Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!
samsung!rex!ukma!uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: GNU Public License restrictions and GNU utilities
Message-ID: <2378@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Date: 2 Dec 89 22:31:14 GMT
Sender: n...@hudson.acc.virginia.edu
Reply-To: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 68
Posted: Sat Dec 2 23:31:14 1989
Recently, there seems to have been some confusion about how software
authors might accidentally put their software under the GNU Public
License terms from using GNU utilities. Although I am not a lawyer,
and so you should ignore everything I say on any legal topic, here's
what the document says in plain english.
(For the paranoia, see <0PAHP:@splut.conmicro.com> and
<4...@sugar.hackercorp.com> )
In order for you to come under the terms of the license, you must
use SOURCE CODE from GNU. If you use the GNU tool as a translator,
you're ok.
You type your code in GNU emacs -- not covered, unless you explicitly
stick GNU code in.
You use GNU fgrep to search through your file -- not covered.
You use GCC to *translate* your program into an ojbect file -- not
covered, since you are using GCC as a translator.
You use GCC to *translate* your program, and then *LINK* with a GNU
library AND distribute the binary executable -- COVERED, since you are
linking your code with GNU source code. However, you must ALWAYS check
this situation out with any compiler. Ever run strings on a binary
from C and noticed all the Sun copyright notices? It's legal to sell a
binary from the Sun C compiler/linker only because Sun grants you that
right. It's not automatic.
So if you want to distribute a C binary you've compiled with GCC, you
must either:
1) Link the program with a vendor-supplied library, and understand
the restrictions which go with this vendor-supplied library (some
vendors require a license fee.)
2) Link the program with a public-domain library, of which there is
at least one complete libc under development.
3) Distribute object code and have the end-user link the product with
whatever he wants, GNU or otherwise. As long as the end-user doesn't
further distrubute the binary containing translated GNU and non-GNU
source, it's not covered.
Note that using gcc requires no more care than you have to go through with
any commercial compiler -- you must always check the copyright status of
the libraries.
Back to our examples:
You run a YACC input file though GNU Bison, combine the machine translated
result with a GNU Bison skeleton, which is GNU-copyright source, and then
link that. You ARE covered by the GNU License because that skeleton isn't
generated from your input, it's the same everywhere. If you want to sell the
result, write your own skeleton.
Once again, using the GNU tool requires no more care than using anyone
else's tool -- you always have to check that copyright on the skeleton.
AT&T happens to have abandoned copyright (I think) on theirs. However,
you'd best consult your lawyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, tell me how anyone could accidentally put their code under GNU Public
License restrictions in any way that they wouldn't put their code under
AT&T or Sun or someone else's copyright restrictions?
------
Greg Lindahl
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: GNU Public License restrictions and GNU utilities
Message-ID: <9_DAGC@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 4 Dec 89 04:11:42 GMT
References: <2378@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 31
Posted: Mon Dec 4 05:11:42 1989
In article <2...@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU
(Greg Lindahl) writes:
>So, tell me how anyone could accidentally put their code under GNU Public
>License restrictions in any way that they wouldn't put their code under
>AT&T or Sun or someone else's copyright restrictions?
Why did Microsoft drop the onerous restrictions they placed on their
compiler libraries when they first sold compilers? At first, Microsoft
said that you must pay them a royalty for every copy of a program that
you sold that had been compiled with their compiler, and that you could
not give such programs away.
Developers refused to use their compiler for distributed code.
Other compiler vendors came forward without such restrictions.
Microsoft was royally flamed by people who publicly switched compilers.
Microsoft saw the light.
I'm not aware of other compiler vendors who restrict, in any form,
redistribution of code compiled with their compilers and linked with
their libraries. GNU, in an effort to enforce their utopia, is trying to
do so.
The reason I claim that the accidental scenario is possible - nay,
likely - is precisely because nobody else claims copyright protection on
someone else's compiled code.
This is not paranoia, but a simple reading of cold, hard fact.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
j...@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity.
{attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +----------------------------------------
"...when hasn't gibberish been legal C?" -- Tom Horsley, t...@ssd.harris.com