Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  




Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site burl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!bellcore!ulysses!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: net.emacs,net.sources.d,net.news.group
Subject: distributing gnu - let's think about this
Message-ID: <1211@burl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 27-Apr-86 17:02:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.1211
Posted: Sun Apr 27 17:02:56 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Apr-86 22:52:57 EDT
References: <351@peregrine.UUCP> <355@yetti.UUCP>
Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Technologies, Burlington NC
Lines: 19
Xref: burl net.emacs:1990 net.sources.d:175 net.news.group:3375
Summary: 

In article <355@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes:
>	I think the best way would be *regional GNU nodes*, people
>	who have time and resources to handle guest uucp hookups,
>	tapes etc.

I agree, since my company (yes, that is the owner of the Death Star
up there on the organization line) would probably object very strongly
to paying its phone $$$ to ship free Unix-based software around the
world -- I think you can understand why.  While I am somewhat in
agreement with the concept behind GNU and the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION,
I can also see my employer's point.  If there was a newsgroup created,
I would not carry it through my backbone and would urge other AT&T sites
to disallow it as well just to protect my already shaky permission to
carry the rest of netnews (and it has been so worthwhile!).
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua  watmath ]!clyde!rcj

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!ark
From: ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig)
Newsgroups: net.emacs,net.sources.d,net.news.group
Subject: Re: distributing gnu - let's think about this
Message-ID: <5373@alice.uUCp>
Date: Thu, 1-May-86 17:16:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: alice.5373
Posted: Thu May  1 17:16:23 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 3-May-86 20:38:05 EDT
References: <1211@burl.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 10
Xref: watmath net.emacs:1908 net.sources.d:178 net.news.group:5454

> I agree, since my company (yes, that is the owner of the Death Star
> up there on the organization line) would probably object very strongly
> to paying its phone $$$ to ship free Unix-based software around the
> world -- I think you can understand why.

It's worse that that.  I think that employee of many companies won't
even be allowed to *use* Gnu.  Consider: you are only allowed to use it
if you agree that any changes you make will be generally distributed.
But your employer quite reasonably wants to be able to withhold from
general distribution any work they're paying you for.  Impasse!

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!teddy!jpn
From: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: distributing gnu - let's think a
Message-ID: <2633@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 19-May-86 13:00:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: teddy.2633
Posted: Mon May 19 13:00:17 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 21-May-86 01:11:41 EDT
References: <5373@alice>
Reply-To: jpn@teddy.UUCP (John P. Nelson)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 21

In article <5373@alice> ark%alice@alice.UUCP writes:
>Subject: Re: distributing gnu - let's think about this
>
>> I agree, since my company (yes, that is the owner of the Death Star
>> up there on the organization line) would probably object very strongly
>
>It's worse that that.  I think that employee of many companies won't
>even be allowed to *use* Gnu.

I recently obtained a copy of BISON (the GNU yacc equivalent).  It appears
that every C file genrated by BISON contains the GNU copyright.  I contacted
Richard Stallman to make sure this was not accidental - his reply was that
this copyright was included in the generated C source file because it includes
a copy of the parser written by him.  To the best of my understanding, this
implies that I cannot sell any program that uses BISON to generate a parser
- In fact, I must be willing to give away that C source.

Richard didn't seem very upset when I suggested that I couldn't use
BISON if I had to give away the generated C program.  In fact, He was
quite pleased (something like:  He was just as pleased as if a gun he'd
manufactured couldn't be used for murder).

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!HOPKINS-EECS-BRAVO.ARPA!bogstad
From: bog...@HOPKINS-EECS-BRAVO.ARPA ("William J. Bogstad")
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: distributing gnu - (bison copyrights)
Message-ID: <8605202356.AA12789@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Tue, 20-May-86 12:36:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8605202356.AA12789
Posted: Tue May 20 12:36:23 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 06:28:44 EDT
Sender: dae...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 72


Subject: Re: distributing gnu - let's think about this
References: <5373@alice>

In <2633@teddy.uucp> John Nelson says:
>I recently obtained a copy of BISON (the GNU yacc equivalent).  It appears
>that every C file genrated by BISON contains the GNU copyright.  I contacted
>Richard Stallman to make sure this was not accidental - his reply was that
>this copyright was included in the generated C source file because it includes
>a copy of the parser written by him.  To the best of my understanding, this
>implies that I cannot sell any program that uses BISON to generate a parser
>- In fact, I must be willing to give away that C source.
>
>Richard didn't seem very upset when I suggested that I couldn't use
>BISON if I had to give away the generated C program.  In fact, He was
>quite pleased (something like:  He was just as pleased as if a gun he'd
>manufactured couldn't be used for murder).

	I know for a fact that Richard didn't write bison from scratch.
Someone out at Berkeley did the original work and RMS did a lot to clean
it up and make it more equivalent to yacc.  I don't know what the
original author thinks about this, but I find it a little disturbing.

	Don't take me wrong, I like what RMS is doing and in fact
contributed a small hack to FSF.  I just think that he is taking this a
little too far.  Why not have GNU Emacs insert a copyright into
everything it produces?  Or at least your C code since you are using
the auto formatting of c-mode aren't you?

	BTW, when I sent RMS my hack to replace "colrm"; I got a message
back asking me to print and sign the following form:

----
Richard Stallman
545 Tech Sq, rm 703
Cambridge, MA 02139


			    ASSIGNMENT

   For good and valuable consideration, receipt of which I
acknowledge, I hereby transfer to the Free Software Foundation, Inc.
(the "Foundation") my entire right, title, and interest (including all
rights under copyright) in my computer program "colrm.c"
(the "Program").

   However, upon thirty days' prior written notice, the Foundation
agrees to grant me non-exclusive rights to use the program as I see
fit; (and the Foundation shall also own similar non-exclusive rights).

   I hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Foundation, its officers,
employees, and agents against any and all claims, actions or damages
(including attorney's reasonable fees) asserted by or paid to any
party relating to the program.


Agreed:



Date signed:

----

	Any comments on this?  I was a little taken aback by it, but
eventually decided that it was reasonable.  I wonder if the only reason
he did this was because I had included a copyright notice in my code
which allowed me to do anything with my code and others could only give
it away.  Would this allow FSF to sell my code?

(Sorry for the length on this.)	Bill Bogstad
				bog...@hopkins-eecs-bravoa.arpa

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ernie.Berkeley.EDU!phr
From: p...@ernie.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: distributing gnu - (bison copyrights)
Message-ID: <13912@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Wed, 21-May-86 00:06:45 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.13912
Posted: Wed May 21 00:06:45 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 23-May-86 06:34:02 EDT
References: <8605202356.AA12789@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: use...@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: phr@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Paul Rubin)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 34


Subject: Re: distributing gnu - let's think about this
References: <5373@alice>

In <2633@teddy.uucp> John Nelson says:
>I recently obtained a copy of BISON (the GNU yacc equivalent).  It appears
>that every C file genrated by BISON contains the GNU copyright.  I contacted
>Richard Stallman to make sure this was not accidental - his reply was that
>this copyright was included in the generated C source file because it includes
>a copy of the parser written by him.  To the best of my understanding, this
>implies that I cannot sell any program that uses BISON to generate a parser
>- In fact, I must be willing to give away that C source.
>
>Richard didn't seem very upset when I suggested that I couldn't use
>BISON if I had to give away the generated C program.  In fact, He was
>quite pleased (something like:  He was just as pleased as if a gun he'd
>manufactured couldn't be used for murder).

If you generate a C program with GNU Bison that includes RMS's parser,
you have the option of distributing it, under certain terms designed
to encourage maximal cooperation with other programmers.  If you use
Unix Yacc, with the parser written by AT&T, you could not distribute
the resulting C program AT ALL.  Why are you complaining?

By the way, it is not true that the GNU copyright requires you to
distribute (for free or or any other way) any programs affected by it.
It says that *if* you choose to distribute them, *then* you must
distribute them under the same terms as the rest of GNU (i.e., in
source form or with source code available, and with no restrictions on
further redistribution).  This does not prevent you from doing
anything that you could do under a conventional license, which would
not allow redistribution at all.  GNU aims to provide an alternative
to proprietary software, that everyone can use, always.  Allowing GNU
code to be used inside proprietary products would be self-defeating.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!caip!nike!styx!lll-crg!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore)
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: gnu copyrights
Message-ID: <811@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Wed, 21-May-86 03:11:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.811
Posted: Wed May 21 03:11:50 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 24-May-86 02:19:33 EDT
References: <8605202356.AA12789@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 15

I have been writing a public domain 'tar' to contribute to the GNU
project.  Before I got too far along, I made sure that Richard would
agree to redistribute it as real live Public Domain code, without his
funny restrictions.  If you are writing code and truly wish it to be
public domain (anyone can do ANYTHING with it, no restrictions, no
copyrights, no caveats, if they make a million with it, you have no
recourse), then make sure to get this kind of agreement from the GNU
project.  It appears that RMS would rather snarf up your copyright
(with your permission) and restrict the ways your code can be used.
This is fine if that's what you, the author, want -- but let him know
if not.


-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgil...@lll-crg.arpa

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!
hplabs!sdcrdcf!ucla-cs!srt
From: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: gnu copyrights
Message-ID: <14097@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 23-May-86 15:58:51 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.14097
Posted: Fri May 23 15:58:51 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 25-May-86 18:35:12 EDT
References: <8605202356.AA12789@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <811@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: srt@ucla-cs.UUCP (Scott Turner)
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 20

In article <811@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:

>I have been writing a public domain 'tar' to contribute to the GNU
>project.  Before I got too far along, I made sure that Richard would
>agree to redistribute it as real live Public Domain code, without his
>funny restrictions.  If you are writing code and truly wish it to be
>public domain (anyone can do ANYTHING with it, no restrictions, no
>copyrights, no caveats, if they make a million with it, you have no
>recourse)...

Isn't this kind of silly?  If you are going to throw your code into the
Public Domain, then there isn't anyway you can stop RMS from distributing
it with his copyright notice on it, right?  Since you've pointedly made no
attempt to protect your code, he can just grab it and do what he wants to
it - including slapping a GNU redistribution agreement on it.

Self-defeating.

                                                -- Scott Turner
                                                The Chairman of the Board

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!sun!hoptoad!gnu
From: gnu@hoptoad.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: gnu copyrights
Message-ID: <820@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sun, 25-May-86 18:31:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.820
Posted: Sun May 25 18:31:30 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 26-May-86 06:53:47 EDT
References: <8605202356.AA12789@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <811@hoptoad.uucp> 
<14097@ucla-cs.ARPA>
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 16

In article <14097@ucla-cs.ARPA>, s...@ucla-cs.ARPA (Scott Turner) writes:
> In article <811@hoptoad.uucp> gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes:
> >                                   ...I made sure that Richard would
> >agree to redistribute it as real live Public Domain code, without his
> >funny restrictions.
> Isn't this kind of silly?  If you are going to throw your code into the
> Public Domain, then there isn't anyway you can stop RMS from distributing
> it with his copyright notice on it, right?

This is true, but if I ask RMS if he will distribute it as PD and he
says yes, I presume that he will keep his word.  If I make no agreement
with him then I have shown no interest in what he does with my code.
In either case he COULD claim copyright and I have no legal recourse.
That doesn't mean I shouldn't ask for what I want.
-- 
John Gilmore  {sun,ptsfa,lll-crg,ihnp4}!hoptoad!gnu   jgil...@lll-crg.arpa