meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (01/05/90)
In article <4877@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: |In article <MWM.90Jan2130339@raven.pa.dec.com> mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) writes: |> You're requiring that someone give you credit for your work. That sure |> looks like you're imposing your morals (in this case, that creators |> recieve credit for their work) on others. | |No, it just means I'm feeding my ego. I like to hear back from people that |my stuff is being used and appreciated. ... |> You've provided examples. Want to answer the question? | |Give me some real examples or drop the question. Mike seems to be missing the distinction between imposing your will on someone and imposing your morals on someone. They may be related, but then again, they may not. The law, including copyright law, may or may not address the issue of morality in a given situation. -Miles (my wolf got away - I did hug my Cheetah)
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Under Construction) Meyer) (01/05/90)
>> Mike seems to be missing the distinction between imposing >> your will on someone and imposing your morals on someone. No, I'm going along with those who claim that placing restrictions on redistribution of software is a moral issue. If you don't think that's correct use of the word morals, fine - go argue with whoever first used the phrase "using the force of government to impose your morals" or whatever it was. Change it to read "ethics", or "will", or whatever. It all amounts to the same thing - you are using the force of government to make people behave in the way you want them to. And the question still remains: why is RMS doing this so much worse than anyone else doing this? <mike -- All around my hat, I will wear the green willow. Mike Meyer And all around my hat, for a twelve-month and a day. mwm@berkeley.edu And if anyone should ask me, the reason why I'm wearing it, ucbvax!mwm It's all for my true love, who's far far away. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
koreth@panarthea.ebay.sun.com (Steven Grimm) (01/06/90)
Here's what I think people are trying to say. First of all, I don't
think anyone is disputing the programmer's right to place one of his
own programs under the copyleft. The problem is the implication that
some people read into the COPYING file, namely that anything linked
with GNU libraries automatically falls under the copyleft.
And that's the distinction. When you link with, say, Sun's C library,
you're free to sell the program, make it public domain, place it under
the copyleft, or whatever. Sun makes you pay for the library, but
doesn't try to say anything about what you link with the library once
you have it. The way I see it, this problem is pretty simple to
solve once and for all, with a change to COPYING:
"Incorporating GNU software into another program, and distributing the
other program, is equivalent to distributing the program on the same
media as the GNU software."
The copying rules already state that putting GNU stuff on the same tape
as copyrighted material doesn't affect the copyrighted material, so this
answers the linking question once and for all. It requires people who
link with GNU libraries to make available the source to those libraries,
but not to their programs.
If that fails, people who need to use GNU libraries can always supply
them and make the user link the program. (If the user wants to use an
equivalent set of libraries, fine.)
Comments from GNU people?
---
" !" - Marcel Marceau
Steven Grimm Moderator, comp.{sources,binaries}.atari.st
koreth@ebay.sun.com ...!sun!ebay!korethjde@unify.uucp (Jeff Evarts) (01/06/90)
This went int as a follow up because postnews don't always work here.
Okay, a lot of people are going on and on about how "my" license (let's
say I'm the big, evil software distributor) is restricting their freedom.
Let me try a couple of analogies, please respond by email...
Say I meet you on a streetcorner in front of my pizzaria. People who
buy my pizza like to eat it and enjoy the atmosphere. I like to keep
the atmosphere "nice", so when I see someone hanging around outside
my shop, or leaning against the window, I...
1. Ask them to leave
2. Pay them a dollar to leave
3. Offer them five dollars for their pocket fluff if they leave
4. Offer them a slice of my pizza for 10 cents if they leave.
_All_ of these would be agreements between that person and I, all
of them would be (assuming they were recorded) legally binding. As
a software vendor, I am selling people software for much less than
I could if anyone could freely copy it.
(Face it, this is true. If anyone could copy anything,
I would have to recoup my _entire_ development cost
on just one sale, no matter how small that cost got
from my being able to copy other people's software)
Therefore, I am offering you a _deal_: buy my software at this price,
and in exchange _do_not_ give my work away. If you don't like this
deal, refuse _all_ of it, and do not buy my software.
(For those of you who think that software is 'expensive
enough', or that somebody is making 'too much' money,
and that is your justification for breaking the agreement,
I grieve for you and your small vision. The people living
not too far from you in the cheaper parts of town could
use that excuse to break into your house and steal from
you)
No one can _make_ you buy their software. If theor terms are too restricting,
do without them. The guy could always refuse all four offers and remain in the
street... after all _that_ is his right.
How can it possibly be more complicated than that? What am I missing?
-Jeff Evarts
--jde@unify.com
---csusac!uunify!jde
#include <std.disclaimer> What? You think my boss would listen to me?bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (01/07/90)
>Say I meet you on a streetcorner in front of my pizzaria. People who >buy my pizza like to eat it and enjoy the atmosphere. I like to keep >the atmosphere "nice", so when I see someone hanging around outside >my shop, or leaning against the window, I... > >1. Ask them to leave > >2. Pay them a dollar to leave > >3. Offer them five dollars for their pocket fluff if they leave > >4. Offer them a slice of my pizza for 10 cents if they leave. I'm not sure I follow your analogy but it's interesting to note that this was *precisely* how the protection racket, which later blossomed into Murder Inc., got started in NYC. I had an uncle who hung around with that crowd when they were all more or less innocent kids in the Bronx. They'd hang around in front of soda shops, street corner life. One of the owners started giving them a nickel if they'd hang out elsewhere, the rest is history as they started demanding their nickels (in a time where a nickel was some money to, say, a 12 year old), on to window insurance, the rest is history. I ain't sayin' it was the store owners fault, but boy was that an interesting analogy you chose. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade | bzs@world.std.com 1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs