de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (01/30/91)
In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes: > >Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in >maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public [License] claims; >rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. It means he's not willing to compromise his belief in the advantages of Free software to benefit a group that doesn't share that belief. To do otherwise would be counterproductive to his, and the FSF's, goals. >Hence, >his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of >buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. Not selling someone else's product without their consent is hardly a stiff price to pay. You're asking people to not only give you their code, but to give you their rights to it. >I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its >software to further his goals. I find it rather clever that we're able to fight fire with fire. >This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my >computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted >by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I >can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >programming. This is sheer alarmist nonsense. There's no more danger of GNU-license legal challenges than there is from any other licensed product. In fact, I'd think a megabucks/megalawyer operation like AT&T would be more likely to enforce it's System V source licensing. Are you paranoid about *all* licensed code, or just GNU-licensed code? If you sold source to your products, how would it be licensed, and what protection would your customers have against it "infecting" *their* product? >This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not >acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll >be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors >(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to >license their code under non-utopian terms. What's a shame is that you've got such a paranoia about the GNU license that you won't even use any of the GNU tools. Do you think, perhaps, that a snippet of GNU code might inject itself into your product? I suspect that, in fact, you're really *not* that afraid, and you're just trying to make a point. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/07/91)
According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard): >In article <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in >>the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files >>edited by Emacs. > >Emacs and GCC: yes. >G++: not when you link in their libraries. I specifically omitted mention of libg++ because I don't use it, and I don't expect ever to use it. Why? Two reasons: (1) I do not wish to put all my C++ code under the GPL. (2) I consider libg++ a botched design -- one big inheritance tree is Smalltalk, not C++. (The LGPL may solve the former problem, but it will not solve the latter.) (Yes, I need streams; I got it from InterViews, which is not GPL-protected.) >Why should the status of my code depend on what RMS had for breakfast? Frivolous lawsuits, potential and actual, are everywhere. I see no reason to guard against this particular one. Besides, the enforceability of the GPL is questionable. Any lawyer worth the name would avoid such a WOMBAT. And RMS most certainly would not spend money for the chance to have the GPL gutted by the courts unless he were forced into action by a flagrant violator. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done." -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin
rjc@sole.cs.ucla.edu (Robert Collins) (02/08/91)
In article <27B177AF.2968@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >I consider libg++ a botched >design -- one big inheritance tree is Smalltalk, not C++. Gee, last time I checked, libg++ was a very wide forest, not a tree. Maybe you should reevaluate libg++? >Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> rob
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (02/10/91)
According to rjc@cs.ucla.edu (Robert Collins): >In article <27B177AF.2968@tct.uucp> chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) writes: >>I consider libg++ a botched design -- one big inheritance tree is >>Smalltalk, not C++. > >Gee, last time I checked, libg++ was a very wide forest, not a tree. Aargh. As a kind person E-Mailed to tell me, I have confused the NIH Class Library (a tree) with libg++ (a forest). Mea culpa. I withdraw my technical complaint about libg++. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "Most of my code is written by myself. That is why so little gets done." -- Herman "HLLs will never fly" Rubin