not a member of the privileged classes, you > have two choices: use the GNU tools and abide by their terms, or don't > use any tools at all. Let me tag this paragraph (reference 1). I'll come back to it later. If you're not rich you can't afford a computer big enough to use GCC in the first place anyway. It needs, what, something on the order of a megabyte of stack? It's cheaper to buy a PC and Microsoft C. > The commercial licenses have really helped them > out a lot, haven't they? Yes. > You didn't say it, but I don't think I misreprestented your position. > You don't want FSF exercising their copyrights on derivative works if > it's not an obvious derivation. No, I don't want the FSF excersizing their copyrights on works intended to be used as part of someone else's code. Libraries, the Bison Parser Skeleton. That sort of thing. Stuff you can't use at all without including it in your code, and which has to be included in your code if you want to use the GNU tools. [back to commercial licenses] > Correct. However, I don't see any commercial license agreement that > doesn't require that either I buy time on the target hardware, or that > the owner of the target hardware buy the commercial product, if I want > them to have a trivial installation process. Check out any of Borland's products, Microsoft C, Lattice C, Lattice C++, Aztec C, or any of the other microcomputer compiler vendors. > <OK, you're saying I'm incompetant. > Either that, or misininformed. Probably a mixture of both. OK. Now we get to the meat of the matter. Personal insults. I can take it. I've been insulted by far more competant folks than you. > <For small-volume items, can you make enough to live on? I know RMS doesn't > <believe in living off software sales. Do you? > Yes, you can make enough to live on (quite comfortably) on small > volume items. Check out the salaries people pay Unix systems > programmers for maintenance positions. Or for support, like me? Just because my ox isn't being gored directly doesn't mean I don't have an interest. > <Oh yes... quality is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have the RAM to > <spare to run GCC. > Given the current memory prices, not buying a single commercial > compiler would pay for that ram. Not so. You can't buy enough memory to run GNU on any IBM-PC or clone for any amount of money. I doubt if you could get it to run on an 80286 at all. I know RMS thinks this is a good thing, but most folks are stuck with this sort of hardware. You can't talk about GNU-CC being for the little folks when the little folks can't afford GNU-CC. (see reference 1 above) Now I must admit that my machine at home, and Amiga 1000 with 4.5 Meg of RAM, is more competant... but still the RAM on that machine costs a lot more than the $400 I spent on my C compiler. > <> Nope, it's part of the point. The GPL is _not_ incredibly restrictive. > <Yes it is. It imposes a restriction that is completely unprecedented outside > <of eastern governments. > Sorry, but you're wrong. People have sold compilers with yearly rental > fees and requirements for royalties. Those set a nice precedent. Yearly rental fees and royalties are in no way equivalent to forcing people to give away sources. I'll see you later. This is getting tiresome. You keep pushing arguments that haven't been even vaguely valid in 10 years, or that won't be valid for another 10. Meanwhile, I find it more useful to live in the present. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/03/89)
In article <1448@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>, davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (William Davidsen) writes: > I think that a lot of people who are most vocal on this are either > (a) people who have never sold a piece of software, or (b) have never > taken the time to properly give software away, with a man page, > makefile, ifdefs for at least BSD and USG, etc. Just for the record, I've sold software and given software away. I think properly, though how ifdefs for USG and BSD would help an Amiga-specific file requestor (for example) is beyond me :->. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/04/89)
In article <1448@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
< I think that a lot of people who are most vocal on this are either
<(a) people who have never sold a piece of software, or (b) have never
<taken the time to properly give software away, with a man page,
<makefile, ifdefs for at least BSD and USG, etc.
I think yo'ure talking through your hat. I know the most vocal two of
us have both 1) sold software, and 2) properly given it away.
BTW, your definition of "proper" and mine differ. It should be
properly ifdef'ed for all distinct OS's it runs on. If you're
unfortunate enough to be working with an OS that has multiple
different variations, you should ifdef it on _features_, not on
variations. Features tend to drift between variations of an OS, but
not across OSs.
While we're at it, if you're going to do it right, you should provide
a script that tweaks the config files for any implementation it runs
on, so that a typical installation process would look like:
configfor sun
make
make install
<mike
--
The weather is here, I wish you were beautiful. Mike Meyer
My thoughts aren't too clear, but don't run away. mwm@berkeley.edu
My girlfriend's a bore, my job is too dutiful. ucbvax!mwm
Hell nobody's perfect, would you like to play? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETmwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/04/89)
In article <100@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: <In article <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <>be rich. So if you're not a member of the privileged classes, you <>have two choices: use the GNU tools and abide by their terms, or don't <>use any tools at all. <So what is all this crap of me being helpless without the gnu tape. <I can do without gnu. I can't do without commercial software. If you can afford the commercial software, you're one of the privileged classes. The statement doesn't apply to you. <mike -- Teddies good friend has his two o'clock feast Mike Meyer And he's making Teddies ex girl friend come mwm@berkeley.edu They mistook Teddies good trust ucbvax!mwm Just for proof that Teddy was dumb. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/04/89)
In article <5486@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> In article <5361@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <> <In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <[ about GNU being about giving away neat tools to my friends ] <> <> <This is the silliest argument for the FSF that I've ever seen. I don't *need* <> <the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE to give away neat software to my friends. I just do <> <it. < <> Do you tell the people who hold the copyrights on those tools that <> you're doing that? < <Since either I own the copyrights on these tools, or they're stuff I got <through comp.sources.* (of which a vanishingly small percentage are GNU <stuff)... no. You mean you don't have any neat tools that are commercial software? Certainly doesn't say much for commecial software. <Semantics. Quibbling. If I can't do what I want with a compiler I wrote <because I used Bison to compile it, I don't own it any more. By that logic, I don't own copies of any of the software I write using commercial tools, because I can't do what I want with it. What I want to do is give someone everything they need to change it to suit their needs. <But when they extend this to sections of code that <are purely intended for inclusion in another... such as a library or <parser skeleton... that might be legal but it's neither fair, ethical, <or moral. Gee, that's how I feel about any tool that's purely intended for building tools that I can't redistribute: that such limitations are legal, but aren't fair, ethical or moral. <> This should be compared with commercial <> tools, where it doesn't matter how skillfull you are, you just have to <> be rich. < <You keep making this claim, but it's not backed up by reality. The <highly restrictive licensing agreements, where you have to pay huge <amounts of royalties to distribute binaries, are a thing of the past. <The *market* has spoken. Borland has done more for poor programmers <than the Free Software Foundation. My fault - I didn't specify everything. I expected the rest of the context to make my meaning clear, and it obviously didn't. I didn't mean that you had to be rich to distribute things built with commercial tools, but that you had to be rich to buy them. Or are there commercial tools that have no monetary charge associated with them? <If you're not rich you can't afford a computer big enough to use GCC <in the first place anyway. It needs, what, something on the order of <a megabyte of stack? It's cheaper to buy a PC and Microsoft C. You're paying to much for your memory, then. <> You didn't say it, but I don't think I misreprestented your position. <> You don't want FSF exercising their copyrights on derivative works if <> it's not an obvious derivation. < <No, I don't want the FSF excersizing their copyrights on works intended <to be used as part of someone else's code. Libraries, the Bison Parser <Skeleton. That sort of thing. Stuff you can't use at all without including <it in your code, and which has to be included in your code if you want to <use the GNU tools. You just said what I claimed you said: "I don't want the FSF exersizing their copyrights". And you accuse _them_ of being unfair? <> Correct. However, I don't see any commercial license agreement that <> doesn't require that either I buy time on the target hardware, or that <> the owner of the target hardware buy the commercial product, if I want <> them to have a trivial installation process. < <Check out any of Borland's products, Microsoft C, Lattice C, Lattice C++, <Aztec C, or any of the other microcomputer compiler vendors. I did. All of them do have that requirement. If I want to let someone run code I develop, I either have to have time on a machine similar enough to theirs to build a binary for them, or they have to have a compiler. The sole exception is that some of these people market cross compilers, so I can get by with time on a machine that the cross compiler runs on and buying the cross compiler. Big help. <> Given the current memory prices, not buying a single commercial <> compiler would pay for that ram. < <Not so. You can't buy enough memory to run GNU on any IBM-PC or <clone for any amount of money. I doubt if you could get it to run <on an 80286 at all. In which case, they obviously have no problems whatsoever with the GNU copyleft. RMS doesn't choose to produce tools for these machines. That means they lose an option available to others. You think RMS should be forced to write for those people also? <Now I must admit that my machine at home, and Amiga 1000 with 4.5 Meg <of RAM, is more competant... but still the RAM on that machine costs <a lot more than the $400 I spent on my C compiler. Yes, but that's a lot more ram than you need to run GCC. Last time I looked, $400 would buy you an extra meg or two over the original 1/2. That should do the trick. <> Sorry, but you're wrong. People have sold compilers with yearly rental <> fees and requirements for royalties. Those set a nice precedent. < <Yearly rental fees and royalties are in no way equivalent to forcing <people to give away sources. I didn't say that they were equivalent, I said they set a nice precedent. <I'll see you later. This is getting tiresome. You keep pushing arguments <that haven't been even vaguely valid in 10 years, or that won't be valid <for another 10. Meanwhile, I find it more useful to live in the present. Your sense of time is broken - maybe because you spend to much time on the present, and not enough examining the past or the future. But your sense of tiresome isn't. We keep going away from the central point, which is that there are _lots_ of ways to make money off of copylefted works. Unless you choose to talk about that point, I'm going to drop the thread too. Final comment: you seem to care an awful lot about the licensing restrictions on software you don't use. <mike -- And then up spoke his own dear wife, Mike Meyer Never heard to speak so free. mwm@berkeley.edu "I'd rather a kiss from dead Matty's lips, ucbvax!mwm Than you or your finery." mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/04/89)
In article <26947@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > I didn't > mean that you had to be rich to distribute things built with > commercial tools, but that you had to be rich to buy them. How much did your computer cost? About $2,000, I'd guess, would be average for a personal computer. Less if you want to get a good one like an Amiga instead of an IBM clone. But still, if you can afford that, you can afford a few hundred dollars for a good C compiler, or a hundred or so for a Modula compiler. If you want to run GNUCC, your computer is going to cost a lot more. You can buy a lot of commercial software with the difference, and expect to get help when something goes wrong. > In which case, they obviously have no problems whatsoever with the GNU > copyleft. RMS doesn't choose to produce tools for these machines. That > means they lose an option available to others. You think RMS should be > forced to write for those people also? No, but he shouldn't use leftist arguments about how it's cheaper to use GNU-cc than buy commercial software if he's not going to. And neither should you. > We keep going away from the central point, > which is that there are _lots_ of ways to make money off of copylefted > works. Unless you choose to talk about that point, I'm going to drop > the thread too. I don't choose to talk about that point. It's irrelevant. I can make a living digging ditches and come home and program, too, but that's also irrelevant. > Final comment: you seem to care an awful lot about the licensing > restrictions on software you don't use. Because I consider RMS' goals to be evil and rude, and unless someone stands up and says so lots of people, like you, are going to go along with him. The idea of living in the world RMS is trying to make frankly scares me. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/05/89)
In article <5524@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26947@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> I didn't <> mean that you had to be rich to distribute things built with <> commercial tools, but that you had to be rich to buy them. < <How much did your computer cost? About $2,000, I'd guess, would be average <for a personal computer. Less if you want to get a good one like an Amiga <instead of an IBM clone. But still, if you can afford that, you can afford <a few hundred dollars for a good C compiler, or a hundred or so for a Modula <compiler. How long did you spend writing the compiler using bison? If you can afford that much time, you can afford to rewrite the back end of bison. Etc. In other words, your argument about having to be in a privileged group to use the GNU tools with your own code in place of the problem parts is also facetious. <If you want to run GNUCC, your computer is going to cost a lot more. You <can buy a lot of commercial software with the difference, and expect to <get help when something goes wrong. You get support from commercial software vendors? I've gotten support from exactly _one_ commercial software vendor in 15 years of using commercial software. Hardware vendors do a little better, but not much. Typical of them is the "fix" for Ultrix 3.0 not supporting uids greater than 32K. In 3.1, they document that you can't use uids greater than 32K. This is SOP for most commercial software. I get more help with non-commercial software than with commercial software. That's because there's a large body of people using the non-commercial software who enjoy helping others, and do so. For commercial software, they can't do that nearly as well - unless they have the source. And I don't notice any increase in the cost of my machine if I want to run GNU tools. On the other hand, I believe in buying adequate machines to start with. <> In which case, they obviously have no problems whatsoever with the GNU <> copyleft. RMS doesn't choose to produce tools for these machines. That <> means they lose an option available to others. You think RMS should be <> forced to write for those people also? < <No, but he shouldn't use leftist arguments about how it's cheaper to use <GNU-cc than buy commercial software if he's not going to. < <And neither should you. I don't use leftist arguments. Mine are libertarian arguments. They just happen to agree with the leftists in this (very restricted) area. <> We keep going away from the central point, <> which is that there are _lots_ of ways to make money off of copylefted <> works. Unless you choose to talk about that point, I'm going to drop <> the thread too. < <I don't choose to talk about that point. It's irrelevant. If you don't choose to talk about that point, then you shouldn't choose to complain about copylefted software because you can't make a profit on it. Because said complaint is false, and people will call you on it. <> Final comment: you seem to care an awful lot about the licensing <> restrictions on software you don't use. < <Because I consider RMS' goals to be evil and rude, and unless someone <stands up and says so lots of people, like you, are going to go along <with him. The idea of living in the world RMS is trying to make frankly <scares me. The idea of living in the world RMS is trying to make is one hell of a lot more appealing to me than the one we've got now. That's why I go along with him. I can understand why those with their wallets firmly tied to the copyright law would object to such a world. However, there's no other reason why anyone who actually thought about it would object to such a world. <mike -- Don't tell me how to live my life Mike Meyer Don't tell me what to do mwm@berkeley.edu Repression is always brought about ucbvax!mwm by people with politics and attitudes like you. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (08/07/89)
In article <5524@ficc.uu.net>, peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > In article <26947@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: < < I didn't < < mean that you had to be rich to distribute things built with < < commercial tools, but that you had to be rich to buy them. > > How much did your computer cost? About $2,000, I'd guess, would be average > for a personal computer. Less if you want to get a good one like an Amiga > instead of an IBM clone. But still, if you can afford that, you can afford > a few hundred dollars for a good C compiler, or a hundred or so for a Modula > compiler. As far as I can tell, there is NO good compiler! There is NO good language. I have discussed this in the appropriate newsgroups. It is easy to give examples of computation of mathematical functions for which the sources can be easily edited to do the job, but the binaries can not be. Even the binaries, disassembled, can be easily edited if the logic is known, and sometimes even if not. > If you want to run GNUCC, your computer is going to cost a lot more. You > can buy a lot of commercial software with the difference, and expect to > get help when something goes wrong. My university seems to think that GNUCC is among the better ones. < < In which case, they obviously have no problems whatsoever with the GNU < < copyleft. RMS doesn't choose to produce tools for these machines. That < < means they lose an option available to others. You think RMS should be < < forced to write for those people also? > > No, but he shouldn't use leftist arguments about how it's cheaper to use > GNU-cc than buy commercial software if he's not going to. > > And neither should you. > < < We keep going away from the central point, < < which is that there are _lots_ of ways to make money off of copylefted < < works. Unless you choose to talk about that point, I'm going to drop < < the thread too. > > I don't choose to talk about that point. It's irrelevant. I can make a > living digging ditches and come home and program, too, but that's also > irrelevant. > < < Final comment: you seem to care an awful lot about the licensing < < restrictions on software you don't use. > > Because I consider RMS' goals to be evil and rude, and unless someone > stands up and says so lots of people, like you, are going to go along > with him. The idea of living in the world RMS is trying to make frankly > scares me. I consider the non-source attitude of many commercial suppliers evil and rude. If I can make my program more efficient, and even easier to understand, by using hardware capabilities the language designers and compiler writers do not know of, I think that I am entitled to be very annoyed that the purveyors of software would so restrict me. At least Stallman will provide me with some information, which may or may not be useful. He does not misrepresent himself. But much of the commercial software is written to be difficult to modify. If they purveyors would even attempt to do something about fixing problems QUICKLY, the might have a point. But if a fix has to wait for the next release, if then, they do not. I no more expect to see really good software than I expect to see a computer which can outperform the best mathematicians in proving theorems, or if that is not to your liking, the best playwrights and the best painters. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (08/08/89)
states) Summary: Expires: References: <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu> <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5361@ficc.uu.net> <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <100@euteal.ele.tue.nl> <26945@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Sender: Reply-To: sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Corpane Industries, Inc. Keywords: In article <26945@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: ><>be rich. So if you're not a member of the privileged classes, you ^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >If you can afford the commercial software, you're one of the >privileged classes. The statement doesn't apply to you. Y'know (sorry to interupt y'alls argument) but all this talk about 'privilaged classes' and only the rich can afford software.... Sounds like a bunch of propaganda to me. Who ever said that GNU was political has hit it on the head. Sounds like socialist propaganda, making the 'poor working class' think that the 'rich capitalists' are Evil and that only GNU can free the working classes with their FREE software. If someone wants to give something away, great. If someone wants to charge for something, equally great. But to try to force someone to do as you wish is wrong. At least here you have a choice (unlike with some political viewpoints), don't use GNU. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Never call a man a fool; borrow from him.
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/08/89)
In article <26945@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: >If you can afford the commercial software, you're one of the >privileged classes. The statement doesn't apply to you. The gnu stuff is not a substitute for vendor supplied software. You can only use it as supplementary software. Mart van Stiphout
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/08/89)
In article <26994@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: >The idea of living in the world RMS is trying to make is one hell of a >lot more appealing to me than the one we've got now. That's why I go >along with him. I can understand why those with their wallets firmly >tied to the copyright law would object to such a world. However, There once was a small country named Gnuland. in this land lived a fanatic kind of people, the gnurus, and their leader: the almighty Gnuru rms. Their only target in life was to create free software for the purpose of creating even more free software. They preferred to do so at night after the usual chinese dinner with their wise leader. They were all happy and satisfied, mainly because their brainwashed minds were unable to understand any of the arguments that were put forward by foreigners (non-gnulanders).
jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) (08/09/89)
>> If I use BISON to create a compiler, is that compiler governed by the GNU >> liscence? > >If you used the BISON parser skeleton, yes. This has been explicitly stated. OK. Who wants to write a BISON-compatible parser skeleton that is REALLY freely distributable? Make sure you put in a copyright that prevents the GNU copyright from being added (This is getting silly!) john nelson UUCP: {decvax,mit-eddie}!genrad!jpn smail: jpn@genrad.com
mwm@consult.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/09/89)
In article <942@corpane.UUCP> sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) writes:
<Y'know (sorry to interupt y'alls argument) but all this talk about 'privilaged
<classes' and only the rich can afford software.... Sounds like a bunch of
<propaganda to me.
Considing who first brought up the subject of privileged classes,
you're right. The propoganda in question is "You can't use copylefted
software to make money." This was, and remains, a lie.
<But to try to force someone to do as you wish is wrong.
I couldn't agree more. That's why I do use GNU. They don't try and
force me to do anything I don't want to do, unlike most commercial
software.
By the same token, if you find the GNU software forcing you to do
something you don't want to do, don't use it.
<mike
--
Kiss me with your mouth. Mike Meyer
Your love is better than wine. mwm@berkeley.edu
But wine is all I have. ucbvax!mwm
Will your love ever be mine? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETsnoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) (08/09/89)
In article <5524@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: |In article <26947@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: |How much did your computer cost? About $2,000, I'd guess, would be average |for a personal computer. Less if you want to get a good one like an Amiga |instead of an IBM clone. But still, if you can afford that, you can afford |a few hundred dollars for a good C compiler, or a hundred or so for a Modula |compiler. So an Amiga is a "good" computer, but it can't run the software I want to run. Interesting definition of "good". | If you want to run GNUCC, your computer is going to cost a lot more. In the local newsgroups, a computer is being offered for sale for a suggested price of $1000, which will run gcc and friends. Gcc will generate faster code than the vender-supplied C compiler. | You can buy a lot of commercial software with the difference, I don't know of too much commercial software for sale for a negative amount of money. | and expect to get help when something goes wrong. You can NOT expect help from the vender when something goes wrong. _____ .-----. /_____\ Snoopy ./ RIP \. /_______\ qiclab!sopwith!snoopy | | |___| parsely!sopwith!snoopy | tekecs | |___| sun!nosun!illian!sopwith!snoopy |_________| "You made a woman meow?"
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/09/89)
In article <1989Aug8.221257.5506@agate.berkeley.edu>, mwm@consult.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > Considing who first brought up the subject of privileged classes, > you're right. The propoganda in question is "You can't use copylefted > software to make money." You're right, that's the propoganda in question. I didn't say that you can't use copylefted software to make money. I said that you can't afford to use GCC or Bison for commercial software, because doing so may put your software under the copyleft. This is not the same statement. > This was, and remains, a lie. The only lie I see is your continual attempts to put words into my mouth by bringing up this straw man again and again and again. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
clay@uci.UUCP (News Administrator) (08/09/89)
In article <24559@genrad.UUCP>, jpn@genrad.com (John P. Nelson) writes: > >> If I use BISON to create a compiler, is that compiler governed by the GNU > >> liscence? > > > > OK. Who wants to write a BISON-compatible parser skeleton that is REALLY > freely distributable? Make sure you put in a copyright that prevents the > GNU copyright from being added (This is getting silly!) > john nelson > At Usenix in Denver a while back, Steven Bourne mentioned something about how much AT&T missed out revenue-wise in not charging for products created using yacc and lex. Sometimes the things we don't think about are kinda scary. Yes, this is getting silly. -- Clayton Haapala ...!mmm!dicome!uci!clay Unified Communications Inc. 3001 Metro Drive - Suite 500 "Revenge is better than Christmas" Bloomington, MN 55425 -- Elvira
Horne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (08/09/89)
In article <102@euteal.ele.tue.nl>, mart@ele (Mart van Stiphout) writes: > In article <26994@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > >The idea of living in the world RMS is trying to make is one hell of a > >lot more appealing to me than the one we've got now. That's why I go > >along with him. I can understand why those with their wallets firmly > >tied to the copyright law would object to such a world. However, > > There once was a small country named Gnuland. Don't you mean GNU C-land? :-) Sorry; I couldn't resist the pun. Send flames down under. :-) > They were all happy and satisfied, mainly because their brainwashed > minds were unable to understand any of the arguments that were put > forward by foreigners (non-gnulanders). Or because the non-GNU C-landers were generally so inarticulate and brainwashed as to be incapable of rational argument? --Scott Scott Horne Undergraduate programmer, Yale CS Dept Facility horne@cs.Yale.edu ...!{harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!horne Home: 203 789-0877 SnailMail: Box 7196 Yale Station, New Haven, CT 06520 Work: 203 432-1260 Summer residence: 175 Dwight St, New Haven, CT Dare I speak for the amorphous gallimaufry of intellectual thought called Yale?
davidsen@sungod.crd.ge.com (ody) (08/10/89)
In article <5524@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: | > Final comment: you seem to care an awful lot about the licensing | > restrictions on software you don't use. | | Because I consider RMS' goals to be evil and rude, and unless someone | stands up and says so lots of people, like you, are going to go along | with him. The idea of living in the world RMS is trying to make frankly | scares me. Although I disagree with RMS, and have said so in the past, I don't think his ideas are so much *evil* as impractical. The idea of some rich bunch of programmers dispensing software as a bounty is interesting, but in the long term the people who will keep writing and supporting software are being paid for it. I obviously like the idea of free software, and I've posted and otherwise made a reasonable quantity available, back to the CP/M days. What I don't like is the idea that having done so I have any moral high ground from which I can force people to give their creations away. In fact I couldn't afford to have a computer of my own if I didn't sell some software now and then. I will leave the question of "rude" alone, with regard to the goals and the person. bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM) {uunet | philabs}!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -me
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/10/89)
In article <24559@genrad.UUCP> jpn@genrad.UUCP (John P. Nelson) writes: >OK. Who wants to write a BISON-compatible parser skeleton that is REALLY >freely distributable? Make sure you put in a copyright that prevents the >GNU copyright from being added (This is getting silly!) > john nelson Tee-hee. It's truly tempting. Perhaps we'll see teams of people soon writing "truly free(tm)" libraries for GCC, parser skeletons for Bison and more. It has always struck me as odd that when RMS's goal has been to remove the issues of intellectual property politics and ownership from software, his actual result has been to create vastly greater amounts of political debate and lawyering. One might be tempted to say, "get your lawyers off my software." -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) (08/11/89)
In article <275@sopwith.UUCP> snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >|How much did your computer cost? About $2,000, I'd guess, would be average >|for a personal computer. Less if you want to get a good one like an Amiga >|instead of an IBM clone. But still, if you can afford that, you can afford >|a few hundred dollars for a good C compiler, or a hundred or so for a Modula >|compiler. > >So an Amiga is a "good" computer, but it can't run the software I want to >run. Interesting definition of "good". It'll probably run GCC if you add the extra memory and spend the time porting it. Using availability of software YOU want as a criteria of whether a computer is good or not is interesting. Do you always get calls from computer companies to get your opinion? That may be a good definition for you personally, but not the rest of the world - we have other definitions that may or may-not agree. >| If you want to run GNUCC, your computer is going to cost a lot more. > >In the local newsgroups, a computer is being offered for sale for a >suggested price of $1000, which will run gcc and friends. I am curious, actually. Perhaps you are referring to a used computer (such as a used PDP)? I would find it hard to find the memory needed to run GCC (on any but toy programs) for $750... What is this magical computer? Will it be able to compile GCC using GCC? >You can NOT expect help from the vender when something goes wrong. Then you have the wrong vendor... That's part of MY definition of a 'good' computer. Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com) We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.
talvola@janus.berkeley.edu (Erik Talvola) (08/12/89)
In article <662@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson) writes: In article <275@sopwith.UUCP> snoopy@sopwith.UUCP (Snoopy) writes: >| If you want to run GNUCC, your computer is going to cost a lot more. > >In the local newsgroups, a computer is being offered for sale for a >suggested price of $1000, which will run gcc and friends. I am curious, actually. Perhaps you are referring to a used computer (such as a used PDP)? I would find it hard to find the memory needed to run GCC (on any but toy programs) for $750... What is this magical computer? Will it be able to compile GCC using GCC? I believe he may be refering to the Atari ST. Someone just recently posted a port of GCC v1.34 for the Atari ST to the atari newsgroup. I don't have an ST, so don't ask me for any more details, but if the ST is really powerful enough to run GCC, then I am impressed. For a little more money (say $2000), you could probably get a bare bones 16 MHz 80386 PC clone, which should run GCC fine (if you run Unix on it). -- +----------------------------+ ! Erik Talvola | "It's just what we need... a colossal negative ! talvola@janus.berkeley.edu | space wedgie of great power coming right at us ! ...!ucbvax!janus!talvola | at warp speed." -- Star Drek