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: If the user does the link
Message-ID: <8906071734.AA00295@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 7 Jun 89 17:34:04 GMT
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 19
Ok, now I have a question. What would be the attitude toward a developer
who distributes .o files containing proprietary code, source to the GNU
libraries in question, and leaves the end user to compile and link them
together on his own?
If these libraries are standard, then it would be hard to argue that
the developer is doing anything which intrinsically relates to the GNU
libraries in question. He might not even know whether users choose to
link with GNU libraries or other libraries. So this must be
permitted.
If the libraries involved were customized out of GNU software by the
developer for this one application, then there would be an argument
that they really are parts of one large program.
My lawyer says it isn't clear what the law says about this. Since
aiding hoarders is not my aim, I don't see a point in conceding this
particular issue in advance.
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!sun!kalli!kevin
From: kevin%ka...@Sun.COM (Kevin Sheehan {Consulting Poster Child})
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: If the user does the link
Message-ID: <108773@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 8 Jun 89 02:02:33 GMT
References: <8906071734.AA00295@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: n...@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: ke...@sun.UUCP (Kevin Sheehan {Consulting Poster Child})
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 60
In article <8906071734.AA00...@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> r...@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>
> Ok, now I have a question. What would be the attitude toward a developer
> who distributes .o files containing proprietary code, source to the GNU
> libraries in question, and leaves the end user to compile and link them
> together on his own?
>
>If these libraries are standard, then it would be hard to argue that
>the developer is doing anything which intrinsically relates to the GNU
>libraries in question. He might not even know whether users choose to
>link with GNU libraries or other libraries. So this must be
>permitted.
>
>If the libraries involved were customized out of GNU software by the
>developer for this one application, then there would be an argument
>that they really are parts of one large program.
>
>My lawyer says it isn't clear what the law says about this. Since
>aiding hoarders is not my aim, I don't see a point in conceding this
>particular issue in advance.
I agree that hoarding is Bad, but I'm compelled to point out that the
rest of the world doesn't have the freedom to consult for a living, and
do Great Software on the side.
Purely hardware companies (the orignal target of your actions in
some sense) have historically kept things proprietary to keep people
buying their hardware, and keep them paying Big Bucks for support
and availability. A legitimate target for free software, and if the
world had been different years ago, probably a beneficiary considering
the redundant development efforts done over the years. But they were
locked into competing with Big Blue on its terms and got stuck- I
sincerely hope you can win that battle.
However, what about all the companies that put honest sweat and effort
into their product? Folks that fund development with nominal charges?
They are all restricted from using the FSF software - which is where
I disagree with the copyleft - I disagree with usury, but forcing folks
who use the tools to create their product to follow along with free is
a bit hampering IMHO.
Imagine if using the worlds greatest screwdriver obligated you to give
away the system it built - if using a 68K chip obligated you to give
it and the schematics out.
Hitting companies by issuing better quality software for free as a
method of forcing them to adhere to more polite modes of business is
useful for software dependent iron companies and greedy software
companies. FSF software can only help Apple, an iron company. But,
IMHO FSF software shouldn't penalize companies trying to use it in
an honest day's work.
If it's derived, you're entitled to demand your due from copyright
law. If it's used as a tool, I really think you ought to let it
go. In my case, you'd have five more companies completely sold
on the idea, if their lawyer hadn't pissed his pants first...
Kevin Sheehan
Sun Microsystems
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: If the user does the link
Message-ID: <8906080326.AA00639@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 8 Jun 89 03:26:56 GMT
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 39
Imagine if using the worlds greatest screwdriver obligated you to give
away the system it built
This analogy is false and misleading. USING most GNU tools imposes no
restrictions. Only copying them or parts of them does so. In a
couple of cases, bison and the libraries, the way to use them involves
copying parts of them. In most cases, including gcc which is the
subject for this list, it does not.
- if using a 68K chip obligated you to give
it and the schematics out.
This analogy is better. It is accurate to a limited extent. In a
large system, it is perfectly possible for GNU programs to coexist
with separate proprietary programs. It is only within a single
program that this analogy holds.
IMHO FSF software shouldn't penalize companies trying to use it in
an honest day's work.
GNU software does not penalize anyone. It does, however, help some projects
more than others. It discriminates against hoarders.
GNU software can be used in certain ways even by hoarders. In certain
other ways, it can be used only by sharers. This is what I intended.
I have explained my reasons for this elsewhere, so I won't repeat
them here.
Many other contributors to GNU, who do not share my opposition to
proprietary software, have expressed the opinion that, if something
they wrote is going to be used in a proprietary program, they ought to
get paid. They are willing to share with sharers like me, but feel no
obligation to contribute to a proprietary program gratis.
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.
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: Linking with GNU libraries
Message-ID: <8906101539.AA00198@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 89 15:39:58 GMT
Sender: dae...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 29
I believe that your intent is to write good software, freely
available to everybody (even if they work for Apple), with the
assurance that your work never be hoarded by anyone (not even
yourself).
This is accurate.
I haven't made a final decision on policies for linking with GNU libraries.
Currently, the copyleft applies to any executable linked with them.
That is the natural result of making the copyleft simple. The problem of
writing the copyleft so that linking with GNU libraries is permitted,
but linking proprietary enhancements with a GNU program is not,
is a tricky one.
Since I do not think software should be proprietary, I would not make
a change in this for the sake of the development and marketing of
proprietary software. I would only do so if it would clearly help
GNU replace proprietary software.
If I give permission for something, I cannot take it back. A change
to permit linking of proprietary programs with GNU libraries would
be irreversible, so I won't make it unless I am certain it is best.
It is impossible to know now what is best. Until we have a complete
system and can see who uses it and who does not, all people can do is
speculate. I don't want to make an irreversible decision until I have
some real observations to base it on.