sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (10/16/89)
In article <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: > We also have a "letter column" (gnu.misc.discuss) where other people > can send letters on the relevant social issues, including letters of > disagreement. So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all. Wow. You asked for it; here is something I wrote a couple of months ago. Why I Do Not Support GNU - A Statement Against Forced Freedom Sakari Jalovaara (sja@sirius.hut.fi) Version 1.00 All opinions expressed here are those of the author and not, as far as he knows, those of any organization. I would like to apologize in advance for any possible confusion caused by bad grammar and ill-chosen words in this document; English is not my native language. Corrections to any errors in facts in this document are welcome; send them via electronic mail to sja@sirius.hut.fi. This document is free (public domain.) Terminology =========== "Free" is used to mean unrestricted, no licenses, no lawyers needed, no threats of lawsuits made, no political or religious ideology attached, Public Domain. "Gnufree" is used to refer to the meaning given to the word "free" by FSF. Some Comments from Supporters of GNU ==================================== A member of FSF comments in the newsgroup gnu.gcc: wouldn't it be great if we could use fsf stuff without having to deal with fsf politics? It is my firm intention to make this as difficult as possible. The GNU project's purpose is politics. Note especially the purpose of the GNU project. What will he do to "FSF stuff" to force its users to deal with his politics? Another comment from the same person: We all know that some people (many people) disagree with me. Some of them have already said so. If you are another one of these people, please spare the readers another message to this effect. Your opinion has already been expressed--saying it again won't help anyone. Does this say: "shut up if you disagree with me"? Again, the same person proposes to block messages from anyone working for Apple to the newsgroup gnu.gcc: However, if you wish to argue against monitoring, you should use arguments other than "Apple's freedom of speech", since (as explained above) I think that is not valid. However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do wish to hear from you. Even though I think you are mistaken, I still want to know how many of you there are. Likewise, if you disapprove more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from you. Note the attitude "I know you are wrong, I don't care what you think, I just want to count how many of you there are." Free Software ============= If I am proud of the function I just wrote, I can allow you to cut-and-paste it to your own work by making it public domain. If I copyright my work you can only use it by copyrighting that portion of the code to me. You can't easily mix someone else's copyrighted code and my copyrighted code (whose copying conditions should you put on the result?) The only way I see out of this is true freedom - public domain programs. FSF's Bison (yacc replacement) output, G++ libraries, GNU dbm and other libraries can not be linked to free programs. This can bite in unexpected places: * If a student compiles his programming assignment with Bison or any of the libraries he will have to enforce GNU copyright on his program or he won't be able to return his program to his instructor. At least in the university I attend to, students own the code they write; it would be illegal for the instructors to force the students use Bison, GNU C++ libraries or other GNU libraries. * You gave a compiled "rn" program to a friend - with GNU libraries linked in? Sorry buddy, see you in court. (See the copyright laws of your country: FSF has little say to whether they sue you or not; they will *have* to or their copyright expires immediately!) Proprietary Software ==================== You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it. Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money. I can see several possibilities: * The modifications are trivial and you (or someone else) can duplicate them, driving the "hoarder" out of business. The users of the software benefit because they get the improvement you didn't spot yourself. * The modifications are complex but still someone duplicates them and makes them freely available. The "hoarder" will either be driven out of business or will have to make even more changes, leading to competition between you, the "hoarder" and other software developers (including other "hoarders.") All the time, the program is improved and the users get better and better programs. * The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them. In this case, the users can choose between your free but not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial version. Without competition, they only would have one choice - the incomplete version. The more competitors there are, the better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to stay in the competition. Competition is what some supporters of FSF call "standard argument #1" - and what is more commonly known as "capitalism" in the western world. The dictionary definition of capitalism is roughly: "a system where prices, production and distribution of goods are determined by competition in a free market." As far as I have seen, the "capitalist #1 argument" has resulted in better products (from shoes to software) than any other system. (Geography/political lesson for today: I live in Finland. Find out the name of the country east of Finland. Find out whether the country I live in has a capitalist system or not. If I wanted my life to be based on forced freedom I would move 200 km to the east and live on a sovkhoz.) (To get completely off track: this reminds me of the opening of the Hungary-West Germany border, with tens thousands of East Germans escaping to the capitalist west from a country where they were _forced_ to live under a _political_system_ they did not believe in. Maybe we will live to see an exodus from the GNU-type forced socialism to capitalism as well.) Most software is not "fun hacks" like compilers and re-writes of "awk," but rather programs like accounting systems, factory stock accounting systems and control programs for VCRs. Are YOU going to write these programs if you don't get paid for them? Do you think a company will hire people to write them if the company doesn't get something out of it (e.g. a "competitive edge")? Will VCR buyers be happy if nobody spends money on the development of VCR software? If people are not allowed to sell the software they have written (like they are allowed to sell books they have written and potatoes they have grown) will they bother to learn programming in the first place? Are enough people (besides those who like writing "fun hacks") ready to pay $NNN.NNN for a university education if all they learn is a skill that can't be sold? In the ideological GNU world, programming is a hobby. In the real world, programming is a profession. Good programmers are a scarce resource. Intelligent people will study to be stock brokers instead of programmers if programming means an insecure future (financially and otherwise.) GNU Copyright Confusion ======================= Here are some questions concerning the GNU copyright. Do you think that I, you, FSF, your lawyer and FSF's lawyer would answer these questions identically? If not, maybe the GNU copyright is confusing. Maybe you or someone else will go to jail because they "thought is was OK to copy GNU software freely." I know the answers to some of these questions; the point is: are you absolutely certain *you* know them. Copyright laws and international copyright agreements are definitely not simple. Now for the quiz: Suppose someone wanted a GNU program and, without my knowledge, copied the executable from /usr/local/bin where I installed it. I never gave him the source or the file called COPYING (which I earlier deleted to save disk space.) Am I breaking the law? Is the person who copied the program breaking the law? Same as above but I know the other person is copying the program and I OK it? If you print (make a paper copy of) a GNU source file do you have to print the file called COPYING as well? Can you give one page of the print to someone? What if that someone takes a page from the printer without your knowledge? FSF has distributed a patch file that contains modifications to the copyright on the source code. Can you legally apply the patch? Can you apply just the patches that don't change the copyright? (This happened with Emacs 18.53 (or so.)) A company ships a GNU program but, to avoid having to give the source to their run-time system library, they require the user of the program to link it with the library. The company is benefiting from GNU but contributing nothing and "hoarding" the library source code. Should the company be blacklisted and boycotted? Sued? It has been said that the "user does the link" trick described above is quite legal and permits (in the eyes of the law, at least) shipping non-GNU software which uses GNU software. Which of the following are "moral" and which should lead to actions (lawsuits and/or blacklisting) against the company/person who does them: The user does the link (like the company mentioned above) The system administrator does the link The system administrator does the link and then demands money from the users before they can use the program (say, a university where the system administrator gets his salary from tuition fees paid by the users (students)) Same as above, but the GNU software requires so much maintenance that extra personnel have to be hired to take care of it and subsequently tuition fees have to be raised to pay their salary (effectively making GNU software cost real money) Even if you can afford a lawyer (I certainly can't) and obey the law one major point remains: if the opinions of FSF clashes with your opinions they can (and seem quite willing to) blacklist you and hold demonstrations against you (like they are doing to one computer manufacturer.) There are lots of people that just won't trust fanatics enough to take the chance. The clearest copying condition I can think of is "public domain" - you can do anything with public domain work! That is what *I* call free. FSF Methodology =============== If I work on GNU software my work will be used to promote FSF political ideology - not just the parts I agree with. Even if you like SOME aspects of GNU (I'd like to have the source code of all the programs I use and I don't mind giving my source code to others) are you certain that you want to support ALL the GNU goals? Do you even know the complete GNU policy? If a political party (remember, in the words of a member of FSF, "[t]he GNU project's purpose is politics") has some mother-and-apple-pie policies, are you ready to give your future - and maybe the future of everyone else - to their hands? Remember the attitude "even though I think you are mistaken" in "Some Comments from Supporters of GNU" above? GNU never was about democracy. As long as FSF owns (holds copyright on) my program they can change the copyright. I just won't trust fanatics that don't listen but say "you are mistaken." Remember, in the words of an FSF member: "It is my firm intention to make [using FSF stuff without having to deal with FSF politics] as difficult as possible." Just *what* are they going to do to my work to make it difficult for some people to use it? Here are some methods used by FSF to promote their policies: FSF has the opinion that some of the Apple Computers' corporate policies are bad, so they are "boycotting" Apple. (Please note: I am not commenting on Apple policies, I am just commenting on FSF methodology. One can oppose the "look-and-feel" suit without believing in other GNU policies but the reverse is not true - if you support GNU, you are supporting all the goals GNU has or ever will have.) FSF also distributes a political manifesto that urges people against the Apple corporation and its employees. So far there is only one company on this blacklist. FSF proposes a public smashing of Apple computers to promote their opinions. I see very little difference between this and burning of books. I will not help a group that does things like this, whether I believe in their ideology or not. FSF proposes to censor any messages from Apple employees in the "gnu" newsgroups. I don't happen to believe in censorship, whatever the reasons for it are. Ban the thought police! A member of FSF has stated that he is "willing to go to jail" if the law is against his convictions. I find it amazing how someone can place his own beliefs above those expressed by the community he lives in - so much so that he is ready to break any law he doesn't happen to like! I seem to be missing something here: why is it that pro-socialist movements tend to be anti-democracy? Okay, you have studied all the cases mentioned above and agree with FSF methods. Are you certain that you approve of the methods FSF adopts *tomorrow*? Your *programming* support for GNU will be regarded as support for FSF *ideology* and will be used to promote it using any methods FSF seems fit. Life, the Universe and Everything ================================= There are no easy answers to some questions. FSF claims that GNU is the ultimate truth - the whole FSF methodology is based on that principle (boycotts, the "my opinion is better than the law" and "I don't care what you say, you are wrong anyway" philosophies, the Perfect Truth on what kind of copying restrictions to impose on all software.) I think the score is more like this: * I do not have the complete answers * FSF does not have the complete answers The difference is that I am willing to let the search for the answers to go on, whereas FSF wants to chain everyone to their ideas with their copyrights and bullying. To Oppose or Not To Oppose (or, Why Am I Writing This) ====================================================== Should I just sit back and ignore GNU? Should I use GNU software even if I don't support the political ideology of GNU? "Why I don't just shut up if you don't like GNU? Nobody is forcing you to use GNU software." Because that is EXACTLY the business FSF is in. Forcing people to do what *they* think is right. Remember software tax? Remember the GNU "license" clause 2b ("give YOUR work to promote OUR ideology or we'll sue you.") What FSF proposes to do is not ONLY to write gnufree software but ALSO make any other kind of software either illegal (commercial software) or extinct (public domain software.) I want to be able to sell software. More importantly, I want to be able to *BUY* software. I often heard people refer to "public domain GNU software" - even some that are actually contributing software to FSF. This makes me feel quite sad - FSF is getting support from people who don't know what they are really supporting. People are wasting their effort writing software that many people can't use either because of their "capitalist #1" beliefs or for fear of FSF blacklisting and lawsuits. It seems to me that many people who support GNU and contribute to GNU do it because they like the idea of a no-cost operating system with source code. They haven't given much thought to the political goals and methods of FSF. Many would probably accept suitably covered-up nazism if it came with so-called "free" software... FSF will create a huge gap between universities and the "real world": companies will no longer be able to invest in university software projects in fear of GNU copyright contamination and lawsuits. This hurts not only commercial programmers, students and researchers but everyone whose standard of living is affected by computers and high technology -- in the long run everyone living in the "western world." I will - at least until my conscience really gets upset - continue to use GNU Emacs and the GNU debugger (other GNU programs being currently too buggy to warrant the trouble.) My sore conscience gets some consolation from the fact that FSF uses software written by non-GNU-supporters (TeX, X, hack, scheme, ...) to advocate their political ideology. I guess that when it comes to matters of conscience I am more a human being than a programmer. So What? ======== Think about it. Don't take GNU people's word for it and don't take my word for it. Read the GNU copyright and think what it really means to your programming effort and the whole future of computers. If you are about to contribute a program to GNU, consider making it totally free: then both the GNU people and the less politically-minded among us can use it. There might even be a truly free collection of software one day for use by everyone regardless of their religion, political views and employer. Think about it.
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (10/17/89)
In article <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
A member of FSF comments in the newsgroup gnu.gcc:
It is my firm intention to make [us(ing) fsf stuff without
having to deal with fsf politics] as difficult as possible. The
GNU project's purpose is politics.
Note especially the purpose of the GNU project. What will he do to
"FSF stuff" to force its users to deal with his politics?
Probably copyright it, just like has already been done.
Most software is not "fun hacks" like compilers and re-writes of
"awk," but rather programs like accounting systems, factory stock
accounting systems and control programs for VCRs.
Without a development environment, authors of toaster oven microcode
would be forced to resort to toggling front panel switches. Someone
must provide that development environment. To them, a compiler isn't
a "fun hack", but the purposed result of their labors. To others, a
compiler is just another tool, like the plumbing or the public roads,
that enables them to get their job done. Any sort of programming can
be considered serious business, and fun can be derived from any sort
as well.
Are YOU going to write these programs if you don't get paid for
them?
I do lots of work that I don't get (monetarily) paid for, just because
I believe deeply in the cause I'm working for. And surprisingly
enough, some of it even involves computing, and some of it isn't even
work on development environments.
Just *what* are they going to do to my work to make it difficult
for some people to use it?
If you don't assign copyright, nobody but you can do anything to your
work.
I often heard people refer to "public domain GNU software" - even
some that are actually contributing software to FSF. This makes me
feel quite sad - FSF is getting support from people who don't know
what they are really supporting.
Yes, people should be more careful about what they say and do, to
ensure that they're really doing and saying exactly what they mean. I
have occasionally found myself inadvertently working at cross purposes
to my intended goals, and have quickly moved to remedy that situation.
People shouldn't buy, use, do, or support anything until they've read
all the fine print. I'm glad you've read it closely enough to make
your own decision. Lots of folks don't.nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (10/17/89)
In article <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
We all know that some people (many people) disagree with me. Some of
them have already said so. If you are another one of these people,
please spare the readers another message to this effect. Your opinion
has already been expressed--saying it again won't help anyone.
Does this say: "shut up if you disagree with me"?
No. It says: "Your opinion has been expressed and noted. Reiterating
your opinion is not useful, as your opinion has already been noted."
You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it.
Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your
program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money.
The problem with public domain code is this: If I want my code to be
and remain freely available, I can't put it in the public domain. If
I do, someone can take my code and mix it with theirs. My code effectively
becomes theirs. This is not acceptable to me.
Most software is not "fun hacks" like compilers and re-writes of
"awk," but rather programs like accounting systems, factory stock
accounting systems and control programs for VCRs. Are YOU going to
write these programs if you don't get paid for them? Do you think a
company will hire people to write them if the company doesn't get
something out of it (e.g. a "competitive edge")? Will VCR buyers be
happy if nobody spends money on the development of VCR software?
Why should the company get two things out of funding the development
of VCR sofware, the code itself, and keeping the code from others?
You see, if they don't write the code, they won't be able to produce
VCRs.
You can argue that this is a powerful disincentive to creation. Why should
someone create software if someone else can come along and copy it? Going
back to the VCR example, the first company to produce it pays all the
costs of the development. The second company pays only the cost of
adapting the first company's VCR software to their own hardware.
But of course, the same thing goes on all the time. For the most part,
the second manufacturer of a product can steal most of the ideas from the
first product. Why should software be different?
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.pk@tut.fi (Kellom{ki Pertti) (10/17/89)
On 17 Oct 89 00:58:49 GMT,nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) said:
Russ> You can argue that this is a powerful disincentive to creation. Why should
Russ> someone create software if someone else can come along and copy it? Going
Russ> back to the VCR example, the first company to produce it pays all the
Russ> costs of the development. The second company pays only the cost of
Russ> adapting the first company's VCR software to their own hardware.
Russ> But of course, the same thing goes on all the time. For the most part,
Russ> the second manufacturer of a product can steal most of the ideas from the
^^^^^
Russ> first product. Why should software be different?
I understand that you didn't literally mean 'steal', but there is a
point in there. Ideas are abstract, and 'stealing' of them is hard to
define, if necessary at all. Software, on the other hand, is an
implementation of ideas. It is something physical (you ever seen
someone execute abstractions on a computer? ;-). Software is of course
different from many other implementations of ideas in that it can be
copied at a very low cost (or seemingly at no cost at all), but it is
still good to remember the differences.
--
Pertti Kellom\"aki (TeX format) # These opinions are mine,
Tampere Univ. of TeXnology # ALL MINE !
Software Systems Lab # (but go ahead and use them, if you like)cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) (10/17/89)
In article <NELSON.89Oct16205843@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: }In article <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: } } We all know that some people (many people) disagree with me. Some of } them have already said so. If you are another one of these people, } please spare the readers another message to this effect. Your opinion } has already been expressed--saying it again won't help anyone. } } Does this say: "shut up if you disagree with me"? } }No. It says: "Your opinion has been expressed and noted. Reiterating }your opinion is not useful, as your opinion has already been noted." But the point of the comment is that there is no apparent symmetry: we've all heard all the opinions on the OTHER side bunches, too. Telling one side of a discussion that "I've already heard what you have to say, so you can stop saying it even as I keep saying my bit over and over" is a bit odd, no? } You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it. } Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your } program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money. } }The problem with public domain code is this: If I want my code to be }and remain freely available, I can't put it in the public domain. If }I do, someone can take my code and mix it with theirs. My code effectively }becomes theirs. This is not acceptable to me. I missed part of the reasoning there: the 'mixer' didn't take your code out of the public domain. It is still there and still freely available. Now, the *modified* version of your code [after the mixing] may or may not be available, but why do you care: *your* code is still out there. Many folk, for example, would *prefer* that after-mixing versions of their code NOT be publicly available because defects in the 'improvements' tarnish the apparent quality and utility of the original, unblemished code. /Bernie\
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (10/17/89)
In article <PK.89Oct17113044@kaarne.tut.fi> pk@tut.fi (Kellom{ki Pertti) writes:
Russ> But of course, the same thing goes on all the time. For the
Russ> most part, the second manufacturer of a product can steal
^^^^^
Russ> most of the ideas from the first product. Why should
Russ> software be different?
I understand that you didn't literally mean 'steal', but there is a
point in there. Ideas are abstract, and 'stealing' of them is hard to
define, if necessary at all. Software, on the other hand, is an
implementation of ideas. ...
True, but Apple wants it the other way. They want the ideas behind the
software (the "look and feel") to be protectable.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.ned@pebbles.cad.mcc.com (Ned Nowotny) (10/17/89)
In article <NELSON.89Oct16205843@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >The problem with public domain code is this: If I want my code to be >and remain freely available, I can't put it in the public domain. If >I do, someone can take my code and mix it with theirs. My code effectively >becomes theirs. This is not acceptable to me. > If you put your code in the public domain, it remains in the public domain. If someone else incorporates some or all of your code into their own program, the code you placed in the public domain is still available and free. If you copyright your code, it is not free. It has been restricted and encumbered even if the requirement is only that your name remain associated with the code. Software sharing is not enhanced by copyrights regardless of the conditions of the copyright. Code is being continually rewritten with only superficial differences because some misguided legislators have concluded that encoded algorithms are similar to paragraphs of written prose. Frankly, the vocabulary and semantics of typical programming languages combined with the very real concerns over run-time efficiency do not allow even a small subset of the expressive power available to an author writing in a natural language. The copyright laws for computer software should only restrict the wholesale copying of non-trivial programs and subsystems, not each function or statement. Of course, defining such a legally binding distinction may be nearly impossible. However, there is little practical difference in enforcing copyrights on either GNU's libg++ library routines by FSF or the Apple ][ bootstrap ROMS by Apple. Both are needlessly restrictive even if both organizations enjoy the right to restrict such code under current law. If you really want your code to be free, believe in software sharing, and want to contribute to a growing foundation on which others can build, place your contributions in the public domain. Otherwise, you are attempting to place restrictions on the code produced by others who may wish to use a portion of your own code, even a reimplementation if they have contaminated themselves by having examined your code previously. This is more properly the theft of the work of others than the case you cite where your public domain code is incorporated into another's proprietary program. In that case, your own code is still freely available. Ned Nowotny, MCC CAD Program, Box 200195, Austin, TX 78720 Ph: (512) 338-3715 ARPA: ned@mcc.com UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!milano!cadillac!ned ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We have ways to make you scream." - Intel advertisement in the June 1989 DDJ.
desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) (10/18/89)
In article <47006@bbn.COM> cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) writes: > } You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it. > } Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your > } program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money. > } > }The problem with public domain code is this: If I want my code to be > }and remain freely available, I can't put it in the public domain. If > }I do, someone can take my code and mix it with theirs. My code > }effectively becomes theirs. This is not acceptable to me. > > I missed part of the reasoning there: the 'mixer' didn't take your code > out of the public domain. It is still there and still freely > available. Now, the *modified* version of your code [after the mixing] > may or may not be available, but why do you care: *your* code is still > out there. Many folk, for example, would *prefer* that after-mixing > versions of their code NOT be publicly available because defects in the > 'improvements' tarnish the apparent quality and utility of the > original, unblemished code. Do you use the X window system on a workstation like a MicroVax or a Sun? X is "public domain". The program running on your machine is copyright by the workstation manufacturer who ported the code. The X people are probably comfortable with this, as they have achieved the goal of creating a widely-used standard. The FSF, however, is probably not interested in going to a lot of effort so that other companies can copyright FSF work and prevent it from being freely distributed. How many machines do you think GCC would have been ported to if it were public domain? Probably about as many as now; maybe a few more. How many of these ports would you be able to use? Whichever ones the FSF wrote - VAX and 68xxx (I think). Period. The rest of them would be proprietary. That is probably a good example of the rationale behind the copyleft, as well as some of its results. Peter Desnoyers Apple ATG (408) 974-4469
barmar@kulla (Barry Margolin) (10/18/89)
In article <NELSON.89Oct17094528@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >True, but Apple wants it the other way. They want the ideas behind the >software (the "look and feel") to be protectable. I'm not a big fan of "look and feel" copyrights, but I think I can appreciate their attitude, and that's not how I understand look and feel copyrights. Vi and Emacs (ignoring the extension capabilities) are implementations of the same general idea (visual text editing), but they are distinguished by their look and feel. SunTools is a workstation window manager, but it looks and feels very different from Apple's Macintosh window manager, and (as far as I know) Apple has no beef with them; they both implement the same operations, but in a different style. Apple's and Lotus's complaints are with developers who effectively took snapshots of their applications' displays. One of the first computer look and feel lawsuits was against a developer of a PacMan clone running on a PC or home video game system. I believe it was settled by the programmer changing the design of some of the graphics. The play of the program was identical, but the display no longer looked like a snapshot of the original. Personally, I think patent law is more appropriate to this area. If I were a car manufacturer and I were to invent a new type of stick-shift that is much easier to use than current ones I would patent the design. This would allow me to make extra money by either being the sole manufacturer of the SuperShift, or by selling the right to incorporate SuperShift to other car manufacturers. A computer program user interface is just as much an invention as an automobile user interface, so why shouldn't it be subject to the same design protection? If I do expensive research to discover the optimal place to place the trash can icon or an easy-to-use spreadhseet command language, why shouldn't I be able to profit from the competitive edge this provides? Some might argue that the competitive advantage is retained by being the first to market a product using the new design. Historically, this doesn't seem to be a major advantage. Many success stories seem to be the SECOND major vendor of a particular technology: Lotus is the major spreadsheet vendor, and Software Arts is dead; IBM came out with a PC after seeing Apple's success with the Apple II. The second vendor can take advantage of the first vendor priming the market, and doesn't have to waste money on false starts and initial research. It's often easier to design and market an "even better" widget than the original widget. Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
steveg@tove.umd.edu (Steve Green) (10/18/89)
In article <30999@news.Think.COM> barmar@kulla (Barry Margolin) writes: >In article <NELSON.89Oct17094528@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >>True, but Apple wants it the other way. They want the ideas behind the >>software (the "look and feel") to be protectable. > >I'm not a big fan of "look and feel" copyrights, but I think I can >appreciate their attitude, and that's not how I understand look and >feel copyrights. Vi and Emacs (ignoring the extension capabilities) >are implementations of the same general idea (visual text editing), >but they are distinguished by their look and feel. SunTools is a >workstation window manager, but it looks and feels very different from >Apple's Macintosh window manager, and (as far as I know) Apple has no >beef with them; they both implement the same operations, but in a >different style. Apple's and Lotus's complaints are with developers >who effectively took snapshots of their applications' displays. Well, it seems that Apples lawsuit is based on the fact that Microsoft licensed the ability to develop a windowing system that, among other things, did not have overlaping windows. If it were not for that licensing agreement, I dont believe that there would be a suit today. As things stand today, the entire suit has been shaved down to just that issue. This leads me to my comments... 1. I dont approve of the Apple suit as it stands today. If a company took a snapshot of another company's package, and then tried to market the copy, then thats another story. The original company should be protected. 2. In the file called "APPLE", which comes with gnumacs, it is said.. "Apple claims the power to stop people from writing any program that works even vaguely like a Macintosh." This is REALLY stretching things. I dont approve of FSF lying inorder to create hate. [...] > >barmar@think.com >{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar -- -steveg@tove.umd.edu ..uunet!tove.umd.edu!steveg "Ignore the message: 'ld warning: file /tmp/kernAAAa06386 has no relocation information' if it appears."
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/18/89)
In <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara):
SJA> So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all. Wow.
It has been right from day one; the FSF has not ever claimed otherwise.
SJA> "Gnufree" is used to refer to the meaning given to the word
SJA> "free" by FSF.
Note that the FSF is not the only one to use the term as it does; even
lexicographers find this usage acceptable. I'm not saying you were
claiming otherwise, but that point should be clarified. The use of
the word "free" by the FSF is not an attempt to equivocate.
SJA> A member of FSF comments in the newsgroup gnu.gcc:
SJA> Note especially the purpose of the GNU project [is politics].
SJA> What will he do to "FSF stuff" to force its users to deal with his
SJA> politics?
He will do what he thinks is right in the pursuit of his goals. No
one forces people to use FSF code. If the users find the terms
unacceptable, they will not be users any longer. It is their right.
SJA> Again, the same person proposes to block messages from anyone working
SJA> for Apple to the newsgroup gnu.gcc:
You (or perhaps I, but I think the former) have misunderstood the
[now defunct?] proposal to filter traffic on the GNU lists. It was
not to block messages from people working at Apple, but to block
messages which would counter the FSF's position regarding Apple.
SJA> FSF's Bison (yacc replacement) output, G++ libraries, GNU dbm and
SJA> other libraries can not be linked to free programs.
Right; derivative works. More on this soon.
SJA> This can bite in unexpected places:
SJA> * If a student compiles his programming assignment with Bison
SJA> or any of the libraries he will have to enforce GNU copyright
SJA> on his program or he won't be able to return his program to
SJA> his instructor.
First of all, the student will have to turn in source code anyway.
Perhaps there is some odd example where only the binary is expected,
but it is _extremely_ rare, at least in these parts. If the source
code _necessitates_ compiling or linking with FSF code then it is the
student's own problem for writing it that way. If the terms of the
FSF were unacceptable then it should have been done differently.
SJA> At least in the university I attend to, students own the code
SJA> they write; it would be illegal for the instructors to force
SJA> the students use Bison, GNU C++ libraries or other GNU libraries.
The policy of the university does not determine the policy of external
organizations. If while attending school I wrote code for research
which was sponsored by the DoD, I could be bound by their terms.
Regardless, it would not be illegal for the instructor to assign a
project which required linking with G++ libraries. The terms are not
that anybody must be able to get any derivative work, only that if
you do give it to someone then they should have access to the source.
SJA> * You gave a compiled "rn" program to a friend - with GNU
SJA> libraries linked in? Sorry buddy, see you in court.
This is completely faulty. My friend need only ask where he can get
source and it will be his. If I refuse to tell him that is another
matter entirely.
SJA> You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it.
Strangely enough, you can sell Richard's code too.
SJA> Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your
SJA> program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money.
SJA> I can see several possibilities:
SJA> * The modifications are trivial and you (or someone else) can
SJA> duplicate them, driving the "hoarder" out of business. The
SJA> users of the software benefit because they get the improvement
SJA> you didn't spot yourself.
I agree. (Just so you don't think I disagree with everything you say,
but in general it can waste a lot of space just to agree.)
SJA> * The modifications are complex but still someone duplicates [...]
SJA> * The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them.
SJA> In this case, the users can choose between your free but
SJA> not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial
SJA> version. Without competition, they only would have one choice
SJA> - the incomplete version. The more competitors there are, the
SJA> better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to
SJA> stay in the competition.
I disagree with the conclusion you draw in the middle of this
paragraph. It is not necessarily at all the case that without
competition they would have only one choice. There is a lot of
excellent free software development which goes on which has absolutely
nothing to do with competition.
SJA> To get completely off track: this reminds me of the opening of
SJA> the Hungary-West Germany border, with tens thousands of East
SJA> Germans escaping to the capitalist west from a country where they
SJA> were _forced_ to live under a _political_system_ they did not
SJA> believe in. Maybe we will live to see an exodus from the
SJA> GNU-type forced socialism to capitalism as well.
This is a very interesting point but it should be noted that a)
everyone in the world lives under a political system of some form and
b) the people in East Germany didn't have the option to leave. Once
again, no one is forcing anyone to live with the ideals of the FSF;
the "forced socialism" is only in play at all when someone derives
their product from that of the FSF.
SJA> Most software is not "fun hacks" like compilers and re-writes of
SJA> "awk," but rather programs like accounting systems, factory stock
SJA> accounting systems and control programs for VCRs. Are YOU going to
SJA> write these programs if you don't get paid for them?
Sure, someone is going to write them. I don't really see what the
distinction is between writing a compiler and writing a programme to
control my VCR. Both result in a tool which is useful to me. Maybe
"fun hacks" has more to do with it for other people. Not for me.
SJA> If people are not allowed to sell the software they have written (like
SJA> they are allowed to sell books they have written and potatoes they
SJA> have grown) will they bother to learn programming in the first place?
Once again the misconception is presented here that software covered
by the GPL can't be sold. False. There just isn't a heck of a lot of
point to it. And you know what? Some wonderful books have been
written by people who were not seeking monetary compensation. I also
have never sold any of the food I have grown but I have enjoyed it
very much.
SJA> Are enough people (besides those who like writing "fun hacks") ready
SJA> to pay $NNN.NNN for a university education if all they learn is a
SJA> skill that can't be sold?
There is more to Richard's argument than this. He has never said
money could not be made in computing, but that hoarding software
hinders development and does not provide for healthy environments. He
himself makes his livelihood from computing.
SJA> In the ideological GNU world, programming is a hobby. In the real
SJA> world, programming is a profession. Good programmers are a scarce
SJA> resource. Intelligent people will study to be stock brokers instead
SJA> of programmers if programming means an insecure future (financially
SJA> and otherwise.)
Intelligent people do not have an insecure future in computing.
[This is getting lengthy; the next section (scenarios involving the
copyright) is dealt with in the next posting.]
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/18/89)
In <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara):
SJA> Here are some questions concerning the GNU copyright. Do you think
SJA> that I, you, FSF, your lawyer and FSF's lawyer would answer these
SJA> questions identically? If not, maybe the GNU copyright is confusing.
The law is confusing; legislators have perfected that aspect of
society with years and years of practise. I will answer these
questions as I understand them; if I am wrong I will most likely be
corrected here to avoid dissemination of erroneous information.
SJA> Maybe you or someone else will go to jail because they "thought is was
SJA> OK to copy GNU software freely."
Jail? I rather suspect that is about the last alternative to this
all. My own question: is jail one of the penalties for copyright
infringement? Even if it is not, and Sakari's question is change to
"will face a penalty", it is still not quite right. It _is_ okay to
copy GNU software freely.
SJA> Suppose someone wanted a GNU program and, without my
SJA> knowledge, copied the executable from /usr/local/bin where I
SJA> installed it. I never gave him the source or the file called
SJA> COPYING (which I earlier deleted to save disk space.) Am I
SJA> breaking the law? Is the person who copied the program
SJA> breaking the law?
Neither of you are. The GPL is a distribution license. You weren't
distributing nor were you asked for the code.
SJA> Same as above but I know the other person is copying the
SJA> program and I OK it?
So what? The person did not ask for anything more than that and the
GPL does not mandate that more be taken. Section 3 subsection C of
the GPL also applies here.
SJA> If you print (make a paper copy of) a GNU source file do you
SJA> have to print the file called COPYING as well? Can you give
SJA> one page of the print to someone? What if that someone takes
SJA> a page from the printer without your knowledge?
You can print whatever you want for your own use. Regarding someone
taking it without your knowledge, I do not believe that the GPL covers
such situations. Not many things in this world do. If my housemate
takes my gun without my knowing it and goes out on a mad murdering
spree, I am not responsible. The middle question is more tricky,
because I think the spirit of the GPL and what it says (sections 1 and
4) seem to be in conflict. The important thing is that the person
receiving the page know that the source of it and where copying
conditions, disclaimer of warranty and the GPL can be found. I _am_
confused by the legal implications regarding whether you have to
distribute the entire source code to the programme, but it does seem
pretty clear in the wording that the other pieces of information needs
to conspicuously appear with what has been copied. Seems rather silly
if you just want to show a page of GNU alloca.c to a friend.
SJA> FSF has distributed a patch file that contains modifications
SJA> to the copyright on the source code. Can you legally apply
SJA> the patch? Can you apply just the patches that don't change
SJA> the copyright? (This happened with Emacs 18.53 (or so.))
You can apply whatever you like, but if you don't apply it all you
will not have Emacs 18.53 (or so).
SJA> A company ships a GNU program but, to avoid having to give the
SJA> source to their run-time system library, they require the user
SJA> of the program to link it with the library. The company is
SJA> benefiting from GNU but contributing nothing and "hoarding"
SJA> the library source code. Should the company be blacklisted
SJA> and boycotted? Sued?
Not according to the recent agreement with NeXT. I am very confused
about what exactly that agree was.
SJA> It has been said that the "user does the link" trick described
SJA> above is quite legal and permits (in the eyes of the law, at
SJA> least) shipping non-GNU software which uses GNU software.
SJA> Which of the following are "moral" and which should lead to
SJA> actions (lawsuits and/or blacklisting) against the
SJA> company/person who does them:
A double-edged sword indeed. Morality is a personal thing and cannot
be dictated by licenses, laws or other external mandates. Overlooking
for the moment that this is somewhat a trick question and that that
the wording of the GPL isn't really be question here, but its spirit:
SJA> The user does the link (like the company mentioned above)
Actually, I need more information to make my moralistic judgments
about it. I've just realized that now as I pondered my answers to
this question and the next three. One of the important variables to
me is whether it is necessarily a derivative work; that is, if it will
work at all if not being created non-GNU. If its usability and
effectiveness is derived from the necessary presence of GNU code then
I am very strongly opposed to keeping the source private. The
corporation is taking benefit from freely given software without
providing the same benefits itself.
SJA> Even if you can afford a lawyer (I certainly can't) ...
Neither can I; one of those people who hopes I never have to.
SJA> Even if you like SOME aspects of GNU (I'd like to have the source code
SJA> of all the programs I use and I don't mind giving my source code to
SJA> others) are you certain that you want to support ALL the GNU goals?
Actually, I'm not. It is very rarely the case that I am certain I
want to support all of the goals of any organisation. I do, however,
support enough of the goals of the GNU project that I would work for
the FSF.
SJA> Do you even know the complete GNU policy?
Once again, I don't think I ever know anything of more than trivial
nature completely, but I do know the GNU policy to the best of my
ability for now. I expect I will be even further enlightened as time
goes on, but I am comfortable with the knowledge I have about the FSF.
SJA> GNU never was about democracy.
Why should it be? Capitalism (the socio-economic ideology you
carefully detailed earlier) != democracy. Tell me, is IBM about
democracy? And Apple?
SJA> As long as FSF owns (holds copyright on) my program they can change
SJA> the copyright.
True, but you can hold your own copyright on it. The header from some
code I am distributing:
;; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
;; modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
;; version 1 as published by the Free Software Foundation.
The FSF can change the GPL as much as they want, including making it
something I am completely opposed to, but my software will still be
distributed under terms I agreed to put on it.
SJA> FSF has the opinion that some of the Apple Computers'
SJA> corporate policies are bad, so they are "boycotting" Apple.
Great! So am I. You are saying that boycotting an organisation for
some of the things it does is not acceptable? How very peculiar.
Does it comfort you any to know that some people do just that with GNU
software?
SJA> FSF also distributes a political manifesto that urges people
SJA> against the Apple corporation and its employees. So far
SJA> there is only one company on this blacklist.
What is wrong with this manifesto? The FSF can distribute any
literature it desires.
SJA> FSF proposes a public smashing of Apple computers to promote
SJA> their opinions. I see very little difference between this and
SJA> burning of books. I will not help a group that does things like
SJA> this, whether I believe in their ideology or not.
I see a lot of difference. Some people feel very strongly about their
books, their flags, their computers; I think that is a little dumb.
If I burn my copy of Roget's Thesaurus, yours is still fine. I rather
admired the comment made by someone regarding this bullshit about a
law against flag-burning. (Yes, I don't want a law against it. More
forced freedom for people to swallow.) Roughly paraphrased, "I saw a
flag burned today. When I got home, I opened my drawer and took out
my flag. There it was, same as it ever was. What it meant to me had
not been changed." If I get thoroughly disgusted with my MacIntoaster
[a hypothetical ownership] and take it out to the center of campus,
loudly proclaiming that Apple as gone too far, and then cleave it with
a fire axe, it is my right. No one has said that we should go into
our neighbours offices and take their property, busting it up too.
This is an important distinction between the proposed demonstration
and the book-burning of the past.
SJA> FSF proposes to censor any messages from Apple employees in
SJA> the "gnu" newsgroups. I don't happen to believe in
SJA> censorship, whatever the reasons for it are. Ban the thought
SJA> police!
This was addressed in my previous message. It is a false notion.
SJA> A member of FSF has stated that he is "willing to go to jail"
SJA> if the law is against his convictions. I find it amazing how
SJA> someone can place his own beliefs above those expressed by the
SJA> community he lives in - so much so that he is ready to break
SJA> any law he doesn't happen to like! I seem to be missing
SJA> something here: why is it that pro-socialist movements tend to
SJA> be anti-democracy?
Whee. Okay, let's look some more at the past. Specifically, Mohandas
Gandhi and HD Thoreau. Or even Mr Bumble from _Oliver_Twist_, though
he hardly is a figure to look up to for moral and ethical guidance. I
don't think there is much need to expound on this, but suffice to say
that the law does not always reflect the beliefs of the majority of
the people in a community, and even when it does that doesn't make it
right.
SJA> Okay, you have studied all the cases mentioned above and agree with
SJA> FSF methods. Are you certain that you approve of the methods FSF
SJA> adopts *tomorrow*?
No. And, as with the rest of my life, I will re-evaluate my position
when the need arises.
SJA> There are no easy answers to some questions. FSF claims that GNU is
SJA> the ultimate truth - the whole FSF methodology is based on that
SJA> principle.
Major organisations pursuing a political end have to take strong
stands. The FSF is much like the ACLU in this regard, an organisation
which gets its own share of heat. I'm more on your side as far as
this summary goes:
SJA> * I do not have the complete answers
SJA> * FSF does not have the complete answers
SJA> The difference is that I am willing to let the search for the answers
SJA> to go on, whereas FSF wants to chain everyone to their ideas with their
SJA> copyrights and bullying.
They think they have the right answer and need to pursue that. I
can't fault them for that, especially since I don't think they are far
off the mark at all.
SJA> Because that is EXACTLY the business FSF is in. Forcing people to do
SJA> what *they* think is right. Remember software tax? Remember the GNU
SJA> "license" clause 2b ("give YOUR work to promote OUR ideology or we'll
SJA> sue you.")
Don't quote that. It is a very misleading, inflammatory paraphrase
which does not accurately summarize GPL section 2b. The only time the
GPL forces people to do what the FSF thinks is right is when the
people are distributing derivative works.
SJA> What FSF proposes to do is not ONLY to write gnufree software but ALSO
SJA> make any other kind of software either illegal (commercial software)
SJA> or extinct (public domain software.)
I don't recall seeing making commercial software illegal mentioned as
an objective in any FSF literature.
SJA> I want to be able to sell software. More importantly, I want to be
SJA> able to *BUY* software.
Okay. I've got a great copy of GNU Emacs I'll sell you; you can even
have source code.
SJA> I often heard people refer to "public domain GNU software" - even some
SJA> that are actually contributing software to FSF. This makes me feel
SJA> quite sad - FSF is getting support from people who don't know what
SJA> they are really supporting.
This is indeed sad. It would be much better if they understood it.
SJA> People are wasting their effort writing software that many people
SJA> can't use either because of their "capitalist #1" beliefs or for
SJA> fear of FSF blacklisting and lawsuits.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Who are these people and
what are they writing? Could you please elaborate on this sentence?
SJA> FSF will create a huge gap between universities and the "real world":
SJA> companies will no longer be able to invest in university software
SJA> projects in fear of GNU copyright contamination and lawsuits. This
SJA> hurts not only commercial programmers, students and researchers but
SJA> everyone whose standard of living is affected by computers and high
SJA> technology -- in the long run everyone living in the "western world."
This is something only time will tell. The aims of the FSF are to
change that overall environment; the aims of corporations are to keep
the status quo. Which will win out is not a clear-cut call. Many,
many people respect the quality of the software provided by the GNU
project.
SJA> Think about it. Don't take GNU people's word for it and don't take my
SJA> word for it.
You can take my word for it, though. I've never been wrong in my
life. (Argh, I suppose this is necessary for the humour impaired,
especially given that the rest of this didn't even hint at humour.
"Don't take my word for it either.")
SJA> Read the GNU copyright and think what it really means to
SJA> your programming effort and the whole future of computers.
Very important.
SJA> Think about it.
I have, and I encourage others to do so too. Thank you for your input.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))plato@ele.tue.nl (plato) (10/18/89)
In article <NELSON.89Oct17094528@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >True, but Apple wants it the other way. They want the ideas behind the >software (the "look and feel") to be protectable. Suppose I invented something, say a compact disc player. Everyone thinks its perfectly normal and sensible to get myself some patents. This way everyone can use and profit from my ideas but I would benefit too. In case of software products this procedure seems to be immoral. In fact it is not. There is a lack of legal protection for software products. Suppose I create a fine new programming language that everyone wants to program in and write compilers for. I think it's only normal and just if I have some benefit too. I totally disagree with rms wild non realistic out of this time ideas about intellectual achievements. I also disapprove of the way that criticism is treated (only a couple of days ago): fsf can repeat their opinions again and again. If someone disagrees they say: we've heard it all before, shut up.
ds@hollin.prime.com (10/19/89)
This is a response to a note that advocated placing software in the public domain instead of copyrighting it. I think the fundamental question is whether you want to take an active role in changing how society supports the software development process or whether you favor neutrality. If you agree that the current for-profit process discourages cooperation (thereby stifling progress) and encourages short-term software planning (thereby weakening computer companies), you will want to take a more active role than merely finding ways to release your software into the public domain. An easy and effective way to do this is to copyright your software creations (where doing so does not violate agreements you may have with your employer) thereby retaining your legal rights concerning how your software is to be reproduced. You can specify that free copying is allowed except for profit. By actively using your copyright protection, you can help change the current situation in which companies waste valuable programming time and energy developing the same software (with local variants) in parallel. You can take an active role in helping to make software development a more public process and increase its quality and functionality through an increase in cooperation between companies. Here is the copyright notice that I use on software I write outside of company time (changing the comment convention as needed): ; -------------------------------------------------------------------- ; Copyright (c) 1989 David Spector ; This software may be used, copied, and modified freely, except not ; as part of a product sold for profit, so long as these four copyright ; lines are retained without change. There is no warranty of any kind. ; -------------------------------------------------------------------- The above is my opinion, not that of my employer or the Free Software Foundation. David Spector Prime Computer, Inc. ds@primerd.prime.com (until the layoff)
afscian@violet.waterloo.edu (Anthony Scian) (10/19/89)
In article <131@euteal.ele.tue.nl> plato@ele.tue.nl (plato) writes: >In article <NELSON.89Oct17094528@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: >>True, but Apple wants it the other way. They want the ideas behind the >>software (the "look and feel") to be protectable. > >Suppose I invented something, say a compact disc player. Suppose you prove a theorem. Would you like to see mathematics come to a stand-still while everybody protects their ideas? Besides, using your analogy you wouldn't be able to package the CD player in a similar manner to any of your competitors. (No ON-OFF switch, no LED display, no sliding platform, etc.) Remember "look and feel" is a wide open concept that could strangle any new ideas. >Everyone thinks its perfectly normal and sensible to get >myself some patents. This way everyone can use and profit >from my ideas but I would benefit too. >In case of software products this procedure seems to be immoral. There are two distinct issues being addressed by patent (protectionist) debates: Patentable software (algorithms) and "look and feel". Imagine if the early computer pioneers placed the almighty dollar over advancing knowledge. LR(1) parsing or for that matter anything in the "dragon" book would be royalty costs for any language translator company. Let's leave patents to physical processes and techniques. Anthony //// Anthony Scian afscian@violet.uwaterloo.ca afscian@violet.waterloo.edu //// "I can't believe the news today, I can't close my eyes and make it go away" -U2
plato@ele.tue.nl (plato) (10/19/89)
In article <4792@internal.Apple.COM> desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes: >Do you use the X window system on a workstation like a MicroVax or a Sun? >X is "public domain". The program running on your machine is copyright by >the workstation manufacturer who ported the code. The X people are >probably comfortable with this, as they have achieved the goal of creating >a widely-used standard. The FSF, however, is probably not interested in >going to a lot of effort so that other companies can copyright FSF work >and prevent it from being freely distributed. It's ok with me. I don't mind if I someone ported the stuff for me. BTW if I really want to have a lot of work, I can always get the MIT distribution tape and port the stuff myself. In fact it works the other way around. Many more people (including me) would use the gnu stuff it it was supported by their computer company. Unfortunately, since some wierd person has invented the copyleft, no firm supplies the gnu software. >How many machines do you think GCC would have been ported to if it were >public domain? Probably about as many as now; maybe a few more. How many >of these ports would you be able to use? Whichever ones the FSF wrote - >VAX and 68xxx (I think). Period. The rest of them would be proprietary. If, e.g. gcc were public domain and a supplier of one of our machines, let's say the Alliant, I would definitely use gcc if available since it cannot be worse than the c compiler Alliant supplies us with. The copyleft only prevents gnu software from getting to the users. It should be banned!
sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (10/19/89)
In article <1989Oct18.080236.23848@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > SJA> So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all. Wow. > > It has been right from day one; the FSF has not ever claimed otherwise. Actually, it hasn't and they have; not on day one, but it seems this policy has changed. Wow. Here are a couple of quotes from article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> posted to news.admin and gnu.misc.discuss: > [From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":] > > operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU > > ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to > > ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political > > ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to > > ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). The writer of the article says: > I am informed that the addtional sentence was written by > either Len Tower or Richard Stallman. I have the entire article if you want it; it may also be in the gnu.misc.discuss archives (possibly anonymous ftp in tut.cis.ohio-state.edu:pub/gnu/misc-discuss/gnu-misc-discuss.) ANH now says it is OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss, not in other gnu groups. > He will do what he thinks is right in the pursuit of his goals. No > one forces people to use FSF code. If the users find the terms > unacceptable, they will not be users any longer. It is their right. Exactly. "Why I do not support GNU" listed some of the reasons why *I* find their terms unacceptable. > SJA> Again, the same person proposes to block messages from anyone working > SJA> for Apple to the newsgroup gnu.gcc: > > You (or perhaps I, but I think the former) have misunderstood the > [now defunct?] proposal to filter traffic on the GNU lists. It was > not to block messages from people working at Apple, but to block > messages which would counter the FSF's position regarding Apple. I have article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> in gnu.gcc; written by a member of FSF, proposing the blockade. It does say > I am considering blocking messages which actually try > to block our work, such as his previous message. but still it leaves me the impression that Apple is considered the Evil Empire and "Apple wants to say" and "Apple can do." I do not know whether the block was supposed to work automatically by blocking every message from the domain "apple.com" or whether the group was supposed to be monitored (by a supporter of FSF, I would presume) and only "harmful" messages blocked. The FSF media policy that FSF and only FSF is allowed and expected to make political "announcements" in gnu.emacs still strikes me as odd. Others seem to find it good and proper; this is certainly their right. > If the source > code _necessitates_ compiling or linking with FSF code then it is the > student's own problem for writing it that way. I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright. So FSF claims they have created *proprietary* programming interfaces? They claim intellectual property rights on the "%expect" keyword? Ditto for G++ libraries? Does anyone have the statement from FSF that says this, it seems I didn't save it. > If the terms of the > FSF were unacceptable then it should have been done differently. Quite; the point is that if a programming assignment requires the use of a tool, a non-GNU tool must be provided (or, if I understand the FSF claim to the "%expect" keyword correctly, an equivalent tool must *exist* so that FSF cannot claim ownership of the code.) > Regardless, it would not be illegal for the instructor to assign a > project which required linking with G++ libraries. Intellectual right to a library interface? The student must be careful not to use libg++ -specific constructs. Hopefully these are clearly documented. I think libg++ is a sad case; not only does it make a compiler less useful for some of us, it makes a whole language unavailable to many. > SJA> You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it. > > Strangely enough, you can sell Richard's code too. I wasn't clear enough on the "GNU copyright confusion" bit. What I wanted to say was that if I write code derived from GNU code I let *someone* *else* to decide how *my* work (the parts I wrote, not the parts someone else wrote) are to be distributed. Say I don't want my code to be sold and FSF wants to let anyone do it. Say I want to prevent (if possible) the user-does-the-link trick and FSF doesn't. Say I want to write completely free (public domain) code and FSF doesn't. Clause 2b in the GNU copyright (or should I say license?) says that FSF wants to control *my* work. I wrote (beginning of) a FORTRAN front-end for GCC (oh no! FORTRAN! GAG! Well, FORTRAN isn't *that* bad (oh yes it is, take it from me: I wrote a damn parser for it!)) I'm not giving it away or continuing writing it because I can't make my part of the work public domain. Not their part, *my* part. The GNU Manifesto talks about control over other people's lives being a Bad Thing. Weird. > SJA> * The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them. > SJA> In this case, the users can choose between your free but > SJA> not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial > SJA> version. Without competition, they only would have one choice > SJA> - the incomplete version. The more competitors there are, the > SJA> better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to > SJA> stay in the competition. > > I disagree with the conclusion you draw in the middle of this > paragraph. It is not necessarily at all the case that without > competition they would have only one choice. There is a lot of > excellent free software development which goes on which has absolutely > nothing to do with competition. Certainly, there may be several different free versions. But the commercial version is *one* *more*. Nothing wrong having one more choice? I would (perhaps incorrectly) expect that most often a company does not make a decision between commercial/free but between commercial/don't write it at all. Some people would make the decision to go commercial with a public domain gcc but, because gcc is GNU copyrighted, now release it under the GNU copyright instead. This is a trade-off; it just so happens that I think the advantages of public domain are great enough to justify suffering the Greedy Hoarder's commercial version. Question: FSF probably has a list of porters of gcc. How many of those do you realistically think would have made their version commercial, were it possible? How many of those versions (different back-ends) would have been re-made and released as public domain, giving users a choice? Are so many of the porters greedy hoarders? +++ It seems to me that some people are saying they would like to contribute work to a free operating system but, for some reason, don't contribute to GNU. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with GNU? ++sja
benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) (10/19/89)
In article <4792@internal.Apple.COM> desnoyer@apple.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes: > >How many machines do you think GCC would have been ported to if it were >public domain? Probably about as many as now; maybe a few more. How many >of these ports would you be able to use? Whichever ones the FSF wrote - >VAX and 68xxx (I think). Period. The rest of them would be proprietary. >That is probably a good example of the rationale behind the copyleft, as >well as some of its results. > Can you back up this assertion? Can you document that the preponderance of ports have been done by companies rather than individuals? This is my something like monthly showing in the FSF lions den, though lately it has tended to take place in comp.lang.c++. So i'll make my semi-usual two points and go back to work: 1) In The Real World, the apparent complexity of the copyleft coupled with the unstable state of copyright law makes FSF software practically unusuable for many companies, whatever their sentiments about "free" software. So if you really want it to be usuable, go public domain. 2) The FSF isn't about making a publicly available pool of software. Its about changing the economy of software development to conform to a never-existent golden age that RMS thinks existed at the MIT AI lab. (question: what widely used piece of software (that is, by real people, not by programmers) was ever developed at a University? If you can name one, are you quite sure it wasn't cleaned up by an evil software hoarder on the way to utility?) I can see why companies might sign up to this program: imagine the advantages to those MBA's if programmers were cheap labor, working for the love of the activity? I can also imagine that some number of people out there are sincere socialists, believing in collective ownership of everything, especially software. But if you, the reader of this message, aren't in one of those categories, you should read RMS's political writings and ask yourself whether the convienience of "free" software today is worth the chains of economic dependence tomorrow. -- Benson I. Margulies
scott@fred.cs.washington.edu (Scott Northrop) (10/19/89)
In article <1989Oct19.140255.834@odi.com> benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes: >[...] >(question: what widely used piece of software (that is, by real people, >not by programmers) was ever developed at a University? If you >can name one, are you quite sure it wasn't cleaned up by an evil >software hoarder on the way to utility?) >[...] >Benson I. Margulies Funny, I *thought* Berkeley wrote a version of unix, but I could be wrong... Some of the code was AT&T, but that's all being rewritten, isn't it? Scott Northrop scott@fred.cs.washington.edu
rich@sendai.sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us (K. Richard Magill) (10/20/89)
In article <211300006@hollin> ds@hollin.prime.com writes:
By actively using your copyright protection, you can help change
the current situation in which companies waste valuable programming
time and energy developing the same software (with local variants)
in parallel.
Sometimes also called "competition".mikeb@coho.ee.ubc.ca (Mike Bolotski) (10/20/89)
In article <1989Oct19.140255.834@odi.com> benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes: > >(question: what widely used piece of software (that is, by real people, >not by programmers) was ever developed at a University? If you >can name one, are you quite sure it wasn't cleaned up by an evil >software hoarder on the way to utility?) > The Berkeley VLSI tool set, especially espresso. Mike Mike Bolotski, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada mikeb@ee.ubc.ca | mikeb%ee.ubc.ca@relay.ubc.ca ee.ubc.ca!mikeb@uunet.uu.net | uunet!ubc-cs!ee.ubc.ca!mikeb
bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (10/20/89)
In article <SJA.89Oct19130311@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
Here are a couple of quotes from article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
posted to news.admin and gnu.misc.discuss:
[From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":]
The writer of the article [not the author of the ANH doc] says:
I am informed that the addtional sentence was written by either
Len Tower or Richard Stallman.
That supposition of authorship was incorrect, as was pointed out in
further discussion. Also, that sentence has been changed, in response
to a request from the FSF.
I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses
bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright.
You may have seen such an article, but it didn't express a complete
understanding of the GNU copyleft. There's a lot of that going around :-)
A Bison-generated parser is considered a derivative work of Bison, and
is therefore subject to the copyleft. Your source code (Bison input
file, MIDI patch, etc.) is your own.jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) (10/20/89)
In article <RICH.89Oct19132941@sendai.sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us> rich@sendai.ann-arbor.mi.us writes: >In article <211300006@hollin> ds@hollin.prime.com writes: > > By actively using your copyright protection, you can help change > the current situation in which companies waste valuable programming > time and energy developing the same software (with local variants) > in parallel. > >Sometimes also called "competition". I think that the FSF's "copyleft" and attitude toward copyright protection is just as morally bankrupt as the systems it purports to overthrow. The use of "free" software (working and beautifully-written, too) as a kind of intellectual and economic cudgel to be used to smite those whose viewpoints do not coincide with your own is a dismal and pathetic gesture, not a noble one. It is not the behavior of people with clear hearts. It reminds me of the governments of countries whose faithful party members are rewarded with amenities denied to the masses. If the FSF believed in "free software" they would express it by contributing software to the public domain, or by contributing software with a simple copyright (no commercial use, no unauthorized modification, or something like that), and would encourage others to do the same with their example. Instead we are subjected to the same kind of atmospheric polemics that are normally uttered by failing governments and the Lyndon LaRouches of the world. I want to write free software, I want others to use it and enhance it, and I want a better, more productive world. But I don't want a world with rationalized, enforced "freedom." If you know what I mean. v v sssss|| joseph hall || 4116 Brewster Drive v v s s || jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Internet) || Raleigh, NC 27606 v sss || SP Software/CAD Tool Developer, Mac Hacker and Keyboardist -----------|| Disclaimer: NCSU may not share my views, but is welcome to.
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (10/20/89)
In article <SJA.89Oct19130311@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: > Here are a couple of quotes from article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> > posted to news.admin and gnu.misc.discuss: > > > [From Usenet document "Alternative Newsgroup Hierarchies":] > > > operating system with freely redistributable source code. The GNU > > > ! Project is led by Richard Stallman. Note that use of these groups to > > > ! discuss topics considered contrary to GNU aims and political > > > ! philosophy are considered off-limits (e.g., porting of GNU code to > > > ! Apple machines, usefulness of intellectual property laws). > > The writer of the article says: > > > I am informed that the addtional sentence was written by > > either Len Tower or Richard Stallman. > > I have the entire article if you want it; it may also be in the > gnu.misc.discuss archives (possibly anonymous ftp in > tut.cis.ohio-state.edu:pub/gnu/misc-discuss/gnu-misc-discuss.) I was the writer of <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> and would like to point out that my information as to the authorship of the paragraph was later shown to be incorrect. (It was from a source that I deemed reliable, under circumstances that carried a high probablity of correctness.) However, the paragraph itself, while not actually written by FSF, more or less correctly summarizes the attitude of Richard Stallman at least about the FSF lists/newsgroups, with the one proviso that the paragraph predates the promulgation of gnu.misc.discuss. His recent article in gnu.emacs titled "Proprietary Mailing Lists" reiterates this. Regardless of the matter of the text of Alternative News Hierarchies, the fact remains that FSF considers that it "owns" the GNU mailing lists and is therefore the entire authority as to their content, despite the fact that operation of the lists/newsgroups are not paid for by FSF but by a large number of cooperating sites including public universities and government sites that are legally prohibited from making gifts of public funds/facilities for private political advocacy. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (10/20/89)
In article <4245@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> jnh@ecemwl.ncsu.edu (Joseph N. Hall) writes:
The use of "free" software (working and beautifully-written, too) as a kind
of intellectual and economic cudgel to be used to smite those whose
viewpoints do not coincide with your own is a dismal and pathetic gesture,
not a noble one.
Interesting kind of cudgel. You have to use it on yourself for it to have
any effect! Shades of Monty Python's _Holy Grail_: Die Jesu Domine *clonk*
Domine est requiem *clonk*.
If the use of "free" software hurts you so much, stop using it!
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (10/20/89)
In article <559@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes:
Regardless of the matter of the text of Alternative News Hierarchies,
the fact remains that FSF considers that it "owns" the GNU mailing
lists and is therefore the entire authority as to their content,
despite the fact that operation of the lists/newsgroups are not paid
for by FSF but by a large number of cooperating sites including public
universities and government sites that are legally prohibited from
making gifts of public funds/facilities for private political advocacy.
Unfortunately for your cause, the price of FSF software is private
political advocacy. This price isn't reflected in the bottom line of
the above institutions. It is an easy price to pay. Can you come up
with the $$$ so that universities and government sites can afford
"real" software? Or are you going to write public domain software to
substitute for FSF software? Or are you going use *your* words to
convince people to spend *their* dollars? Or are you going to "pass a
law"?
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.clj@ksr.com (Chris Jones) (10/21/89)
In article <1989Oct19.140255.834@odi.com>, benson@odi (Benson I. Margulies) writes: >So i'll make my semi-usual two points and go back to work: > >1) In The Real World, the apparent complexity of the copyleft coupled >with the unstable state of copyright law makes FSF software >practically unusuable for many companies, whatever their sentiments >about "free" software. So if you really want it to be usuable, >go public domain. I agree with the sentiments here, though I would contend the phrase "practically unusable" and claim it is a failure of imagination of "many companies" (or of our political so-called leadership) rather than a logical flaw of the FSF's thinking that contributes to "the unstable state of copyright law". What is the law supposed to be doing here? RMS has a position, and, however muddily it may be expressed, this position is apparently understood well enough by a large group of people so that they disagree vociferiously with it. What are the alternatives, and where do software and chips fit into this scheme? Me, I'd like a world without look and feel suits, without copy protection, without hunger ... But, what can I reasonably expect to get, and how? Ignoring FSF may help, but I'm more inclined to help them. Working for computer manufacturers, as is my practice, means that I have to carefully separate my time so that I don't simultaneously violate FSF's liscense and my commpany's. Aahh, well, maybe I'll try to free the odd political prisoner instead... >2) The FSF isn't about making a publicly available pool of software. >Its about changing the economy of software development to conform to a >never-existent golden age that RMS thinks existed at the MIT AI lab. This is (to my mind) clearly a fact combined with an opiinion. I may or may not agree with the opinion (I do), but plenty of people whose opinion I respect disagree with me (which is why I called it an opinion in the first place). My feeling is that the FSF is about making a a publicly available and unrestrictable pool of software. The unrestrictable part sticks in the craws of many in the software-selling business. >I can also imagine that some number of people out there are sincere >socialists, believing in collective ownership of everything, >especially software. > >But if you, the reader of this message, aren't in one of those categories, >you should read RMS's political writings and ask yourself whether the >convienience of "free" software today is worth the chains of economic >dependence tomorrow. Or whether you must believe in collective ownership of everything to use GNU software. Or whether RMS's writings imply chains of economic dependence tomorrow. Or whether you have to sign up for all of his beliefs to use GNU software. Or whether what he wants is a bad thing. > >-- >Benson I. Margulies
ds@hollin.prime.com (10/21/89)
> Written 7:03 am Oct 19, 1989 by sja@santra.UUCP in gnu.misc.discuss > . . . > It seems to me that some people are saying they would like to > contribute work to a free operating system but, for some reason, don't > contribute to GNU. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that > suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with GNU? No, it strikes me that the FSF folks have a network of friends who all communicate with each other directly, through email and other means. Since their network is sufficient for getting GNU software written at an acceptable rate and with acceptable quality, they don't feel the need to set up a more general mechanism by which folks like myself (I'm an example of someone who has wanted to write free software for FSF for years) could easily contribute to the project. I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with GNU or FSF but I do think that it is understandable, given that their undertaking is unusual, unprecedented, and not a little political in nature, that it should stimulate our fearful imagination. David Spector Prime Computer, Inc. ds@primerd.prime.com (until the layoff) ----- The above is not the opinion of my employer or of FSF; it is my own.
mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) (10/21/89)
In <NELSON.89Oct19222715@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > In <559@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes: >> Regardless of the matter of the text of Alternative News Hierarchies, >> the fact remains that FSF considers that it "owns" the GNU mailing >> lists and is therefore the entire authority as to their content, >> despite the fact that operation of the lists/newsgroups are not paid >> for by FSF but by a large number of cooperating sites including public >> universities and government sites that are legally prohibited from >> making gifts of public funds/facilities for private political advocacy. > > Unfortunately for your cause, the price of FSF software is private > political advocacy. I don't understand what this sentence is supposed to mean. I don't have a cause, and don't understand the concept of "the price of FSF software". > This price isn't reflected in the bottom line of > the above institutions. It is an easy price to pay. Can you come up > with the $$$ so that universities and government sites can afford > "real" software? Or are you going to write public domain software to > substitute for FSF software? Or are you going use *your* words to > convince people to spend *their* dollars? Or are you going to "pass a > law"? The above is so obtuse that I have very little idea what Mr. Nelson is getting at. Universities and government sites have no lack of access to software; they tend to have among the richest computing environments for a number of reasons, ranging from donations to universities to deep discounts for government customers. But what does that have to do with support for FSF's political advocacy? The software that is distributed under the GPL could easily exist as public domain software, which I stongly support. Using the GNU software does not, in itself, mean that one buys into the whole FSF ideology. All you have to do is abide by the GPL. There is nothing wrong with using GNU software at a publicly-funded site or distributing it via publicly-funded networks. There IS something wrong with use of these sites and networks for the type of private political advocacy that is engaged in by FSF in general, and Mr. Stallman in specific. -- Michael C. Berch mcb@tis.llnl.gov / uunet!tis.llnl.gov!mcb
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/21/89)
SJA == Sakari Jalovaara <sja@sirius.hut.fi>
DCL == me <tale@pawl.rpi.edu>
SJA> So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all. Wow.
DCL> It has been right from day one; the FSF has not ever claimed otherwise.
SJA> Actually, it hasn't and they have; not on day one, but it seems this
SJA> policy has changed. Wow.
SJA> Here are a couple of quotes from article <330@ncis.tis.llnl.gov>
SJA> posted to news.admin and gnu.misc.discuss: [deleted]
I stand by exactly what I said; you choose to go to sources outside
the FSF for misinformation. The following is quoted from the the text
of the newgroup message which created gnu.misc.discuss. It was also
posted to the group shortly after its creation. Len == Len Tower, who
wrote the charter, although Bob Sutterfield was the one who touched it
up before final posting.
Len> This list is for serious discussion of freed software, the GNU
Len> Project, the GNU Manifesto and their implications. It's THE place for
Len> discussion that is not appropriate in the other GNU mailing lists and
Len> gnUSENET newsgroups.
Len>
Len> Flaming is out of place. Tit-for-tat is not welcome. Repetition
Len> should not occur.
Len>
Len> Good READING and writing are expected. Before posting, wait a while,
Len> cool off, and think.
I am trying now. I've mulled over this message for more than a day
considering whether it is appropriate for the group and it's only
going about 52/48 in favour. I have decided to post though because it
is important that the record be set straight with regard to the facts.
SJA> I have article <8905310246.AA00550@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> in gnu.gcc;
SJA> written by a member of FSF, proposing the blockade. It does say
RMS> I am considering blocking messages which actually try to block
RMS> our work, such as his previous message.
SJA> [...] I do not know whether the block was supposed to work
SJA> automatically by blocking every message from the domain
SJA> "apple.com" or whether the group was supposed to be monitored [...]
SJA> and only "harmful" messages blocked.
If you don't know, why do you present it as though you did? You state
pretty directly in the document which you originally posted that the
proposal was to block messages from anyone working at Apple. Even the
quote you have now dragged up from Richard, supposedly as proof, does
not support this. Even further misinformation. It smacks of
purposeful _dis_information.
SJA> I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses
SJA> bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright.
Bob Sutterfield has clarified the incorrectness of the assertion in
another article to this group.
SJA> Quite; the point is that if a programming assignment requires the use
SJA> of a tool, a non-GNU tool must be provided (or, if I understand the
SJA> FSF claim to the "%expect" keyword correctly, an equivalent tool must
SJA> *exist* so that FSF cannot claim ownership of the code.)
%expect just makes the parser generator shut up a little. Perhaps you
are arguing about setting precedent, because it is far from a "must
have" of YACC input. It is also not the case that a non-GNU tool
_must_ be provided.
SJA> Say I don't want my code to be sold [...]
[This is just an aside, and not an attempt to be antagonistic but just
a request for greater understanding on my part, but why wouldn't you
want you code to be sold? If someone wants to pay for it, why are you
upset about that?]
SJA> * The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them.
SJA> In this case, the users can choose between your free but
SJA> not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial
SJA> version. Without competition, they only would have one choice
SJA> - the incomplete version. The more competitors there are, the
SJA> better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to
SJA> stay in the competition.
DCL> I disagree with the conclusion you draw in the middle of this
DCL> paragraph. It is not necessarily at all the case that without
DCL> competition they would have only one choice. There is a lot of
DCL> excellent free software development which goes on which has absolutely
DCL> nothing to do with competition.
SJA> Certainly, there may be several different free versions. But the
SJA> commercial version is *one* *more*. Nothing wrong having one more
SJA> choice?
Now you are changing what you said. You said, quite clearly, "they
only would have one choice". The focus of your argument regarding
this shifted also, ending with that question. No one ever said here
that something is wrong with having one more choice.
SJA> Some people would make the decision to go commercial with a public
SJA> domain gcc but, because gcc is GNU copyrighted, now release it under
SJA> the GNU copyright instead.
Which of course _is_ the whole point of the GPL.
SJA> Question: FSF probably has a list of porters of gcc. How many of
SJA> those do you realistically think would have made their version
SJA> commercial, were it possible? How many of those versions (different
SJA> back-ends) would have been re-made and released as public domain,
SJA> giving users a choice? Are so many of the porters greedy hoarders?
The question confuses me. What do you mean by commercial? Not giving
the source code with the modifications they have made, but distributing,
for a price, only the binaries?
SJA> It seems to me that some people are saying they would like to
SJA> contribute work to a free operating system but, for some reason, don't
SJA> contribute to GNU. Doesn't that strike you as odd? Doesn't that
SJA> suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with GNU?
It suggests lots of possibilities, that being one of them. Doesn't it
also suggest that just maybe there is something wrong with their
perception of GNU?
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (10/21/89)
In article <1989Oct18.080301.23907@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: > [GNU copyright questions] > I will answer these questions as I understand them I know (or think I know) the by-the-lawbook answers to some of the "GNU copyright confusion" questions but the answers are really not the point. What I was trying to say with "GNU copyright confusion" was (I still can't explain it simply): * If you contributed you fave Emacs lisp package to FSF and someone violated the Emacs copyright, who would decide whether to sue / blacklist the violator? You, FSF, your lawyer or FSF's lawyer? (If your answer is "FSF because they wrote most of the code" replace "Emacs" and "lisp" with something else where the concept of "wrote most of the code" is not so apparent.) * Why should I let someone else decide that I can't make my Emacs lisp package public domain like I want to? (Again, replace "Emacs lisp" with "gcc front-end" if needed.) * Most importantly: *I* don't want to make ethical decisions for others. If I put my work under the GNU copyright I am saying, via clause 2b of the copyright, that I want to decide for them. (I don't value clause 2b very higly and I rant about it a lot.) If you say "fine, don't contibute to GNU then", remember the title of this article. I don't; the original "why I don't..." gave some of the reasons explaining why. Some of the questions were ethical questions and judgement calls ("to blacklist or not to blacklist?"). So the point is: *who* decides for me? If I contribute to GNU, I am telling (clause 2b!) people that the same someone else should decide for them as well. An interesting thing to note is that someone else sent me his answers to these questions by mail. He did not entirely agree with your answers. The GNU copyright still appears to cause confusion, even among people who seem to have studied it in detail, like Mr. Lawrence and the person who sent me his views via mail. How can I put my work under the GNU copyright if I am not even sure what it means? How can I do it when the users are not sure what it means? Hiring a lawyer to find out is not an option to me. Trusting FSF's or someone else's lawyer is not very tempting, considering the several opinions that the GNU copyright (license) might not be enforceable (some say a copyright can't demand that I surrender my rights to work I have not yet done; general muttering of disbelief against enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses; the new "I'll buy that for a dollar" rumor.) *** (context switch) One point you did not comment on was: sja> See the copyright laws of your country: FSF has little say to sja> whether they sue you or not; they will *have* to or their sja> copyright expires immediately! I've been suggested this is not the case. Does anyone *know* about this? Like chapter and verse in a (US) law book, courtroom precedent, international copyright agreement? If this is not true, can anyone guess at a reasonable explanation as to where this rumor comes from; I've seen it several times. *** > SJA> FSF has distributed a patch file that contains modifications > SJA> to the copyright on the source code. Can you legally apply > SJA> the patch? Can you apply just the patches that don't change > SJA> the copyright? (This happened with Emacs 18.53 (or so.)) > > You can apply whatever you like, but if you don't apply it all you > will not have Emacs 18.53 (or so). The point is, I am changing someone else's a copyright because the patch contains changes to the copyright. Nit-picking, yes, I know. Here is a GNU copyright question that is not nit-picking: can I link the g++ library with other copyrighted C++ libraries such as InterViews? If I use the FSF-proprietary interfaces of libg++, doesn't the GNU copyright say I must put the entire source of the program under GNU copyright -- including InterViews source? Are libraries exempt from the rule? Where is that said? > Tell me, is IBM about democracy? And Apple? No, IBM and Apple are not about politics. It is FSF that is trying to distribute politics with "free" software. > The header from some code I am distributing: > > ;; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or > ;; modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License > ;; version 1 as published by the Free Software Foundation. Better mention it is copyrighted, this may read "public domain, use GNU License if you want that instead." Maybe it is supposed to say that, or maybe this is not the entire header from the code. With all the meanings of "free" floating around one should be careful. > What is wrong with this manifesto? The FSF can distribute any > literature it desires. Have you read etc/INTERVIEW in the GNU Emacs distribution? Where does it mention Apple? ("grep -i apple etc/INTERVIEW" does not show it; I tried "macintosh", "look", "feel", "politic", "boycott", and "blacklist" as well (actually, the interviewee was asked a question about the MacIntosh but he did not comment.)) How can FSF advertise themselves as makers of a UNIX-compatible software system and then only later, when someone has ordered his Emacs, tell about the politics? How does the person sending his money to FSF insure it is not used for a political purpose he was not even aware of? (It just occurred to me: was the interview made before the Apple suit/boycott?) I'd venture to guess that there are lots of people who don't know about or think of FSF's politics when they send bug reports to gnu.gcc.bugs. > SJA> FSF proposes a public smashing of Apple computers to promote > SJA> their opinions. I see very little difference between this and > SJA> burning of books. I will not help a group that does things like > SJA> this, whether I believe in their ideology or not. > > I see a lot of difference. Some people feel very strongly about their > books, their flags, their computers; I think that is a little dumb. > If I burn my copy of Roget's Thesaurus, yours is still fine. Book burning does have a symbolic value beyond just bringing paper with little black dots on it to the temperature Fahrenheit 451. It usually implies that the author's opinions are considered so harmful to someone that he is discouraged from expressing them. In my understanding, book burning often also seems to imply willingness to use violence against the authors (and maybe others who think similarly.) There are other seemingly innocent acts that, for better or worse, have been attached with symbolism, such as burning two pieces of wood that have been attached to each other to form a cross; making your hand into a fist and extending the middle finger ("honestly, officer, I wasn't giving you the finger, I was just exercising muscle control in my hand"); rubbing your thumb and index finger together; and many others. The flag business I do not know much about; apparently a burning issue in the US. If I saw someone in a public place smashing a computer with an axe I would assume he was trying to allude to the same things a book burner does. If he denied any symbolism in his act I would *not* call him a liar. Not as long as he was holding the axe, that is. > SJA> FSF proposes to censor any messages from Apple employees > > This was addressed in my previous message. It is a false notion. I addressed this in my previous message as well. Then again, maybe it isn't a false notion. The proposal (the one I have) is not clear whether ALL messages from Apple should be censored or just the ones considered harmful by someone. > SJA> A member of FSF has stated that he is "willing to go to jail" > SJA> if the law is against his convictions. > > Whee. Okay, let's look some more at the past. Specifically, Mohandas > Gandhi and HD Thoreau. Very true, I stand corrected. (Any sci.philosophy.people around? I find this a frightening idea. Because not only did Gandhi break the law for his beliefs, so did his murderer. How am I to know which laws to obey? Does it make a difference if I live in a country where I have a legal way to propose changes to laws I find ill-formed?) > [A]s with the rest of my life, I will re-evaluate my position > when the need arises. Quite; I have been doing that. I used to think GNU was the best thing on Earth when all the information I had about them was the manifesto and talk of a free operating system. When I started finding out about their politics I gradually changed my opinion. One problem is that if I like their policies now, contribute software to them and *afterwards* they do something ugly, my work will still be used by them to power the new policies I did not know of. Could I still use my own work or the operating system without feelings of guilt? > SJA> Remember the GNU > SJA> "license" clause 2b ("give YOUR work to promote OUR ideology or we'll > SJA> sue you.") > > Don't quote that. It is a very misleading, inflammatory paraphrase > which does not accurately summarize GPL section 2b. Oops...sorry, that comes across the wrong way. When I wrote the "why I do not..." monster I was looking at GNU from two different vantage points: as a software user and as a potential contributor to GNU. This applies to the latter: if I wrote something and distributed it under the GNU copyright I would feel I was saying the "we'll sue you if you don't agree with us" bit to the users of my software. Definitely a message I do not want to send. Actually, what is the the difference between the GNU copyright and a well-written, well-argued suggestion to leave the software free? (I'd say the difference is "we'll sue you if you don't do as we say" but I'd get flamed for it.) > I don't recall seeing making commercial software illegal mentioned as > an objective in any FSF literature. Absolutely right; this is a private conclusion I made from the GNU copyright, GNU manifesto and other, mostly informal, statements (mainly in gnu.newsgroups); I've been known to make wrong conclusions. Later you say: > The aims of the FSF are to change that overall environment So, FSF, if you had the power, would you make all software "gnufree"? Illegalize "hoarding"? sja> FSF is getting support from people who don't know what sja> they are really supporting. > SJA> People are wasting their effort writing software that many people > SJA> can't use either because of their "capitalist #1" beliefs or for > SJA> fear of FSF blacklisting and lawsuits. > > I don't understand what you are saying here. Who are these people and > what are they writing? Could you please elaborate on this sentence? I'd venture to suggest there are people who do not use GNU software because they GNU does things such as boycotting. I'd also suggest there are contributors to GNU who only want to share their work and work on a free operating system but do not completely agree with FSF's policies such as boycotting. Maybe some of the latter are not entirely happy that everyone can't use their software and can't help them with their software. I could be wrong. Then again, I feel I belong in both of these groups: users and potential contributors. I would feel like I was wasting my time if I wrote a program and then heard that someone can't use it because he doesn't agree with my or someone else's political views. Mmh...Yes! ++sja
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/22/89)
In <1989Oct21.065530.3599@rpi.edu>, I wrote in reply to an article by
Sakari Jalovaara <sja@sirius.hut.fi>. In that article I had
unfortunately included this line:
> It smacks of purposeful _dis_information.
Since I made the statement publically, I don't think a private apology
would be sufficient. Recent debate in gnu.misc.discuss has been quite
reasonable and free of any sort of flaming, and I did not really
intened to be inflammatory. I'm sorry, Sirius. I do not really think
you are attempting to deceive anyone.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) (10/22/89)
In article <9532@june.cs.washington.edu> scott@fred.cs.washington.edu (Scott Northrop) writes: >In article <1989Oct19.140255.834@odi.com> benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes: >>[...] >>(question: what widely used piece of software (that is, by real people, >>not by programmers) was ever developed at a University? If you >>can name one, are you quite sure it wasn't cleaned up by an evil >>software hoarder on the way to utility?) >>[...] >>Benson I. Margulies > >Funny, I *thought* Berkeley wrote a version of unix, but I could be wrong... >Some of the code was AT&T, but that's all being rewritten, isn't it? >Scott Northrop scott@fred.cs.washington.edu 1) Few people use BSD direct from B. Most use it as received from Evil Software Hoarders that do QA, charge for the results, and do or don't distribute source as they choose. 2) BSD is an example of the alternative to FSF. Its freely usuable. Its widely used. It is copyrighted, but the restrictions are simple, clear, and grind no political axes. To me, the funniest part of the copyleft flap is those people who are so het up about the possibility that someone, somewhere, may distribute their code without source. Its not good enough for these folks that anyone can still get the code from the author -- the Evil Software Hoarders could Mislead them and Hide the Existence of the Free Source. Copyleft is fundamentally a contradiction in terms -- you want to give something away while still exercising detailed control on what the recipient of the gift does with it. Have you had gnu make trash an archive lately? Or had gcc silently turn your program into a killer because it has an overlarge switch statement? If so, then you know why QA is the most important part of software development. QA is EXPENSIVE. It is particularly hard to do well in a decentralized development environment. The people who take BSD and turn it into products do what the CSRG isn't funded to do -- QA. In return, they get the right to some control over the results. Sounds like a good deal to me. Meanwhile, little of this is of any lasting importance. Even a C compiler is a mighty exotic toy compared to a spreadsheet. Guess what? Non-computer hackers DON'T CARE ABOUT SOURCE. And they vastly outnumber the rest of us. The FSF claim that look-and-feel is the same dispute as source distribution is guilt-by-association. -- Benson I. Margulies
sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (10/22/89)
In article <BOB.89Oct19161639@archer.MorningStar.Com> bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: > I remember seeing an article saying that if a bison input file uses > bison-specific features the input file falls under the GNU copyright. > > You may have seen such an article, but it didn't express a complete > understanding of the GNU copyleft. There's a lot of that going around :-) Here is what I just "dragged up from" gnu.misc.discuss archive (NOT SUPPOSED TO BE OR INTENDED AS CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF ANYTHING! MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!): > rms@wheaties.ai.mit.edu writes: > >The FSF lawyer told me that distributing code which was designed to > >work only when linked with part of a GNU program would be considered, > >legally, as a subterfuge for distributing a modified program > >containing both that and the GNU program. So it would be covered by > >the general public license. > > This sounds like a `proprietary interface' argument. ``You must > follow the copyleft on all code that uses something other than the > standard (documented external) interface.'' Is this true? Was this (IMHO important) question settled? I think (NOT CERTAIN! MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) I saw a similar claim, written by a member of FSF, made for GNU tools and libraries; namely that if a source file is designed to work only with a GNU tool or GNU library the source file falls under GNU copyright. Bison was, according to the best of my recollection, specifically mentioned as an example. I can't find the reference in the gnu.misc.discuss archives; it was probably somewhere else (possibly my imagination; MisInfPosNotInt.) I'll try to find it. Anyone else remember seeing anything like this? This quote does, IMHO, illustrate (THOUGH NOT PROVE!) the possibility I was making a reference to: To me, the reference I quote above seems to imply a (WARNING! FOLLOWING PHRASE MAY BE FOUND INFLAMMATORY BY SOME! MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) proprietary programming interface. It was my understanding and personal conclusion (I may not be able to "drag something up" to support this) that FSF does no condone propritetary user interfaces. Are programming interfaces considered different? To reduce flames: The quote above may, to some, appear if I was presenting it as conclusive proof; this is not, however, neither explicitly nor implicitly intended. If the conclusion or information in the quoted article is incorrect, my conclusios based on it are most probably also incorrect. I may also be misinterpreting the quote; please read it and make your own conclusion. The quote may also be out of context but, to the best of my knowledge, is not (MISINFORMATION POSSIBLE, NOT INTENDED!) I appear quite uncertain about many things above; after some of the recent articles here I won't say what "1 + 1" is in my opinion without a disclaimer of possible unintended misinformation. ++sja
sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) (10/22/89)
Flame control! (if not already too late) In article <SJA.89Oct21175221@sirius.hut.fi> I write: > Have you read etc/INTERVIEW in the GNU Emacs distribution? Where does > it mention Apple? > > (It just occurred to me: was the interview made before the Apple > suit/boycott?) It was; the interview was written in 1986 and the Microsoft vs. Apple lawsuit was started _two_ _years_ later (source for the latter: the journal "Communications of the ACM" of May 1989, article "Why The Look And Feel Of Software User Interfaces Should Not Be Protected By Copyright Law" (recommended reading!)) This misinformation was purely my own creation and *not* intentional. My sincere apologies to FSF, Richard Stallman and any others whose feelings I may have hurt. ++sja
tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/23/89)
In <132@euteal.ele.tue.nl> plato@ele.tue.nl (plato) writes:
plato> Many more people (including me) would use the gnu stuff it it
plato> was supported by their computer company. Unfortunately, since
plato> some wierd person has invented the copyleft, no firm supplies
plato> the gnu software.
This is not true; NeXT, for example, does ship GNU software with its
machines. At least one other company does too but since I can't
remember the name I won't take a guess at it now.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (10/23/89)
In <1989Oct19.140255.834@odi.com> benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes:
Benson> 1) In The Real World, [...]
What is this "Real World" you speak of? People are doing the same
thing in alt.religion.computers. I rather suspect that this "Real
World" that gets dragged up by everyone from students to soldiers is
just as much a figment of the imagination than whatever "fantasy
world" they might be trying to debunk.
Benson> 2) The FSF isn't about making a publicly available pool of software.
Not only, but it is certainly one of the objectives.
Benson> (question: what widely used piece of software (that is, by real people,
Benson> not by programmers) ...)
Here we go again. I am rather insulted that I reduce to no more than
a figment of Mr Margulies' imagination; my bill collectors seem to
think I am real enough, even if I am 9-7886503-2 to them.
Benson> I can see why companies might sign up to this program: imagine the
Benson> advantages to those MBA's if programmers were cheap labor, working
Benson> for the love of the activity?
These MBAs will then be happy to discover that administrative and
consulting costs will keep their budget in much the same situation it
always was.
Dave
--
(setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))schmidt@zola.ics.uci.edu (Doug Schmidt) (10/23/89)
In article <1989Oct23.003249.8906@rpi.edu>, tale@pawl (David C Lawrence) writes: >This is not true; NeXT, for example, does ship GNU software with its >machines. At least one other company does too but since I can't >remember the name I won't take a guess at it now. DG ships GCC with its AViiON workstations. I believe a G++ port is in the wings... Doug -- Master Swordsman speak of humility; | schmidt@ics.uci.edu (ARPA) Philosophers speak of truth; | office: (714) 856-4034 Saints and wisemen speak of the Tao of no doubt; The moon, sun, and sea speaks for itself. -- Hiroshi Hamada
nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (10/23/89)
In article <561@ncis.tis.llnl.gov> mcb@ncis.tis.llnl.gov (Michael C. Berch) writes:
The [deleted] is so obtuse that I have very little idea what Mr. Nelson is
getting at.
If the above was an accurate statement, then you wouldn't have continued
your posting. However, you gave lie to your statement by saying:
... There IS something wrong with use of these sites and networks
for the type of private political advocacy that is engaged in by
FSF in general, and Mr. Stallman in specific.
You seem to object to the prohibition against pro-apple statements
being posted to gnu.all newsgroups. However, Stallman isn't
prohibiting you from making pro-apple statements on !gnu.all, nor is
he trying to prohibit you from creating your own pro-apple mailing
lists[1].
[1] He *is* trying to discourage anyone from doing either of these.
People voluntarily subscribe to gnu.all because they desire knowledge of
FSF activities. If they dislike these activities, they are free to
reject gnu.all. If they feel for legal reasons that they are unable
to receive these notices, then they should unsubscribe.
You are welcome, of course, to try to convince the FSF that they should
not engage in private political advocacy. But to imply that the FSF
is using public resources for private political advocacy is incorrect.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu])
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) (10/24/89)
In article <131@euteal.ele.tue.nl> plato@ele.tue.nl (plato) writes: >products. Suppose I create a fine new programming language >that everyone wants to program in and write compilers for. Then you will make no money from it. Name ONE language that has had universal appeal that has been copyrighted and charged for. It is not even clear if you CAN copyright a language. You can sell your compiler, of course. But if someone re-implements it, tough. ian -- Ian G Batten, BT Fulcrum - igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk - ...!uunet!ukc!fulcrum!igb
igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) (10/24/89)
In article <1989Oct19.140255.834@odi.com> benson@odi.com (Benson I. Margulies) writes: > >1) In The Real World, the apparent complexity of the copyleft coupled >with the unstable state of copyright law makes FSF software >practically unusuable for many companies, whatever their sentiments >about "free" software. So if you really want it to be usuable, >go public domain. Two points. (1) BT's SVR3.2 port is compiled with gcc 1.34. All of it. Every last thing. /bin/cc is gcc 1.34. (2) RMS doesn't want to be usable per se. He wants to produce GNU. If the software is usable on SV/4bsd/VMS that is fine. But the main aim is GNU. I may be wrong, but I don't think he cares if people use it. He wants to produce GNU. Therefore the argument ``GNU is un-usable by me because of the copyleft and therefore RMS should change it'' is a non-sequiteur. ian -- Ian G Batten, BT Fulcrum - igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk - ...!uunet!ukc!fulcrum!igb
matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu (Matt Crawford) (10/25/89)
Joseph N. Hall, like many others, completely fails to understand the issues: ) The use of "free" software as a kind of intellectual and economic ) cudgel ... reminds me of the governments of countries whose faithful ) party members are rewarded with amenities denied to the masses. To support your analogy, you'd better show us who are the masses who are being denied the software rewards. ) If the FSF believed in "free software" they would express it by contributing ) software to the public domain, or by contributing software with a simple ) copyright (no commercial use, no unauthorized modification, or something like ) that), No commercial use? That would deny the use of the software to exactly those who could get the most economic benefit from it! Forbidding modifications would reduce the intellectual benefit derived by other types of users. And as for public domain, consider X-Windows again. DEC took X and pissed all over it to make it smell DEC-like, calling the result "DECwindows". Now if I want to undo some of their compiled-in defaults (like the need to click in a window to select it), how can I do it? I might have to buy their code from them at their price, or redo all their work in porting. They are not sharing their work freely. They added some value to X by making it work on DEC machines, but the subtracted some value by freezing many configuration options and shipping the result in object form only. ________________________________________________________ Matt Crawford matt@oddjob.uchicago.edu
dsill@ark1.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill) (10/25/89)
In article <SJA.89Oct21175221@sirius.hut.fi>, sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: > No, IBM and Apple are not about politics. It is FSF that is trying to > distribute politics with "free" software. So if you don't like the political baggage that comes with GNU software, don't use it! You're certainly entitled to disagree with rms', or anyone else's, opinions. > In my understanding, book burning often also seems to imply > willingness to use violence against the authors (and maybe others > who think similarly.) What?! Are you implying that rms is advocating violence? > (Any sci.philosophy.people around? I find this a frightening idea. > Because not only did Gandhi break the law for his beliefs, so did his > murderer. How am I to know which laws to obey? I don't know diddly about Finnish political history, but in the U.S.A. we're raised on the concepts of Freedom and civil disobedience. Rather than finding them frightening, we find the thought of not having them frightening. How do you know which laws to obey? Your conscience will tell you that. But if your conscience tells you it's okay to kill whoever you want, you'll find yourself in pretty slim company. > One problem is that if I like their policies now, contribute software > to them and *afterwards* they do something ugly, my work will still be > used by them to power the new policies I did not know of. This is what's known as a "calculated risk". Could rms be a commie alien trying to take over the universe using free software? Sure. > I'd also suggest there are contributors to GNU who only want to > share their work and work on a free operating system but do not > completely agree with FSF's policies such as boycotting. Maybe some > of the latter are not entirely happy that everyone can't use their > software and can't help them with their software. So what? People make incorrect assumptions all the time. It's not like rms is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. All you have to do is read the manifesto, interview, and Apple documents that come with the software. Look, you pays your money and you takes your choice. If you don't care what people do with your code, by all means, make it public domain. If you want to charge for binaries and refuse to distribute source, go ahead. If you want to donate your software to a cause, more power to you. But please don't go on and on about how your preference is right and mine is wrong. At least, not in *my* church. Dave Sill (dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) (10/25/89)
In article <192@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill <dsill@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes: >So if you don't like the political baggage that comes with GNU >software, don't use it! You're certainly entitled to disagree with >rms', or anyone else's, opinions. The subject of this thread is "Why I do not support GNU". Seems we have come full circle here... >> (Any sci.philosophy.people around? I find this a frightening idea. >> Because not only did Gandhi break the law for his beliefs, so did his >> murderer. How am I to know which laws to obey? >I don't know diddly about Finnish political history, but in the U.S.A. >we're raised on the concepts of Freedom and civil disobedience. >Rather than finding them frightening, we find the thought of not >having them frightening. ... "We"? What "we"? You, maybe. All Americans do not agree with civil disobedience. -- "The workers ceased to be afraid of the bosses. It's as if they suddenly threw off their chains." -- a Soviet journalist, about the Donruss coal strike Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu)
jym@APPLE.COM (10/26/89)
In article <SJA.89Oct21175221@sirius.hut.fi>, sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes: > No, IBM and Apple are not about politics. Life is about politics. Both IBM and Apple wish to lock their users into their products. Just because such is that _status_ _quo_ doesn't mean it's not politics. > Because not only did Gandhi break the law for his beliefs, > so did his murderer. How am I to know which laws to obey? That's up to you. It is anyhow. > I'd also suggest there are contributors to GNU who only want > to share their work and work on a free operating system but do > not completely agree with FSF's policies such as boycotting. It would be pretty foolish to work on an operating system that has the "look and feel" of Unix without being somewhat opposed to the "look and feel" lawsuits. If you don't think a boycott is the correct approach to this, by all means suggest something better. <_Jym_>