Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
bu-cs!lll-winken!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 19 Dec 89 16:06:37 GMT
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 78
There's been a lot of discussion about the GNU Public License. I, along
with a few others, have decried the part of the license that forces a
software author who uses any part of GNU code to make his entire package
available under the terms of the License, which requires that he make
the complete source code available for only a copying charge and
prohibits him from protecting his own code by imposing any greater
restrictions than those contained in the License.
The part of the License that does this is paragraph 2b:
b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that
in whole or in part contains the Program or any part thereof, either
with or without modifications, to be licensed at no charge to all
third parties under the terms of this General Public License (except
that you may choose to grant warranty protection to some or all
third parties, at your option).
This is a legal virus, as insidious and as evil as the (all too common)
computer virus. It forces anyone who wishes to use GNU code in his
program to subscribe to Richard M. Stallman's utopia.
How is this harmful? Let's take a recent example: Someone posted a
version of GNU's getopt() that he had modified to accept / as well as -
as the switch character to alt.sources - without including a copy of the
GNU Public License. While I understand and agree that this was a dirty,
rotten thing to do, and he should not have done it, and that he should
be strung up, keelhauled, drawn, quartered, minced, buried in warm peat
for three months, and then boiled in oil, let's look at another effect
of this: the effect on some poor slob who innocently snarfs a copy of
the code and builds it into his life's work.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still
covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing
it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to
WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it
away, forever.
This is theft.
What should be done about it?
I call upon the Free Software Foundation to issue a new version of the
GNU Public License, with paragraph 2b replaced by the following:
b) cause those portions of any work that you distribute or publish
that are portions of the Program, either with or without modification,
to be licensed at no charge to all third parties under the terms of
this General Public License (except that you may choose to grant
warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option).
At one stroke, this would disinfect the virus. No longer would we have
to freely distribute our code just because we used GNU regexp, for
example. If we modify GNU code, that modified code would still be
available, under the same terms that guarantee that everyone can still
have a copy. Nobody could sabotage a programming project's commercial
viability by slipping in some GNU code. In short, we would be free not
to join in RMS' utopia.
I also note that you cannot include this replacement on your own in a
license you wish to apply to your own independently developed code,
because of the following language at the head of the GNU Public License:
Copyright (C) 1989 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
675 Mass Ave, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Therefore, fixing this can only be done by the FSF itself.
Finally, I do not get the gnu.* groups here; if you cannot post to
alt.religion.computers, please email me a copy of your comments.
--
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 +----------------------------------------
Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ark1!ophiuchi!dsill
From: ds...@ophiuchi.nswc.navy.mil (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Date: 20 Dec 89 17:00:48 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>
Sender: n...@relay.nswc.navy.mil (News)
Reply-To: Dave Sill <ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Organization: Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren VA
Lines: 48
In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>, j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you
ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>
> This is a legal virus, as insidious and as evil as the (all too common)
> computer virus. ----
BS. I don't see how you can compare something designed to destroy
data and make life difficult for people with something designed to cut
down on the reinvention of software "wheels".
> It forces anyone who wishes to use GNU code in his
> program to subscribe to Richard M. Stallman's utopia.
So what? If you don't like that, don't use the software.
> How is this harmful? Let's take a recent example: Someone posted a
> version of GNU's getopt() that he had modified to accept / as well as -
> as the switch character to alt.sources - without including a copy of the
> GNU Public License.
I believe the copyright messages in the code referenced the GPL. Not
including a copy was a minor omission.
> ... let's look at another effect of this: the effect on some poor
> slob who innocently snarfs a copy of the code and builds it into his
> life's work.
Without reading the copyright message? He deserves what he gets.
> Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still
> covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing
> it,
Come on, aren't you exaggerating just a tad?
> he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to
> WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it
> away, forever.
> In short, we would be free not to join in RMS' utopia.
You don't need to change the GPL to do that.
> Therefore, fixing this can only be done by the FSF itself.
You can write your own license based on the GPL.
Dave Sill (ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil)
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
uunet!van-bc!ubc-cs!manis
From: ma...@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <6055@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Date: 21 Dec 89 02:10:34 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>
Sender: n...@cs.ubc.ca
Reply-To: ma...@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis)
Organization: The Invisible City of Kitezh
Lines: 49
Somebody recently posted a 1-line article reading `Boy, is this
newsgroup stupid.' After going through 100 or so gnu.misc.discuss
articles, I'm inclined to agree with this person.
After reading the GPL very carefully, I am unable to see *anything*
different in kind from a standard licence agreement for a programming
language. Indeed, anything which incorporates FSF products becomes
subject to their licence agreement. This is also true of *every*
programming language product with which I am familiar.
For example: suppose that I buy Borland's optional Turbo C library
source package. I can link Turbo C library object modules into my
program, and then distribute the program without paying any royalties;
however, However, I can't make modifications in the library code and
then distribute the result as a library called `Manis C Library',
whether it be for money or not. (Borland, which has remarkably sensible
licencing policies, still retains ownership of the components of their
package.)
Similarly, Texas Instruments markets a quite good Scheme system, at a
very low cost. That system does not produce executables, so you need a
copy of (and hence a licence for) TI's Scheme system for each machine on
which you wish to run a program.
I have not heard any of the anti-FSF types in this newsgroup dumping on
Borland or Texas Instruments for their `restraint of trade' in refusing
to give their software away. Admittedly, FSF's licence agreement is
somewhat more restrictive than either Borland's or TI's, but, having
accepted the principle, all we're doing is haggling over where to draw
the line, as the Archbishop said to the chorusperson.
It seems to me that FSF's sin, in the minds of its opponents, is to give
the code away, thus undercutting (in at least their own minds) some of
the readers' livelihoods. But here's the paradox: if you believe that
this undercutting exists, then you have already conceded victory to RMS.
That's exactly his point in the GNU Manifesto.
What it comes down to is simple: deciding to use a particular software
package is a complex decision, based upon capabilities, performance,
cost, and licence conditions. In that regard, FSF is no different than
Ashton-Tate. (I happen to have a much higher regard for FSF's ethics
than for most software publishers, but that's a different thing.) If
Ashton-Tate can claim ownership of the dBASE IV code, why can't FSF do
the same thing with GNU C?
--
\ Vincent Manis <ma...@cs.ubc.ca> "There is no law that vulgarity and
\ Department of Computer Science literary excellence cannot coexist."
/\ University of British Columbia -- A. Trevor Hodge
/ \ Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1W5 (604) 228-2394
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
samsung!shadooby!umich!itivax!scs
From: s...@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <4686@itivax.iti.org>
Date: 21 Dec 89 15:19:42 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <6055@ubc-cs.UUCP>
Sender: n...@itivax.iti.org
Lines: 18
ma...@cs.ubc.ca (Vincent Manis) writes:
>After reading the GPL very carefully, I am unable to see *anything*
>different in kind from a standard licence agreement for a programming
>language . . .
>I have not heard any of the anti-FSF types in this newsgroup dumping on
>Borland or Texas Instruments for their `restraint of trade' in refusing
>to give their software away . . .
The primary thing that offends people about the GPS/Free Software
Foundation is misinterpretation of the word "free". "Free" here
means "no charge". It does not mean "unencumbered".
Meself, I'd prefer that it meant unencumbered -- but if that's the
way they want to do it, it's their code.
Anybody want to start the Unencumbered Software Foundation? :-)/2
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!tower
From: to...@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: FSF's name
Message-ID: <8912211907.AA09570@wheat-chex>
Date: 21 Dec 89 19:07:48 GMT
References: <4686@itivax.iti.org>
Sender: k...@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: gnu-misc-disc...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation,
675 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139, USA +1 (617) 876-3296
Lines: 32
Date: 21 Dec 89 15:19:42 GMT
From: samsung!shadooby!umich!itivax!...@cs.utexas.edu (Steve Simmons)
The primary thing that offends people
It's not the primary thing for all people. It's may be the primary
thing for a subset of the subset of all people, where this subset of
all people is defined as those are offended in some way about FSF.
about the GPS
I assume GPL is meant here.
/Free Software
Foundation is misinterpretation of the word "free". "Free" here
means "no charge". It does not mean "unencumbered".
It's not a misinterpretation of the word "free". It's just that some
people choose one interpretation over another.
Here's a third:
FSF's name was choosen in the spirit of 'Free the Chicago 7' (among
other reasons). Part of the thought was that the software itself was
freed and couldn't be restricted by anyone at the cost of another.
In retrospect, I wish we had named the foundation the:
Software Freedom Foundation.
It would have reduced our educational burden some. ;-}
thanx -len
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!
tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!nuchat!moray!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 22 Dec 89 02:09:22 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 13
In article <1989Dec20.170048.14...@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill
<ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes:
>In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>, j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you
>ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>> Therefore, fixing this can only be done by the FSF itself.
>You can write your own license based on the GPL.
Not without violating the copyright, I can't.
--
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 +----------------------------------------
Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!
aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <1989Dec22.174425.10485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 89 17:44:25 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>
<1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com>
Sender: n...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 13
Ireallyam: gl8f
In article <7FX...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>In article <1989Dec20.170048.14...@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill
<ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes:
>>You can write your own license based on the GPL.
>Not without violating the copyright, I can't.
Did you ask them yet? Nope.
The FSF is a group of people, not a group of devils. Reasonable peple.
------
Greg Lindahl
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!
texbell!nuchat!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <4212AD@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 25 Dec 89 22:46:16 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>
<1989Dec20.170048.14251@relay.nswc.navy.mil> <7FXNY#@splut.conmicro.com>
<1989Dec22.174425.10485@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 20
In article <1989Dec22.174425.10...@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
g...@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
>In article <7FX...@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
>>In article <1989Dec20.170048.14...@relay.nswc.navy.mil> Dave Sill
<ds...@relay.nswc.navy.mil> writes:
>>>You can write your own license based on the GPL.
>>Not without violating the copyright, I can't.
>Did you ask them yet? Nope.
>The FSF is a group of people, not a group of devils. Reasonable peple.
If I can distribute modified copes of the GPL, why would they
specifically state that redistribution of unmodified copies of the
license but that thye must remain unmodified??
Their idea of what is moral with regard to licensing restrictions and
mine differ greatly. Maybe not devils, but thieves...
--
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 +----------------------------------------
Here come Democrats...here come Democrats...throwing money a-way...
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!
image.soe.clarkson.edu!news
From: nel...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <NELSON.90Jan16164120@image.clarkson.edu>
Date: 16 Jan 90 21:41:41 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com>
Sender: n...@sun.soe.clarkson.edu
Reply-To: nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY
Lines: 29
In-reply-to: jay@splut.conmicro.com's message of 19 Dec 89 16:06:37 GMT
In article <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> j...@splut.conmicro.com
(Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard) writes:
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, so the user of the code is still
covered by the terms of the GNU Public License. Presto! Without knowing
it, he's just obligated himself to giving away the source code to
WhizzoCalc, and prevented himself from keeping others from giving it
away, forever.
Some short time ago someone asked for examples of public domain code that
had been expropriated by a producer of commercial software. No one could
come up with an example.
I suggest that you come up with an example of someone who unintentionally
"infected" his code.
In short, we would be free not to join in RMS' utopia.
As people have pointed out ad nauseum, you are perfectly free NOT to
join in RMS' utopia. Just don't use any of his property, and you
won't have to abide by the rules he puts on the use of his property.
RMS *wants* the GPL to be a virus. At least, that is my conclusion
based on my interpretation of the GPL. Why do you keep attempting
to make this conclusion into a pejorative?
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!uhnix1!splut!jay
From: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Disinfecting the GNU Public Virus...er...License
Message-ID: <SRD:BT.@splut.conmicro.com>
Date: 18 Jan 90 00:36:29 GMT
References: <4&VSZ:@splut.conmicro.com> <NELSON.90Jan16164120@image.clarkson.edu>
Reply-To: j...@splut.conmicro.com (Jay "you ignorant splut!" Maynard)
Organization: Confederate Microsystems, League City, TX
Lines: 31
In article <NELSON.90Jan16164...@image.clarkson.edu> nel...@clutx.clarkson.edu
writes:
>Some short time ago someone asked for examples of public domain code that
>had been expropriated by a producer of commercial software. No one could
>come up with an example.
Huh? WHat does this have to do with it?
>I suggest that you come up with an example of someone who unintentionally
>"infected" his code.
I'm not sure that someone has, yet...but there's plenty of time. The
opportunity certainly exists.
>As people have pointed out ad nauseum, you are perfectly free NOT to
>join in RMS' utopia. Just don't use any of his property, and you
>won't have to abide by the rules he puts on the use of his property.
...which means don't use his libraries and don't use Bison, either. Sure
sounds like a significant restriction to me.
>RMS *wants* the GPL to be a virus. At least, that is my conclusion
>based on my interpretation of the GPL. Why do you keep attempting
>to make this conclusion into a pejorative?
Because it *is* a pejorative - just like "thief".
--
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 +----------------------------------------
"There is no doubt I should be tarred and feathered." - Richard Sexton