peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/13/89)
I didn't say: > "Because RMS believes selling software is evil, he leads a movement to > make selling software illegal." Well... (a) That's his stated goal. (b) That's the implied goal in section 2b of the GNU public license. I'm saying "RMS is leading a movement that is attempting to make people unwittingly lose their intellectual property rights, because he believes that restricting the use of software to people who have paid for it is evil." > Rather, I've seen > him proposing some rather sane changes to copyright laws. You could > still sell software for money and keep the source secret after > these changes. Isn't that at odds with the GPL? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) (12/14/89)
In article <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I didn't say: >(a) That's his stated goal. (b) That's the implied goal in section 2b of the >GNU public license. > >I'm saying "RMS is leading a movement that is attempting to make people >unwittingly lose their intellectual property rights, because he believes that >restricting the use of software to people who have paid for it is evil." That doesn't mean he wants to make it illegal. In fact I think it may even be the same document (or mabie not) that says he want's to change it by evelution. He thinks that GNU software will make (tipical) comercial software unprofitable, NOT illegal. -- stripes@wam.umd.edu "Security for Unix is like Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The Mutitasking for MS-DOS" "The dyslexic porgramer" - Kevin Lockwood Einstein argued that there must be simplified explanations of nature, because God is not capricious or arbitrary. No such faith comforts the software engineer. - Fred Brooks, Jr.
sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) (12/14/89)
In article <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >I'm saying "RMS is leading a movement that is attempting to make people >unwittingly lose their intellectual property rights, because he believes that >restricting the use of software to people who have paid for it is evil." The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own profit. For anything other than the "GNU library" and "bison" issue: I fail to see how someone could unwittingly do this unless they havn't a clue. Would you just snarf up code from ANY source with a copyright without at LEAST reading the copyright yourself. You don't need a lawyer to figure it out. If you ONLY mean "GNU library" and "bison" then: I agree that it is more possible that one could "unwittingly" use gnu code in this case although for me it still isn't an issue. You would have to be pretty careless. Would you be happy if it were more obvious that you cannot use this code without falling under the GNU copyright? Or does it really strike deeper than that? Would you be happy if these items were removed from the copyright realm? -- sanders Reply-To: cs.utexas.edu!ibmaus!auschs!sanders.austin.ibm.com!sanders I love to hack, to hack, to hack . . .
scott@fred.cs.washington.edu (Scott Northrop) (12/14/89)
In article <1989Dec13.200302.26010@eng.umd.edu> stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne) writes: >In article <4754@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >>I'm saying "RMS is leading a movement that is attempting to make people >>unwittingly lose their intellectual property rights, because he believes that >>restricting the use of software to people who have paid for it is evil." > >That doesn't mean he wants to make it illegal. In fact I think it may even be >the same document (or mabie not) that says he want's to change it by >evelution. He thinks that GNU software will make (tipical) comercial software >unprofitable, NOT illegal. Exactly. My interpretation of the purpose of the GPL is that it is a mechanism whereby universally needed tools may be made available to everybody, and the source code for those tools may not be used in software that is not similarly available. So everybody gets to use the tools, everybody gets the evolutionary improvements to the tools, and nobody can copy the source code to those tools to make for-profit software (if you want to sell it, you have to write it.) The GPL guarantees that when somebody puts the source to a program out there and says "this is for everybody", it (and any derivative work) stays that way. This is only likely to happen for very very popular tools. If you spend three months writing some huge esoteric program unlike anything written, for a projected user base of a couple thousand, nobody is going to expect you to slap the GPL on that program. You worked hard to write a tool for those people to use, and they should pay you for that work. Lots of work, few people benefit, and they get a tool they didn't have before. Many good programmers enjoy making universally useful tools just to advance the state of the art, and (if philosophically inclined) to put them under the GPL. Few will be interested in making a specialized tool with a limited audience for free, so there will always be a living to be made writing specialized software. Nobody wants to force all of the software written to be put under the GPL. If I've grossly missed the boat here, do let me know, but I don't think so... Scott Northrop scott@fred.cs.washington.edu
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/14/89)
In article <3084@cello.UUCP> sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) writes: > The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own > profit. As well as their own code that's linked with GNU code. > If you ONLY mean "GNU library" and "bison" then: And whatever comes up next. How about the software packages that by default install an emulation library containing things like the GNU getopt in /usr/lib? > I agree that it is more possible that one could "unwittingly" use gnu code > in this case although for me it still isn't an issue. You would have to > be pretty careless. Not really. Not with the stuff getting more common. > Would you be happy if these items were removed from the copyright realm? Yes. If it is necessary to include a peice of code to use the product at all, then that code should be exempted from the GNU copyleft. That includes the BISON skeleton, GNU getopt, and any eventual GNU library. That would satisfy me. I suggested that several months ago and was totally flamed for even suggesting that there be an exception to GNU. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
" Maynard) (12/14/89)
[I don't get gnu.* here...] In article <3084@cello.UUCP> sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) writes: >The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own >profit. >For anything other than the "GNU library" and "bison" issue: > I fail to see how someone could unwittingly do this unless they > havn't a clue. Would you just snarf up code from ANY source with a > copyright without at LEAST reading the copyright yourself. You > don't need a lawyer to figure it out. Well, for example, take a recent posting to alt.sources: GNU getopt ported to MS-DOS. It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus. Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his knowledge. I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should be penalized. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (12/15/89)
>>>>> On 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) said:
Jay> Well, for example, take a recent posting to alt.sources: GNU getopt
Jay> ported to MS-DOS.
Jay> It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus.
A bit hostile? (and pointless)
Jay> Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses
Jay> that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced
Jay> to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and
Jay> prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his
Jay> knowledge.
no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your
sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do.
--
Rodneyrsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (12/15/89)
In <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV >screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should >be penalized. The truism "ignorance of the law is no excuse" has special meaning when copyright is involved. Find a lawyer to explain it. I think there were also some articles in UnixReview about it. Basically, the rule is that even if you get something without the copyright THE COURTS have said that you are liable. (You'd presumably seek civil action against the person to cover your tail.) I emphasized the courts, above, because I wish to point out that this is not FSF's doing; it is the work of the US Legal System. /r$ -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net. Use a domain-based address or give alternate paths, or you may lose out.
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/15/89)
In article <RODNEY.89Dec14141031@dali.ipl.rpi.edu>, rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes: > no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your > sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do. Please re-read section 2b of the GPL. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) (12/15/89)
Rodney Peck II writes: >> no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your >> sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do. Peter da Silva writes: >Please re-read section 2b of the GPL. Section 2 begins with: +----- | 2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of |it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of Paragraph |1 above, provided that you also do the following: +----- If you didn't modify getopt() then section 2 doesn't apply, right? Section 2 is followed by: +----- |Mere aggregation of another independent work with the Program (or its |derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring |the other work under the scope of these terms. +----- So including gnu getopt() in the same shar file doesn't entangle you either, right? -- Scott Schwartz <schwartz@shire.cs.psu.edu> "More mips; cheaper mips; never too many." -- John Mashey
" Maynard) (12/15/89)
In article <2212@prune.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >In <.SP8B@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes: >>I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV >>screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should >>be penalized. >Basically, the rule is that even if you get something without the copyright >THE COURTS have said that you are liable. (You'd presumably seek civil >action against the person to cover your tail.) I was speaking in the moral sense, not the legal sense. I don't object to the fact that someone in that situation should have to conform to the coyright; what I am objecting to is, specifically, the virus part of the GPV: his code, _not just GNU getopt_, falls under the terms of the GPV. This is unconscionable. People wanted an example of how someone's program could fall under the terms of the GPV without his knowledge. Here 'tis. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
" Maynard) (12/15/89)
In article <RODNEY.89Dec14141031@dali.ipl.rpi.edu> rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) writes: Jay> It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus. >A bit hostile? (and pointless) Hostile? Possibly. Pointless? nope, since it is an accurate description of the effect of the GNU Public License: it's a legal virus. Jay> Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses Jay> that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced Jay> to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and Jay> prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his Jay> knowledge. >no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your >sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do. Sorry, that's not correct. Paragraph 2b of the GPV specifically forces you to place all of your program under its terms if you use any GNU code in it. This is the virus effect I refer to. -- 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 +---------------------------------------- "...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, tom@ssd.harris.com
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/17/89)
In article <1989Dec15.034150.13574@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu> schwartz@psuvax1.cs.psu.edu (Scott Schwartz) writes: > If you didn't modify getopt() then section 2 doesn't apply, right? I don't believe that to be the case. Certainly you need to read more than individual sentences out of context. > |Mere aggregation of another independent work with the Program (or its > |derivative) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring > |the other work under the scope of these terms. > So including gnu getopt() in the same shar file doesn't entangle > you either, right? But including it in the same *binary* does. Stallman has explicitly stated this in some forum or another. -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com> `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"
mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (With friends like these, who needs hallucinations) Meyer) (12/20/89)
In article <_NQ-B+@splut.conmicro.com> jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
Sorry, that's not correct. Paragraph 2b of the GPV specifically forces
you to place all of your program under its terms if you use any GNU code
in it. This is the virus effect I refer to.
That's mostly correct. It's wonderful. If I write code for Digital, it
belongs to them, and there's much work involved in releasing it to the
world. If I use GNU code, then the work has already been done, and I
can release it as is.
The one thing you've got wrong is that you don't have to place your
code under the GNU license if you don't release it. Since Digital
can't use their standard technics to make $s off code under the GPL,
they don't lose anything by allowing the release of such code.
<mike
--
--
Tell me how d'you get to be Mike Meyer
As beautiful as that? mwm@berkeley.edu
How did you get your mind ucbvax!mwm
To tilt like your hat? mwm@ucbjade.BITNETtower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (12/20/89)
Date: 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT From: uhnix1!splut!jay@cs.utexas.edu (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX [I don't get gnu.* here...] In article <3084@cello.UUCP> sanders@sanders.austin.ibm.com (Tony Sanders) writes: >The only right they loose is they cannot sell gnu code for their own >profit. >For anything other than the "GNU library" and "bison" issue: > I fail to see how someone could unwittingly do this unless they > havn't a clue. Would you just snarf up code from ANY source with a > copyright without at LEAST reading the copyright yourself. You > don't need a lawyer to figure it out. Well, for example, take a recent posting to alt.sources: GNU getopt ported to MS-DOS. It was posted without a copy of the GNU Public Virus. Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that anyone who uses that package is, because of section 2b of the GPV, automatically forced to give _his source code_, not just the GNU getopt package, away, and prevented from restricting redistribution of that code. All without his knowledge. This problem is NOT unique to the GNU General Public License. It's how the copyright law works. You would have the same problem with code from AT&T, Sun, Digital et al. I agree that the person who posted GNU getopt without a copy of the GPV screwed up; still, that doesn't mean that those who use the code should be penalized. He should be asked to post a corrected version, and his mistake should be noted in the appropriate alt.all newsgroup. thanx -len
tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (12/20/89)
Errors-To: gnu-misc-discuss-request@cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@cis.ohio-state.edu
Date: 14 Dec 89 19:10:50 GMT
From: rodney@rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II)
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Image Processing Lab, Troy NY
>>>>> On 14 Dec 89 14:19:23 GMT, jay@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) said:
Jay> Despite that, it is still covered by it. That means that
Jay> anyone who use that package is, because of section 2b of the
Jay> GPV, automatically forced to give _his source code_, not just
Jay> the GNU getopt package, away, and prevented from restricting
Jay> redistribution of that code. All without his knowledge.
no, if you use the getopt package, you don't have to post your
sources. if you change getopt and redistribute it, then you do.
--
Rodney
Wrong. If your program requires GNU source to be linked in, it's all
covered by the GPL.
thanx -len