mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) (06/10/88)
In article <5910001@hplsla.HP.COM>, jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) writes: > Well, as long as we're complaining about naming conventions, how > about complaining about "Free Software Foundation" ??? > Free means Free. > Free does not mean you have an obligation to send someone bucks. You don't. You can get a copy of GNUware from anywhere you find it, with no obligation to send money to anyone as far as the FSF is concerned. > Free does not mean that you are forced to buy into someone else's > political/economic philosophies before one is allowed to use his/her > software. You aren't. I don't have to agree with RMS's notions about software and economics to use GNU Emacs, for example. > Free does not mean you're going to threaten to sue the ass off anyone > who says or does something you don't like. Who's been threatening such? > Free does not mean you take someone else's software that was given to > you without restriction, and add your own licensing restrictions. If 'twas really given to you without restrictions, then you can distribute with added restrictions. Of course, other distribution channels may make identical software available without those added restrictions, but that's irrelevant. But that's all beside the point, because most of the GNUware was either produced expressly for GNU or was given to RMS in the expectation that it would go into GNU, and with the understanding that this would imply that distribution of it would carry GNU redistribution conditions. > Free means free. ...haven't we heard this somewhere before? "Free" seems to have shifted from the "price zero" meaning to the meaning that gives us "freedom" as a related word. Fine, as long as we recognize that it's happening.... > Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having to > consult with a lawyer first. > Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having the > one you're talking about sending his/her lawyer to come talk to you. What's this got to do with GNU? "Normal" commercial vendors are much closer to being this sort of spectre because of non-disclosure and trade secret and all that. > Free means being able to charge a buck for one's efforts, if one > feels the marketplace is willing to pay you a buck for those efforts. This is the only point I feel RMS is going too far on: he's trying to force everyone else into his mold. I agree with his ideals, more or less, but I resist being forced into any molds, even when I sort of like the shape. He's not going very far in that direction, fortunately. I can, for example, use GNU Emacs to write a program and then proceed to use that program in any way I please, including selling it with restrictive license agreements. (This is based on a reading of the GNU Emacs license approximately five minutes ago. If you have read that license and disagree, feel free to explain in what way I have erred.) However, gcc appears to be different. I don't have the gcc license on hand at the moment, but if it's as similar to the emacs license as I expect, a good case could be made that anything compiled with gcc (or *certainly* anything linked with the gcc-distribution library routines) cannot be distributed for-profit or otherwise contrary to Richard's ideals as embodied in the license. Sorry, but I can't live with that. Not that I want to make megabucks off my programs (though I wouldn't object to it! :-); in fact I've posted some of my software to the net and would post more if it weren't for all the local library routines. I just resist being told I *have* to do it that way. > Free means being able to put one ideas in the public domain, if that > is what one chooses to do, for the betterment of all man-kind, > without restriction, to do with as they might. What's this got to do with the FSF? der Mouse uucp: mouse@mcgill-vision.uucp arpa: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
randy@ncifcrf.gov (The Computer Grue) (06/11/88)
I'd like to correct a misconception that appears to have showed up on the net. In article <1144@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes: > However, gcc appears to be different. I don't have the gcc license on > hand at the moment, but if it's as similar to the emacs license as I > expect, a good case could be made that anything compiled with gcc (or > *certainly* anything linked with the gcc-distribution library routines) > cannot be distributed for-profit or otherwise contrary to Richard's > ideals as embodied in the license. Sorry, but I can't live with that. > Not that I want to make megabucks off my programs (though I wouldn't > object to it! :-); in fact I've posted some of my software to the net > and would post more if it weren't for all the local library routines. > I just resist being told I *have* to do it that way. I quote from rms' interview with BYTE (provided with the gnu-emacs distribution in etc/INTERVIEW): ---- BYTE: Do you obtain any rights over the executable code derived from the C compiler? Stallman: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from the compiler, so it doesn't give me a way to say anything about that, and in fact I don't try to. I don't sympathize with people developing proprietary products with any compiler, but it doesn't seem especially useful to try to stop them from developing them with this compiler, so I am not going to. ----- Now obviously if you are *real* worried, talk with your lawyers and if *they're* worried, they should talk to Freesoft, but Stallman's intention is *not* to restrict the output of the C compiler this way, so presumably you can get around what legal hassles might be currently in your way (tr: Poor wording in the license). Just thought I'd clear this up. -- Randy Disclaimer 1: I'm going to work with Freesoft next month. If that's not a bias, I'm not sure what is. Disclaimer 2 (neccesitated by Disclaimer 1): I do NOT speak for Freesoft in any way, shape or form. Talk to rms for that. -- Randy Smith @ NCI Supercomputer Facility Phone: (301) 698-5660 Email: randy@ncifcrf.gov As of July 1st: randy@wheaties.ai.mit.edu
faustus@ic.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) (06/11/88)
In article <508@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>, randy@ncifcrf.gov (The Computer Grue) writes: > Stallman: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from > the compiler, ... How about bison? If bison works like yacc, it incorporates a parser written in C in its output, which may have copyright notices in it. I would have used bison myself for some projects if it weren't for this restriction. (There are a lot of places that, even though they don't sell their code, refuse to have other people's statements of personal philosophy in them.) Wayne
gore@eecs.nwu.edu (Jacob Gore) (06/12/88)
/ comp.misc / randy@ncifcrf.gov (The Computer Grue) / Jun 10, 1988 / > I'd like to correct a misconception that appears to have showed up >on the net. ... > I quote from rms' interview with BYTE (provided with the gnu-emacs >distribution in etc/INTERVIEW): ... >Stallman: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from >the compiler... This, unfortunately, does not say anything about code linked from the GNU C library (libg.a), which is what the original complaint was about. Jacob Gore Gore@EECS.NWU.Edu Northwestern Univ., EECS Dept. {oddjob,gargoyle,ihnp4}!nucsrl!gore