gnu@toad.com (06/04/89)
Apple is free to use, modify, and distribute GCC, and I see no evidence of FSF wishing to modify the GNU Public License to prevent them. FSF just wants Apple to have to do it all alone -- without help from the supposed friends of FSF -- because Apple is actively working in court to prevent the Foundation from doing what it is chartered to do. A lot of people think that FSF is there to provide them great software for free. This is not true. FSF is there to demonstrate that freedom allows and encourages people to produce great software. The freedom comes first, not the software. Peter Honeyman would like to use FSF software without the politics. I can understand that. I'd like to use Peter's software without the politics, but AT&T won't give me the source -- seems they have a political position about that. The people who wrote the GNU software that you get for free, were inspired by the idea that it would always remain free. The reason that brilliant programmers wrote that stuff was because they knew it would be used and learned from and improved by anyone who wants to. There exists plenty of excellent software that isn't GNU copylefted; if you happen to like the GNU software better, spend a moment to think about why you like it and how it came to exist. Ideals that attract the caliber of people who are writing the GNU system are worth further exploration, whether or not you agree with them. John Gilmore
benson@odi.com (Benson Margulies) (06/04/89)
Some of us, at one time or another, are in the position of building something based on someone else's unfree source. At my previous job, it was Unix. In this circumstance, it is a major puzzle how to satisfy both copyleft and someone else's requirements. FSF is entitled to be unsympathetic. It is, however, a real situation. So some of us are not picking nits at copyleft to subvert it, but rather to figure out how it can fit with other, conflicting situations. What follows might be called: the slippery slope of software recombination: 1) I write code that knows how to fork and exec gnu make. I don't even distribute gnu make, I just tell my customers where to get it. I don't distribute source of the system I built. 2) I supply diffs to gnu make (in source, of course). 3) I supply diffs to gnu make, and a set of instructions for building it as a sun shared library. My proprietary code calls parts of it via dynamic linking. 4) I supply a makefile which modifies and compiles some parts of gnu make and links it in with my code. The point of this is that there is, in my mind, a significant difference between: *) if you make changes to a FSF codebase that are generally applicable, you are obligated to make them generally available. and *) if you use so much as a particle of FSF code in a system of yours, you must apply GPL terms to the entire system. My problem with the second, which currently sure seems to be the intent of the GPL, is that its mighty hard to define a "system". the GPL offers little guidance on the definition of this term. The singular exception for "operating systems" clarifies nothing. Surely, the accident of the use of an RPC protocol versus fork and exec versus dynamic linking versus static linking can't really define a system. But if it dosen't, then what does? ps: I'd appreciate not receiving nastygrams from FSF followers in response to this, especially to FSF followers who don't have the braincells to put valid addresses anywhere in their mail. If RMS or Len Tower or someone else central would like to supply some insight here, fine. If not, still fine. No one else's opinion of the FSF's position is relevant. -- Benson I. Margulies
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (06/06/89)
In article <8906040445.AA04908@hop.toad.com> gnu@toad.com writes: >Apple is free to use, modify, and distribute GCC, and I see no >evidence of FSF wishing to modify the GNU Public License to prevent >them. FSF just wants Apple to have to do it all alone -- without help >from the supposed friends of FSF -- because Apple is actively working >in court to prevent the Foundation from doing what it is chartered to >do. You must have missed all of Stallman's postings. He emphatically prohibited Apple from posting any messages in this news group, even though the postings were strictly in line with the charter of FSF. That is, David Berry, who works at Apple, announced that he ported gcc to the Macintosh. This entire discussion is a result of Stallman implicitly changing the GNU Public License so that any organization that does not succumb to his political beliefs or does not meet with his ideals is not free to participate with FSF. >A lot of people think that FSF is there to provide them great software >for free. This is not true. It is certainly clear now that this is not true. Why not put the political requirements in the charter? >Peter Honeyman would like to use FSF software without the politics. >I can understand that. I'd like to use Peter's software without >the politics, but AT&T won't give me the source -- seems they have >a political position about that. I doubt that it is political. They probably have a commercial view on that. >The people who wrote the GNU software that you get for free, were >inspired by the idea that it would always remain free. The reason >that brilliant programmers wrote that stuff was because they knew it >would be used and learned from and improved by anyone who wants to. Anyone but Apple, right? This is the true double talk. And perhaps you missed Stallman as he cited FSF's real charter: "The GNU project's purpose is politics." --rms Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
honey@mailrus.cc.umich.edu (peter honeyman) (06/08/89)
John, you have to get source to "Peter's software" from AT&T
because it's AT&T's software, not Peter's. I am content with
this state of affairs; if you have a bone to pick with AT&T,
please leave me out of it.
Anything that's really mine you can have. (You know that.)
E.g., from pathalias/README:
pathalias, written by steve bellovin and peter honeyman,
is in the public domain, and may be used by any person or
organization, in any way and for any purpose.
Maybe this world needs a Really Free Software Foundation.
peter
ps: i am not a saber rattler.tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (06/09/89)
From: sun-barr!texsun!pollux!ti-csl!m2!holland@rutgers.edu (Fred Hollander) Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas In article <8906040445.AA04908@hop.toad.com> gnu@toad.com writes: >Apple is free to use, modify, and distribute GCC, and I see no >evidence of FSF wishing to modify the GNU Public License to prevent >them. FSF just wants Apple to have to do it all alone -- without help >from the supposed friends of FSF -- because Apple is actively working >in court to prevent the Foundation from doing what it is chartered to >do. You must have missed all of Stallman's postings. He emphatically prohibited Apple from posting any messages in this news group, even though the postings were strictly in line with the charter of FSF. Huh, charter? I'm a Director of FSF and I've never seen the FSF charter! You must be referring to some mystical charter you've created in your head. From mis-understandings of what the GNU Project has always been about. That is, David Berry, who works at Apple, announced that he ported gcc to the Macintosh. This entire discussion is a result of Stallman implicitly changing the GNU Public License so that any organization that does not succumb to his political beliefs or does not meet with his ideals is not free to participate with FSF. False. All rms asked was that info-gcc/gnu.gcc, a forum created and maintained by FSF, not be used to help Apple. The forum exists to further the purposes of the GNU Project, not Apple's. Apple can still use GNU software under the terms of the GNU General Public License. Why Apple? Re-read gnu@toad.com first paragraph above. >A lot of people think that FSF is there to provide them great software >for free. This is not true. It is certainly clear now that this is not true. Why not put the political requirements in the charter? Again what charter? The GNU Manifesto and GNU General Public License are both clear about this. Both have been widely distributed. Copies of both are available from gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu. Why don't you read them. enjoy -len
holland@m2.csc.ti.com (Fred Hollander) (06/13/89)
In article <8906082153.AA06661@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: > > From: sun-barr!texsun!pollux!ti-csl!m2!holland@rutgers.edu (Fred Hollander) > Organization: TI Computer Science Center, Dallas > > In article <8906040445.AA04908@hop.toad.com> gnu@toad.com writes: > >Apple is free to use, modify, and distribute GCC, and I see no > >evidence of FSF wishing to modify the GNU Public License to prevent > >them. FSF just wants Apple to have to do it all alone -- without help > >from the supposed friends of FSF -- because Apple is actively working > >in court to prevent the Foundation from doing what it is chartered to ^^^^^^^ Note the use of the word charter. I refer to this and even though Len asks me to reread this paragraph and does not object to gnu@toad using the word charter, he strongly objects to my use of the word and follows with insults. > >do. > > You must have missed all of Stallman's postings. He emphatically > prohibited Apple from posting any messages in this news group, even > though the postings were strictly in line with the charter of FSF. > >Huh, charter? I'm a Director of FSF and I've never seen the FSF >charter! You must be referring to some mystical charter you've >created in your head. From mis-understandings of what the GNU Project >has always been about. I don't follow how you conclude that it must be a *mystical* charter that I created in my head. You are quick to insult me and attempt to discredit my views. I will not follow suit, but, rather explain my position. My understanding of your charter (and I don't mean that in the literal sense of a written legal document, but, as a general goal and purpose) is that FSF is providing *all* people with free software that they may improve upon and likewise distribute freely. I've reached this conclusion from the manifesto and people in this group, including Stallman. If I have misunderstood something, I welcome you to correct me, but, let's leave mysticism, name-calling and general insults out of this discussion. > That is, David Berry, who works at Apple, announced that he ported gcc > to the Macintosh. This entire discussion is a result of Stallman > implicitly changing the GNU Public License so that any organization > that does not succumb to his political beliefs or does not meet with > his ideals is not free to participate with FSF. > >False. All rms asked was that info-gcc/gnu.gcc, a forum created and >maintained by FSF, not be used to help Apple. The forum exists to >further the purposes of the GNU Project, not Apple's. Apple can still >use GNU software under the terms of the GNU General Public License. Not false. The direct purpose of David Berry's posting was to inform people about gcc, thus furthering the purposes of the GNU project. Naturally, since the port is for an Apple platform, there is an indirect benefit to Apple. This is true for all ports and should not be considered a form of advertisement. >Why Apple? Re-read gnu@toad.com first paragraph above. > > >A lot of people think that FSF is there to provide them great software > >for free. This is not true. > > It is certainly clear now that this is not true. Why not put the political > requirements in the charter? > >Again what charter? The GNU Manifesto and GNU General Public License >are both clear about this. Both have been widely distributed. Copies >of both are available from gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu. Why don't you read them. I have just read them both. I must have missed the *Apple* clause that takes back the right of *some* people to participate in the GNU project by decree of RMS! >enjoy -len Fred Hollander Computer Science Center Texas Instruments, Inc. hollander@ti.com The above statements are my own and not representative of Texas Instruments.
rubinoff@linc.cis.upenn.edu (Robert Rubinoff) (06/13/89)
Oh, come on people! Richard Stallman and the rest of the FSF people have certain ideas about what the legal status of software should be. In order to advance their ideas, they distribute gnu software under certain conditions. If you don't like their ideas or their conditions, don't use the software. That's all there is to it. Robert
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) (06/16/89)
>A lot of people think that FSF is there to provide them great software >for free. This is not true. FSF is there to demonstrate that freedom >allows and encourages people to produce great software. The freedom >comes first, not the software. Hmmm. This whole discussion, [argument, battle, war...] reminds me of a quote from `City on the Edge of Forever,' where Kirk sits down for a free meal from Joan Collins and the bum sitting next to him says (this isn't verbatim, so those who have all the episodes memorized don't call me on this one) "The food isn't free, the price is you have to listen to her first." Make your own analogy... Too bad rms isn't as pretty as Joan Collins... If you need one: :-) Christopher Welty --- Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs | "Porsche: Fahren in weltyc@cs.rpi.edu ...!njin!nyser!weltyc | seiner schoensten Form"