richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) (12/16/90)
Lots of us have been waiting around for a very long time for Ghostscript to materialize. Some of us have tried to contribute to speed things along, in the best traditions of "free software". Well after a recent exchange with Peter Deutsch, the prime (if not only) author, it's becoming more clear to me that we're all wasting our time. I sent mail to Peter expressing my concerns that he didn't seem to be allowing others to contribute and thus speed things along. In part I said: ... you give the impression that you don't necessarily want our help. The feeling is one of : "give me some hints here and there, but the code is mine." In reply to this Peter said the following: The copyright that comes with Ghostscript is quite serious: Ghostscript is, in my view, a piece of potentially commercial software that I have developed, that I own, and that I choose to distibute as GNUware. Frankly, for me that took a few days to fully sink in. Peter has written Ghostscript and will allow us to use it and debug it for him. He reserves the right to turn it into a commercial product once we've helped him get it to that point. Then what do we have? A package of what used to be GNUware that we are no longer allowed to modify or perhaps even use? I understand that anything distributed under a copyright like the GNU software can potentially be taken away. But when it says `Copyright by Richard Stallman' I find little reason to worry. When Peter Deutsch says he's serious about going commercial in the future, then I have to believe his Ghostscript is a waste of our time. I'm sure Peter is a nice enough guy. But I personally feel betrayed, both by him and by GNU for leading me to believe that Ghostscript was going to be another great piece of "free" software in the traditions of emacs, gcc, and friends. Before Ghostscript came along I was getting involved with xps, but dropped it because GNU had a pretty good reputation with me. That was apparently a mistake, one that has cost me about a year delay in getting to a usable postscript interpreter. If the misplaced attention that Ghostscript has garnered had been spent on xps instead, we'd be done by now -- whereas Ghostscript has a long way to go yet. And why is that? People have apparently been sending Peter fixes and sizeable enhancements to help the project along. But Peter is only one person, and since he wants to maintain his ownership of Ghostscript he can't accept the work of others as freely as freeware projects normally do. Perhaps his willingness to steal from the net to build his product has some bounds. Personally, I'm going to go see what xps has been up to. If Peter or Richard Stallman clarify this mess in a reasonable fashion, and invite others to pound on the code, then I'll consider continuing on with Ghostscript -- otherwize it's taking up a lot of disk space here that I can use for something else. My regard for the GNU project has been greatly diminished. I sincerely hope someone will restore some order to the world. -- Richard Foulk richard@pegasus.com
bothner@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Per Bothner) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: >In reply to this Peter said the following: > > The copyright that comes with Ghostscript is quite serious: > Ghostscript is, in my view, a piece of potentially commercial > software that I have developed, that I own, and that I choose > to distibute as GNUware. I would read this as GS is "potentially commercial-quality software," that Peter considers it "his baby," and he chooses to distribute it as GNUware. >Frankly, for me that took a few days to fully sink in. Peter has >written Ghostscript and will allow us to use it and debug it for him. >He reserves the right to turn it into a commercial product once we've >helped him get it to that point. I think you're misreading it. >Then what do we have? A package of what used to be GNUware that we >are no longer allowed to modify or perhaps even use? Read the License. Even if he wanted to do that (which I doubt), he can't revoke rights that he has already granted. >I understand that anything distributed under a copyright like the GNU >software can potentially be taken away. No, it can't. (But there is no obligation that a *new* version would also be distributed under the GPL, though there is no reason to think that it wouldn't.) >When Peter Deutsch says he's serious about going commercial in the future Where? Not in the snippet you quoted. Anyway, lots of companies have "gone commercial" with X11, TeX, or for that matter GNUware, but enhancements to those programs still benefit us all. >I'm sure Peter is a nice enough guy. He is. >But I personally feel betrayed, both by him and by GNU for >leading me to believe that Ghostscript was >going to be another great piece of "free" software in the traditions of >emacs, gcc, and friends. You're betrayal stems from a) jumping to conclusions, b) not having the faintest understanding the GPL, and c) imagining that Peter is under any obligation legally or morally to do things your way. Whether Peter is unwise in not accepting more help on Ghostscript is his decision. His track-record on GS seems no worse than other much-delayed GNU software. Remember: it's his reputation that's on the line, so I quite understand that he wouldn't want to delegate responsibility. Anyway, nothing prevents you from making your own improvements to GS, and distributing them to whomever you choose (according to the GPL). But Peter is under no obligation to accept your changes in the "offical" (his) version. -- --Per Bothner bothner@cs.wisc.edu Computer Sciences Dept, U. of Wisconsin-Madison
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@ richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) >Well after a recent exchange with Peter Deutsch, the prime (if not only) >author, it's becoming more clear to me that we're all wasting our time. > >I sent mail to Peter... In part I said: > ... you give the impression that you don't necessarily want our > help. The feeling is one of : "give me some hints here and > there, but the code is mine." >In reply to this Peter said the following: > The copyright that comes with Ghostscript is quite serious: > Ghostscript is, in my view, a piece of potentially commercial > software that I have developed, that I own, and that I choose > to distibute as GNUware. >Frankly, for me that took a few days to fully sink in. Peter has >written Ghostscript and will allow us to use it and debug it for him. >He reserves the right to turn it into a commercial product once we've >helped him get it to that point. >Then what do we have? A package of what used to be GNUware that we >are no longer allowed to modify or perhaps even use? >I understand that anything distributed under a copyright like the GNU >software can potentially be taken away. .... a fair amount more, seemingly good fair points and concerns, edited.... I must have a real misunderstanding here, and this isn't exactly the place for it, but it was my (clear) understanding that the GNU foundation, etc, was clearly on the complete side of complete PD (only) work. They raise money from all kinds of companies (hardware, software, users...) in various forms (cash, hardware, development time & debugging) in order to create a brave new world of FREE open systems software. Some of this money is available to people like Peter in order to (partially) compensate them for their efforts. If these people (which are operating even a tiny amount off tax free donations) are going to be allowed to snatch back their code (or seal it & freeze it at ANY functioning level) and spin it off as $$$ware, then that raises real quastions regarding the functionality of GNU. I hasten to remind everyone look to the past for a image of the future, what did apple do with the MAC software. Initially the system concept was to have a full functional system, OS, editor, graphics (painting/drawing), etc. As the mac 'matured' these packages were spun out of the free system software 1 at a time, and eventually shuffled out & sold to another company for further development & sale. SUN is doing the same thing now. Earlier system versions included fortran, pascal, & C as FREE languages, and other software like sunDraw, sunPaint, sunWrite, were freeware while they were really being made into functional (and functioning) software products. Now, all of that has been spun out (except for C) and is available as $$$ware. In light of this, how will GNU-ware fare any different if developments like this are left alone to market forces. This isn't to say that all software should be free, or that the development of software is cheap or has no value... I strongly defend the rights of software companies (and individuals) to free market,& price their products as they see fit. Also to jail & fine software theft. I also defend the right of software entities to price themselves right into bankruptcy and oblivion. That;s the free market system. However, it turns me the wrong way when we all support (thats right, if DEC gives GNU $$$, it costs me $$$ too: same with lotus or even beatrice) a free foundation like GNU, and then the players that are at the grail sucking up our free support (or like dope dealers getting us hooked &/or simply using us) basically tell us they plan to leave us in the lurch and start selling the software.... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (12/17/90)
In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@ richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) >Well after a recent exchange with Peter Deutsch, the prime (if not only) >author, it's becoming more clear to me that we're all wasting our time. > >I sent mail to Peter... In part I said: > ... you give the impression that you don't necessarily want our > help. The feeling is one of : "give me some hints here and > there, but the code is mine." >In reply to this Peter said the following: > The copyright that comes with Ghostscript is quite serious: > Ghostscript is, in my view, a piece of potentially commercial > software that I have developed, that I own, and that I choose > to distibute as GNUware. >Frankly, for me that took a few days to fully sink in. Peter has >written Ghostscript and will allow us to use it and debug it for him. >He reserves the right to turn it into a commercial product once we've >helped him get it to that point. >Then what do we have? A package of what used to be GNUware that we >are no longer allowed to modify or perhaps even use? >I understand that anything distributed under a copyright like the GNU >software can potentially be taken away. .... a fair amount more, seemingly good fair points and concerns, edited.... I must have a real misunderstanding here, and this isn't exactly the place for it, but it was my (clear) understanding that the GNU foundation, etc, was clearly on the complete side of complete PD (only) work. They raise money from all kinds of companies (hardware, software, users...) in various forms (cash, hardware, development time & debugging) in order to create a brave new world of FREE open systems software. Some of this money is available to people like Peter in order to (partially) compensate them for their efforts. If these people (which are operating even a tiny amount off tax free donations) are going to be allowed to snatch back their code (or seal it & freeze it at ANY functioning level) and spin it off as $$$ware, then that raises real quastions regarding the functionality of GNU. I hasten to remind everyone look to the past for a image of the future, what did apple do with the MAC software. Initially the system concept was to have a full functional system, OS, editor, graphics (painting/drawing), etc. As the mac 'matured' these packages were spun out of the free system software 1 at a time, and eventually shuffled out & sold to another company for further development & sale. SUN is doing the same thing now. Earlier system versions included fortran, pascal, & C as FREE languages, and other software like sunDraw, sunPaint, sunWrite, were freeware while they were really being made into functional (and functioning) software products. Now, all of that has been spun out (except for C) and is available as $$$ware. In light of this, how will GNU-ware fare any different if developments like this are left alone to market forces. This isn't to say that all software should be free, or that the development of software is cheap or has no value... I strongly defend the rights of software companies (and individuals) to free market,& price their products as they see fit. Also to jail & fine software theft. I also defend the right of software entities to price themselves right into bankruptcy and oblivion. That;s the free market system. However, it turns me the wrong way when we all support (thats right, if DEC gives GNU $$$, it costs me $$$ too: same with lotus or even beatrice) a free foundation like GNU, and then the players that are at the grail sucking up our free support (or like dope dealers getting us hooked &/or simply using us) basically tell us they plan to leave us in the lurch and start selling the software.... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE #! r
tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) (12/17/90)
Just to put my 2 cents worth in, I too would like to jump to Peter's defence. GhostScript is ALREADY a fine product and a very useful one at that. If it goes commercial in the future (as so many other products have... Procomm, Stuffit, Red Ryder etc...) so be it. Until then stop carping about someone that is doing a good job and put your energy into commercial packages that cost megabucks and have megabugs... (eg every x.0 release of WordPerfect!!) Keep up the good work Peter. tj
tj@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Terry Jones) (12/17/90)
Just to put my 2 cents worth in, I too would like to jump to Peter's defence. GhostScript is ALREADY a fine product and a very useful one at that. If it goes commercial in the future (as so many other products have... Procomm, Stuffit, Red Ryder etc...) so be it. Until then stop carping about someone that is doing a good job and put your energy into commercial packages that cost megabucks and have megabugs... (eg every x.0 release of WordPerfect!!) Keep up the good work Peter. tj #!
beck@cs.UAlberta.CA (Bob Beck) (12/18/90)
>> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen)writes : > ... Lots of stuff about free GNU software turning into $$$ware... I think you do have a misunderstanding. That's the whole point behind the GNU GPL. The whole point of "copyleft" is that you are **NOT** allowed to restrict the free distribution of the code for the package in question. If a future version of Ghostscript (or ANY GNU package) were to be released as a proprietary product, ALL the code had better be different from the previously GNU-released version otherwise the author is violating the GPL. The gnu GPL states that if you use ANY GNU code covered by the GPL, then that package must be also be subject to the same conditions. The author can't "take back" At least that's how I read it. The origin of this discussion was a complaint about the author allowing updates/improvements to his code, and the speed at which it was done. This is something entirely different. I am sure the person(s) in charge of the official releases of any GNU software are inundated by "fixes" sent to them from all over the world. You may like some of the patches you have created/seen, but remember that it is the author's name and reputation that are going to be associated with a package that he is giving out for free, and he has to take the time to look at all the stuff he receives and decide what (if anything) needs to be changed. If you don't like the response of an author to your suggestions, then the way I see it you have only one choice.. Put together what you want, put YOUR name and mail address on it, and throw it onto the net. -Bob Beck -- Bob Beck, beck@cs.ualberta.ca University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. Canada.
bothner@sevenlayer.cs.wisc.edu (Per Bothner) (12/18/90)
(I'm posting to quash mis-informed rumor-mongerering, though I cannot answer officially for FSF or Peter Deutsch. However, I've been close to both for a long time, so I have a pretty good idea of what's going on.) In article <1990Dec17.145953.15161@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: > I must have a real misunderstanding here, Yes. >and this isn't exactly the place for it gnu.misc.discuss is a good place for it; comp.lang.postscript probabaly isn't (which is why I've directed followups to the former). >but it was my (clear) understanding that the GNU foundation, etc, was >clearly on the complete side of complete PD (only) work. FSF software is *not* public domain (though it only makes a difference if you plan on re-distributing it (or software based on it), in which case the GPL places some restrictions). >Some of this [money raised from various sources] is available to people like >Peter in order to (partially) compensate them for their efforts. I don't believe FSF doles out money to other than employees (and, btw, Stallman is technically a volunteer). And Peter Deutsch is not employed by FSF, but has worked on Ghostscript on his own time, without compensation (except a few "thanks you"s). Thus misinformed carping is quite out of place. >As the mac 'matured' these packages were spun out of the free system software >1 at a time, and eventually shuffled out & sold to another company for further >development & sale. SUN is doing the same thing now. Earlier system versions >included fortran, pascal, & C as FREE languages, and other software like >sunDraw, sunPaint, sunWrite, were freeware These things were never free, by any reasonable use of the term. They were *bundelled*, i.e. included in the price of the OS (which was usually included in the price of the hardware). This is "free" only in the sense of "buy one, get a second one free" - that is, not free at all. -- --Per Bothner bothner@cs.wisc.edu Computer Sciences Dept, U. of Wisconsin-Madison
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/18/90)
You may distribute exact and complete copies of this article. In article <1990Dec17.200012.28085@cs.UAlberta.CA> beck@cs.UAlberta.CA (Bob Beck) writes: > The whole point of "copyleft" is that you are > **NOT** allowed to restrict the free distribution of the code for the > package in question. [ ... ] > The author can't "take back" That's simply not true. I've permanently waived some of my exclusive copyright on this article. People can (e.g.) print out millions of copies and give them to friends. I can't take away this right.% But it's ridiculous to believe that I can no longer sell copies of this article, or change it and sell the new copies. I'm the one giving away rights here, and I haven't restricted myself by giving you something. The same comments apply to the GPL. The point of copyleft is not to restrict the author's rights; it's to limit his restrictions on other people's rights. ---Dan %This isn't strictly true. Copyright law says that an author can revoke copyright limitations any time between 35 and 40 years later. And state law may reduce this period to just 7 years.
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (12/20/90)
In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
In reply to this Peter said the following:
The copyright that comes with Ghostscript is quite serious:
Ghostscript is, in my view, a piece of potentially commercial
software that I have developed, that I own, and that I choose
to distibute as GNUware.
Frankly, for me that took a few days to fully sink in. Peter has
written Ghostscript and will allow us to use it and debug it for him.
He reserves the right to turn it into a commercial product once we've
helped him get it to that point.
Then what do we have? A package of what used to be GNUware that we
are no longer allowed to modify or perhaps even use?
No. Once a package is released as GNUware, no one can stop anyone
from copying it so long as they abide by the GPL. This is true even if
the copyright holder releases a copy of it which is NOT under the GPL.
In other words, if you don't like the job Peter is doing, you're free to
distribute the "Richard Foulk" version of GhostScript, into which you
incorporate anyone's patches you feel like (assuming they give you permission).
If you think you can do a better job than Peter at improving GhostScript, the
GPL gives you a chance to do it.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) FAX 315-268-7600
It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson
I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) (12/21/90)
In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
Richard> I understand that anything distributed under a copyright like the GNU
Richard> software can potentially be taken away. But when it says `Copyright by
Richard> Richard Stallman' I find little reason to worry. When Peter Deutsch
Richard> says he's serious about going commercial in the future, then I have to
Richard> believe his Ghostscript is a waste of our time.
Richard> ...
Richard> And why is that? People have apparently been sending Peter fixes and
Richard> sizeable enhancements to help the project along. But Peter is only one
Richard> person, and since he wants to maintain his ownership of Ghostscript he
Richard> can't accept the work of others as freely as freeware projects normally
Richard> do. Perhaps his willingness to steal from the net to build his product
Richard> has some bounds.
I make no claims as to any of the following being correct under the laws and
statutes of the United States or any of the indivual states. I am not an
attorney, so you should consult one for clarification. This is strictly
personal (non legal) opinion and should be treated as such.
It is my understanding that a copyright gives "exclusive" rights to the
author of a copyrigthed work and any works "derived" from the original.
This would imply to me that any modifications made to Ghostscript by anyone
could be claimed by Peter as his own as he is the copyright owner. It is
also not clear to me that one can waive (or recind a waiver of) rights
granted by a copyright. I have never been clear on what the implications of
"copyleft" and the GNU General Public License are on what can happen to a
copyrighted (or is that copylefted? :-) work.
Even if I found all of the statutes that govern federal copyright law to
determine exactly what rights are granted a copyright holder I am sure the
legalease would be overwhelming and I would still need to consult an
attorney for a translation into English.
Perhaps someone in the know (i.e. an attorney) could pontificate on the
implications of copy{right,left} and the GPL? Or are there already such
opinions archived somewhere?
--
Dan Ehrlich - Sr. Systems Programmer - Penn State Computer Science
<ehrlich@cs.psu.edu>/Voice: +1 814 863 1142/FAX: +1 814 865 3176uad1077@dircon.uucp (Ian Kemmish) (12/21/90)
As someone who has immense respect for Peter, and also as someone who is in the process of writing a high-quality, high-speed PS interpreter, I have *every* sympathy for his preference for doing as much of it as is feasible himself. While it is easy to get *something* going, getting it all going right involves a lot of effort; integrating other people's code, no matter how helpfully it was provided, may *not* be the minimum-cost solution. Remember that no matter how many peopel contribute, it will still be known out there as `Peter Deutsch's GhostScript', if it suffers through having had too many cooks, it will be he who still gets all the flames. -- Ian D. Kemmish Tel. +44 767 601 361 18 Durham Close uad1077@dircon.UUCP Biggleswade ukc!dircon!uad1077 Beds SG18 8HZ United Kingd uad1077%dircon@ukc.ac.uk
brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) (12/22/90)
In article <Fvh91nz3@cs.psu.edu> ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) writes: > This would imply to me that any modifications made to Ghostscript by anyone > could be claimed by Peter as his own as he is the copyright owner. No. If he has not permitted such modifications, he can sue for damages, but he doesn't gain control over anyone else's work (except perhaps to stop it from continuing). If he has permitted them, then he can't control them any further. > Even if I found all of the statutes that govern federal copyright law to > determine exactly what rights are granted a copyright holder I am sure the > legalease would be overwhelming and I would still need to consult an > attorney for a translation into English. Why does everyone have such a negative opinion of the law? It's actually quite readable. Haul yourself over to a law library, pick up a USCA, and start reading. Btw, it's the regulations, not the statutes, that matter. > Perhaps someone in the know (i.e. an attorney) could pontificate on the > implications of copy{right,left} and the GPL? Or are there already such > opinions archived somewhere? Every such opinion I've seen has considered the GPL both unenforceable and dangerous. ---Dan
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (01/22/91)
In article <1990Dec17.145953.15161@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) writes: >In article <1990Dec16.104300.12930@ richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) >>Well after a recent exchange with Peter Deutsch, the prime (if not only) >us hooked &/or simply using us) basically tell us they plan to leave us in the >lurch and start selling the software.... I'd like to point out before this discussion starts in full flame again, that both this post and the one following int (at most sites probably) are over a month old, and have been duplicated by some site. I'd be interesting to know the source, but let me assure you it wasn't me.... al -- Al. Michielsen, Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Syracuse University InterNet: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Bitnet: AMICHIEL@SUNRISE