gjc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (George J. Carrette) (06/01/89)
The Bellcore, AT&T, IBM, and DEC people you are talking to are just
trying to scare you into not supporting free software.
How is it that other companies are using the software, e.g. INTEL?
Also, since GCC is distributed by DECUS I cannot see how DEC people
could avoid coming into contact with it.
The "contamination" argument is absurd, since there are not "trade-secret"
claims being made on GCC. Other than direct copying of code, which is
rather easy to control in a commercial environment, there is really
little danger to AT&T etc other than the danger of supporting the idea
of free software.
Fact: When you call the C++ people at ATT about the latest version they
will suggest you get GCC++ for the time being.
-gjcspaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (06/02/89)
In article <32085@bu-cs.BU.EDU> gjc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (George J. Carrette) writes: >The Bellcore, AT&T, IBM, and DEC people you are talking to are just >trying to scare you into not supporting free software. Nonsense. First, the people I am working with don't care one way or the other -- some of them might even be interested in GNU software if it wasn't for the terms of the copyleft. The lawyers are just being very conservative. To their way of thinking (note that I'm not expressing my own opinion here), the GNU project is being directed by fanatics who MIGHT file a lawsuit over potential copyright violation even if there was clearly no violation. The simply want to avoid the potential risk, especially of a politically-motivated harassment lawsuit. Second, and this is something most people don't think about, GNU software is not "free". There is no money involved in getting it, but it is proprietary software as long as there are restrictions placed on its use and redistribution. Calling it "Free" is an interesting use of the language. >How is it that other companies are using the software, e.g. INTEL? Their lawyers may have told them not to sweat possible copyright cases, or else they aren't using it in an arena where it makes a difference (ie, software development labs), or (most probably) the corporate legal staff doesn't know about it being used. >Also, since GCC is distributed by DECUS I cannot see how DEC people >could avoid coming into contact with it. Lots of DEC people may come into contact with it. The key is the folks in R&D that those of us in university environments have to deal with. >The "contamination" argument is absurd, since there are not "trade-secret" >claims being made on GCC. Other than direct copying of code, which is >rather easy to control in a commercial environment, there is really >little danger to AT&T etc other than the danger of supporting the idea >of free software. I've served as an expert witness in copyright infringement cases; you are mistaken. As noted above, the lawyers are also worried about harassment lawsuits. Considering the actions taken with the Apple boycott and some of the things said here and in other forums by people associated with the FSF, perhaps that fear is somewhat justified. >Fact: When you call the C++ people at ATT about the latest version they > will suggest you get GCC++ for the time being. Depends on which people you call. -- Gene Spafford NSF/Purdue/U of Florida Software Engineering Research Center, Dept. of Computer Sciences, Purdue University, W. Lafayette IN 47907-2004 Internet: spaf@cs.purdue.edu uucp: ...!{decwrl,gatech,ucbvax}!purdue!spaf
gjc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (George J. Carrette) (06/02/89)
As an experienced hired-gun expert-witness in a lawsuit that makes you a different kind of person for the lawyers to deal with. That changes things a bit. You are not just a researcher with "clean-hands." FSF doesnt have the revenue stream to file harassment lawsuits anyway. -gjc
benson@odi.com (Benson Margulies) (06/02/89)
In article <32126@bu-cs.BU.EDU> gjc@bu-cs.BU.EDU (George J. Carrette) writes: > >FSF doesnt have the revenue stream to file harassment lawsuits anyway. > I must say that this is hardly a reassuring statement. It would seem to imply that the FSF would be quite content to file various lawsuits if the cash was on hand. I don't want to be involved in the generic pro/anti FSF dispute. I'll just report some facts I know. Lawsuits are expensive to defend. They scare away potential financing. The perception that the FSF might mount a lawsuit has caused at least one company I was very involved with to avoid extensive use of FSF materials. If the FSF made some clear statements of policy in some areas, and distributed them along with copyleft, it would help. Questions include: 1- If I find 200 lines of really useful code in some FSF item, and include it in my 10,000 line (hiss) non-free product, does FSF claim that I must distribute the source of all 10,000 lines? 2- If I include include files and link in object files from the g++ library, does FSF claim that I must distribute all of my source? 3- If I start with an FSF item, and add a large mound of additional code to specialize it for use in a particular environment (which environment is not freely available), does FSF claim that I must distribute the code I added? The entire environment? (e.g., porting GCC to a new target, connecting gdb to a proprietary window system). FSFers: I'm not arguing that you should answer these questions one way or the other. It's your code, do what you want with it to advance your goals. But a clear, official FSF position on this class of issue would could only help, as it would limit the pessimistic defensiveness of lawers. Benson I. Margulies