ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) (08/17/89)
In article <201802wv4bX.01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dacseg@uts.amdahl.com (Scott E. Garfinkle) writes: > >I'll buy that for flex, but you must know that not only is bison decidedly >*not* public domain (though it is free), it is almost worthless for >most commercial endeavors. I do *not* wish to start yet another running >debate on FSF's copyleft -- personally I use bison quite a lot, but always >for software to be distributed within the terms of the Gnu General License. >I only write this followup to ensure that someone does not naively misuse >the Gnu software. The gist of this is that, because the GNU copyleft is included with the BISON parser files, your application then must be redistributable under the same terms. This is not true. You might, at most, be responsible for providing the GNU parser include files as source, on request--in which case, you would most likely provide the entire GNU package. But RMS and company cannot require you to release your code on the basis of their include file. If this were the case, then the object code compiled by many commercial micro compilers would belong to the vendor providing the compiler, since many include a copyright notice in the object code.
ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (Ned Nowotny) (08/18/89)
In article <9288@chinet.chi.il.us> ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) writes: >The gist of this is that, because the GNU copyleft is included with the BISON >parser files, your application then must be redistributable under the same >terms. This is not true. You might, at most, be responsible for providing >the GNU parser include files as source, on request--in which case, you would >most likely provide the entire GNU package. But RMS and company cannot require >you to release your code on the basis of their include file. > >If this were the case, then the object code compiled by many commercial micro >compilers would belong to the vendor providing the compiler, since many include >a copyright notice in the object code. Of course, it is precisely because vendor include files and library objects are used in making a binary executable, that some compiler vendors have historically required licensee's to pay royalties on every binary sold. The only reason this practice is no longer prevalent is because customers chose to buy compilers from vendors who did not require royalties. The same copyright laws that allowed vendors to try and collect royalties, provide FSF the legal clout to require that you abide by all terms of their General Purpose License, including the requirement that all code including FSF licensed software must be distributed under the terms of the GPL. (If this is incorrect, a definitive correction by the FSF lawyer would be most appreciated.) In any case, just as commercial vendors are free to forego royalties on binarys which include their header and library software, FSF could (but will not do so willingly) release non-GPL code from the terms of the GPL. Widespread use of dynamically linked libraries (coupled with the fairly trivial production of truly PD header files) may make this whole matter moot. Ned Nowotny, MCC CAD Program, Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 Ph: (512) 338-3715 ARPA: ned@mcc.com UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!ned ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We have ways to make you scream." - Intel advertisement in the June 1989 DDJ.
chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett) (08/19/89)
In article <9288@chinet.chi.il.us>, ignatz@chinet.chi.il.us (Dave Ihnat) writes: > In article <201802wv4bX.01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> dacseg@uts.amdahl.com (Scott E. Garfinkle) writes: > > > >I'll buy that for flex, but you must know that not only is bison decidedly > >*not* public domain (though it is free), it is almost worthless for > >most commercial endeavors. I do *not* wish to start yet another running > >debate on FSF's copyleft -- personally I use bison quite a lot, but always > >for software to be distributed within the terms of the Gnu General License. > >I only write this followup to ensure that someone does not naively misuse > >the Gnu software. > > The gist of this is that, because the GNU copyleft is included with the BISON > parser files, your application then must be redistributable under the same > terms. This is not true. You might, at most, be responsible for providing > the GNU parser include files as source, on request--in which case, you would > most likely provide the entire GNU package. But RMS and company cannot require > you to release your code on the basis of their include file. NO! The LICENSE, not the copyright, that you must agree to asserts that the entirity of the product containing GNU code is covered by the copyleft. This has been validated often in US courts (for a big dollar example, the enforcability of licenses was a significant part of IBM's case against the Japanese mainframe makers -- Fujitsu, et al.). Secondly, if a significant part of a copyrighted work is included in your work (anthology), without the permission of the author, that is copyright infringement. The author may extract any concessions he can from you (money is a very common one in both publishing and software industries) and your only option is to agree or not include his work. > If this were the case, then the object code compiled by many commercial micro > compilers would belong to the vendor providing the compiler, since many include > a copyright notice in the object code. It would in fact be the case, except that the commercial software vendors have not demanded such a concession (and they would lose a significant part of their business if they did!). Most (Borland and Microsoft, for example) explicitly grant you the right to do what you will with the result of merging your object code with their run time libraries. BTW, a discussion ran too long last year on the requirement Borland makes that a binary containing Borland's runtime code must be copyrighted. You can put your name to it, or Borland's, but you cannot make the executable public domain [This is to prevent the run time library from being made public domain, I understand]. So such requirements, or distant relatives of such, are not totally unheard of in comercial circles. Charles Marslett chasm@attctc.dallas.tx.us