Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!uunet!meaddata!news
From: br...@meaddata.com (Bradley Keely)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Linux Emulator
Date: 1 Aug 1994 19:30:18 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 12
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <31jiga$943@meaddata.meaddata.com>
Reply-To: br...@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: raveon.meaddata.com
Anyone got a linux emulator for windows?
---
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
(((( Bradley T. Keely ((()
(((( br...@meaddata.com ((() Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
(((( Dayton, Ohiya ((()
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!sundog.tiac.net!usenet.elf.com!news2.near.net!
MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!panix!tinman.dev.prodigy.com!
swiss.ans.net!meaddata!news
From: br...@meaddata.com (Bradley Keely)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Linux Emulator (LINE)
Date: 5 Aug 1994 17:37:32 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <31ttcs$7bs@meaddata.meaddata.com>
References: <31jiga$943@meaddata.meaddata.com>
Reply-To: br...@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: raveon.meaddata.com
In article 9...@meaddata.meaddata.com, br...@meaddata.com (Bradley Keely) writes:
>
> Anyone got a linux emulator for windows?
>
Well, actually, I was only joking around. However, it does seem
possible. If anyone does develop this, call it LINE!
I am totally impressed with linux. I had linux and X running within
hours of getting it.
One thing that bothers me though...No MOTIF! It seems we have to
pay for this! Doesn't this go against everything Linux stands for?
It seems as if some kind company that has written the MOTIF libraries
from X11, should provide a free version for us Linux users.
---
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((() BEWARE: Brad tends to ramble, grab
(((( Bradley T. Keely ((() figures out of the air, and argue too
(((( br...@meaddata.com ((() much. Don't read his postings, he's
(((( Dayton, Ohiya ((() full of hot air. Use your kill button
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((() now!
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!qns1.qns.com!constellation!news.uoknor.edu!
ns1.nodak.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!pnl-oracle!osi-east2.es.net!lll-winken.llnl.gov!
seismo!darwin.sura.net!cc.gatech.edu!gemini.cc.gatech.edu!byron
From: by...@gemini.cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Linux Emulator (LINE)
Date: 5 Aug 1994 18:43:48 GMT
Organization: none
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <31u194$q49@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
References: <31jiga$943@meaddata.meaddata.com> <31ttcs$7bs@meaddata.meaddata.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gemini.cc.gatech.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: byron
In article <31ttcs$...@meaddata.meaddata.com>,
Bradley Keely <br...@meaddata.com> wrote:
-In article 9...@meaddata.meaddata.com, br...@meaddata.com (Bradley Keely) writes:
->
-> Anyone got a linux emulator for windows?
->
-
- Well, actually, I was only joking around. However, it does seem
- possible. If anyone does develop this, call it LINE!
-
- I am totally impressed with linux. I had linux and X running within
- hours of getting it.
Glad to hear it. Maybe now the thread can die.
-
- One thing that bothers me though...No MOTIF! It seems we have to
- pay for this! Doesn't this go against everything Linux stands for?
It has nothing to do with Linux. Motif is a licenesed product whose license
is sold on a per copy basis. Even if a company gives Motif away they have
to still pay the license fee.
-
- It seems as if some kind company that has written the MOTIF libraries
- from X11, should provide a free version for us Linux users.
And quickly go out of business.
The solution is to translate Motif to something free.
Later,
BAJ
--
Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!qns1.qns.com!constellation!news.uoknor.edu!
ns1.nodak.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!uwm.edu!psuvax1!
news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!swiss.ans.net!
meaddata!news
From: br...@meaddata.com (Bradley Keely)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Motif (was Linux Emulator)
Date: 5 Aug 1994 19:59:47 GMT
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Lines: 65
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <31u5nj$gcd@meaddata.meaddata.com>
References: <31u194$q49@solaria.cc.gatech.edu>
Reply-To: br...@meaddata.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: raveon.meaddata.com
In article q...@solaria.cc.gatech.edu, by...@gemini.cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes:
>In article <31ttcs$...@meaddata.meaddata.com>,
>Bradley Keely <br...@meaddata.com> wrote:
>-In article 9...@meaddata.meaddata.com, br...@meaddata.com (Bradley Keely) writes:
>->
>-> Anyone got a linux emulator for windows?
>->
>-
>- Well, actually, I was only joking around. However, it does seem
>- possible. If anyone does develop this, call it LINE!
>-
>- I am totally impressed with linux. I had linux and X running within
>- hours of getting it.
>
>Glad to hear it. Maybe now the thread can die.
I officially kill the thread...
>
>-
>- One thing that bothers me though...No MOTIF! It seems we have to
>- pay for this! Doesn't this go against everything Linux stands for?
>
>It has nothing to do with Linux. Motif is a licenesed product whose license
>is sold on a per copy basis. Even if a company gives Motif away they have
>to still pay the license fee.
>
>-
>- It seems as if some kind company that has written the MOTIF libraries
>- from X11, should provide a free version for us Linux users.
>
>And quickly go out of business.
>
>The solution is to translate Motif to something free.
That is possible...
Linux has plenty of software that others charge money for...Are
they out of business?
Didn't Sun develop XView? Linux (my package) provides it and Sun
most certainly is not "out of business."
>
>Later,
>
>BAJ
>--
>Another random extraction from the mental bit stream of...
>Byron A. Jeff - PhD student operating in parallel - And Using Linux!
>Georgia Tech, Atlanta GA 30332 Internet: by...@cc.gatech.edu
---
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((() BEWARE: Brad tends to ramble, grab
(((( Bradley T. Keely ((() figures out of the air, and argue too
(((( br...@meaddata.com ((() much. Don't read his postings, he's
(((( Dayton, Ohiya ((() full of hot air. Use your kill button
((((((((((((((((((((((((((((() now!
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!primenet!netnews.asu.edu
!asuvax!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!sunic!ugle.unit.no!and-back-again
From: agul...@flode.nvg.unit.no (Arnt Gulbrandsen)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Motif (was Linux Emulator)
Date: 12 Aug 1994 00:11:49 +0200
Organization: Nettverksgruppa - UNIT
Lines: 12
Message-ID: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no>
References: <3208a6$4go@solaria.cc.gatech.edu> <320mdh$gem@u.cc.utah.edu>
<32ci8h$h5l@crl.crl.com> <32dtmm$krv@u.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: flode.nvg.unit.no
In article <32dtmm$...@u.cc.utah.edu>,
Terry Lambert <te...@cs.weber.edu> wrote:
>Last I heard they were still working on it, but they had placed it under
>the LGPL, meaning that applications programs linked against it would have
>to distribute linkable images for new revs of the library, which would,
>in turn, reaveal the structure of those programs. No reasonable vender
>I know of ships unstripped executables except to alpha and beta sites.
Respectable vendors do ship applications that depend on shared
libraries. Not all OSes have shared libraries, though.
--Arnt
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!news.onramp.net!convex!news.duke.edu!
MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!xmission!
u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Motif (was Linux Emulator)
Date: 11 Aug 1994 23:52:32 GMT
Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <32edk0$6kh@u.cc.utah.edu>
References: <32ci8h$h5l@crl.crl.com> <32dtmm$krv@u.cc.utah.edu>
<32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu
In article <32e7n5$...@flode.nvg.unit.no> agul...@flode.nvg.unit.no
(Arnt Gulbrandsen) writes:
] In article <32dtmm$...@u.cc.utah.edu>,
] Terry Lambert <te...@cs.weber.edu> wrote:
] >Last I heard they were still working on it, but they had placed it under
] >the LGPL, meaning that applications programs linked against it would have
] >to distribute linkable images for new revs of the library, which would,
] >in turn, reaveal the structure of those programs. No reasonable vender
] >I know of ships unstripped executables except to alpha and beta sites.
]
] Respectable vendors do ship applications that depend on shared
] libraries. Not all OSes have shared libraries, though.
Ah! Someone bit! 8^). *Just joking, this wasn't intended as flame
bait, it's just that I happen have a ready answer).
It is my contention that LGPL is not sufficient in abstraction to
resolve the issue of the stub portions of the code linked into the
user application as part of linking that application with shared
libraries.
Specifically, the global and static data portions of the libraries
and the interfaces themselves *could* change, rendering the vender
in violation of LGPL, which clearly states that the user of the code
*must* be able to relink with new libraries, as desired by the user.
In effect, what I am saying is that LGPL is no different than GPL in
the shared library case, and exposes the product to legal reverse
engineering (and greatly aids in the process) in the non-shared
library case.
As an example of this type of failure of a shared library to link,
consider a C library whose definition of the 'ctype' information
has changed in moving from a standard libc to an XPG3/XPG4 compliant
libc.
I'd actually like the language clarified to explicitly allow the
post-link loading of LGPL'ed objects. This would resolve almost
all the issues that I see as sticking points, with an official
definition of "mere aggregation" being the final puzzle piece.
I also have an example in mind in which this failed, and although the
library code in question was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed, I think it is
applicable. Here it is, quoted liberally (with permission) from someone
who'd know more about it than I would:
. In the first, the one that got the most negative publicity for the FSF,
. somebody wrote some glue code for RSAREF and the GNU MP (multi-precision)
. library. The GNU MP code is GPL'd, not LGPL'd. The glue code that was
. written was *only* intended to be used with the GNU MP library. When the
. code (RSAREF) was released, the FSF (RMS, in particular, I believe) told the
. author to remove it -- the restrictions of the GPL were not compatible with
. the restrictions on RSAREF. The author replied that he had not done
. anything that would cause RSAREF to fall under the GPL, and the FSF replied
. that, by intentionally including code whose sole purpose was to interface
. and link with GPL'd code, then the resulting code fell under the GPL. (They
. were likely to have been upheld in court, incidently, since intent factors
. into contractual lawsuits as much as anything else, if not more.) This went
. on for a while, and someone ended up, while all the shouting was going on in
. public, writing some code that had identical interfaces to the GNU MP code,
. and could be used instead, and was placed into the public domain. Since
. there were then two instances of code for the interface code to link with,
. the FSF then withdrew their objections.
I provide the example to show that intent is an insufficient guarantor,
and it is the license itself and *all* the implications thereof, if
intended or not, which matter in the end.
Terry Lambert
te...@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!psgrain!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!
netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!tzs
From: t...@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Motif (was Linux Emulator)
Date: 14 Aug 1994 12:01:25 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 53
Message-ID: <32l12l$2g5@news.u.washington.edu>
References: <32ci8h$h5l@crl.crl.com> <32dtmm$krv@u.cc.utah.edu>
<32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <32edk0$6kh@u.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein4.u.washington.edu
Terry Lambert <te...@cs.weber.edu> wrote:
>It is my contention that LGPL is not sufficient in abstraction to
>resolve the issue of the stub portions of the code linked into the
>user application as part of linking that application with shared
>libraries.
You are assuming that the stub functions are copyrighted. That assumption
is questionable.
>I also have an example in mind in which this failed, and although the
>library code in question was GPL'ed instead of LGPL'ed, I think it is
>applicable. Here it is, quoted liberally (with permission) from someone
>who'd know more about it than I would:
>
>. In the first, the one that got the most negative publicity for the FSF,
>. somebody wrote some glue code for RSAREF and the GNU MP (multi-precision)
>. library. The GNU MP code is GPL'd, not LGPL'd. The glue code that was
>. written was *only* intended to be used with the GNU MP library. When the
>. code (RSAREF) was released, the FSF (RMS, in particular, I believe) told the
>. author to remove it -- the restrictions of the GPL were not compatible with
>. the restrictions on RSAREF. The author replied that he had not done
>. anything that would cause RSAREF to fall under the GPL, and the FSF replied
>. that, by intentionally including code whose sole purpose was to interface
>. and link with GPL'd code, then the resulting code fell under the GPL. (They
>. were likely to have been upheld in court, incidently, since intent factors
>. into contractual lawsuits as much as anything else, if not more.) This went
>. on for a while, and someone ended up, while all the shouting was going on in
>. public, writing some code that had identical interfaces to the GNU MP code,
>. and could be used instead, and was placed into the public domain. Since
>. there were then two instances of code for the interface code to link with,
>. the FSF then withdrew their objections.
I've not run into anyone with any legal training who thinks that FSF's
position on the RSAREF case had any legal merit whatsoever. The above
quote is complete mush. If the RSAREF case had went to court, it would
not be a contract suit. It would have been a copyright infringement suit.
Since FSF wasn't claiming that RSAREF actually copied FSF copyrighted code,
the only remotely viable legal theory they could have tried would have
been contributory infringement.
To win on a contributory infringement theory, they would have to show two
things. (1) End users are using the RSAREF code to aid in infringing FSF
copyrights. (2) There is basically no other use for the RSAREF code.
Since FSF themselves have said publically that you can do whatever you
want with GPL'ed code on your machine--it's only when you want to
distribute the code that you have to obey GPL, someone who linked
GMP with RSAREF was only in violation of GPL if they tried to distribute
the resulting program. If they just used it themselves, they would not
be in violation. That shoots down factor (2) and with it, their whole
case for contributory infringement.
--Tim Smith
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!swrinde!gatech!news.byu.edu!
cwis.isu.edu!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Subject: Re: Motif (was Linux Emulator)
Date: 14 Aug 1994 23:03:16 GMT
Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT
Lines: 96
Message-ID: <32m7rk$12k@u.cc.utah.edu>
References: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <32edk0$6kh@u.cc.utah.edu>
<32l12l$2g5@news.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu
In article <32l12l$...@news.u.washington.edu> t...@u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
] Terry Lambert <te...@cs.weber.edu> wrote:
] >It is my contention that LGPL is not sufficient in abstraction to
] >resolve the issue of the stub portions of the code linked into the
] >user application as part of linking that application with shared
] >libraries.
]
] You are assuming that the stub functions are copyrighted. That assumption
] is questionable.
I think it's a valid assumption under Berne, since there is not a notice
disclaiming copyright on them.
[ ... good points concerning contributory infingement, thanks! ... ]
] Since FSF themselves have said publically that you can do whatever you
] want with GPL'ed code on your machine--it's only when you want to
] distribute the code that you have to obey GPL, someone who linked
] GMP with RSAREF was only in violation of GPL if they tried to distribute
] the resulting program. If they just used it themselves, they would not
] be in violation. That shoots down factor (2) and with it, their whole
] case for contributory infringement.
[ ... some of the following is duplicate material ... ]
The problem with this position is that it still does not deal with the
issue of a commercial product that *is* being distributed linked with
LGPL'ed shared libraries.
What I'd like to see is a clarification of the wording of the license
to remove all doubt on this point (and on the Berne-implied copyright
that implies license infringement for static data and interfaces).
The RSAREF case *is* of interest as long as the condition which caused
it to not be pursued (that there was an equivalent interface available
for consumption) hasn't come to pass for other libraries as well.
The specific issue at hand in shared library technology in this regard
is whether or not shared libraries are interchangeable. To a large extent,
they are *not*.
A shared libc from Sun can not necessarily be exchanged for a shared
GNU libc; in all probability, there will be many failure modes, mostly
having to do with whether or not the same global and static data are
defined between the implementations.
Another issue that is not addressed is a change in the static/global
data *without* a library interface change, which is a factor that bears
on whether a newer version of an LGPL'ed library can be substituted for
a prior version per the license terms, to wit:
Library revision 1:
char foo [ 8];
some_function()
{
...
<operation on datum foo>
...
}
Library revision 2:
wchar_t new_foo[ 8];
some_function()
{
...
<operation on datum new_foo>
...
}
In the program linked with the shared library, even though there is not
an interface change, the static data from the library placed in the program
image is incompatible between revisions.
Unlike the static relinking case (where the code would continue to function),
the dynamic binding of the shared library is not entirely dynamic -- there
are artifacts, which place it in violation of section 6, paragraph 2 of
the LGPL (Version 2, June 1991).
In section 5, paragraph 2, a dynamically linked executable is clearly
identified as a derivative work of the library by virtue of inclusion
of static data and calling stubs from the library.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
te...@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!panix!
MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!msuinfo!
harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!zeus.usq.edu.au!helios!house
From: ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: FSF licences and Linux
Message-ID: <house.777267168@helios>
Sender: n...@zeus.usq.edu.au (News Administrator)
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
References: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <32edk0$6kh@u.cc.utah.edu>
<32l12l$2g5@news.u.washington.edu> <32m7rk$12k@u.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 1994 03:32:48 GMT
Lines: 21
te...@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) writes:
>In section 5, paragraph 2, a dynamically linked executable is clearly
>identified as a derivative work of the library by virtue of inclusion
>of static data and calling stubs from the library.
This discussion is starting to make me think that the FSF licences
are not really promoting freedom at all, but rather the philosophical
views of their promoters. That seems a pity, because so many generous
people have put so much work into free software. But where will we be
if, e.g., WordPerfect, can't put out a Linux version of WordPerfect
just because of half a dozen lines of code linking that program into
the systems shared libraries? All Linux user will lose because of this
sort of thing. I would like to see a committee of people who have
contributed free software getting together to design a new free licence,
and then re-releasing their work under it.
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.kei.com!ub!ns.potsdam.edu!
news.potsdam.edu!nelson
From: nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Date: 23 Aug 1994 13:35:41 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com>
References: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <32l12l$2g5@news.u.washington.edu>
<32m7rk$12k@u.cc.utah.edu> <house.777267168@helios>
<1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nh2.potsdam.edu
In-reply-to: paul@isl-gate.elsy.cf.ac.uk's message of Tue, 23 Aug 1994 03:18:51 +0000
In article <1994Aug23.031853....@cm.cf.ac.uk> p...@isl-gate.elsy.cf.ac.uk (Paul) writes:
In article <house.777267168@helios>, ron house <ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU> wrote:
>te...@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) writes:
>
>>In section 5, paragraph 2, a dynamically linked executable is clearly
>>identified as a derivative work of the library by virtue of inclusion
>>of static data and calling stubs from the library.
>
>This discussion is starting to make me think that the FSF licences
>are not really promoting freedom at all, but rather the philosophical
>views of their promoters. That seems a pity, because so many generous
It's a common misconception that FSF licenses promote freedom. Their main
aim as far as I can see is to prevent commercial entities from using FSF
code without also releasing their own code under the USL. In itself that
aim has its merits but it's not truly free code.
Depends on what you mean by free. We do not allow people to sell
themselves into slavery in this country. Does this promote freedom or
restrict it? Similarly, GPL'ed code cannot be made proprietary.
The problem with your truly free code is that it discourages
contributions by businesses. Why should I contribute "truly free
code" to a project if my competitors can suck up those contributions
without contributing their own?
--
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/crynwr/nelson.html
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | What is thee doing about it?
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!munnari.oz.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!
harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!zeus.usq.edu.au!helios!house
From: ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Message-ID: <house.777701899@helios>
Sender: n...@zeus.usq.edu.au (News Administrator)
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
References: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <32l12l$2g5@news.u.washington.edu>
<32m7rk$12k@u.cc.utah.edu> <house.777267168@helios>
<1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk> <NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 1994 04:18:19 GMT
Lines: 36
nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
>In article <1994Aug23.031853....@cm.cf.ac.uk> p...@isl-gate.elsy.cf.ac.uk (Paul) writes:
> It's a common misconception that FSF licenses promote freedom. Their main
> aim as far as I can see is to prevent commercial entities from using FSF
> code without also releasing their own code under the USL. In itself that
> aim has its merits but it's not truly free code.
>Depends on what you mean by free. We do not allow people to sell
>themselves into slavery in this country. Does this promote freedom or
>restrict it? Similarly, GPL'ed code cannot be made proprietary.
That is admirable, but that's not what people are complaining about.
>The problem with your truly free code is that it discourages
>contributions by businesses. Why should I contribute "truly free
>code" to a project if my competitors can suck up those contributions
>without contributing their own?
Scenario: I have some U BEAUT algorithms that I don't want to make
public. I get the Linux kernel, and put 'em in. Now: I can:
(a) keep it all to myself, or
(b) give away the sourse code, and with it all my secrets.
But I can not:
(c) Give away a free executable without source code to _my_ sections
of the new kernel.
I can't find any credible rationale for allowing (a) and (b) but
not (c).
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!sgiblab!
chronos.synopsys.com!news.synopsys.com!jbuck
From: jb...@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 24 Aug 1994 16:43:09 GMT
Organization: Synopsys Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043-4033
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <33ftat$vs@hermes.synopsys.com>
References: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk>
<NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com> <house.777701899@helios>
NNTP-Posting-Host: deerslayer.synopsys.com
Again, followups to gnu.misc.discuss, which is the group where flaming
over the GPL is traditionally discussed. Don't clog up technical groups
with this kind of thing.
ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
>Scenario: I have some U BEAUT algorithms that I don't want to make
>public. I get the Linux kernel, and put 'em in. Now: I can:
>(a) keep it all to myself, or
>(b) give away the sourse code, and with it all my secrets.
>
>But I can not:
>(c) Give away a free executable without source code to _my_ sections
>of the new kernel.
>
>I can't find any credible rationale for allowing (a) and (b) but
>not (c).
Clearly you haven't been trying that hard.
No one can disallow (a) and force you to disclose your ideas, so it's
irrelevant. The credible rationale for allowing (b) but not (c) is that
it increases the amount of free software in the world, and it prevents you
from exploiting the source code of others without allowing them, in turn,
to exploit your source code in return (except, of course, if you don't
distribute anything at all). This has demonstrably worked well
in the case of gcc and Linux. The source code to the device driver you
write might assist someone else in writing a driver for a similar device.
Again, I'm not saying that all free software should be licensed under the
GPL. However, in at least some cases, it has shown proven benefits.
--
-- Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com>
Posting from but not speaking for Synopsys, Inc.
***** Stamp out junk e-mail spamming! If someone sends you a junk e-mail
***** ad just because you posted in comp.foo, boycott their company.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
library.ucla.edu!agate!msuinfo!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!
garnet.bmr.gov.au!garnet.bmr.gov.au!news
From: Peter Miller <pmil...@calcium.bmr.gov.au>
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Date: 25 Aug 1994 02:09:00 GMT
Organization: Australian Geological Survey Organisation
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <33gufsINNjta@garnet.bmr.gov.au>
References: <house.777701899@helios> <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no>
<32l12l$2g5@news.u.washington.edu> <32m7rk$12k@u.cc.utah.edu>
<house.777267168@helios> <1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk>
<NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: calcium.bmr.gov.au
ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
> Now: I can:
> (a) keep it all to myself, or
> (b) give away the sourse code, and with it all my secrets.
>
> But I can not:
> (c) Give away a free executable without source code to _my_ sections
> of the new kernel.
Let me get this straight: you want to benefit from others work for
nothing, but will not make a contribution yourself. If you can't live
with the Linux ideal, buy a commercial unix, and stop bludging off others.
> I can't find any credible rationale for allowing (a) and (b) but
> not (c).
The GPL attempts to encourage (b) with out encouraging (a) or (c).
Reasons for discouraging (c) include
1. it is not portable. Linux will shortly be available on more than
386 and your little kernel tweak will be useless.
2. it is not optimizable, e.g. if I upgrade my 386 to a later chip, I
can't recompile your tweak for a faster kernel.
3. It teaches me nothing - I can't learn how to do kernels better if I
can't read it. Yes: tell the world you secrets! An eye for an eye
makes the whole world blind. Corrollary: keeping secrets stops progress.
4. You gain nothing distributing a binary - the clever folks will
reverse engineer it, and the result is an independent creative work
according to copyright law, and which *can* be GPLed.
Peter Miller UUCP uunet!munnari!agso.gov.au!pmiller
/\/\* Internet pmil...@agso.gov.au
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are personal and do not necessarily
reflect the view of my employer or the views of my colleagues.
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!chpc.utexas.edu!
news.utdallas.edu!feenix.metronet.com!skip
From: s...@metronet.com (Christopher Key)
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Message-ID: <Cv42nF.2rD@metronet.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 1994 22:04:26 GMT
References: <house.777701899@helios> <1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk>
<NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com> <33gufsINNjta@garnet.bmr.gov.au>
Organization: Texas Metronet, Internet for the Individual 214-705-2901 (info)
Lines: 13
In article <33gufsINN...@garnet.bmr.gov.au>,
Peter Miller <pmil...@calcium.bmr.gov.au> wrote:
>
>4. You gain nothing distributing a binary - the clever folks will
>reverse engineer it, and the result is an independent creative work
>according to copyright law, and which *can* be GPLed.
Depends on the country. Several have held that disassembled binaries are
not copies of the work, but the actual work itself, and as such would
still fall under whatever license the binaries fell under.
Skip
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!library.ucla.edu!agate!msuinfo!
harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!zeus.usq.edu.au!helios!house
From: ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house)
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Message-ID: <house.777871536@helios>
Sender: n...@zeus.usq.edu.au (News Administrator)
Organization: University of Southern Queensland
References: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk>
<NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com> <house.777701899@helios>
<33ftat$vs@hermes.synopsys.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 03:25:36 GMT
Lines: 64
jb...@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:
>Again, followups to gnu.misc.discuss, which is the group where flaming
>over the GPL is traditionally discussed. Don't clog up technical groups
>with this kind of thing.
>ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
>>Scenario: I have some U BEAUT algorithms that I don't want to make
>>public. I get the Linux kernel, and put 'em in. Now: I can:
>>(a) keep it all to myself, or
>>(b) give away the sourse code, and with it all my secrets.
>>
>>But I can not:
>>(c) Give away a free executable without source code to _my_ sections
>>of the new kernel.
>>
>>I can't find any credible rationale for allowing (a) and (b) but
>>not (c).
>Clearly you haven't been trying that hard.
Thanks for that vote of confidence.
>No one can disallow (a) and force you to disclose your ideas, so it's
>irrelevant. The credible rationale for allowing (b) but not (c) is that
>it increases the amount of free software in the world, and it prevents you
That is, it forces people to donate their software, even if they would rather
impose some conditions on it. In other words, it is unethical unless
you believe that programmers have no rights over their own creations.
(I have been told that is just what the FSF do believe.)
>from exploiting the source code of others without allowing them, in turn,
>to exploit your source code in return (except, of course, if you don't
>distribute anything at all). This has demonstrably worked well
But it doesn't do this: As you point out, I don't have to release my
work at all. But if I really want to make _some_ contribution, I am
forced to make a _total_ contribution. That's unethical, and takes
advantage of people's better natures to their own disadvantage..
>in the case of gcc and Linux. The source code to the device driver you
>write might assist someone else in writing a driver for a similar device.
Or it might _not_ be used at all by thousands of someone elses if the
unethical nature of the GPL makes me think twice about releasing my
work in _any_ form.
>Again, I'm not saying that all free software should be licensed under the
>GPL. However, in at least some cases, it has shown proven benefits.
I agree. What I would like is a group of people with experience to
thrash out an _ethical_ freeware licence that takes into account the
interests of _all_ parties: contributors, users, marketers, commercial
developers. That is, a licence that allows each writer to determine
the extent of their contribution. Clearly, the shareware concept has
not worked as well as the GPL, as the existence of Linux demonstrates.
However, that doesn't mean that we have to be satisfied with something
that clearly still isn't perfect.
--
Ron House. USQ
(ho...@usq.edu.au) Toowoomba, Australia.
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
uhog.mit.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
rosevax!reddwarf!grante
From: gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Message-ID: <1994Aug26.203746.19948@rosevax.rosemount.com>
Followup-To: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Sender: n...@rosevax.rosemount.com (Rosevax USENET News auto-admin account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: reddwarf
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <house.777701899@helios> <1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk>
<NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com> <33gufsINNjta@garnet.bmr.gov.au>
<Cv42nF.2rD@metronet.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 1994 20:37:46 GMT
Lines: 34
Christopher Key (s...@metronet.com) wrote:
: Peter Miller <pmil...@calcium.bmr.gov.au> wrote:
: >
: >4. You gain nothing distributing a binary - the clever folks will
: >reverse engineer it, and the result is an independent creative work
: >according to copyright law, and which *can* be GPLed.
: Depends on the country. Several have held that disassembled binaries are
: not copies of the work, but the actual work itself, and as such would
: still fall under whatever license the binaries fell under.
So?
Reverse engineering something is more that just disassembling.
After you disassemble it, you figure out what it does and how it
works, and then you go design and write your own program that does the
same thing without copying any chunks of code.
To be safe, some companies have two different groups do the two tasks,
one group figures out how X works, and they write a functional
specification. Then, another group that's never seen the disassembled
stuff implements the spec.
Unless you've got a really clever algorithm that you've patented,
there's very little you can do to stop somebody from legally
reverse-engineering your program and designing a work-alike.
--
Grant Edwards |Yow! Is this the line for
Rosemount Inc. |the latest whimsical
|YUGOSLAVIAN drama which also
gra...@rosemount.com |makes you want to CRY and
|reconsider the VIETNAM WAR?
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!pipex!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Message-ID: <Cv8vtw.FMq@info.swan.ac.uk>
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <1994Aug23.031853.382@cm.cf.ac.uk>>
<NELSON.94Aug23093541@crynwr.crynwr.com> <house.777701899@helios>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 1994 12:25:07 GMT
Lines: 20
In article <house.777701899@helios> ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU (ron house) writes:
>Scenario: I have some U BEAUT algorithms that I don't want to make
>public. I get the Linux kernel, and put 'em in. Now: I can:
>(a) keep it all to myself, or
>(b) give away the sourse code, and with it all my secrets.
>
>But I can not:
>(c) Give away a free executable without source code to _my_ sections
>of the new kernel.
>
Because the people who went to the trouble of _GIVING_ you the rest of it
don't see why you shouldn't then give your contribution back to that
community.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!news.kei.com!
uhog.mit.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!
news.funet.fi!news.csc.fi!news.helsinki.fi!not-for-mail
From: torva...@cc.Helsinki.FI (Linus Torvalds)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Date: 28 Aug 1994 21:59:50 +0300
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 48
Message-ID: <33qmr6$4u2@kruuna.Helsinki.FI>
References: <32e7n5$sii@flode.nvg.unit.no> <house.777701899@helios>
<33ftat$vs@hermes.synopsys.com> <house.777871536@helios>
NNTP-Posting-Host: kruuna.helsinki.fi
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In article <house.777871536@helios>, ron house <ho...@helios.usq.EDU.AU> wrote:
>
>But it doesn't do this: As you point out, I don't have to release my
>work at all. But if I really want to make _some_ contribution, I am
>forced to make a _total_ contribution. That's unethical, and takes
>advantage of people's better natures to their own disadvantage..
I don't usually reply to these stupid threads (the whole newsgroup is
one large flame), but sometimes even I get irritated. Let's do this
short tutorial in a few simple steps and maybe somebody sees the light:
1) I wrote the code
Corollary:
- I get to decide the copyright
Simple so far, no?
2) I don't know you
Corollary:
- Why should I care about what you want?
Specifically, why do you take for granted that you are supposed to be
able to use my code in whatever way you see fit?
3) If your contribution is binary, I can't use it or fix it when
it breaks.
Corollary:
- your "contribution" isn't. At least to me.
I have my reasons to think that the FSF licence works very well for
Linux - it would certainly never have reached the state it has without
that kind of licence, and I don't see any reason to change it. I'm
certainly not going to change my mind when some idiotic person whines
about it being "unethical".
If you don't like it, you can use some other licence: people I respect
have their own reasons to think that the BSD licence makes more sense,
and I can certainly understand their reasons too. I find the GPL a
reasonable choice for me.
I have had a few persons mail me to say that they chose to go *BSD due
to the copyright issue, and that's ok. I won't necessarily be thrilled
by it, but it's their choice. But please don't whine about it,
Linus
Newsgroups: comp.emulators.ms-windows.wine,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!redstone.interpath.net!ddsw1!panix!
MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: FSF licences and Linux
Message-ID: <CvCvvy.52u@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <33gufsINNjta@garnet.bmr.gov.au> <Cv42nF.2rD@metronet.com>
<1994Aug26.203746.19948@rosevax.rosemount.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 16:16:46 GMT
Lines: 16
In article <1994Aug26.203746.19...@rosevax.rosemount.com>
gra...@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
>Unless you've got a really clever algorithm that you've patented,
>there's very little you can do to stop somebody from legally
>reverse-engineering your program and designing a work-alike.
Outside the US the real world understands that algorithms are
mathematical expressions and not patentable anyway. Inside the US everyone
starts talking about boycotting you 8)
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''