Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!
cs.utexas.edu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!ists!
yunexus!nexus.YorkU.CA!oz
From: o...@nexus.YorkU.CA (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.misc,comp.windows.x
Subject: rms says...
Message-ID: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Date: 29 Jan 91 15:35:48 GMT
Sender: n...@yunexus.YorkU.CA
Organization: York U. Communications Research & Development
Lines: 50
Keywords:
[this article appeared in a gnu newsgroup, and it is thought to be very
illuminating for those following the progress of FSF, and its politics,
from either supportive or non-supportive positions. enjoy... oz]
---
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Why we use copyleft
Message-ID: <9101282011.AA20...@mole.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 28 Jan 91 20:11:23 GMT
Lines: 37
Currently we don't let people turn our software into proprietary
software. Some people consider our policy "taking away freedom". But
freedom to do what? Only the freedom to be a software hoarder and
undermine the freedom of others.
Thus, the question is whether we defend freedom best by trying to
prevent others from taking it away, or by passively letting everyone
else do whatever they want.
Some people are pacifists; they believe in being peaceful even to
murderers, rapists or tyrants. It would be fully consistent for a
pacifist to believe in putting software in the public domain.
But I'm not a pacifist. (Most of you are not pacifists either.) I
think it makes sense to have policemen try to stop or catch murderers,
and armies or revolutions try to stop or catch tyrants, even if they
have to shoot. Likewise, though on a different scale of intensity, I
think it makes sense to use the weapons of software hoarding (such as
copyright) against hoarders to prevent hoarding. Think of this as
economic sanctions--offering aid in exchange for progress in
recognizing particular human rights.
If that means we lose business, that's ok. We also lose business when
we refuse to trade with South Africa or Iraq. The purpose of the GNU
project is not to maximize the amount of use of GNU software. It is
to promote freedom.
The example of X Windows shows what would happen without the copyleft.
Most users who get X Windows get just a binary. They can't get the
source for the version they are running. The MIT source may not
interoperate with it, since it may not contain the changes needed for
the particular operating system in use. The result is that X Windows
is not free for most users. (I myself have had this problem.) And
many improvements made to X Windows are kept proprietary and do not
get back to the community. GNU software avoids this problem, while
being nonetheless well accepted. This shows that the copyleft is
working. It would be silly for us to drop our sanctions now.
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!ira.uka.de!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!caen!sdd.hp.com!
cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
From: jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.misc,comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <4607@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 16:24:03 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Sender: use...@lib.tmc.edu
Followup-To: comp.misc
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in
maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims;
rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. Hence,
his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of
buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely.
I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its
software to further his goals.
This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my
computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted
by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I
can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
programming. This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll
be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors
(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to
license their code under non-utopian terms.
Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,...
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!samsung!emory!utkcs2!news
From: d...@ornl.gov (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <1991Jan29.182433.10585@cs.utk.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 18:24:33 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu>
Sender: n...@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: d...@ornl.gov
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Lines: 60
In article <4...@lib.tmc.edu>, jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in
>maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public [License] claims;
>rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia.
It means he's not willing to compromise his belief in the advantages
of Free software to benefit a group that doesn't share that belief.
To do otherwise would be counterproductive to his, and the FSF's,
goals.
>Hence,
>his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of
>buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely.
Not selling someone else's product without their consent is hardly a
stiff price to pay. You're asking people to not only give you their
code, but to give you their rights to it.
>I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its
>software to further his goals.
I find it rather clever that we're able to fight fire with fire.
>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my
>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted
>by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I
>can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
>programming.
This is sheer alarmist nonsense. There's no more danger of
GNU-license legal challenges than there is from any other licensed
product. In fact, I'd think a megabucks/megalawyer operation like
AT&T would be more likely to enforce it's System V source licensing.
Are you paranoid about *all* licensed code, or just GNU-licensed code?
If you sold source to your products, how would it be licensed, and
what protection would your customers have against it "infecting"
*their* product?
>This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
>acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll
>be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors
>(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to
>license their code under non-utopian terms.
What's a shame is that you've got such a paranoia about the GNU
license that you won't even use any of the GNU tools. Do you think,
perhaps, that a snippet of GNU code might inject itself into your
product?
I suspect that, in fact, you're really *not* that afraid, and you're
just trying to make a point.
--
Dave Sill (d...@ornl.gov) It will be a great day when our schools have
Martin Marietta Energy Systems all the money they need and the Air Force
Workstation Support has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bu.edu!xylogics!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!
thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
From: jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <4613@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 91 03:27:53 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu>
<1991Jan29.182433.10585@cs.utk.edu>
Sender: use...@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 104
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
Yea, verily, my mailbox runneth over.
I've gotten a flood of comments, both here in comp.misc (I don't get any of
the gnu.* groups) and by email, generally blasting me for contending that
the FSF may not be snow-pure because of what I see as an unreasonable
license policy.
My problem is with the part of the GNU General Public Virus that causes
"the whole of any work" that contains any GPV-infected code to fall under
the terms of that license. There are problems with that provision, but the
FSF has stood firmly behind their right to dictate others' disposition
of code that the FSF didn't provide.
I'll answer Dave Sill's comments here, since they're representative of what
has been flooding my mailbox.
In article <1991Jan29.182433.10...@cs.utk.edu> d...@ornl.gov writes:
>In article <4...@lib.tmc.edu>, jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
writes:
>>Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in
>>maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims;
>>rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia.
>It means he's not willing to compromise his belief in the advantages
>of Free software to benefit a group that doesn't share that belief.
>To do otherwise would be counterproductive to his, and the FSF's,
>goals.
That's great as far as it goes...but why does he exhort people to place their
code under the GPV, claiming that doing so would maximize the sharing and
reuse of code? It's having the opposite effect in practice: people have
removed GPV-infected code from their work when they discovered its effects.
>>Hence,
>>his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of
>>buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely.
>Not selling someone else's product without their consent is hardly a
>stiff price to pay. You're asking people to not only give you their
>code, but to give you their rights to it.
As opposed to the GPV, which doesn't ask me if I want to surrender my code,
but rather demands it.
I don't want to sell GPV-infected code. I simply want to use it, as others
can do with the full consent of the FSF.
>>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my
>>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted
>>by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I
>>can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
>>programming.
This statement has apparently confused some folks (though not Dave). They've
reminded me that compiling my program with gcc doesn't mean that the program
is infected. I understand that; my problem is from another angle:
Having GPV-infected code on my computer leaves me open to the charge that
I have used that code in my program. I must defend myself from this charge,
with the attendant legal expense and hassle *whether or not the charges are
true*, or else release my code to the clutches of the GPV. Since I cannot
afford the former, as can such corporate giants as DG, NeXT, and others who
ship gcc as the standard C compiler, and do not wish to do the latter, that
leaves me unable to have the code on my machine at all.
>This is sheer alarmist nonsense. There's no more danger of
>GNU-license legal challenges than there is from any other licensed
>product. In fact, I'd think a megabucks/megalawyer operation like
>AT&T would be more likely to enforce it's System V source licensing.
>Are you paranoid about *all* licensed code, or just GNU-licensed code?
>If you sold source to your products, how would it be licensed, and
>what protection would your customers have against it "infecting"
>*their* product?
I have no non-PD source code on my computer that I am not licensed to use
to develop programs without restrictions. Further, I will not have any
such code there unless I am satisfied that the license provisions do not
leave me in a similar position.
I do not provide source to my programs under any conditions. Further, none
of my customers has ever asked about it.
>>This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
>>acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll
>>be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors
>>(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to
>>license their code under non-utopian terms.
>What's a shame is that you've got such a paranoia about the GNU
>license that you won't even use any of the GNU tools. Do you think,
>perhaps, that a snippet of GNU code might inject itself into your
>product?
No, but I have no assurance that the FSF might not think so at some point in
the future. As Michael C. Berch put it, I'd rather not have the status of my
programs depend on what RMS had for breakfast.
>I suspect that, in fact, you're really *not* that afraid, and you're
>just trying to make a point.
I'd love to be able to use the FSF's code; I understand that it's quite
good and usable. I simply find the potential cost too high.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bu.edu!xylogics!samsung!sdd.hp.com!
elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!jpl-devvax!lwall
From: lw...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <11227@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Date: 30 Jan 91 02:12:48 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu>
Reply-To: lw...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV (Larry Wall)
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA
Lines: 31
In article <4...@lib.tmc.edu> jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
: This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my
: computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted
: by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I
: can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
: programming.
Oh, and I can? Sheesh.
: This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
: acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll
: be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors
: (even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to
: license their code under non-utopian terms.
I'll say it again for the logic impaired. I'm willing to give away pieces
of perl code without restriction upon request. I'm also willing to talk
about different licensing for perl that would give you unrestricted use as
long as you don't redistribute. Nothing more viral than a commercial license.
Shoot, I might even have to charge you $1 to make it legal. Hmm, make
that $1000. No, $50,000. Yeah, that's the ticket... :-)
Frankly, I think the GPL is a better deal, personal phobias notwithstanding.
: Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
: jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
I'm trying, believe you me.
Larry Wall
lw...@jpl-devvax.jpl.nasa.gov
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!optilink!digi.lonestar.org!kgallagh
From: kgall...@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <1682@digi.lonestar.org>
Date: 31 Jan 91 00:23:39 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu>
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
Lines: 44
In article <4...@lib.tmc.edu> jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>[stuff deleted]
>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my
>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted
>by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I
>can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
>programming. This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
>acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll
>be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors
>(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to
>license their code under non-utopian terms.
>
>Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,...
Lots of people modify public domain software and then resell it. The original
author(s) receive nothing for their original blood, sweat, and tears, even though
a substantial portion of the final modified product was left untouched. The biggest
example is TeX. There are at least a half a dozen, or more, modified versions of
TeX which are sold at high prices. I doubt if any of these vendors have volunteered
to turn over a percentage of their profits to Knuth, the original author, even though
the bulk of the TeX system is left untouched by their changes. They reap all the
profits of the sale.
RMS (and FSF) are offering to let you have and use their software without charge,
provided you do not attempt to make a personal profit by re-selling all or part
of their work. Just because they do not charge to let you use it does not mean
that they have to give up their ownership rights!
If you use Turbo C or Microsoft C, you are bound by similar constraints. Both
Borland and Microsoft claim to still own the software they are letting you use
for a fee. They have strict rules about how you may transfer use of that software
and both companies reserve the right to revoke the license at any time. Indeed, if
they choose to revoke the license, whatever the reason, you have no recourse but
to comply. The GPL, on the other hand, does not attempt to impose such sweeping
unlimited control over your right to use their product.
"Me thinks you complain too much!"
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Gallagher kgall...@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh
DSC Communications Corporation, MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: n...@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 91 00:02:07 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1682@digi.lonestar.org>
Sender: use...@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 55
Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu
In article <1...@digi.lonestar.org> kgall...@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes:
>Lots of people modify public domain software and then resell it. The original
>author(s) receive nothing for their original blood, sweat, and tears, even though
>a substantial portion of the final modified product was left untouched.
I object to FSF taking something like ghostscript and putting it out as
freeware. I don't mind people taking a minor part of an interface (eg,
the behaviour of 1-2-3 menus, say, or the picture of a trashcan) and
using the idea in their own software. I don't object to people
reimplementing software where the majority of the work does *not* have
to do with "look and feel" (eg, a C compiler).
I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. Adobe
spent mucho bucks coming up with a language that is flexible and fairly
easy to implement efficiently. XEROX PARC spent literally decades
working Smalltalk into a useful and easy to use package. FSF takes
their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I
think this is wrong.
This is not competition. This is merely theft of other people's
research and development, merely taking advantage of the current legal
situation. No wonder FSF is fighting against "look and feel" copyright
suits and the software patents: much of the freeware is clearly
"ripped off" from products developed by other companies.
Think: originally, the first "look and feel" case was between two
greeting-card manufacturs. The first had a staff of dozens of artists
and copywriters. The process of making a new card required weeks of
work, communication, management approval, and so on. The second
company had one artist and no copywriter: this owner would go into card
stores, look at what the competition did, return to work, and describe
it to the artist, who would then duplicate the card. The court decided
that this was an infringement, and I suspect that most of you would,
also, if you were the originating company. How different is this from
what FSF is doing?
If all software were free, we would see very little software becoming
available: look at any country without copyright laws. FSF's goals are
only obtainable when somebody else is footing the bill for the original
development. Also, they are only obtainable when programs are *not*
free (but rather are controlled by liscencing). RMS has fallen into
the same trap as many software pirates do: I can copy it for $5,
so why should I spend $50 to buy it? The problem is the *first* time
you copy it it costs $50,000. If it costs me 5000 hours to port an
OS to another machine, and the first time I give it to somebody,
I will never get any more money for it, who would pay me $50,000 for
my time?
More humble opinions from and only from
-- Darren
--
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages,
Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas -----
=+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de!ira.uka.de!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!rex!uflorida!gatech!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: n...@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <43397@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 91 05:16:14 GMT
References: <13109@life.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: use...@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 25
Nntp-Posting-Host: estelle.ee.udel.edu
In article <13...@life.ai.mit.edu> t...@ai.mit.edu writes:
>In article <43...@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, n...@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
>|> FSF takes
>|> their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I
>|> think this is wrong.
>
>Most kinds of research results and paradigms are not protected by law.
I realize that these things are legal. I just think it's wrong. I
also don't know that it encourages *new* work very much. I may be
wrong, but I don't know of anything that FSF has published that isn't a
clone of somebody else's work. I wouldn't at all object to seeing
something new truely published as FSFware, but I don't think that's
going to happen very often. Building on history to produce new
scientific works is one thing; directly reimplementing a program such
that you can even use the same manual page is not it. In what way is
this "advancing science"?
- Darren
(Note: the above are only opinions,
and are probably in the wrong newsgroup anyway.)
--
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages,
Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas -----
=+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=
Path: gmdzi!unido!fauern!sun1.ruf.uni-freiburg.de!ira.uka.de!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!barmar
From: bar...@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <1991Feb1.034801.24207@Think.COM>
Date: 1 Feb 91 03:48:01 GMT
References: <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1682@digi.lonestar.org> <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Sender: n...@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 27
In article <43...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> n...@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
>I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. Adobe
>spent mucho bucks coming up with a language that is flexible and fairly
>easy to implement efficiently. XEROX PARC spent literally decades
>working Smalltalk into a useful and easy to use package. FSF takes
>their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own. I
>think this is wrong.
Postscript and Smalltalk are programming languages. Ghostscript and GNU
Smalltalk are just implementations of the languages. A language
specification is not the same thing as an implementation design. Do you
have evidence that anyone actually stole Adobe's design when developing
Ghostscript, as opposed to designing the implementation by themselves based
only on the published spec? If not, I suggest you hesitate before making
such accusations.
As for Smalltalk, from the very beginning Xerox has been *promoting*
independent implementations. They have published books containing papers
by third parties, explaining various implementation strategies, for the
express purpose of allowing others to make use of these ideas and build
upon them.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
bar...@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!bellcore!att!linac!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!think.com!barmar
From: bar...@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <1991Feb1.065724.3260@Think.COM>
Date: 1 Feb 91 06:57:24 GMT
References: <13109@life.ai.mit.edu> <43397@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Sender: n...@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 53
In article <43...@nigel.ee.udel.edu> n...@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
> I may be
>wrong, but I don't know of anything that FSF has published that isn't a
>clone of somebody else's work.
What about GNU Emacs, the flagship product of the FSF? It's a clone of
RMS's own work.
> I wouldn't at all object to seeing
>something new truely published as FSFware, but I don't think that's
>going to happen very often. Building on history to produce new
>scientific works is one thing; directly reimplementing a program such
>that you can even use the same manual page is not it. In what way is
>this "advancing science"?
Who ever claimed that the FSF was trying to "advance science"? Their goal
is to make free software available. The target customer base is those
computer users who are frustrated by the fact that they can't look at or
modify (for purposes of enhancement, customization, or bug fixing) the
software that they must use. GNU distributes clones so that users can
overcome this frustration without having to be concerned about portability
or learning new skills. Indeed, the ultimate goal of the GNU project is a
complete Unix implementation; if the GNU operating system weren't
Unix-compatible, no one would care how free it is, because Unix is a de
facto standard.
Most GNU "clones" are not exact duplicates, either. In all the cases I can
think of, they have made significant enhancements in the process of cloning.
GNU tar has several new options, mostly designed to allow it to be used as
a backup mechanism. Gcc probably has more options than any other Unix C
compiler. And I believe gmake and bison offer a number of enhancements
over the standard tools they replace.
But even if they didn't have extensions, that's not what the FSF is
"selling". The value that the FSF is adding is the guaranteed availability
of source (for at most a nominal duplication fee). In many cases, the
extensions and higher quality of FSF software are by-products of this: many
users spontaneously enhance software when they have the source, and the FSF
encourages them to send the enhancements back to the author for inclusion
in future releases.
If you want advancement of the state of the art, look to universities and
corporate research departments. But if you want high-quality software that
runs on most Unix (and some non-Unix) systems and guaranteed access to
source, go to the FSF.
I don't agree with everything Stallman says, but I can find little fault
with the software he produces.
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
bar...@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
From: jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <4678@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 91 14:04:32 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1682@digi.lonestar.org>
Sender: use...@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
In article <1...@digi.lonestar.org> kgall...@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes:
>If you use Turbo C or Microsoft C, you are bound by similar constraints. Both
>Borland and Microsoft claim to still own the software they are letting you use
>for a fee. They have strict rules about how you may transfer use of that software
>and both companies reserve the right to revoke the license at any time. Indeed, if
>they choose to revoke the license, whatever the reason, you have no recourse but
>to comply. The GPL, on the other hand, does not attempt to impose such sweeping
>unlimited control over your right to use their product.
The difference is that Borland and Microsoft don't claim ownership rights in
my software just because I used their libraries. The FSF does. (At least for
now.) That's far, far worse than having a software company claim the right
to revoke the license to use the compiler at any time - for that still would
not result in my losing my rights in my code.
I have no problems whatsoever using Turbo C to write commercial software,
because Borland is reasonable about my right to earn money. I wouldn't
use gcc or g++ to do so, since RMS is rabid about taking away my right to earn
money for writing software.
>"Me thinks you complain too much!"
Why? Because I refuse to let the FSF force me into their utopian ideals?
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!barmar
From: bar...@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <1991Feb2.234143.22363@Think.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 91 23:41:43 GMT
References: <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1682@digi.lonestar.org> <4678@lib.tmc.edu>
Sender: n...@Think.COM
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Lines: 14
In article <4...@lib.tmc.edu> jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>The difference is that Borland and Microsoft don't claim ownership rights in
>my software just because I used their libraries. The FSF does. (At least for
>now.)
That's why they're working on a separate license specifically for
libraries. They realized that it was unreasonable to assert undue control
over your software just because you link with their library (just as they
don't have any control over software you edit with GNU Emacs).
--
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.
bar...@think.com
{uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!
wuarchive!bcm!lib!thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
From: jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <4688@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 6 Feb 91 13:17:27 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu>
<11227@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>
Sender: use...@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
In article <11...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> lw...@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
(Larry Wall) writes:
>I'll say it again for the logic impaired. I'm willing to give away pieces
>of perl code without restriction upon request. I'm also willing to talk
>about different licensing for perl that would give you unrestricted use as
>long as you don't redistribute. Nothing more viral than a commercial license.
>Shoot, I might even have to charge you $1 to make it legal. Hmm, make
>that $1000. No, $50,000. Yeah, that's the ticket... :-)
Larry, I'm genuinely curious. Why did you change from truly free code, as in
patch and rn, to the GPV? You were ta great example of the spirit of free
software. Then you crossed over to the Dark Side.
I've read the README file from the perl distribution, and your stance in that
file (that you don't view code added to perl that doesn't change perl's
basic function as falling under the GPV) is highly reasonable - in fact, it
closely matches what I feel should be the real effect of a free software
license - but it's in conflict with paragraph 2b of the GPV, which demands
that the whole of any work containing GPV-infected code be placed under the
GPV. Good intentions are one thing; legalities in a license are another.
>Frankly, I think the GPL is a better deal, personal phobias notwithstanding.
What makes it a better deal?
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein