markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) (07/29/89)
People have been going back and forth with Peter De Silva about the GNU public license, claiming that he doesn't understand or appreciate the goals of the FSF and Richard Stallman. Could quite conceivably be true, I don't understand or appreciate them especially either. I have suffered a bit of disillusionment when it comes to GNU software. Originally, I thought the goals were to create a set of Unix-like tools that we could all freely use, without the restrictions placed on AT&T's implementation of Unix. We would be free to modify, change, improve and POST source to our improvements, without the restriction of copyrights and licensing agreements. Unfortunately, this is NOT the goal of GNU-ware or the Free Software Foundation. The FSF seeks to establish a different kind of property right, by claiming rights to any software which "uses" GNU software, where "uses" varies from program incarnation to program incarnation. As an example, consider the case of Bison versus that of GCC. Anything compiled with GCC is not covered by the GNU copyleft (although RMS has admitted that that would be a "right" thing to do). Anything made using bison integrates a "skel" file, so it is considered a derivative work. Excuse me, but there seems to be a very VERY subtle difference between these two instances. The assembly output of a compiler is in some sense a "derivative" of the compiler. Its true that it doesn't integrate the text of some file into its output, but the result of its output is the derivative of the compiled rules for parsing and code generation. With the proper perspective, the differences between the two licenses seems almost nonsensical. The true fact of the matter is, the only real reason why RMS and the FSF grant you the right to your own binaries is the fact that he really can't enforce taking them away and granting them to the FSF. People have claimed that the main reason the GNU copyright exists was to ensure the rights to give your code away. Heck folks, you always have that right, I give my code away all the time. Nobody can ever keep you from giving your code away. (Before people contradict by saying you can't give code that you right at work away, it isn't yours to begin with, so of course you can't.) The other claim is that the GNU project produces better programs than any commercial or public domain scheme, because it allows the free redistribution, and demands the redistribution of improvements. This may be true, I believe RMS to be the single most gifted programmer I have ever seen, he rights excellent code and is phenomenal in his output. But on the other hand, consider where GNU ware would be without the unthinkably large body of users and programmers who serve as beta-testers for the GNU project. Sure, we have a stake in it, our improvements will get fed back to us in the next release, which usually translates to once a month for gcc, less often now for emacs. But the only reason we have this feedback loop is because of the wide distribution of GNU ware over the Internet. Without a high bandwidth, large audience presence on the Internet, GNU's progress would have been much slower than it is. The bottom line: if you want to make a living out of programming, you or your company needs to copyright your code in order to maintain your rights to sell the code. You have a perfect right to do so, because you have incurred an economic penalty (read: living expenses) in order to right this program. If you can get someone to pay money for your program, then you have successfully entered the world of capitalism. If on the other hand, you like to program, you like to have your work used by others, you like to see their improvements, or you just like to hear "Thanks" occasionally, you can release your program into the Public Domain. You have relinquished commerical interest in your program, and can enjoy the fact that people will use your program and improve it. The GNU project is neither of these: it seeks to deny your rights to make a living from software which they "give" to you. The license is confusing and misleading, as is the idealism with which it is usually argued on the net. The pro-GNU forces will undoubtably flame me soundly, that's okay, I have my asbestos undies on. They seem to outnumber the counter-GNU forces by a considerable margin. That's okay too, I am often in the minority. (Let the flames begin) Mark T. VandeWettering
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (07/31/89)
In article <9655@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) writes:
: The pro-GNU forces will undoubtably flame me soundly, that's okay, I
: have my asbestos undies on. They seem to outnumber the counter-GNU
: forces by a considerable margin. That's okay too, I am often in the
: minority.
Most of the anti-GNUs have learned that arguing with those who
approve of the GNU philosophy is like arguing with medieval religious
fanatics: there is no positive gain to be had, and one is likely to
get torched as well! (There maybe ought to be a smiley there, but
while the modern torching is metaphorical, it is just as real.)
The GNU philsophy is so brain-damaged that no person who actually
*thinks* about it would hold it. (For clarification, I'm referring to
the ideas relating to intellectual property rights, not to the idea
of providing free software.)
I will not attempt to prove this here; the GNUists do not use reason
to uphold their position, why should I be so stupid as to try to use
reason to convince them that they are wrong? Reality itself might
teach them, but I won't try.
But to those who are confused about the issue, I will just point out
that the FSF is a parasite on that which they despise. Consider the
status of a parasite that would kill its host, the morality of a
person who would destroy the society that makes his morality
practicable, and the rationality of biting the hand that feeds you.
Good day and good premises.
---
Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill
bill@twwells.comgl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (07/31/89)
In article <1989Jul30.210646.12194@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: >Most of the anti-GNUs have learned that arguing with those who >approve of the GNU philosophy is like arguing with medieval religious >fanatics: there is no positive gain to be had, and one is likely to >get torched as well! (There maybe ought to be a smiley there, but >while the modern torching is metaphorical, it is just as real.) Why argue with them? They give away software; you can either use it or not. You can agree with their opinions about intellectual property or not. Best of all, you can ignore them completely. I live with lots of people with whom I disagree, yet I live in peace. >The GNU philsophy is so brain-damaged that no person who actually >*thinks* about it would hold it. (For clarification, I'm referring to >the ideas relating to intellectual property rights, not to the idea >of providing free software.) However, insulting the intelligence of those who don't agree with you is a poor debating tactic. No wonder you have little luck convincing anyone. >But to those who are confused about the issue, I will just point out >that the FSF is a parasite on that which they despise. Consider the >status of a parasite that would kill its host, the morality of a >person who would destroy the society that makes his morality >practicable, and the rationality of biting the hand that feeds you. Imminent Death of Commercial Software Predicted!! Just think of all those companies writing C compilers and editors that will go out of business because their products are inferior to GNU C and GNU Emacs? Sniff, sniff. FSF will not kill the computer industry. And why is this in comp.misc anyway? Intellectual property rights sounds more like a topic for misc.legal, imminent death of this or that for misc.headlines or alt.conspiracy, and parasites for sci.medical. Sweeping insults of the intelligence of this or that group is appropriate for alt.flame, not cross-posts. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/31/89)
In article <9655@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) writes: > .......... omitted ........... Apart from Peter Da Silva I think you're the second person on the net who is able to speak reasonable about the gnu stuff. Most pro-gnu replies I have seen are very dogmatic. Gnu is great Stallman is great the philosophy is great. There seems to be no room for a reasonable discussion on the gnu ideas. Mart van Stiphout Eindhoven University of Technology Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (07/31/89)
In article <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >Imminent Death of Commercial Software Predicted!! Just think of all those >companies writing C compilers and editors that will go out of business >because their products are inferior to GNU C and GNU Emacs? Sniff, sniff. There seems to be this big misunderstanding that only gnurus can write a decent piece of software and that commercial software is equivalent to crap. Mart van Stiphout Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (07/31/89)
In article <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: }In article <1989Jul30.210646.12194@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: } }>Most of the anti-GNUs have learned that arguing with those who }>approve of the GNU philosophy is like arguing with medieval religious }>fanatics: there is no positive gain to be had, and one is likely to }>get torched as well! (There maybe ought to be a smiley there, but }>while the modern torching is metaphorical, it is just as real.) } }Why argue with them? They give away software; you can either use it }or not. You can agree with their opinions about intellectual property }or not. Best of all, you can ignore them completely. I live with }lots of people with whom I disagree, yet I live in peace. The problem is that because they want to give away *their* software, they are trying to get the laws changed so that they will force *everyone* to give away their software. I think it is important to point out the flaws in the FSF-style view of the world so that folks who might otherwise be bedazzled into thinking it _might_ really all be able to work will be able to see clearly theboundardies and limits on the whole approach. }FSF will not kill the computer industry. And why is this in comp.misc }anyway? Intellectual property rights sounds more like a topic for }misc.legal, imminent death of this or that for misc.headlines or }alt.conspiracy, and parasites for sci.medical. Sweeping insults }of the intelligence of this or that group is appropriate for }alt.flame, not cross-posts. Granted there is no need for flamage... but there IS some need to clearly illuminate what it is, really, that the FSF is talking about doing to the industry. They have offered a philosophical position and are confronting us with it. If they just quietly gave their software away and were done with it, that'd be one thing. But to the extent that they proseletyze, organize demonstrations, try to get laws passed/fixed, their positions are worth debating and the fallacies (from my point of view) of their version of the 'story' illuminated and exposed, so that folks who might be swayed by the rush of their arguments (even while being seduced by a particular bit of FSF software that they might be using) can see exactly what it is they might be buying into. __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
doug@argosy.UUCP (Doug Hoffman) (08/01/89)
Without taking any stand on the GNU question, I think there is a fairly dangerous (and erroneous) concept being presented. The idea is that the binary somehow is related to its method of generation. In article <9655@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) writes: > > >Excuse me, but there seems to be a very VERY subtle difference between >these two instances. The assembly output of a compiler is in some sense >a "derivative" of the compiler. Its true that it doesn't integrate the >text of some file into its output, but the result of its output is the >derivative of the compiled rules for parsing and code generation. With >the proper perspective, the differences between the two licenses seems >almost nonsensical. > I find this much like saying that the hammer is used to build a house, and therefore you owe royalties to the manufacturer of the tool. You don't even owe anything to the lumber company (assuming you paid for the material :-) ). The house you build is the result of your using tools and material to create something. You may pay royalties to the architect for each copy you build, but that is a matter of contract with them. The binaries you create can be made any number of ways. The method of their creation is not the important thing. That you selected one or another tool for that particular process is not really important. The resultant binary is the product of your work, and it is frequently worth something. The issue of including library code is entirely different. That I would compare more to copying music. If you play a tune which you have rights to on a musical instrument, no problems. If you play that tune and include prerecorded backgroud, there may be a problem with the legal rights. If you have included someone else's code in your program, you do possibly owe them something. That is entirely dependent upon the contract you created in aquiring their code. > The true fact of the matter is, the only real >reason why RMS and the FSF grant you the right to your own binaries is >the fact that he really can't enforce taking them away and granting them >to the FSF. > I think the true fact of the matter is that you have rights to your binaries unless you include someone else's binaries as well. Since in the latter case you are including some work done by the other party, you should owe them something for it. Doug Hoffman argosy!doug@decwrl.dec.com
john@ontek.UUCP (John Stanley) (08/01/89)
In article <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > > FSF will not kill the computer industry. And why is this in comp.misc > anyway? Intellectual property rights sounds more like a topic for It is in comp.misc because the place it really belongs (i.e gnu.misc.discuss) has been declared off-limits to this sort of discussion. I think that sort of tells you just how open anyone at FSF is going to be to criticism of or commentary about the various GNU ideas they have. I actually like the idea of the copyleft. It is a wonderfully idealistic goal, and as such has little if any use in the commercial world. I will gladly use any and all GNU software for developing code for my own purposes, but I will never be able to use it as part of my job. That is as it should be. If you need to treat software as a commercial product, then you produce it with other commercial products, and everyone is happy. If you want to treat software as a universal resource, then you are free to use the GNU tools. Seems eminently fair to me. What people seem to be complaining about is that they cannot use a set of tools intended to promote the free distribution of information to keep information secret. Sorry about that, folks. Free means FREE. JAS @ Ontek Corp. The opinions expressed above may or may not be those of Ontek Corporation. If you want to find out, you'll have to ask it yourself. Go ahead, I dare you!
pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) (08/01/89)
In the referenced message, john@ontek.UUCP (John Stanley) wrote:
}Free means FREE.
Yes, yes, and war is peace, and ketchup is a vegetable. We all know this one.
---
Jef
Jef Poskanzer pokey@well.sf.ca.us {ucbvax, apple, hplabs}!well!pokey
"There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: (1) not
going all the way; and (2) not starting." -- Buddhabondc@spdcc.COM (Clay Bond) (08/01/89)
What the hell is this crap doing in alt.flame? Keep the trivial to the trivial groups -- we don't want alt.flame to turn into another comp.geeks. -- "Men are the only animals that devote themselves, day in and day out, to making one another unhappy. It is an art like any other. Its virtuosi are called altruists." -- H. L. Mencken
cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (08/01/89)
In article <98@euteal.ele.tue.nl>, mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: > In article <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: > >Imminent Death of Commercial Software Predicted!! Just think of all those > >companies writing C compilers and editors that will go out of business > >because their products are inferior to GNU C and GNU Emacs? Sniff, sniff. > > There seems to be this big misunderstanding that only gnurus can write > a decent piece of software and that commercial software is > equivalent to crap. I assume that all software, including what the gnurus write, may not be appropriate to my needs. Therefore, either the software provider should be willing and able to make the necessary modifications quickly (extremely doubtful), or the necessary information should be supplied so that the modifications can be made here quickly. The FSF takes this attitude, and insists that if you provide software including or directly derived from (not compiled with) their software that you do likewise. The copyleft is a way to do this within present law. If you can think of a better way, I suggest you communicate with them. I am in no way associated with FSF, but I support the idea of software which the user can modify easily. I think it should be simpler and more powerful, and somewhat less user-inimical. I would object to a car being programmed in such a way that it could select a path to a destination and not let me override that path. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu (08/02/89)
Re: GNU Philosophy and Dogma
The first time someone gets sued by GNU for selling a program they
compiled with G++, or edited with GnuEmacs, or debugged with GDB, I
think you'll see 90% of all the GNU Software in the U.S. hit the
trashcan.
Personally, I disagree with the GNU philosophy. To summarize, the
philosophy is to build a bunch of taiwan-clone software with slightly
superior price/performance (i.e. zero price, and perhaps better
performance). To accomplish this, some highly talented people are
spending years of their lives reimplementing some archaic (and rather
outdated) pieces of technology (emacs, c, sdb, unix, all pre-1980
developments), with a few embellishments of their own.
Now,
(1) Can you say, "The existing software works o.k. in a standard way,
and is not unreasonably priced?"
(2) Can you say "It's a waste of time to reinvent the wheel?"
(3) Can you say, "UNIX isn't *everything*?"
I knew you could,
Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gilliesoz@yunexus.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (08/02/89)
In article <1989Jul30.210646.12194@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com T. William Wells writes: >Most of the anti-GNUs have learned that arguing with those who >approve of the GNU philosophy is like arguing with medieval religious >fanatics: there is no positive gain to be had, and one is likely to >get torched as well! ... I do not see why anyone should bother. FSF & GNUzoids have the right to copyright their stuff the way they like, and attach as much religion & strings as they can stomach. The GNU stuff is re-engineered and value added tools that can be found in the public domain, or can be purchased. I, by careful choice, decided not use any of the GNU tools, because I have enough of kitchen sinks and unreadable/inpenetrable "FREE" stuff already, and I do not need more (regardless of how fast and seemingly useful it is), especially when there is a religion attached to it. [Also, I like hoarding, and to make sure everybody can hoard my stuff, I release my software as PD ;-)] The point is, most everything FSF has, there is a PD or quasi-PD version of the same thing either in the works, or already out there, not to mention the commercially available versions. If one does not like GNUilosophy, one may reverse-engineer the software (if it is worth it), and make it PD !! [Oh, on the way, one must try to figure out what feetures to TAKE OUT !! It appears that GNU folks don't know how to make things as simple as possible (but not simpler).] What I am really interested in is ALTERNATIVES, and while GNU software is an alternative to some things (for some people), there are alternatives to GNU software as well, and no doubt there will be more. happy rehacking. oz -- They are like the Zen students who, Usenet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca when the master points at the moon, ......!uunet!utai!yunexus!oz continue to stare at his finger.... Bitnet: oz@[yulibra|yuyetti] P. da Silva Phonet: +1 416 736-5257x3976
bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) (08/02/89)
In article <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: : In article <1989Jul30.210646.12194@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: : >Most of the anti-GNUs have learned that arguing with those who : >approve of the GNU philosophy is like arguing with medieval religious : >fanatics: there is no positive gain to be had, and one is likely to : >get torched as well! (There maybe ought to be a smiley there, but : >while the modern torching is metaphorical, it is just as real.) : : Why argue with them? They give away software; you can either use it : or not. You can agree with their opinions about intellectual property : or not. Best of all, you can ignore them completely. I live with : lots of people with whom I disagree, yet I live in peace. A failure to counter the evil ideas of this world is a surefire way to let those ideas screw us all over. Or maybe you just thing that social change occurs in a vacuum? : >The GNU philsophy is so brain-damaged that no person who actually : >*thinks* about it would hold it. (For clarification, I'm referring to : >the ideas relating to intellectual property rights, not to the idea : >of providing free software.) : : However, insulting the intelligence of those who don't agree with you : is a poor debating tactic. No wonder you have little luck convincing : anyone. Well, apologize to me. You ASSumed that I insult people as a tactic when debating with them. That I rarely do. When I insult someone, it is because I've *stopped* debating them. In the case of GNU fanatics, experience has taught me that the ideas that they hold are not held because they've thought about them; those ideas are religious convictions and not subject to reason. : >But to those who are confused about the issue, I will just point out : >that the FSF is a parasite on that which they despise. Consider the : >status of a parasite that would kill its host, the morality of a : >person who would destroy the society that makes his morality : >practicable, and the rationality of biting the hand that feeds you. : : Imminent Death of Commercial Software Predicted!! Just think of all those : companies writing C compilers and editors that will go out of business : because their products are inferior to GNU C and GNU Emacs? Sniff, sniff. Oh horseshit. Your debating tactic is called the "red herring". If the IDCSP were to occur it would happen because Stallman et al. got it legislated out of existence. It will certainly not happen because FSF products are superior to existing ones. Since that isn't true. : FSF will not kill the computer industry. No. But the law can. Perhaps you've forgotten the "trivial" effects of one relatively recent piece of "minor" legislation: the very high prices for RAM? That screwed over many segments of our economy; moreover, the effects of that bit of despicableness can still be seen corrupting the computer industry. : And why is this in comp.misc : anyway? Intellectual property rights sounds more like a topic for : misc.legal, imminent death of this or that for misc.headlines or : alt.conspiracy, and parasites for sci.medical. Where's your smiley? And your sense of history? This topic is regularly debated on comp.misc. And from the description of newsgroups: comp.misc General topics about computers not covered elsewhere. Certainly talking about FSF and its philosophy is computer related. If you had really wanted to suggest a good place to put this discussion, you could have suggested comp.society. : Sweeping insults : of the intelligence of this or that group is appropriate for : alt.flame, not cross-posts. So why did you post? After all, I *did* set followups to alt.flame. Just as I have done with this one. --- Bill { uunet | novavax | ankh | sunvice } !twwells!bill bill@twwells.com
gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (08/02/89)
In article <43524@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: >The problem is that because they want to give away *their* software, they are >trying to get the laws changed so that they will force *everyone* to give >away their software. Woah! Let's not over-simplify the issue, and let's not lump software writing into political goals. There are two things going on here: 1) A group of people is writing software, and is releasing it with a license restriction that makes it "obnoxiously free"; 2) A group of people wants to modify the laws regarding copyright of software. First off, let me point out that #1 is totally admirable. If you want to give away software, that's great. If you don't like the restrictions they place on the code, don't use it. This is what I mean by ignoring FSF if you don't like their license agreement. You might not be able to use BSD anymore, but that's life. Second, note that the two groups aren't one and the same. They intersect, but they aren't identical. Using code covered by a GNU license or a GNU-like license doesn't necessarily mean that you support group 2's philosophy. One might note, for example, that NeXT is hardly giving away the source code for their operating system extensions. Third, not everyone in group #2 believes that everyone should be FORCED to give away their software on terms similar to the GNU Public License. Not only is this silly, it won't pass Congress. And not only that, I don't believe that many people in group #2 really want this. What I want, for example, is to see copyrights for computer programs treated in a similar fashion to copyrights for other works. You cannot copyright the "look and feel" of a cookbook. And you cannot copyright a computer language. You can copyright a compiler, but anyone is free to go out and write a compiler that groks the same input and generates a running program that behaves the same as the program generated by the copyrighted compiler. If you would like to discuss this, I would suggest misc.legal. I don't see that the laws on this are going to change overnight, or that it's so important to inform the poor unaware public about this that we should post this kind of stuff all over the comp.* tree. If you'd like an illustration of how the "GNU ideals" work, at least for his person (and I haven't written any code for GNU, but I love using theirs), then consider this: I'm a vegetarian. If you ask for my opinion, I'll advocate the idea that you should be a vegetarian also, because eating grain-fed beef is a huge waste of resources. However, that doesn't mean that I support a law banning beef. A tiny fraction of vegetarians might, but you can waste whatever you want, as far as I am concerned. You might not like the idea that I'm claiming the moral high ground, much like the FSF people do, but that's life. And, finally. > I think it is important to point out the flaws in the >FSF-style view of the world so that folks who might otherwise be bedazzled >into thinking it _might_ really all be able to work will be able to see >clearly the boundardies and limits on the whole approach. Point it out in the right groups. And, keep in mind that if lots of people start giving code away (group #1 above), it won't hurt anyone except commercial software houses with inferior products. It may be a strange kind of "free market philosophy" to have products out there competing which don't cost anything up-front, but it's still capitalism at work. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.
mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) (08/02/89)
In article <1463@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >I am in no way associated with FSF, but I support the idea of software >which the user can modify easily. I think it should be simpler and more >powerful, and somewhat less user-inimical. I would object to a car being >programmed in such a way that it could select a path to a destination and >not let me override that path. Your analogy is rather useless. What you actually mean is: When I buy a car and its performance does not suit me, I can take my toolbox and start improving it. Unlike many other posters, I can't subscribe the opinion that having the sources is necessary because the software is usually bad. I've worked on several computers (HP, DEC, Apollo, Alliant, Sun) for a number of years and for most of my activities (program development, reasearch, text processing) the utilities provided are more than sufficient. I really don't need the diff sources or the compiler sources. I assume people who are into operating systems and stuff like that want to make changes in the operating system sources but how many people are into such things? Mart van Stiphout Eindhoven University of Technology Email: mart@euteal.ele.tue.nl
cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (08/02/89)
In article <1831@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: }In article <43524@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: } }>The problem is that because they want to give away *their* software, they are }>trying to get the laws changed so that they will force *everyone* to give }>away their software. } }Woah! Let's not over-simplify the issue, and let's not lump software writing }into political goals. There are two things going on here: } }1) A group of people is writing software, and is releasing it with a }license restriction that makes it "obnoxiously free"; } }2) A group of people wants to modify the laws regarding copyright of }software. Just so. And I was only commenting on the political and philsophical current that is never far below the surface. If they just distributed their stuff for free-with-strings and put some kind of licensing/copyright information with it, that'd be one thing. But even the boilerplate that comes with the software SHOUTS its tired philsophical song, not to mention its unofficial spokemen in this newsgroup and elsewhere. They're far more like Jerry Falwell than they are like the Salvation Army. }Third, not everyone in group #2 believes that everyone should be FORCED }to give away their software on terms similar to the GNU Public License. }Not only is this silly, it won't pass Congress. And not only that, I don't }believe that many people in group #2 really want this. Huh? I thought that the GNU license came as legally close to being of the "I'll give you this hammer, but now *I* have a part interest in the house you build with it" as they could manage, and I've gotten the impression that if they could 'fix' the laws to allow their licensing agreement to be even MORE intrusive on your "heart and mind" they would jump at the chance. }What I want, for example, is to see copyrights for computer programs }treated in a similar fashion to copyrights for other works. You cannot }copyright the "look and feel" of a cookbook. And you cannot copyright }a computer language. You can copyright a compiler, but anyone is free }to go out and write a compiler that groks the same input and generates }a running program that behaves the same as the program generated by }the copyrighted compiler. I have a different view. I think about actual software "products" more along the lines of treating an invention as a black box, and if the insides happen to be gears and levers, or happen to be proms and processor chips, or some mix of the two, I would not make a distinction; and so I would lean toward giving "software devices" something more akin to patent protection. The part of the process that a patent protects in building a box-out-of-gears is *exactly* the same critical creative thinking, development, judgement, insight, foresight, etc that is necessary for building a box-out-of-PROMs. And for that reason I would try to fix the laws to accord that creative leap the same sort of legal protection... but as you say... }If you would like to discuss this, I would suggest misc.legal. Just so... it's been a while since the last time this went round... maybe it is time for someone to toss out the gauntlet on m.l and see how the thinking on the pro-GNU/FSF and con-GNU/FSF sides [for my part, I've been thinking about it (and debating it a bit with nearby folk) a fair bit and the more I ponder it all, the more it seems *obvious* to me that the GNU/FSF philosophy cannot work _even_in_ _theory_... that it can only really exist as Peter has suggested: as something of a parasite along the edges of a wholly philosophically disjoint sphere, which it simultaneouly feeds off of and castigates. }If you'd like an illustration of how the "GNU ideals" work, at least }for his person (and I haven't written any code for GNU, but I love }using theirs), then consider this: I'm a vegetarian. If you ask for my }opinion, I'll advocate the idea that you should be a vegetarian also, }because eating grain-fed beef is a huge waste of resources. However, }that doesn't mean that I support a law banning beef. A tiny fraction }of vegetarians might, but you can waste whatever you want, as far as I }am concerned. You might not like the idea that I'm claiming the moral }high ground, much like the FSF people do, but that's life. Right, but imagine if in EVERY one of your postings on a 'nearby' topic you took the opportunity to knock meat-eating, extol vegetarianism, suggest that we should all work for laws to make meat-eating illegal, we should boycott McDonalds, etc, we might treat your personal philosophical position differently. It might seem less like a personal decision and more like a political platform. If you're on what YOU think is the moral high ground, that's fine. If you want to try to convince me in inappropriate venues that I'm _not_, that's not so fine. And if you're going to try to thump the drum to get YOUR ground legally sanctioned, that's not even a little bit fine. }> I think it is important to point out the flaws in the }>FSF-style view of the world so that folks who might otherwise be bedazzled }>into thinking it _might_ really all be able to work will be able to see }>clearly the boundardies and limits on the whole approach. } }Point it out in the right groups. These threads ALWAYS start with the posting, and then praising of, the GNU/FSF philsophy of life. Since no one seems to complain about that, those must be the "right" groups. If the GNU/FSF adherents want to extoll the purported wonders of the GNU/FSF lifestyle, why should the *rebuttals* be considered as then being in the wrong groups. I agree the whole thread is misplaced, but the balancing arguments have to be made wherever the bogus ones are. }And, keep in mind that if lots of }people start giving code away (group #1 above), it won't hurt anyone }except commercial software houses with inferior products. It may be a }strange kind of "free market philosophy" to have products out there }competing which don't cost anything up-front, but it's still capitalism }at work. Actually, I would contend that if *lots* of people become an active part of group 1, it won't be capitalism at work at all... AS I've said, I think that if you look at the whole creative process carefully, you'll see that the FSF/GNU view cannot work _even_in_theory_... for its survival (much less success) it *depends* (and feeds off of) on the existence of mental-mindset it so abhors. But that's a debate for a different thread in a different newsgroup... __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com
kozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John Kozma) (08/03/89)
I posted a rather lengthly article in comp.lang.misc, but nobody seems to
have noticed it. Hence this follow-up.
I think there are a lot of misconceptions about the effect and enforceability
of the GNU license, viz:
1) Something is not a "derivative work", as that term is used in the
copyright law, just because it incorporates any part of another work.
As to the parts copied to the subsequent work, you need to determine
whether that constitute fair use of the previous work, and whether the
parts copied in fact comprise copyrightable subject matter at all.
(Everyone seems to be pretty clear on the fact that the object code
produced by a compiler is not a "derivative" or a "compilation" of
the compiler, as those terms are used in the copyright law.)
2) A person who offers you a contract, such as a software license, cannot
predicate your acceptance of that contract on anything he chooses. In
particular, I don't think you can be said to accept the terms of the
GNU license just because you "use" software covered by it. This is
because a copyright owner does not have an exclusive right of use in
the first place. Thus, anyone who obtains a copy of a program, whether
or not it's a legal copy, has the right to use it, regardless of what
the copyright owner says. (Of course, if you accept a contract by
signing it, that's a different situation.)
3) A public license appended to a copyright notice may, as is frequently
done, include restrictions on copying and subsequent distribution of
copies, such as including the same notice on any such copies which are
made and distributed. This does not automatically imply that the same
restrictions may be made on copying and distributing derivative works.
The public license, presumably, may give the right to make derivative
works under certain conditions which are necessarily fulfilled before
the act of making the derivative work is undertaken, or which involve
copying and distribution of the parts of the underlying copyrighted
work which are incorporated in the derivative work. But keep in mind
that the derivative work, if made with the permission of the copyright
owner of any underlying work, is itself copyrightable, and to acquire
any exclusive rights in that copyright, you must get a signed document
from the creator of the derivitive work. The bottom line is that, to
the extent that the GNU license purports to allow the creation of
derivative works, and then purports to restrict the rights of the owner
of the copyright of those works, its validity is highly questionable.
4) If a copyrighted work couldn't be used without copying portions of it,
the general result (before the days of software copyrights) was that
the portions in question were not copyrightable subject matter. This
doctrine, if applied blindly, would prohibit copyrighting of software
altogether, since a program can't be used without copying it into RAM.
Rather than reach this drastic result, I think the general view now is
that there is implied permission to copy a work to the extent necessary
to use it. This does not imply that the former doctrine is dead,
however. For example, if you use a compiler to produce assembly
language, arguably that language is copied from somewhere in the
compiler. But the copyright on the compiler does not extend to the
tables of mneumonics for output code, because you can't use the compiler
with out copying them. By the same token, I think a very good argument
could be advanced that various templates, tables, etc. buried in the
code for higher level software development tools are likewise non-
copyrightable subject matter. On the other hand, I wouldn't rule out
"look and feel" copyrights on this basis.
5) I don't think there is any way the GNU copyright owner could object
to the practice of using GNU CC to create object files, which are not
derivative works of the compiler, and distributing them without source
code to ultimate users who link them to GNU library routines.
The opinions above are mine-- I am solely responsible for them. Of course,
anyone and everyone who wishes is free to adopt them.
John P. Kozma
kozma@comus.cs.tulane.edurimey@ucbarpa.Berkeley.EDU (Ken Rimey) (08/03/89)
In article <79700023@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >The first time someone gets sued by GNU for selling a program they >compiled with G++, or edited with GnuEmacs, or debugged with GDB, I >think you'll see 90% of all the GNU Software in the U.S. hit the >trashcan. ... > >Don Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois And if you pick a guinea pig up by its tail, its eyes will fall out. Please stop posting misinformation about what the GNU license says. Ken Rimey rimey@berkeley.edu
cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) (08/03/89)
In article <99@euteal.ele.tue.nl> mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: >In article <1463@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: >Unlike many other posters, I can't subscribe the opinion that having >the sources is necessary because the software is usually bad. >I assume people who are into operating systems and stuff like that want >to make changes in the operating system sources but how many people are >into such things? There are other reasons for wanting the source code, other than to rip it off. (a) Much **IX documentation was written in an era when the source code WAS available. Consciously or unconsciously, this documentation makes certain assumptions that are no long appropriate when **IX is a black box (unless you've paid an enormous fee for source code rights); (b) documentation and programs are often out of sync. I've had the experience of doing everything absolutely by the book and not having it work. After wasting hours, I've taken the problem to the university consultants. After proving to themselves that I had RTFM, they looked at the source code, only to find that the documentation was out of sync with the version running on the local system, and there was ~absolutely~ no way I could have done things by the manual and had it work! Please note carefully: I'm not talking about twidling the kernel. I'm talking about ordinary user-level utilities such as the shell. My profession is teaching modern Japanese social and intellectual history, but as a **IX user since 1979, I've had no difficulty breaking the system just by doing things according to the documentation. In all such cases I could have saved myself and the university considerable time and money if I could have been able to look at the source without having to go through n-layers of drek to get to the few exalted high pooh-bahs with such rights. Frankly, as an academic who lives in two worlds (Japanese history, data base management systems), I'd like to see software vendors live by the standards of openness that prevail in academic work OR I'd like to see academics able to make the sorts of claims and covenants over their ideas that software firms seem to think their GAWD-given right/left.
richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) (08/03/89)
In article <1989Aug2.044845.4211@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes:
An article whose sheer length will prevent it from ever being read.
--
*(jfh@rpp386.signature)
richard@gryphon.COM decwrl!gryphon!richard gryphon!richard@elroy.jpl.NASA.GOVkozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John Kozma) (08/03/89)
I'm reposting this in comp.misc because the thread seems to be more
active here, and I'm not sure whether it actually got posted the first
time. I suppose I should include a disclaimer to the effect that the
opinions expressed here are my own. And I might add my opinion about
exerpting from this article for purposes of responding to it-- it's
fair use.
Copyright 1989 John P. Kozma
Permission to copy all or part of this material is granted provided that
the copies are not distributed for direct commercial advantage, and that
this notice appears on all copies.
I have been following the lively discussion about the GNU license, and
decided my opinions on copyright law matters might be of interest. Thanks
to Peter da Silva for posting a copy of the GNU CC license.
For all of you who don't have ready access to a law library, or the
inclination to look up the US Code, exerpts from the copyright law (US Code,
Title 17) referred to in this article are appended.
I'm a newcomer to the net, and I suspect I missed a major portion of
a discussion on a proposed or implemented scheme whereby an alternate network
feed would be provided for a fee to subscribers, and supplied with articles
from this network. If you don't want articles you post to the net to be
used in this manner (ie, for someone else's profit), you can include a
copyright notice like the one above. In general, if you publish anything
without a copyright notice as prescribed in 17 USC 401, you lose your
copyright. As has been pointed in previous articles, the work does not
have to be placed in the public domain to allow free copying. With respect
to the ammendment to the minimal notice on this article, see 17 USC 405(a).
I don't want to stray too far from my opinion about what the law is to
what I think it should be, but by way of introduction to my opinions on the
GNU license, I think the law is too pro-copyright, and too anti-public. In
particular, I get very upset by overreaching on the part of publishers and
copyright owners, and I think there ought to be stiff penalties, like
forfeiture of copyright, to those who deliberately mislead the public.
Case in point (1): A few years ago, I bought a new copy of Shakespeare's
Complete Works with a new copyright notice. I realize the way the book is
laid out may give rise to a copyright on a "compilation" (17 USC 101), but
I'm sure most people don't know that, and I suspect the publisher's intention
is to lead the public to believe that Shakespeare's plays are not in the
public domain, or at least that his plays can't be copied from that
particular volume without the publisher's permission.
Case in point (2): I bought a Radio Shack TRS-80 III computer (though
I now regret having done so) with TRSDOS operating system software which
came with a "license agreement" which made me absolutely livid when I read
it. The most offensive part said something to the effect that the licensee
is not allowed to disassemble the object code. Again, I realize that a
licensee may bind himself in many ways that go beyond the licensor's rights
under a copyright, and that copyrighted material may even be protected by
trade secret (which TRSDOS purportedly was, although I'm not sure that
legal issue has been completely resolved), but the whole notion of copyright
rests on the percievability or communicatability of the work by humans
(see 17 USC 101-102). (The "by humans" is not in the statute, but I would
agrue that it is implied by a simple rule of construction. That is, the
phrase "either directly or with the aid of a machine or device" would be
redundant if a machine were said to percieve of its own.) For practical
purposes, object code cannot be percieved directly by humans without first
being disassembled. An argument that no license can limit the right to
disassemble copyrighted object code (provided the copy of the code being
disassembled is authorized and national security interests aren't involved,
etc.) is is further supported by 17 USC 107.
The lesson of case in point (2) is that copyright law is not a very
appropriate form of protection for computer software. This lesson is further
demonstrated by case in point (3): the GNU license. But I feel compelled,
again, to digress just a little.
Perhaps the best known adage about copyright law is that it protects
expressions, but not ideas. Indeed, some of the landmark cases involving
copyrights on computer programs turned on the question of whether programs
are copyrightable at all under 17 USC 102. A fairly lucid explanation
of the difference between "ideas", which are not copyrightable, and
"expressions", which are, may be found in fn3 of the "Microlaw" column,
by Richard Stern, in the August '83 issue of IEEE Micro (p 92). Using
a well known play by Shakespeare as an example, Stern explains how any work
can be thought of in varying degrees of abstraction. Thus, Romeo and Juliet
can be described as a story about two young lovers who get in trouble because
of a family dispute. A series of increasingly more specific descriptions may
be imagined, culminating in a verbatim statement, for any given work. At the
very abstract end, many such descriptions might be applied to many different
works-- consider a description of West Side Story. If the point at which the
descriptions of two works converge is very abstract (and that's about as
formally as you can state it), the works have only an "idea" in common.
But if a common description is very close to the exact statement of the
earlier of two works, the later work is said to copy the "expression" of,
or be "substantially similar" to, the first.
What's the point of all this, you ask? Copying is not the issue-- we
want to know about "use", right? Well, I read the compiler license, and
it seems to be pretty careful about not saying you can't distribute code
you compile using GNU CC without subjecting it to the license restrictions.
The only glaring error in the license as a legal document is that it purports
to "automatically terminate" your rights to use GNU CC if you violate the
the restrictions on copying and distribution. This clause can't be enforced,
because the owner of a copyright doesn't have an exclusive right (ie, the
right to exclude others) to use the work. A copyright only allows you to
keep others from copying, making derivative works, or distributing copies,
(see 17 USC 106, 109). In his Feb. '83 "Microlaw" column, Stern describes
an analagous situation. Some software proprietors require their customers
to pay royalties on their software on a per use basis, but such payments can
be compelled only on the basis of a signed agreement. If you get a copy of
the software without signing an agreement-- whether legally or not-- you're
free to use it as you please. You just can't copy it or make derivative
works from it or distribute copies of it without permission from the
copyright owner.
In case there's any doubt, the object code produced by a complier is
not a "compilation" or a "derivative work" in the sense those terms are used
sections 101, 103 and 106(2) of 17 USC. So the question becomes, as one
network user has described it, under just what conditions does "code
contamination" occur? (I like that term!) It's a lot like the idea/
expression dichotomy. At what point does linking to proprietary library
files cease to be mere "use" and start qualifying as the creation of a
derivative work? Based on 17 USC 107, I think the argument could be made
that since "fair use" is not infringement, it represents the boundary we're
looking for here. Interestingly, the circumstances here make factors (1)
and (4) of section 107 irrelevant, or at least relevant only in a peculiar
way. But factor (3) suggests a bright line test (of course, without saying
exactly where to draw the line. Offhand, I would guess that if more than
about 40% of the linked code comprised copyrighted library routines, it's
a derivative work; less than, say, 5%-- fair use. In between, who knows?)
By now I hope most of you realize that there's an easy way to sell your
object code produced by GNU CC without giving up your source. Just don't
link it at all-- give your customer a copy of GNU CC, with whatever library
routines he needs, and then (in a separate transaction, if you're overly
cautious) give him (or sell him, for whatever price you can get) the compiled
but unlinked object code, and let him link it himself. If a derivative work
is produced, it won't be you that produced it, so you don't have to give him
the source code. Ironically, your customer won't be able to distribute the
linked code at all without running afoul of the GNU license, because he
doesn't have your source code to provide to his distributees.
Even if you wanted to distribute the linked code yourself, there's still
a good argument you can't be compelled to give up your source code. Note
that there are actually three copyrights involved: (1) the one on GNU CC,
which is clearly subject to the GNU license; (2) the copyright on the linked
file which is derived from the GNU CC library routines, and probably, as
such, subject to the GNU license; and (3) the copyright on the source code.
Clearly, the linked code derives from the source code. Further, 17 USC 103
makes clear that the copyright on such underlying work is not affected by
its incorporation in a derivative work. Nor can the GNU license
automatically effect a transfer of ownership (see 17 USC 204(a)), since
it wasn't signed by the user of the software. (An automatic license, maybe.
I could only guess how a court would decide.)
Before I close, I'll just throw out one more thought regarding the car
leasing analogy suggested by another network user. I guess in some sense,
leasing a car instead of buying it is like having a copy of a copyrighted
work without owning the copyright. But even if you buy a car, you don't get
any of the rights of associated patents (if there are any covering the car.
Actually, purchase of a patented item implies the right to use it, much the
same as legally acquiring a copy of a copyrighted work implies the right,
under 17 USC 109(a), to distribute that copy. Note, however, that no implied
license to use the copy of a copyrighted work is necessary, since, as
discussed above, copyrights do not restrict use. Patents do.) 17 USC 202
may clarify some confusion in this regard.
I sincerely agree with most of the sentiment expressed in the GNU CC
license. In particular, I despise the apparent motive of many drafters of
copyright notices and licenses to mislead the public as to what their rights
really are. But it sure looks to me like whoever authored the GNU CC license
wants people to believe that use of copyrighted material can be restricted;
and that object code is a "derivative work" of a software compiler, in the
sense that term is used in the copyright law. And I don't think it's just
a misunderstanding of copyright law on that author's part.
For those of you who haven't junked this article yet, lest you give too
much weight to the appeal of my arguments, I offer this comment by Oliver
Wendell Holmes (from The Common Law): "The life of the law is not logic,
but experience."
Appendix: Exerpts from Title 17, United States Code
Sec. 101. Definitions
As used in this title, the following terms and their variant forms mean
the following:
...
A "collective work" is a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are
assembled into a collective whole.
A "compilation" is a work formed by the collection and assem-
bling of preexisting materials or of data that are selected, coordi-
nated, or arranged in such a way that the resulting work as a whole
constitutes an original work of authorship. The term "compilation"
includes collective works.
"Copies" are material objects ... in which a work is fixed by
any method now known or later developed, and from which the work
can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either
directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies"
includes the material object ... in which the work is first fixed.
...
A work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy for the first
time...
A "derivative work" is a work based on one or more preexisting
works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization,
fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art
reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting
of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other
modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of
authorship, is a "derivative work".
A "device", "machine", or "process" is one now known or later
developed.
...
A work is "fixed" in a tangible medium of expression when its
embodiment in a copy ..., by or under authority of the author, is
sufficiently permanent or stable to permit it to be perceived,
reproduced, or otherwise communicated for a period of more than
transitory duration....
The terms "including" and "such as" are illustrative and not
limitative.
...
"Literary works" are works ... expressed in words, numbers, or
other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless of the
nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals,
manuscripts, phonorecords, films, tapes, disks, or cards, in
which they are embodied.
...
"Publication" is the distribution of copies ... of a work to
the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental,
lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies ... to a
group of persons for purposes of further distribution ...
constitutes publication....
...
A "transfer of copyright ownership" is an assignment, mortgage,
exclusive license, or any other conveyance, alienation, or
hypothecation of a copyright or of any of the exclusive rights
comprised in a copyright, whether or not it is limited in time
or place of effect, but not including a nonexclusive license.
...
Sec. 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression,
now known or later developed, from which they can be percieved, reproduced,
or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or
device. Works of authorship include the following categories:
(1) literary works;
....
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Sec. 103 Subject matter of copyright: Compilations and derivative works
(a) The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes
compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing
preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part
of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.
(b) The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to
the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from
the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any
exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work
is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration,
ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting
material.
...
Sec. 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 118, the owner of copyright under this
title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies...;
(2) to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies ... of the copyrighted work to the public
by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or
lending;
...
Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a
copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies... for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including
multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an
infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work
in any particular case is a fair use, the factors to be considered shall
include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such
use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation
to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value
of the copyrighted work.
...
Sec. 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular
copy...
(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a
particular copy... lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized
by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner,
to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy....
...
...
Sec. 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material
object
Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a
copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the
work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including
the copy... in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any
rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor in the absence
of an agreement, does transfer of ownership or of any exclusive rights under
a copyright convey property rights in any material object.
...
Sec. 204. Execution of transfers of copyright ownership
(a) A transfer of copyright ownership, other than by operation of law,
is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note of memorandum
of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed
or such owner's duly authorized agent.
...
...
Sec. 401. Notice of copyright: Visually perceptible copies
(a) General Requirement.-- Whenever a work protected under this title
is published in the United States or elsewhere by authority of the copyright
owner, a notice of copyright as provided by this section shall be placed on
all publicly distributed copies from which the work can be percieved, either
directly or with the aid of a machine or device.
(b) Form Of Notice.-- The notice appearing on the copies shall consist
of the following three elements:
(1) the symbol ... (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copy-
right", or the abbreviation "Copr."; and
(2) the year of first publication of the work; in the case of
compilations or derivative works incorporating previously published
material, the year date of first publication of the compilation or
derivative work is sufficient....
(3) the name of the owner of copyright of the work, or an
abbreviation by which the name can be recognized, or a generally
known alternative designation of the owner.
...
Sec. 405. Notice of copyright: Omission of notice
(a) Effect Of Omission On Copyright.-- The omission of the copyright
notice prescribed by sections 401 through 403 from copies... publicly
distributed does not invalidate the copyright in a work if--
(1) the notice has been omitted from no more than a relatively
small number of copies... distributed to the public; or
(2) registration for the work has been made before or has been
made within five years after the publication without notice, and a
reasonable effort is made to add notice to all copies... that are
distributed in the United States after the omission has been
discovered; or
(3) the notice has been omitted in violation of an express
requirement in writing that, as a condition of the copyright owner's
authorization of the public distribution of copies..., they bear the
prescribed notice.
...
...zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean) (08/03/89)
In article <208@argosy.UUCP>, doug@argosy.UUCP (Doug Hoffman) writes: >I find this much like saying that the hammer is used to build a house, >and therefore you owe royalties to the manufacturer of the tool. You >don't even owe anything to the lumber company (assuming you paid for the >material :-) ). The house you build is the result of your using tools >and material to create something. You may pay royalties to the >architect for each copy you build, but that is a matter of contract with >them. If you *rented* the hammer, you have a contract with the hammer's owner (who may or may not be the manufacturer), and that can say pretty much anything the two of you can agree on. And if you can't agree, you have to use a different hammer. >The issue of including library code is entirely different. That I would >compare more to copying music. If you play a tune which you have rights >to on a musical instrument, no problems. If you play that tune and >include prerecorded backgroud, there may be a problem with the legal >rights. If you have included someone else's code in your program, you >do possibly owe them something. That is entirely dependent upon the >contract you created in aquiring their code. An earlier question was related to whether BISON's '.skel' file is analogous to library code. I don't know how BISON works, so I can't comment, but I haven't seen anyone else comment on this either. (my apologies if you did and I missed it)
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (08/03/89)
From article <991@rex.cs.tulane.edu>, by kozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John Kozma): >I posted a rather lengthly article in comp.lang.misc, but nobody seems to >have noticed it. Hence this follow-up. I read it with great interest. Thank you. >1) Something is not a "derivative work", as that term is used in the > copyright law, just because it incorporates any part of another work. > As to the parts copied to the subsequent work, you need to determine > whether that constitute fair use of the previous work, and whether the But in the earlier article, you presented the "fair use" test for whether something is derivative as a conjecture about what courts might hold. Now you're treating it as a fact. And what is "fair use" anyway, in the case of an FSF utility, which you can get for free and which is intended to be modified, used as model code, excerpted, and generally put to all the purposes we use nice source code for? Not just compiled and run. > parts copied in fact comprise copyrightable subject matter at all. > (Everyone seems to be pretty clear on the fact that the object code > produced by a compiler is not a "derivative" or a "compilation" of > the compiler, as those terms are used in the copyright law.) No, I don't think everyone is, and I don't know that they should be. How do you know that the courts would not uphold the assertion of rights to object code produced by a compiler, as a derivative work? Has such a case arisen? >... > any exclusive rights in that copyright, you must get a signed document > from the creator of the derivitive work. The bottom line is that, to > the extent that the GNU license purports to allow the creation of > derivative works, and then purports to restrict the rights of the owner > of the copyright of those works, its validity is highly questionable. I don't see how this follows at all. All that seems to follow is that if you create a program using GNU tools, that FSF would not have the right to distribute your program without your permission. But because FSF does not have that right, that doesn't mean you do have a corresponding right, does it? If they don't give you permission and you don't give them permission, then no one can distribute -- that's all. >... For example, if you use a compiler to produce assembly > language, arguably that language is copied from somewhere in the > compiler. But the copyright on the compiler does not extend to the > tables of mneumonics for output code, because you can't use the compiler > with out copying them. "Fair use" again. This seems reasonable to _me_, but who am I? The position of commercial developers, as I understand it, is that they would need to _know_ that they have full rights to products created with FSF tools. Informed conjecture is not enough. (An explicit disclaimer in the copyleft would, I take it, be enough.) Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
hans@nlgvax.UUCP (Hans Zuidam) (08/03/89)
There has been a lot of debate (and some flaming) regarding the above
subject both in these groups and in eunet.followup. In general the
arguments split in two parts: about the morale (or ethics) and the
usefulness of the GNU project.
I do not want to go into the ethics of the GNU project and their COPYLEFT
license: those are issues of a too political nature. But the
of the GNU project is arguable. One often hears (reads?) about buggy
software from suppliers and how having sources (ala GNU) allows you to
go in and fix the problem if it is there too.
The article below is the account of my practical experiences from yesterday
and today (how actual ;-) ).
All I wanted to do was to read one 6250bpi tape with both the X11R core
and the user contributions and write two 1600bpi tapes, one with the X11
core and the other one with the user contributions. So, we have a Sun
server with a tape drive: no problem there let's read the tape first. Only
that tar should give me something like a file I/O error. Still, no problem,
use the Ultrix VAX instead. And indeed, after a while the first part was
on disk.
Thus everything set for the next step: writing the first 1600bpi tape. Let's
do it. Only after 15 minutes or so tar says: 'memory fault core dumped'.
A small curse from my side and I look for the cause of the problem. It
turns out the be a file with a rather long name (80 chars or so). Well,
rename it, throw away the core file and go for it. As you can guess, another
file with a long name and another core dump. So again rename it and start
all over. That went alright until the next one (Yes I know I should
have looked for them from the first time, "but alas" speeking with a well
known person). Then my time was up and I had to rush of to an appointment.
Today, all fresh and in a good mood I started out to finish the job. Well,
as you can guess by now: after an hour or so tar informed me of a path
name which was too long and quit. A somewhat bigger curse. But not all was
lost: GNU TAR was here.
Lets have a look: NAMSIZ is 100 bytes so make it 256. Must be enough.
Compile, run. Well I was lucky this time; after only 5 files it found a
illegal instruction and dumped core also. Taking another look at the source
it was obvious I of course overlooked one small fact: the block size is
512 bytes and you can guess the rest.
No despair: taking another look to see what it would do with long names it
seems it will skip them. bitten the first time I took another look
at the source. The following comment in the fileheader structure turned up:
/* these following fields were added by JF for gnu */
/* and are NOT standard */
Thanks guys!
Because I want to be compatible with the UNIX (Ultrix?) tar and I do *not*
want to test GNU tar see if it is under all circumstances, the obvious way
to go was rm -r.
You see: my problem was not the inability of Ultrix's tar to handle long
names, or making GNU tar compatible with Ultrix's; my problem was that of
the one 6250bpi tape and getting it on two 1600bpi tapes.
I was (again) caught by a most common problem which occurs in our
profession: solving the wrong problem. We set out too often to solve a
well defined problem which then evolves into an all together different one
because of sub-problems. GNU seems to be doing exactly that. They are
neither doing it good nor bad.
People who want to toy around with free software have my blessing. There
is a lot of good free software around (patch, perl, nn, and so on). But
having source available is not necessary going to solve your problem(s).
So it is not an argument in favour of GNU.
Now I'm off to fill a problem report form (or whatever it is called).
Doing that more often will help in the long run (I hope ;-) ),
Hans
The opinions ventilated above are of course my own and do not represent
those of Philips. No need to tell you that.
--
Hans Zuidam E-Mail: hans@pcg.philips.nl
Philips Telecommunications and Data Systems, Tel: +31 40 892288
Project Centre Geldrop, Building XR
Willem Alexanderlaan 7B, 5664 AN Geldrop The Netherlandscik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) (08/03/89)
In article <99@euteal.ele.tue.nl>, mart@ele.tue.nl (Mart van Stiphout) writes: > In article <1463@l.cc.purdue.edu> cik@l.cc.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes: < >I am in no way associated with FSF, but I support the idea of software < >which the user can modify easily. I think it should be simpler and more < >powerful, and somewhat less user-inimical. I would object to a car being < >programmed in such a way that it could select a path to a destination and < >not let me override that path. > > Your analogy is rather useless. What you actually mean is: > When I buy a car and its performance does not suit me, I can > take my toolbox and start improving it. I disagree. The control mechanism here must operate by software, as the maps change. And this is the problem in many situations. > Unlike many other posters, I can't subscribe the opinion that having > the sources is necessary because the software is usually bad. > I've worked on several computers (HP, DEC, Apollo, Alliant, Sun) > for a number of years and for most of my activities (program development, > reasearch, text processing) the utilities provided are more than > sufficient. I really don't need the diff sources or the compiler > sources. > I assume people who are into operating systems and stuff like that > want to make changes in the operating system sources but > how many people are into such things? I am in no way into operating systems. The problem is mathematical software. Even worse is the problem with statistical software. Take, for example, the problem of comuting something as simple as x - ln(1 + x), and a procedure with good relative error is wanted. Speed is also important. Using the provided software will not do, although the sources make it much easier than starting from scratch. And the HLLs will not be efficient, either. I have worse problems than this. -- Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907 Phone: (317)494-6054 hrubin@l.cc.purdue.edu (Internet, bitnet, UUCP)
bron@bronze.wpd.sgi.com (Bron Campbell Nelson) (08/04/89)
I lot of discussion has gone on about the GNU License. While the philosophical points are interesting, as near as I can see the practical problem is in fact a very narrow one. The debate centers around whether GNU can place restrictions on work that I produce using the GNU tools. And that centers around whether a work is considered a "derivative" of the GNU software. If you just avoid making a derivative work, then you should have no problem distributing it. So just what exactly is GNU claiming as a derivative work? My understanding is that they have admitted that object code compiled with the GNU compiler is not a derivative work. Similarly, something edited with GNU emacs is not. There seem to be only 2 things: (1) executables linked with the GNU run time library, and (2) Bison codes that incorporate the skeleton parser. As has been pointed out, (1) can be avoided by distributing unlinked object files. (2) is a bit harder to get around, but could be done be providing the Bison input grammar in source form, and objects of the procedures that the parser calls when it does a reduction. The user would then have to run the grammar through Bison, compile the output, and link all the object files. Alternately, one could just use a different parser generator (say, lalr from comp.source.unix). These restirctions are annoying, but really no more than that. While personally I'd rather that "Free Software" really be free, I have no problem with GNU doing whatever they like with their own work. And living within their restrictions until the enforceablity of the copyleft is decided doesn't really seem all that bad. -- Bron Campbell Nelson bron@sgi.com or possibly ..!ames!sgi!bron These statements are my own, not those of Silicon Graphics.
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (08/04/89)
Two items of note: One can control "use" of software through copyright because almost all use of software involves copying it. Yes, copying from a disk drive into memory is copying the software. One might even argue that copying from the memory into cache or the CPU involves copying. Of course if you buy a program, you get the right to do this sort of copying, but they *can* restrict it, I suspect, to copying for the purpose of execution. I don't know if there's ever been a case on that. In the other direction: If copyright is to truly reside in the human-perceivable aspects of a work, then the "look and feel" is actually the more truly copyrightable aspect of a work, since it's what humans see. For humans to see the actual code, they need not just a computer, but tools to take the code apart and present it in a form humans can deal with. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/04/89)
In article <79700023@p.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@p.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
<The first time someone gets sued by GNU for selling a program they
<compiled with G++, or edited with GnuEmacs, or debugged with GDB, I
<think you'll see 90% of all the GNU Software in the U.S. hit the
<trashcan.
You should talk to NeXT. They had to do strange things to one OS
shipment because they had been using G++ (the strange things were
mentioned here - they shipped binaries, and had the end users build
them). I haven't seen any GNU software hit the trashcan yet...
<Now,
<(1) Can you say, "The existing software works o.k. in a standard way,
< and is not unreasonably priced?"
$40,000 plus isn't unreasonbaly priced?
<(2) Can you say "It's a waste of time to reinvent the wheel?"
Unless you don't have a wheel. Which is one of the reasons GNU exists
- to create wheels that everyone can have.
<(3) Can you say, "UNIX isn't *everything*?"
I can; so can RMS. But don't tell most Unix wizards....
<mike
--
He was your reason for living Mike Meyer
So you once said mwm@berkeley.edu
Now your reason for living ucbvax!mwm
Has left you half dead mwm@ucbjade.BITNETHorne-Scott@cs.yale.edu (Scott Horne) (08/04/89)
In article <3928@looking.on.ca>, brad@looking (Brad Templeton) writes: > > Of course if you buy a program, you get the right to do > this sort of copying, but they *can* restrict it, I suspect, > to copying for the purpose of execution. Not in the US. Making one copy of a software package for archival purposes is legal, even if it involves breaking a copy-protection scheme. --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?
desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) (08/05/89)
In article <39487@sgi.SGI.COM> bron@bronze.wpd.sgi.com (Bron Campbell Nelson) writes: > The debate centers around whether GNU can place restrictions on work that > I produce using the GNU tools. And that centers around whether a work is > considered a "derivative" of the GNU software. If you just avoid making > a derivative work, then you should have no problem distributing it. > There seem to be only 2 things: (1) executables linked with the GNU run > time library, and (2) Bison codes that incorporate the skeleton parser. > > As has been pointed out, (1) can be avoided by distributing unlinked > object files. (2) is a bit harder to get around, but could be done be > providing the Bison input grammar in source form, and objects of the > procedures that the parser calls when it does a reduction. The user would > then have to run the grammar through Bison, compile the output, and link all > the object files. Both of which are questionable, as the obvious purpose is to avoid the terms of the General Public License. (2) is even more questionable, as the whole point of this exercise is to avoid distributing source. > Alternately, one could just use a different parser generator (say, lalr > from comp.source.unix). This is probably the way to go. If you're going to distribute software produced with GCC or BISON, you're going to have to BUY (horror of horrors) a set of libraries and a parser skeleton, or else write one yourself. GCC+ is more of a problem, as evidently the libraries are not compatible with commercial ones. (or so I hear) In that case, write one of your own (make sure you don't look at the GNU implementation and can prove it) and sell it to other people who use GCC++ for commercial development. I fail to see what the problem is. And, of course, if you want to use the back-end of GCC for your whiz-bang foogol compiler, you either have to keep the whole thing in-house or distribute it under GNU terms. They are probably less onerous than the terms that would be imposed by commercial compiler vendors, assuming you could pay them enough to license their code. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469
falk@sun.Eng.Sun.COM (Ed Falk) (08/06/89)
In article <18397@gryphon.COM>, richard@gryphon.COM (Richard Sexton) writes: > In article <1989Aug2.044845.4211@twwells.com> bill@twwells.com (T. William Wells) writes: > > An article whose sheer length will prevent it from ever being read. > Nonsense, *I* read it from start to finish. Some of us like to be informed. -- -ed falk, sun microsystems, sun!falk, falk@sun.com "If you wrapped yourself in the flag like George Bush does, you'd be worried about flag-burning too"
julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) (08/08/89)
In article <419@ontek.UUCP> john@ontek.UUCP (John Stanley) writes: >In article <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >> >> FSF will not kill the computer industry. And why is this in comp.misc >> anyway? Intellectual property rights sounds more like a topic for > >It is in comp.misc because the place it really belongs (i.e gnu.misc.discuss) >has been declared off-limits to this sort of discussion. I think that sort of >tells you just how open anyone at FSF is going to be to criticism of or >commentary about the various GNU ideas they have. This is being debated in gnu.misc.discuss right now. The problem is that nobody knows who wrote the newsgroup charter that appeared in news.announce.newusers (including RMS), so the policy could easily change. I myself hope that they relax the charter to the point where statements like the above can't be made. >What people seem to be complaining about is that they cannot use >a set of tools intended to promote the free distribution of information to keep >information secret. Sorry about that, folks. Free means FREE. It will be a while, if ever, before society becomes ready to support GNU politics as a normal way of making a living. I haven't seen many people bring up the fact that the GNU Manifesto depends upon things like software tax in order to fund programmers. Obviously, society isn't set up this way, but it could be, depending on where these debates go. In the meantime, however, there is nothing stopping anyone from enjoying useful tools that can be obtained for free. julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu uunet!nosc!humu!uhccux!julian julian@uhccux.bitnet University of Hawaii at Manoa