Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Some people won't use GCC
Message-ID: <8906022109.AA00195@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 89 21:09:00 GMT
References: <6862@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 47
1. My lawyer says we can enforce the copyleft. There is no reason to
believe a government agency merely by deciding to do so could defeat
it. (Aside from that, government agencies tend to like the idea.)
2. The reasons you give for which certain companies won't use GCC seem
rather irrational. My policies have been consistent and have varied
only in small details ever since the GNU project has existed.
3. I know for a fact that Digital employees use GNU software all over
the place; and IBM people have also submitted extensions to it. So I
doubt very much that these companies have a uniform policy of the sort
you describe.
In addition, various companies, including MCC and NeXT, have found in
practice that the problems referred to do not exist.
4. It may still be true that some parts of those companies have the
beliefs and follow the policies you quote. If so, it's their loss.
5. I am willing to believe that, for this reason, you wish for a
compiler that these companies could use in proprietary software. In a
nutshell, those parts of those companies demand your support for their
policies of restricting the users, and you wish to give it to them.
6. However, I have no interest in helping to develop such a thing.
My purpose in developing software is to discourage the practice of
forbidding end users to share and modify software. If I had not used
the copyleft, I would have entirely failed to advance this aim.
7. I appreciate the help you have given me in testing GCC in the past.
However, I don't find it so vital that I would start working toward an
end that I don't consider worthwhile, in order to have your
cooperation in achieving it. That would be putting the means above
the ends.
8. Getting people research funding from DEC or IBM, while I see
nothing objectionable about it, is not my aim. I would not be willing
to take off the copyleft even to get funds for myself. So it would be
silly for me to do so to help you get funds.
Accepting the world "as it is" means abandoning the attempt to improve
it. If I were willing to accept proprietary software, why not also
accept today's state of the art?
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!CS.PURDUE.EDU!spaf
From: s...@CS.PURDUE.EDU (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Some people won't use GCC
Message-ID: <8906022354.AA28510@uther.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 2 Jun 89 23:54:27 GMT
References: <8906022109.AA00195@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 94
Sigh. I'm not getting across to the GNUers with this, I guess. I
have heard from people at nearly 16 universities and 4 research labs
who do understand, however, and would be interested in a true public
domain ANSI C compiler. So, you may not understand (or agree with)
what I've been saying, but there does seem to be a group who do...and
that's just the response from those on this mailing list!
Since this group is for technical discussion about the compiler, and
since I don't seem to be getting through, I won't continue posting
this here. I would like to respond to a few of your points, though.
>> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 89 17:09:00 EDT
>> From: r...@ai.mit.edu
>> To: spaf
>> To: info-...@prep.ai.mit.edu
>> Subject: Some people won't use GCC
>>
>> 1. My lawyer says we can enforce the copyleft. There is no reason to
>> believe a government agency merely by deciding to do so could defeat
>> it.
I hope your lawyer is a good one if it ever comes to that. I've
talked to a number of lawyers, including those for the University and
the general consensus is the copyleft is unenforceable. First and
foremost, the whole issue of "shrinkwrap" forms of licenses has not
been fully addressed in court. You do have copyright, but it may end
at the traditional rights. There's also the question of whether its a
valid license since there is no exchange of considerations. Even if
the copyleft is ever ruled valid, it is not valid to cause someone
to give up their Federal rights under copyright in software they have
not yet even written yet (I am told).
Of course, unless it comes to trial, we'll never know, but there is
enough difference of opinion to give one less than a certain feeling.
And if the oppposing party happened to be a government agency....how
long can you continue to pay your lawyer?
>> 2. The reasons you give for which certain companies won't use GCC seem
>> rather irrational. My policies have been consistent and have varied
>> only in small details ever since the GNU project has existed.
Maybe so, but you are espousing something contrary to their commonly
accepted standards of law and business, and you have a reputation as a
fanatic. You are not trusted to behave rationally, and so they have
to react according to worst-case scenerios. Thus, they aren't being
irrational at all.
>> 3. I know for a fact that Digital employees use GNU software all over
>> the place; and IBM people have also submitted extensions to it. So I
>> doubt very much that these companies have a uniform policy of the sort
>> you describe.
I agree. I also know many of these same people. However, the folks
in the areas developing language-based software tools are the ones
I've been talking to. And just because employees use it doesn't meant
the company as a whole has a policy on it. Yet. If one of those
employees writes computer viruses at work, does that mean the company
has an official policy allowing it?
>> In addition, various companies, including MCC and NeXT, have found in
>> practice that the problems referred to do not exist.
So? We're not a consortium like MCC nor a start-up like NeXT. Their
concerns and risks are different.
>> 4. It may still be true that some parts of those companies have the
>> beliefs and follow the policies you quote. If so, it's their loss.
The whole community's loss, actually, and you could affect it if you
wanted (for the better).
>> 5. I am willing to believe that, for this reason, you wish for a
>> compiler that these companies could use in proprietary software. In a
>> nutshell, those parts of those companies demand your support for their
>> policies of restricting the users, and you wish to give it to them.
Bull****. You completely misunderstand the interest. I want a
compiler that I can use to prototype and demonstrate new software
tools and approaches that can then be shared by the community. What I
produce will not be marketable. We don't do company proprietary
research here -- this is a university! I'm not seeking to oppress the
masses or any other such nonsense. I'm attempting to advance the
state-of-the-art in software engineering. When I do, I will publish
the results and share the technology when I can -- and I won't
restrict others in the way it can be used.
My bottom line is that GNU software *is* *proprietary* too!! It cannot
be used freely by others. It is effectively share-ware -- to use it,
we have to support your political philosophy. Calling the software
"free" under these circumstances is an interesting use of doublespeak.
I don't wish you ill, and I will continue to be interested in what the
FSF does. However, I also wish you would really live up to the name
"Free Software Foundation."
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8906030105.AA00339@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 3 Jun 89 01:05:55 GMT
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 62
My bottom line is that GNU software *is* *proprietary* too!! It cannot
be used freely by others.
I will address this below.
It is effectively share-ware -- to use it,
we have to support your political philosophy.
This sentence depends for its impact on two meanings of the word
"support".
If "support" means agree with--which is usually what it means in the
context of "supporting a philosophy"--this statement would be a sharp
criticism, except that it is false. I clearly have no power to compel
GNU users to think one thing or another, and the general public
license doesn't say anything about requirements for users' opinions.
If "support" means behave in certain ways--such as, not develop any
proprietary software containing the GNU software--then the statement
is true, but not particularly shocking.
Calling the software
"free" under these circumstances is an interesting use of doublespeak.
This is no doublespeak, just as it is not doublespeak to say that
Americans are free when they are not allowed the freedom to sell
themselves into slavery. That prohibition may seem a galling
restriction to those who would like to buy slaves.
I am tempted to say that the true doublespeak is when people call
public domain software and X windows "free"--when thousands of users
are receiving copies under standard proprietary licenses: they can't
share it or change it.
However, that would be exaggeration. Neither of these is doublespeak.
The fact is, we can either have inalienable rights or we can have the
right to sell away our rights. Both of these are freedom of a sort.
I think that the inalienable right is more important for sharing and
changing software. You have the right to disapprove of my choice; but
that is no excuse for insulting me persistently with terms like
"doublespeak". My definition of "free software" is not the only
reasonable definition. But it is a reasonable definition. And that
is the best term I know for the meaning.
What I
produce will not be marketable. We don't do company proprietary
research here -- this is a university!
I didn't say that you did. It is the companies whose support you want
which do this. They want compilers for which they have the "freedom"
to give the users no freedom; and you want to use such a compiler, not
because you yourself would like to take away anyone else's freedom,
but because these companies offer you research support if you get them
such a compiler.
I won't say that you are malicious in this. All else being equal, I
would like you to have support for your research. But I am not
willing to capitulate to these companies so that you could have
support for your research. I don't believe their victory is
inevitable.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!
uoregon!tillamook!markv
From: ma...@tillamook.uucp (Mark VandeWettering)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Some people won't use GCC
Message-ID: <4818@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 16:52:56 GMT
References: <8906022109.AA00195@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
<8906022354.AA28510@uther.cs.purdue.edu> <16505@paris.ics.uci.edu>
Sender: n...@uoregon.uoregon.edu
Reply-To: ma...@tillamook.UUCP (Mark VandeWettering)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: University of Oregon CIS Dept.
Lines: 64
In article <16...@paris.ics.uci.edu> Doug Schmidt <schm...@zola.ics.uci.edu>
writes:
>In article <8906022354.AA28...@uther.cs.purdue.edu> s...@CS.PURDUE.EDU (
>Gene Spafford) writes:
>++ Sigh. I'm not getting across to the GNUers with this, I guess.
>No Gene, your message is coming across loud and clear, like a siren's
>song.
[ Poetic drivel deleted to save on net.alka.seltzer]
The Free Software Foundation was founded to make software
available to people everywhere, to create software that everyone
could use. Unfortunately, the FSF has decided to copyright its
works under a very RESTRICTIVE license.
All the people who are part of the Free Software Foundation will
disagree, claiming that this license is what guarantees that the
software will remain free. But you don't need a license to do
that. It's called PUBLIC DOMAIN.
But, you claim, then people could snarf it up, make proprietary
changes, sell it, restrict access to binaries.
Yes. But you would always be able to compete with that because
your intent was to make it freely available.
I admire the Free Software Foundation. Their nearly endless
energy and talent has produced some very fine software, and I
probably will continue to use their products. However, I have
begun to view the "copyleft" under which gnu products are
released as being too restrictive.
>You want us to recant our faith that GNU supports a purpose more noble
>than simply pandering to your `sponsors' demands.
>You want us to cringe in fear upon hearing that some powerful
>organizations don't approve of our convictions.
>You want us to keep our place, and not protest against myopic policies
>of computer vendors that try robbing our dignity.
Oh please, but it gets better....
>We understand the song you sing, because we've heard it sung many
>times before.
>Whether it be Tiananmen Square or Panama City or Pretoria
>we understand that those with a vested interest in the status quo
>will stop at nothing to retain their power and control.
Now Gene Spafford is the element of fascism on the net?
Making empty, over melodramatic acusations can only fuel a sense
of public alienation for the GNU project.
I have considered in the past donating some of my projects to
the GNU project, but have serious doubts about doing so now.
These are largely due to the overly political tone under which
software is distributed.
It sure would be nice to replace those copyleft notices which
add a good 8K to every file in GNU software with something like
"Use this code. Improve this code. Tell me about it."
Mark VandeWettering
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Some people won't use GCC
Message-ID: <8906051911.AA00256@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 19:11:09 GMT
References: <4818@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 31
... But you don't need a license to do
that. It's called PUBLIC DOMAIN.
But, you claim, then people could snarf it up, make proprietary
changes, sell it, restrict access to binaries.
Yes. But you would always be able to compete with that because
your intent was to make it freely available.
This is small consolation for the disadvantages. If I made GCC public
domain, companies would port GCC to their machines and would call the
machine descriptions proprietary. As a result, only a few machines
would be supported in our distribution.
In other words, I would have much less leverage to persuade anyone
else who starts with free GNU software to contribute to the development
of free software.
Even on the machines supported in our distribution, 99% of the users
would get their copies from vendors who would not tell them that we
exist as an alternative.
I could perhaps have advanced the state of the art this way, but as
for advancing the cause of **freedom to share for all the users**, it
would be a failure. That would feel futile. This is why I do not
develop public domain software.
I am sad if, as a result, some of you don't wish to join in the
project. However, I will make do. I'd rather go in the right
direction with less help than the wrong direction with more help.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: (none)
Message-ID: <8906061911.AA00320@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 6 Jun 89 19:11:07 GMT
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 20
>Whether it be Tiananmen Square or Panama City or Pretoria...
>etc.
Shheesh...get a grip on reality here. In no way is the issue of
free software nearly as big a deal this nut makes out. People are
DYING in Tiananmen Square, you know.
The fight for the freedom to program has not escalated to the level of
killing. Apple is not trying to shoot programmers who write
compatible software, and we are not trying to shoot the employees of
Apple.
However, they are trying to arrange to send men with guns (police) to
stop us from writing compatible software. They probably will try to
avoid shooting, but they may well imprison some of us for years if we
refuse to stop.
The difference between this and China is a matter of degree. The
spirit is the same.
Path: utzoo!yunexus!telly!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Two separate issues
Message-ID: <8906071718.AA00282@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 89 17:18:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: sugar-bo.8906071718.AA00282
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 24
Someone sent me this message:
You write:
> The difference between this and China is a matter of degree. The
> spirit is the same.
I disagree. Your definitions of ``free'' and ``freedom'' intrigue me.
Here you are conducting a holy war against ``evil software hoarders''...
This indicates a confusion of two separate issues which I suspect shows
I didn't distinguish them clearly enough. So I will try to do so now.
For 6 years I have been working on a project to make software free,
but not by coercing anyone, only by writing free software. And, in
general, they have not tried to coerce me either.
I believe software should be free. But my message quoted above is
about a different issue, where traditionally accepted rights are in
danger.
Apple and others wish to take away people's freedom to write software,
whether free or not. And Apple does plan to use coercion to get their
way, if they can. They hope to get injunctions, and then others will
have the choice of obeying Apple or being imprisoned.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bionet!net.bio.net!lear
From: l...@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Two separate issues
Message-ID: <CMM.0.88.613249438.lear@NET.BIO.NET>
Date: 7 Jun 89 19:03:58 GMT
Sender: l...@NET.BIO.NET
Lines: 52
[In response to rms's message of Wed, 7 Jun 89 13:21:46 EDT]
First of all, you cut me off in mid stream, taking me out of context
and then posted a reply to a large group of people.
> I disagree. Your definitions of ``free'' and ``freedom'' intrigue me.
> Here you are conducting a holy war against ``evil software hoarders''...
If you look at the rest of the sentence, I said (in essence) that you
would encroach upon others' livelihood by their talents.
I don't really agree with Apple on this particular issue because I
believe ``Look and Feel'' is an idea. The argument here is whether
one should have the right to protect her ``intellectual property''.
> Free software contributes more to society than proprietary software,
> with the same amount of work. Therefore, free software should have
> more incentive than proprietary software.
In your argument for the good of society, you place the responsibility
for its good on the good nature of individuals. Additionally you
burden them with the requirement that they find some other means to
make a living which, by the way, could be just as bad or worse than
``software hoarding''. What makes you think this will succeed?
The goal of the copyright laws was to protect and advance the good of
society by having that good rely on greed, part of human nature. So
far, this has worked quite well. Any attempts to change human nature
would be artificial and temporary, at best. So why bother? And
again, what is wrong with the current system?
What is the difference between software hoarding and hardware
hoarding? And how are all the ``hoarders'' to survive if they may not
use their resourcefulness to make an income? What about people who
work towards the creation of weapons (wittingly or not)? They may not
hold any copyrights.
I don't really have a problem with what FSF is doing. But there has
yet to really be a good argument against the free market system. If
the price on a decent product is overinflated, then there is room for
others to produce, and others will. FSF is just another competitor
to the commercial compilers. What bothers me is that so many people
have put so much time and effort into the FSF only to have their work
not be used, thereby causing others to have to expend more effort into
writing yet another piece of software. In the end, this is self
defeating.
[Incidentally, there are interesting articles on the subject of Look
and Feel in last month's CACM, and the SIGCHI Proceedings. Should
people be allowed to copyright books?]
Eliot Lear
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!
AI.MIT.EDU!rms
From: r...@AI.MIT.EDU
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Two separate issues
Message-ID: <8906072218.AA00503@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 89 22:18:13 GMT
References: <CMM.0.88.613249438.lear@NET.BIO.NET>
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 24
First of all, you cut me off in mid stream, taking me out of context
and then posted a reply to a large group of people.
I used your message only to illustrate why I had spoken unclearly, not
to criticize you. So I used only enough to illustrate the point. I
was glad you had not raised this issue on the list, so I did not
either. I also did not mention your name. I thought I had done
enough to avoid giving you reason for offense.
Now that you have raised it on the list, I decline to respond. I
think that starting a discussion on yet another issue would be bad for
all the people who joined the list to get announcements from the GNU
project. It would also be bad for anyone who hopes to use GCC 1.36,
since I will not have time to work on it.
Besides, I have already published my arguments for why software should
be free. They are already available to anyone who wants to see them.
So it would be wasteful for me to post them. I refer interested
readers to the GNU Manifesto.
However, I caution the readers not to believe that my views are
accurately described by the messages that my opponents will post.
Some will portray my views accurately, but many will not.