" Maynard) (12/20/89)
There's been a lot of discussion about the GNU Public License. I, along
with a few others, have decried the part of the license that forces a
software author who uses any part of GNU code to make his entire package
available under the terms of the License, which requires that he make
the complete source code available for only a copying charge and
prohibits him from protecting his own code by imposing any greater
restrictions than those contained in the License.
The part of the License that does this is paragraph 2b:
b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that
in whole or in part contains the Program or any part thereof, either
with or without modifications, to be licensed at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of this General Public License (except
that you may choose to grant warranty protection to some or all
third parties, at your option).
This is a legal virus, as insidious and as evil as the (all too common)
computer virus. It forces anyone who wishes to use GNU code in his
program to subscribe to Richard M. Stallman's utopia.
How is this harmful? Let's take a recent example: Someone posted a
version of GNU's getopt() that he had modified to accept / as well as -
as the switch character to alt.sources - without including a copy of the
GNU Public License. While I understand and agree that this was a dirty,
rotten thing to do, and he should not have done it, and that he should
be strung up, keelhauled, drawn, quartered, minced, buried in warm peat
for three months, and then boiled in oil, let's look at another effect
of this: the effect on some poor slob who innocently snarfs a copy of
the code and builds it into his life's work.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still
covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing
it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to
WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it
away, forever.
This is theft.
What should be done about it?
I call upon the Free Software Foundation to issue a new version of the
GNU Public License, with paragraph 2b replaced by the following:
b) cause those portions of any work that you distribute or publish
that are portions of the Program, either with or without modification,
to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this General Public License (except that you may choose to grant
warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option).
At one stroke, this would disinfect the virus. No longer would we have
to freely distribute our code just because we used GNU regexp, for
example. If we modify GNU code, that modified code would still be
available, under the same terms that guarantee that everyone can still
have a copy. Nobody could sabotage a programming project's commercial
viability by slipping in some GNU code. In short, we would be free not
to join in RMS' utopia.
I also note that you cannot include this replacement on your own in a
license you wish to apply to your own independently developed code,
because of the following language at the head of the GNU Public License:
Copyright (C) 1989 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Therefore, fixing this can only be done by the FSF itself.
Finally, I do not get the gnu.* groups here; if you cannot post to
alt.religion.computers, please email me a copy of your comments.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (12/20/89)
>> covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing >> it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to >> WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it >> away, forever. Except that RMS is reasonable, and recognizes an honest mistake. Look at what happened when NeXT did just that - they were told that those things already out were OK, but now that they knew they were doing wrong, they should fix it in future versions. They did. Everybody got what they wanted, and nobody got done out of their work. >> This is theft. No more so than if the sofware had been stolen from a commercial library and posted, where the user may not only not get any bucks from his product, but could wind up watching someone else get bucks from it. >> I also note that you cannot include this replacement on your own in a >> license you wish to apply to your own independently developed code, >> because of the following language at the head of the GNU Public License: >> >> Copyright (C) 1989 Free Software Foundation, Inc. >> 675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA >> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies >> of this license document, but changing it is not allowed. >> >> Therefore, fixing this can only be done by the FSF itself. For your own independently developed software, you can fix this. All you have to do is reference something other than the GPL from your code, and have _that_ reference the GPL with notes as to the changes you intend. This is _not_ legal if you're using software that you recieved under the GPL, though. >> In short, we would be free not to join in RMS' utopia. You're already free to not join RMS' utopia. Just don't use his code. <mike -- And then up spoke his own dear wife, Mike Meyer Never heard to speak so free. mwm@berkeley.edu "I'd rather a kiss from dead Matty's lips, ucbvax!mwm Than you or your finery." mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (12/20/89)
jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >I call upon the Free Software Foundation to issue a new version of the >GNU Public License, with paragraph 2b replaced by the following: Since the current licence forbids one to apply a more restrictive licence, it would appear to be impossible to make the changes Jay suggests to any code already under GPL. -- Steve Simmons Just another midwestern boy scs@vax3.iti.org -- or -- ...!sharkey!itivax!scs "Think of c++ as an object-oriented assembler..."
dsill@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (12/21/89)
In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > > This is a legal virus, as insidious and as evil as the (all too common) > computer virus. ---- BS. I don't see how you can compare something designed to destroy data and make life difficult for people with something designed to cut down on the reinvention of software "wheels". > It forces anyone who wishes to use GNU code in his > program to subscribe to Richard M. Stallman's utopia. So what? If you don't like that, don't use the software. > How is this harmful? Let's take a recent example: Someone posted a > version of GNU's getopt() that he had modified to accept / as well as - > as the switch character to alt.sources - without including a copy of the > GNU Public License. I believe the copyright messages in the code referenced the GPL. Not including a copy was a minor omission. > ... let's look at another effect of this: the effect on some poor > slob who innocently snarfs a copy of the code and builds it into his > life's work. Without reading the copyright message? He deserves what he gets. > Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still > covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing > it, Come on, aren't you exaggerating just a tad? > he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to > WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it > away, forever. > In short, we would be free not to join in RMS' utopia. You don't need to change the GPL to do that. > Therefore, fixing this can only be done by the FSF itself. You can write your own license based on the GPL. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (12/21/89)
In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: |The part of the License that does this is paragraph 2b: | | b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that ... (stuff about theft, keelhauling, etc deleted, altho it was well put) |I call upon the Free Software Foundation to issue a new version of the |GNU Public License, with paragraph 2b replaced by the following: | | b) cause those portions of any work that you distribute or publish BINGO!!! I told you so, I told you so... (ahem). Thank-you, mein favorite splut! -Miles
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (12/21/89)
As quoted from <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> by dsill@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill): +--------------- | In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you | ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: | > | > This is a legal virus, as insidious and as evil as the (all too common) | > computer virus. ---- | | BS. I don't see how you can compare something designed to destroy | data and make life difficult for people with something designed to cut | down on the reinvention of software "wheels". +--------------- But it *doesn't* cut down on that reinvention -- because if you don't subscribe to RMS's view of the world, you can't use it. +--------------- | > It forces anyone who wishes to use GNU code in his | > program to subscribe to Richard M. Stallman's utopia. | | So what? If you don't like that, don't use the software. +--------------- Precisely. I must reinvent the wheel, this invalidating your previous argument. Try sticking to the same subject for more than a single paragraph. I do not support the FSF. I used to, but I find myself unable to accept RMS's view of the world as it "should be" -- it is unrealistic. I therefore can not use FSF code; it is therefore completely useless to me, and using it will infect anything I use it in with the GPV. So much for the FSF; as far as their usefulness to me goes, they don't exist. Don't bother mailing me about this; no doubt I'll be condemned as evil by half the readers of this newsgroup, but that's just too bad. *I* have to live with the world as it is; I don't have the leisure to work with someone's dreams. ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!hal.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@hal.cwru.edu bsa@telotech.uucp *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)* expnet.all: Experiments in *net management and organization. Mail me for info.
manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) (12/21/89)
Somebody recently posted a 1-line article reading `Boy, is this newsgroup stupid.' After going through 100 or so gnu.misc.discuss articles, I'm inclined to agree with this person. After reading the GPL very carefully, I am unable to see *anything* different in kind from a standard licence agreement for a programming language. Indeed, anything which incorporates FSF products becomes subject to their licence agreement. This is also true of *every* programming language product with which I am familiar. For example: suppose that I buy Borland's optional Turbo C library source package. I can link Turbo C library object modules into my program, and then distribute the program without paying any royalties; however, However, I can't make modifications in the library code and then distribute the result as a library called `Manis C Library', whether it be for money or not. (Borland, which has remarkably sensible licencing policies, still retains ownership of the components of their package.) Similarly, Texas Instruments markets a quite good Scheme system, at a very low cost. That system does not produce executables, so you need a copy of (and hence a licence for) TI's Scheme system for each machine on which you wish to run a program. I have not heard any of the anti-FSF types in this newsgroup dumping on Borland or Texas Instruments for their `restraint of trade' in refusing to give their software away. Admittedly, FSF's licence agreement is somewhat more restrictive than either Borland's or TI's, but, having accepted the principle, all we're doing is haggling over where to draw the line, as the Archbishop said to the chorusperson. It seems to me that FSF's sin, in the minds of its opponents, is to give the code away, thus undercutting (in at least their own minds) some of the readers' livelihoods. But here's the paradox: if you believe that this undercutting exists, then you have already conceded victory to RMS. That's exactly his point in the GNU Manifesto. What it comes down to is simple: deciding to use a particular software package is a complex decision, based upon capabilities, performance, cost, and licence conditions. In that regard, FSF is no different than Ashton-Tate. (I happen to have a much higher regard for FSF's ethics than for most software publishers, but that's a different thing.) If Ashton-Tate can claim ownership of the dBASE IV code, why can't FSF do the same thing with GNU C? -- \ Vincent Manis <manis@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and \ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist." /\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge / \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) (12/21/89)
manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: >After reading the GPL very carefully, I am unable to see *anything* >different in kind from a standard licence agreement for a programming >language . . . >I have not heard any of the anti-FSF types in this newsgroup dumping on >Borland or Texas Instruments for their `restraint of trade' in refusing >to give their software away . . . The primary thing that offends people about the GPS/Free Software Foundation is misinterpretation of the word "free". "Free" here means "no charge". It does not mean "unencumbered". Meself, I'd prefer that it meant unencumbered -- but if that's the way they want to do it, it's their code. Anybody want to start the Unencumbered Software Foundation? :-)/2
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes: >In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you >ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >> This is a legal virus, as insidious and as evil as the (all too common) >> computer virus. ---- I and I'm sure many others are getting tired of this subject, but I would like to point out one think. The only reason this issue comes up at all is that FSF distributes their source freely (with the GPL restrictions). The commertial companies that supply the OS I currently get paid to work on are considerable *more* restrictive, and their licenses also have virus like properties (i.e. if you make an extension to our software, it is ours). It has been pointed out many times that: >So what? If you don't like that, don't use the software. And you don't even have to go that far. You can use it, look at the source, sell your services for installing and maintaining it, etc., all without having to worry at all about the GPL. I personally have a much bigger problem with the way AT&T has taken all kinds of code developed for the public domain and made it part of their licensed product. If FSF and the GPL was around while UNIX was evolving in the university community, much of what we now must pay for would already be covered by the GPL and thus publicly available for out perusal. Now they have to develop the tools again from scratch, so it will take some time. Gerry Gleason
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (12/22/89)
In article <6055@ubc-cs.UUCP> manis@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes: >After reading the GPL very carefully, I am unable to see *anything* >different in kind from a standard licence agreement for a programming >language. It's very, very simple. If I buy a Pascal compiler (including its runtime library), I expect to be able to sell compiled programs that I write using it. I may have to pay a royalty to the compiler author (though most companies have done away with this), but in any case, I can sell the compiled programs which I have written. If I use, say, GNU C and the GNU C library (which I believe isn't finished yet, so this doesn't apply at this moment), I will still be able to sell a program I write. But I will also have to give the purchaser source code, and they will be able to do anything they want with it (including give it away). Whether this is a good thing or not is a religious issue. :-) Anton +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison | +---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
" Maynard) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes: >In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you >ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >> Therefore, fixing this can only be done by the FSF itself. >You can write your own license based on the GPL. Not without violating the copyright, I can't. -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/22/89)
gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes: > I personally have a much bigger problem with the way AT&T has taken all > kinds of code developed for the public domain and made it part of their > licensed product. If FSF and the GPL was around while UNIX was evolving > in the university community, much of what we now must pay for would > already be covered by the GPL and thus publicly available for out perusal. > Now they have to develop the tools again from scratch, so it will take some > time. Of course, another glorious paradox arises. If FSF and the GPL had been around when Unix was being developed, then granted, Unix source would be available and there would be free versions of a generally nifty os for as many computer types as we could find geeks to port it to. However, if this had been true, then the FSF would have no reason to exist - the GNU project would be purposeless. Remember - GNU's Not Unix - it's a replacement for Unix. > Gerry Gleason iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank | R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS| disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me
njc@nsscb.UUCP (Neil Cherry) (12/22/89)
I'll keep this short and sweet. In simple terms if I write a program and release it to "the public domain" I don't want another software company to come along and take that software and sell it, unless they give me some money for my work. But I also don't want some PD user not to have availability to this software. And the final word in paranoa (SP?) I worry that I might write a software package that really is great (well maybe in my dreams), I release it to the PD, another user gobles it up, fixes some bugs and sells it on the open market claiming it as his own. I, at the same time, do some clean up and also try to make some money off my endever. But I get sued for releasing his package Now this may never happen but it could in worse case. The industry will always need to sell software for it to keep itself working. But the PD writters must have a LEGAL (ie. with lawyer stuff etal.) way of protecting themselves. NJC
gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/23/89)
In article <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >In article <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes: >>You can write your own license based on the GPL. >Not without violating the copyright, I can't. Did you ask them yet? Nope. The FSF is a group of people, not a group of devils. Reasonable peple. ------ Greg Lindahl
jet@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan) (12/23/89)
In article <1989Dec22.174425.10485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>In article <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes: >>>You can write your own license based on the GPL. >>Not without violating the copyright, I can't. >Did you ask them yet? Nope. >The FSF is a group of people, not a group of devils. Reasonable peple. Relative to Jay, they're a bunch of devils. He's still pissed off that FSF won't support the brain-damaged '286 architecture... I guess I should be pissed because they won't support my 6502 based micros. (Hey, that's it! I should fix gcc so that it produces 6502 machine code, then cross compile from my 3b1! I've been looking for a research project; now if I can just get my advisor to think it's worthwhile... ) -- "When people aren't stupid Usenet is even more useful. Too bad this happens so rarely." -- Jef Poskanzer <jef@well.sf.ca.us> J. Eric Townsend uunet!sugar!flatline!jet jet@flatline.lonestar.org EastEnders Mailing list: eastender@flatline.lonestar.org
jthomp@wintermute.Central.Sun.COM (Jim Thompson) (12/24/89)
In article <2582@flatline.UUCP> jet@flatline.UUCP (It's "Mr. Boyo" to you Dylan) writes: >(Hey, that's it! I should fix gcc so that it produces 6502 machine code, >then cross compile from my 3b1! I've been looking for a research project; >now if I can just get my advisor to think it's worthwhile... ) Actually, while I was still at Convex, I did something almost as strange. I made gcc produce Sun 68k / SPARC code. The SPARC fp stuff was kinda hard to get right, but in the end I could sit on a Convex and type 'make CC=gcc-sprarc CFLAGS="-g -O" all'. and end up with an a.out that I could run on my Sun. (I used the gnu 'ld' as well.) I never did try the reverse (building Convex code on a Sun.) the problems of supporting 64bit arithmetic, constant folding, and so forth were just to much to accomplish before I left. Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems - jthomp@central.sun.com Charter Member - Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY) "Confusing yourself is a way to stay honest." -Jenny Holzer
" Maynard) (12/26/89)
In article <1989Dec22.174425.10485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: >In article <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>In article <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes: >>>You can write your own license based on the GPL. >>Not without violating the copyright, I can't. >Did you ask them yet? Nope. >The FSF is a group of people, not a group of devils. Reasonable peple. If I can distribute modified copes of the GPL, why would they specifically state that redistribution of unmodified copies of the license but that thye must remain unmodified?? Their idea of what is moral with regard to licensing restrictions and mine differ greatly. Maybe not devils, but thieves... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (01/17/90)
In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still
covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing
it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to
WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it
away, forever.
Some short time ago someone asked for examples of public domain code that
had been expropriated by a producer of commercial software. No one could
come up with an example.
I suggest that you come up with an example of someone who unintentionally
"infected" his code.
In short, we would be free not to join in RMS' utopia.
As people have pointed out ad nauseum, you are perfectly free NOT to
join in RMS' utopia. Just don't use any of his property, and you
won't have to abide by the rules he puts on the use of his property.
RMS *wants* the GPL to be a virus. At least, that is my conclusion
based on my interpretation of the GPL. Why do you keep attempting
to make this conclusion into a pejorative?
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problemssean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) (01/17/90)
In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: | Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still | covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing | it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to | WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it | away, forever. Actually that's not the way the law handles such cases. It is only mere speculation on my part. I say that most likely, the law would uphold Stallman's copyright, but possibly not his terms. In the case of a dispute, a ruling in Stallman's favor would probably result in a simple cease and desist order. I doubt that a damages suit would be allowed, and it's very questionable whether monies earned would have to be repayed. I'm almost certain that the violator would not be required to put their software under Stallman's terms. Stallman can't disarm the copyright laws with a virus-like GPL. The best he will get is to make them stop what they are doing, and possible damages. Sean -- *** Sean Casey sean@ms.uky.edu, sean@ukma.bitnet, ukma!sean *** Copyright 1989 by Sean Casey. Only non-profit redistribution permitted. *** "Gotta warn ya, if you're not a RUSH fan, well, what's *wrong* with you?" *** -DJ during WKQQs Four HOURS of Rush special.
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/17/90)
In article <13707@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: > | Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still > | covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing > | it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to > | WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it > | away, forever. > Actually that's not the way the law handles such cases. Correct. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but ignorance of the situation can be. That's why everybody should know and apply the legal principle of Making It Clear To The Other Guy. Even if the court ruled that the GPL were valid, the user would not be bound by the terms of the license, since he was never informed of them. (That's another reason that limited copyrights are so superior to licenses: someone who isn't informed of the limitations is still bound by the copyright.) ---Dan
sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (01/17/90)
> I suggest that you come up with an example of someone who unintentionally > "infected" his code. I started writing a FORTRAN (blecch) front-end for gcc before I read the license. I thought I could make my own work public domain. I didn't get to the stage of actually giving the compiler to anyone, though; it wasn't anywhere near ready, it only compiled some simple benchmarks. I rm'd the thing when I found out that someone else was going to dictate what I could do with my work. That (and a verbal attack in gnu.gcc against a programmer who wanted to give his gcc Macintosh port to 'F'SF) rather radically changed my views of GNU. Does that count? Remember Mozart. ++sja
mcb@presto.IG.COM (Michael C. Berch) (01/18/90)
In the referenced article, brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes: > In article <13707@s.ms.uky.edu> sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) writes: > > In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com > > (Jay Maynard) writes: > > | Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still > > | covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing > > | it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to > > | WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it > > | away, forever. > > Actually that's not the way the law handles such cases. > > Correct. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse, but ignorance of the > situation can be. That's why everybody should know and apply the legal > principle of Making It Clear To The Other Guy. Even if the court ruled > that the GPL were valid, the user would not be bound by the terms of the > license, since he was never informed of them. (That's another reason that > limited copyrights are so superior to licenses: someone who isn't informed > of the limitations is still bound by the copyright.) I'm not sure I understand the last remark in the above material. Specifically, I have never heard the term "limited copyright" used in copyright jurisprudence. Either a work is copyrighted or it's not; there is no middle ground. But if by this you mean the statements of limitation of copying, retransmission, etc., that often accompany notice of copyright, those *are* licenses. In copyright usage, a "license" does not imply a contract; it is merely a grant of property rights by the copyright holder. It *can* be integrated into a contract which contains provisions other than the grant of rights, such as consideration by the licensee, remedies, etc., but it need not be. As for the example above, even persons who have no actual or constructive notice of the copyright are still bound by it; they are, however, so-called "innocent infringers" and are generally not subject to damage awards for infringement, but certainly are subject to injunctions against further infringement. It would seem to me, however, that a person who distributes computer object code containing run-time versions of subroutine libraries is under a duty to examine the resulting binaries for notice of copyright before redistributing the code. Presumably the GNU run-time code would have FSF copyright notices propagated into the object code (this is trivial via SCCS or RCS, etc.); therefore whomever redistributed this would have, in my opinion, at least constructive notice of the FSF copyright, and would no longer be an innocent infringer. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@presto.ig.com / uunet!presto.ig.com!mcb / ames!bionet!mcb
" Maynard) (01/18/90)
In article <NELSON.90Jan16164120@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >Some short time ago someone asked for examples of public domain code that >had been expropriated by a producer of commercial software. No one could >come up with an example. Huh? WHat does this have to do with it? >I suggest that you come up with an example of someone who unintentionally >"infected" his code. I'm not sure that someone has, yet...but there's plenty of time. The opportunity certainly exists. >As people have pointed out ad nauseum, you are perfectly free NOT to >join in RMS' utopia. Just don't use any of his property, and you >won't have to abide by the rules he puts on the use of his property. ...which means don't use his libraries and don't use Bison, either. Sure sounds like a significant restriction to me. >RMS *wants* the GPL to be a virus. At least, that is my conclusion >based on my interpretation of the GPL. Why do you keep attempting >to make this conclusion into a pejorative? Because it *is* a pejorative - just like "thief". -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- "There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton
d88-jwa@nada.kth.se (Jon Watte) (01/18/90)
In article <sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: >going to dictate what I could do with my work. That (and a verbal >attack in gnu.gcc against a programmer who wanted to give his gcc >Macintosh port to 'F'SF) rather radically changed my views of GNU. Is there a mac port of gcc ? Gcc is one thing I do like from the FSF, after the point that binaries compiled by gcc are NOT covered by the GPL. Bison or (not yet seen) libraries remain, though... Anyway, RMS is keeping me from a good program by working against Apple computer owners. After all, that's working against what he himself says, isn't it ? (Maybe you should do a global replace from RMS to FSF...) Oh, any pointers to the mac port of gcc are welcome. h+ -- --- Stay alert ! - Trust no one ! - Keep your laser handy ! --- h+@nada.kth.se == h+@proxxi.se == Jon Watte longer .sig available on request
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (01/19/90)
In article <SJA.90Jan17142417@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: > I suggest that you come up with an example of someone who unintentionally > "infected" his code. I started writing a FORTRAN (blecch) front-end for gcc before I read the license. I thought I could make my own work public domain. I didn't get to the stage of actually giving the compiler to anyone, though; it wasn't anywhere near ready, it only compiled some simple benchmarks. I rm'd the thing when I found out that someone else was going to dictate what I could do with my work. That's utter nonsense. You could put your work in the public domain, and anyone could link it to any gcc-compatible back end. Since there *is* only one, your work is effectively covered by the copyleft. -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667 Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery) (01/19/90)
As quoted from <SRD:BT.@splut.conmicro.com> by jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard): +--------------- | In article <NELSON.90Jan16164120@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: | >Some short time ago someone asked for examples of public domain code that | >had been expropriated by a producer of commercial software. No one could | >come up with an example. | | Huh? WHat does this have to do with it? +--------------- I must've missed it. Some time ago, I wrote a program called "notify" for use on ncoast (replacing an earlier program of the same name). Unfortunately, my boss discovered a copy of it while I was working on a pop-up "intercom" for MultiView... it is now the sending side, and I need to re-engineer the original buggy code on ncoast again to make a fully functional PD version. Sometimes I can almost understand RMS's ideology. (*Almost*. Unfortunately, there's more to the story than that, and it could be argued that I caused the problem.) ++Brandon -- Brandon S. Allbery allbery@NCoast.ORG, BALLBERY (MCI Mail), ALLBERY (Delphi) uunet!cwjcc.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery ncoast!allbery@cwjcc.cwru.edu *(comp.sources.misc mail to comp-sources-misc[-request]@backbone.site, please)* *Third party vote-collection service: send mail to allbery@uunet.uu.net (ONLY)*
jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) (01/20/90)
In article <SJA.90Jan17142417@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: >I started writing a FORTRAN (blecch) front-end for gcc before I read >the license. I thought I could make my own work public domain. >I rm'd the thing when I found out that someone else was >going to dictate what I could do with my work. There are several cases to consider. If you write a front end to a public domain compiler, you win. Your new compiler can be PD. But I don't compare gcc only against pd compilers, I also compare it to various proprietary compilers. I happen to think I get a better deal from FSF. You don't have to agree.
sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (01/20/90)
> You could put your work in the public domain, and anyone could link > it to any gcc-compatible back end. Sounds like a lot of extra trouble just to keep someone from putting their fave set of restrictions on my free program. I should rather write a back-end as well to keep others from having the same problems. Some lawyers say user-does-the-link you suggest can not be used to defeat the GPL (section 2b.) Some say it can. Is there an official FSF policy? If it can be done, what is the value of section 2b (the "virus" bit) of the GPL? I assume it is trying to say something, no? If giving users a set of diffs and a couple of new (proprietary or PD) files is enough to get around 2b then why does it exist? Would someone from the FSF comment? Would someone else want to bet if they will? :-) > That's utter nonsense. At this point I remain unconvinced. ++sja
kozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu (John Kozma) (01/23/90)
I guess I'm still a bit sheepish since someone pointed out to me, in response to some of my postings last summer on copyright law, that copyright notice is no longer mandatory on published works, as the US is now a signatory to the Berne treaty. I don't think this fact undermines my agrument, however, that section 2(b) of the GNU Public License is unenforceable, at least to the extent that it purports to require the author of a program to relinquish any rights in such program. As I understand the intent of the license, it allows me to distribute copies of, say, GNU library routines (G) linked with my object code (MO), so long as I agree to supply the distributee with my source (MS). The problem is this: I had a copyright in MS before I ever linked it with G, and as the owner of that copyright, I have the exclusive right to make and distribute copies of MS. By subjecting MS to the GPL, I would effectively be giving up these rights. (Yes, I can still make and distribute copies of MS myself, but the exclusive right which constitutes ownership of a copyright means the right to exclude others from making or distributing copies, which I no longer have, because I must allow my distributee to copy and further distribute, and he in turn must allow the same for his distributees, etc.) I think it has been correctly pointed out that being subject to GPL is not equivilant to being in the public domain. Thus, somebody must have exclusive rights for MS, even if I don't, and the only possibility is that the owner of the copyright to G, my licensor, got them. Thus, GPL 2(b) purports to transfer ownership of my copyright in MS to the owner of G, upon my distributing a copy of MO linked to G. But this is not possible under section 204(a) of the copyright law (Title 17 of the US Code), which states: "A transfer of copyright ownership...is not valid unless an instrument of conveyance, or a note or memorandum of the transfer, is in writing and signed by the owner of the rights conveyed...." I may try to keep up with this group to see if there are any followups to this post, but I try to be at least as lax about the usenet as I am about my dissertation, so if you have questions about my argument, I'd suggest e-mail. (If there are enough questions/criticisms, I will post a clarified/ modified argument. Please no suggestions that I consult with an intellectual property lawyer, though. I am one.) John P. Kozma kozma@rex.cs.tulane.edu