Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
sgiblab!chronos.synopsys.com!news.synopsys.com!jbuck
From: jb...@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 7 Sep 1994 05:52:31 GMT
Organization: Synopsys Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043-4033
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <34jkev$b0e@hermes.synopsys.com>
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34i071$bmi@brachio.zrz.TU-Berlin.DE>
<34irjb$ps9@news.nynexst.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sauron-64.synopsys.com
h...@nynexst.com (H.J. Lu) writes:
>I still think the commercial softwares should be encouraged under
>Linux. There are places for everyone under Linux. The kernel, the C
>library and other basic components should remain free. The user can make
>choices on the commercial applications.
Certainly. And RMS and MIB have also said that commercial/binary-only
stuff will be allowed on the Hurd.
Note, however, that crt0.S could have used the "as a special exception"
copyright used by the stuff in libgcc.a: the file itself is under the
GPL, but as a special exception, applications built with gcc and linked
to it don't fall under the GPL. This is how the FSF and Cygnus folk
have been addressing the issue of key files that always have to be
linked in.
--
-- 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: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!slsv6bt!slbh01.bln.sel.alcatel.de!rcvie!
Austria.EU.net!EU.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!slip-14-1.ots.utexas.edu!lilo
From: l...@slip-14-1.ots.utexas.edu (Dances With Geeks)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 7 Sep 1994 19:54:51 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 41
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-14-1.ots.utexas.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
On 5 Sep 1994 22:04:13 GMT, H.J. Lu (h...@nynexst.com) wrote:
> Today after I talked with RMS on the phone, I learned that the GNU project
> is preparing for a Linux/GNU distribution based on the Debian distribution,
> which is due in a few weeks. I think noone should call GNU is a vaporware
> now since the Linux/GNU system is running on x86. I was told if Linux had
> came along be fore hurd was started Linux would have been used as the GNU
> kernel. Now since hurd is well on the way, it should not be aborted. It looks
> like porting Linux to other platforms may pick up some steams as well as the
> work on the Linux kernel. I am glad to see it finnally happen.
I don't want to rain on the parade, but I hope we do *not* start considering
ourselves a GNU system. We use the GNU software, it's wonderful stuff, I
like it, but we also use whatever fits in with the Linux philosophy, which
is much more unconstrained and much less ideological than the GNU
philosophy, IMO. There are licensing problems in the standard GNU approach,
again IMO, involving the linkage of libraries into applications. I'm not
saying the GNU approach is wrong, just that it's not as open as it might be.
I'm glad to see that the Debian release is moving along--but not because I
think Linux development should be subsumed into it. On the contrary, I
think the strength of development for Linux is that there are a number of
competing, independent threads which serve to strengthen the whole tapestry.
I would hate to see that change, as it would inevitably do if we became part
of a less-flexible structure.
I very much appreciate the amount of work that has gone into GNU software,
and the quality of that software. I use it all the time! But I don't think
that recognition by FSF is the primary measure of the success of Linux.
They are different things entirely.
Mainstreaming support for Linux in GCC is another issue entirely, BTW....if
Linux is used extensively in the community, it probably makes sense for both
Linux people and GNU people for both groups to work closely together....
Anyway, if my message isn't reasonably diplomatic, I better apologize in
advance, I've had nine hours of sleep in two days and really need about
twice that :) :)
lilo
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mib
From: m...@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 08 Sep 1994 14:14:56 GMT
Organization: Touring Consulting Services
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <MIB.94Sep8101456@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<34llf3$srt@hermes.synopsys.com> <Cvt4Fv.Ao9@info.swan.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk's message of Thu, 8 Sep 1994 10:43:07 GMT
In article <Cvt4Fv....@info.swan.ac.uk> iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes:
The FSF seem to have a habit of trying to use their (as opposed to other
peoples) GPL'd code as a political lever at time (eg the RSAREF thing).
Thats a pity and detracts from the basic aim.
Apparently you haven't understood the basic aim of the FSF. Far from
detracting from the basic aim, that *IS* the basic aim.
--
+1 617 623 3248 (H) | En arche en ho logos,
+1 617 253 8568 (W) -+- kai ho logos en pros ton theon,
1105 Broadway | kai theos en ho logos.
Somerville, MA 02144 | Kai ho logos sarx egeneto,
m...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | kai eskenosen en hemin.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornell!mdw
From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 14:22:06 GMT
Lines: 30
In article <34l5qb$...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> l...@slip-14-1.ots.utexas.edu
(Dances With Geeks) writes:
>There are licensing problems in the standard GNU approach,
>again IMO, involving the linkage of libraries into applications. I'm not
>saying the GNU approach is wrong, just that it's not as open as it might be.
Sorry, but you're stuck with the "GNU approach" (whatever that means)
because you use software and libraries covered by the GPL. Any "problems"
perceived with GNU software applies equally to Linux.
RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems
should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel. This
might be an over-generalization, but you get the idea. Linux systems
don't use exclusively GNU software, and don't adhere 100% to the
GPL ideal. However, the _guts_ of the system (kernel, libraries,
all of the basic and no-so-basic binaries, and so forth) are all
covered by the GPL. Most of these were developed by the GNU project.
Why shouldn't GNU receive recognition for this? RMS is simply stating
the status quo in a different way.
The Debian Linux Association is working with the FSF in order to
develop a good working relationship with them, as well as to
assist each other through shared resources. Case in point: I'm
going to Cambridge (perhaps next week) to install Debian on a machine
on the FSF's network. The GNU project has donated the machine and
network connectivity for Debian's use---something that we can all
benefit from.
Calm down. The FSF isn't the Borg. They are not out to assimilate Linux.
M. Welsh
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!slsv6bt!slbh01.bln.sel.alcatel.de!rcvie!
Austria.EU.net!EU.net!uunet!chronos.synopsys.com!news.synopsys.com!jbuck
From: jb...@synopsys.com (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 8 Sep 1994 00:21:55 GMT
Organization: Synopsys Inc., Mountain View, CA 94043-4033
Lines: 27
Message-ID: <34llf3$srt@hermes.synopsys.com>
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: deerslayer.synopsys.com
l...@slip-14-1.ots.utexas.edu (Dances With Geeks) writes:
>There are licensing problems in the standard GNU approach,
>again IMO, involving the linkage of libraries into applications. I'm not
>saying the GNU approach is wrong, just that it's not as open as it might be.
If there are licensing problems in the GNU approach, then Linux suffers
from them. The kernel is under the GPL, the C library is under the LGPL,
certain key files always linked in, like libgcc.a and crt0.S have special
exceptions to avoid bringing whole applications under the GPL. These
statements are true of both Linux and the future Hurd. There is no
difference, Linux is using every single GNU licensing convention exactly
as the FSF intended.
The only difference I can see is attitude: the FSF people talk about
software hoarders, grumble a lot but then adjust their licenses where
needed (example: the stream classes in libg++ moved from the LGPL to the
"as a special exception" no-restrictions license), and the Linux people
are more relaxed about the whole thing. But legally, it's *exactly* the
same: if you have problems with the GNU licensing approach you'll need
to abandon Linux and join up with the BSD folks.
--
-- Joe Buck <jb...@synopsys.com>
Posting from but not speaking for Synopsys, Inc.
***** Stamp out junk e-mail spamming! If someone sends you a junk e-mail
***** ad just because you posted in comp.foo, boycott their company.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!slsv6bt!slbh01.bln.sel.alcatel.de!rcvie!
Austria.EU.net!EU.net!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <Cvt4Fv.Ao9@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<34llf3$srt@hermes.synopsys.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 1994 10:43:07 GMT
Lines: 25
In article <34llf3$...@hermes.synopsys.com> jb...@synopsys.com (Joe Buck) writes:
>certain key files always linked in, like libgcc.a and crt0.S have special
>exceptions to avoid bringing whole applications under the GPL. These
>statements are true of both Linux and the future Hurd. There is no
Note the kernel syscall interface is also explicitly removed from the list.
If I wanted to be paranoid, I'd download the dll tools generate my own
dynamic library binding files (so they are mine not GNU's) and have a quick
check that none of the headers used >10 lines of code. Structures then don't
matter here (interface copyright stuff).
>The only difference I can see is attitude: the FSF people talk about
>software hoarders, grumble a lot but then adjust their licenses where
>needed (example: the stream classes in libg++ moved from the LGPL to the
The FSF seem to have a habit of trying to use their (as opposed to other
peoples) GPL'd code as a political lever at time (eg the RSAREF thing).
Thats a pity and detracts from the basic aim.
Alan
[GPL but not FSF supporter...]
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx10.cs.du.edu!not-for-mail
From: jmayn...@nyx10.cs.du.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 8 Sep 1994 17:54:46 -0600
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <34o886$2u5@nyx10.cs.du.edu>
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nyx10.cs.du.edu
In article <1994Sep8.142206.18...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Matt Welsh <m...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>Calm down. The FSF isn't the Borg. They are not out to assimilate Linux.
Of course not. As you point out earlier in your message, they've already
done it.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@admin5.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
The US Constitution: 1789-1994. RIP.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!nic-nac.CSU.net!
charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!news.hal.COM!halsoft.com!netcomsv!pell!orc
From: o...@pell.com (Orc)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Sender: o...@pell.com (Orc)
Organization: Mind-reading, super-smart bisexuals with silly names
Message-ID: <CvvtAu.4vq@pell.com>
Originator: o...@pell.com
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 1994 21:35:17 GMT
Lines: 19
In article <1994Sep8.142206.18...@cs.cornell.edu>,
Matt Welsh <m...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems
>should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel.
Well, that certainly puts a new twist on the GPL. An unpleasant
one; GPLing things makes them part of the GNU project.
[...]
>Why shouldn't GNU receive recognition for this?
No reason. But since my first interpretation of RMS's idea is
that the FSF will take credit for work they've not done, it seems
like it's not the most politic way to ask for recognition.
____
david parsons \bi/ who won't be GPLing any more of his code.
\/
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!slip-1-72.ots.utexas.edu!lilo
From: l...@slip-1-72.ots.utexas.edu (Dances With Geeks)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 11 Sep 1994 00:23:25 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <34tilt$kkj@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
References: <34g4kt$ij7@news.nynexst.com> <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: slip-1-72.ots.utexas.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
On Thu, 8 Sep 1994 14:22:06 GMT, Matt Welsh (m...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
> In article <34l5qb$...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> l...@slip-14-1.ots.utexas.edu
(Dances With Geeks) writes:
> >There are licensing problems in the standard GNU approach,
> >again IMO, involving the linkage of libraries into applications. I'm not
> >saying the GNU approach is wrong, just that it's not as open as it might be.
> Sorry, but you're stuck with the "GNU approach" (whatever that means)
> because you use software and libraries covered by the GPL. Any "problems"
> perceived with GNU software applies equally to Linux.
Sorry, but you're wrong. The Linux kernel, for example, adds additional
disclaimers which modify the GNU-format license it is used under.
Also, a GNU license which is owned by FSF would be enforced by FSF (at least
FSF would attempt to enforce its license as it saw fit, which could
certainly be a nuisance at times, and which would probably change the
emphasis of Linux licensing.).
> RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems
> should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel. This
> might be an over-generalization, but you get the idea. Linux systems
> don't use exclusively GNU software, and don't adhere 100% to the
> GPL ideal. However, the _guts_ of the system (kernel, libraries,
> all of the basic and no-so-basic binaries, and so forth) are all
> covered by the GPL. Most of these were developed by the GNU project.
> Why shouldn't GNU receive recognition for this? RMS is simply stating
> the status quo in a different way.
GNU software *has* received recognition for being GNU software.
Nonetheless, the Linux itself was not written by FSF, has a modified GPL,
and could be packaged in a distribution which did not include FSF software
(and, I think, has been, at early stages of its development). It would
still remain Linux. FSF software without Linux would just be, um, FSF
software, wouldn't it? ;)
I have no problem with RMS stating his views in any way he sees fit.
Nonetheless, I believe too close an association with FSF would not
especially profit Linux.
> The Debian Linux Association is working with the FSF in order to
> develop a good working relationship with them, as well as to
> assist each other through shared resources. Case in point: I'm
> going to Cambridge (perhaps next week) to install Debian on a machine
> on the FSF's network. The GNU project has donated the machine and
> network connectivity for Debian's use---something that we can all
> benefit from.
That's nice. I'm sure everyone will benefit from the competition, as long
as we don't all decide that all we need is One Really Good Distribution. :)
:)
> Calm down. The FSF isn't the Borg. They are not out to assimilate Linux.
Oh, I'm perfectly calm. Thank you for your solicitous interest *innocent
look*. ;)
> M. Welsh
lilo
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornell!mdw
From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <1994Sep11.200842.22743@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850
References: <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu> <CvvtAu.4vq@pell.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 20:08:42 GMT
Lines: 27
In article <CvvtAu....@pell.com> o...@pell.com (Orc) writes:
>In article <1994Sep8.142206.18...@cs.cornell.edu>,
>Matt Welsh <m...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems
>>should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel.
>
> Well, that certainly puts a new twist on the GPL. An unpleasant
>one; GPLing things makes them part of the GNU project.
This is absolutely wrong. This viewpoint has nothing to do with
the fact that Linux is covered by the GPL. If you had bothered
to read my message, you would have known that. It has to do
with the fact that Linux systems use GNU software for nearly
all basic utilities, including the libraries.
> No reason. But since my first interpretation of RMS's idea is
>that the FSF will take credit for work they've not done, it seems
>like it's not the most politic way to ask for recognition.
The FSF is not taking credit for anything that they have not
done. What they HAVE done is provide a damn fine base upon
which to build a complete UNIX system such as Linux. Or did
believe that it was the Linux development team which wrote gcc,
libc, and the dozens of other software tools which your Linux
system depends upon to run?
M. Welsh
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: nntp.gmd.de!xlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!cornell!mdw
From: m...@cs.cornell.edu (Matt Welsh)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu>
Organization: Cornell CS Robotics and Vision Laboratory, Ithaca, NY 14850
References: <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu> <34tilt$kkj@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
Date: Sun, 11 Sep 1994 20:12:08 GMT
Lines: 15
In article <34tilt$...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> l...@slip-1-72.ots.utexas.edu
(Dances With Geeks) writes:
>On Thu, 8 Sep 1994 14:22:06 GMT, Matt Welsh (m...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
>> Sorry, but you're stuck with the "GNU approach" (whatever that means)
>> because you use software and libraries covered by the GPL. Any "problems"
>> perceived with GNU software applies equally to Linux.
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong. The Linux kernel, for example, adds additional
>disclaimers which modify the GNU-format license it is used under.
Those "disclaimers" don't relieve the fundamental problems that
people perceive with the GPL, namely, the fact that (a) source
mustg be provided, and (b) modifications must be copylefted as
well.
M. Welsh
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc
Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!bt!
uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <Cw0yH7.5Gy@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <34l5qb$dfo@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu> <CvvtAu.4vq@pell.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 1994 16:15:07 GMT
Lines: 26
In article <CvvtAu....@pell.com> o...@pell.com (Orc) writes:
>In article <1994Sep8.142206.18...@cs.cornell.edu>,
>Matt Welsh <m...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>>RMS's idea (which I have heard first-hand) is that Linux systems
>>should be considered GNU systems with Linux as the kernel.
> Well, that certainly puts a new twist on the GPL. An unpleasant
>one; GPLing things makes them part of the GNU project.
Chuckle.. poor Mr Stallman I guess the Linux community will have to absorb
him rather than the reverse.
>>Why shouldn't GNU receive recognition for this?
> No reason. But since my first interpretation of RMS's idea is
>that the FSF will take credit for work they've not done, it seems
>like it's not the most politic way to ask for recognition.
RMS is RMS. He can think what he likes. Do you think anyone cares ? I don't
see what the difference between GNU using Linux and anyone else using Linux
is apart from its more good publicity for us and makes their hurd project
look rather silly 8)
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!
MathWorks.Com!news.kei.com!ddsw1!not-for-mail
From: macgy...@MCS.COM (MacGyver)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 16 Sep 1994 03:43:13 -0500
Organization: TOS Enterprises.
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <35blr1$cnm@Venus.mcs.com>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu> <Cw66Az.9Co@info.swan.ac.uk>
<MIB.94Sep15112455@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <35a4tl$8gq@hermes.synopsys.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: venus.mcs.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2 (KSD)]
I've been following this thread since its inception, and I really would like
to know something -- do we REALLY need all these restrictions and license
agreements? Personally, I think the notion has been blown WAY out of
proportion by the folks at FSF and a couple of other places. Placing a
copyright on code you wrote is definitely something worthwhile and its not
something most people dispute, but, to FORCE people who use a certain package
to have to abide by any special rules is completely ridiculous. Such practices
force people to look elsewhere for packages or libraries, often wasting many
precious man hours because a few people decided that they released something
and put it under licensing terms that essentially enforce their views on
source availiblity, and they get away with it!
I would argue against most forms of licensing, especially the GPL/LGPL. I feel
that if someone releases something with source code (unless it's specifically
Shareware or such), they are effectively saying 'Ok, I designed this package,
feel free to use it/modify it, but give credit to the author(s) if you use this
package/library'. Such an attitude doesn't, in my mind, infringe on the
author's rights, so long as he/she is give the appropriate credit. It's
simple, it's clean, and it makes a lot of sense, so then why do people at FSF
insist on making things difficult?
HJD.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!deathstar.cris.com!news1.oakland.edu!
vtc.tacom.army.mil!ulowell!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!emory!swrinde!pipex!
lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!warwick!uknet!info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <Cw66Az.9Co@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<34tilt$kkj@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu> <1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 11:52:11 GMT
Lines: 40
In article <1994Sep11.201208.22...@cs.cornell.edu> m...@cs.cornell.edu
(Matt Welsh) writes:
>Those "disclaimers" don't relieve the fundamental problems that
>people perceive with the GPL, namely, the fact that (a) source
>mustg be provided, and (b) modifications must be copylefted as
>well.
Well the problem is what constitutes an interface and thats something GNU
do need to clean up. There are numerous other little problems with it like
any other license
eg - Can BSD code be incorporated and redistributed as part
of a GPL program: Specifically does the BSD license
requirement for credits in the documentation etc count
as an 'additional restriction' on distribution as the GPL
requires there are none. If it does (as my legal info says)
then you can't mix BSD with GPL and distribute the result.
If it doesn't can I therefore sell software GPL'd but with
a documentation requirement of must come with this expensive
booklet I've written ?
- How do inline functions in include files related to the GPL
- What about structures from include files
- When is a dynamic link a dynamic link
- Interface issues. If I build a system that can use an LGPL
shared library I don't have to give a damn about the LGPL -
It hasn't got any gnu code in it and if people choose to
plug the two together its up to them.
A GPL v3 seems needed for at least one of these issues.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!deathstar.cris.com!news1.oakland.edu!
vtc.tacom.army.mil!ulowell!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!news2.near.net!
bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mib
From: m...@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 15 Sep 1994 15:24:55 GMT
Organization: Touring Consulting Services
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <MIB.94Sep15112455@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu> <34tilt$kkj@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu> <Cw66Az.9Co@info.swan.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: iialan@iifeak.swan.ac.uk's message of Thu, 15 Sep 1994 11:52:11 GMT
In article <Cw66Az....@info.swan.ac.uk> iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox) writes:
eg - Can BSD code be incorporated and redistributed as part
of a GPL program: Specifically does the BSD license
requirement for credits in the documentation etc count
as an 'additional restriction' on distribution as the GPL
requires there are none. If it does (as my legal info says)
then you can't mix BSD with GPL and distribute the result.
If it doesn't can I therefore sell software GPL'd but with
a documentation requirement of must come with this expensive
booklet I've written ?
In the United States, the anwser is that there is apparently no
problem, because the BSD credit requirement is not thought to be
legally enforceable by most attorneys. However, this is possibly not
the case in other countries (notably, the UK).
It *is* an additional restriction (if legally binding) and it does
pose a problem. Given the good will of Berkeley, while it's a problem
that needs to be addressed (and rms is looking into various ways of
doing so); nobody is going to get sued on either side.
People might think that the GPL should make a special exception for
this. (I did at first.) But actually, the Berkeley requirement (if
enforceable) really is inimical to the GPL. Imagine the situation
after twenty--or a hundred--people have added their own credit
requirements. It would become essentially impossible to advertise GNU
software at all.
- How do inline functions in include files related to the GPL
GPL: If the inline functions are big/complex enough to make the result
a derived work, then the GPL applies as a whole to the resulting work.
The meanings of "big" and "complex" are undecided by the law at this
point.
LGPL: The same thing applies, except that the LGPL (*not* the GPL)
excludes from worry functions less than ten lines long, whether or not
they cause derivative status.
- What about structures from include files
Again, this depends on what the courts say is a "derived work". It
seems likely that use of data structure layouts does not constitute
derivation, at the very least, if you compile without symbols.
With the LGPL, there is a special exemption for data structure layouts.
- When is a dynamic link a dynamic link
The FSF's legal documents never use this term, so it's definition
doesn't matter.
- Interface issues. If I build a system that can use an LGPL
shared library I don't have to give a damn about the LGPL -
It hasn't got any gnu code in it and if people choose to
plug the two together its up to them.
If you distribute .o files (but not fully linked executables) which
only include data structure layouts and short (< 10 lines) functions
from header files, then you are on safe ground, with an LGPL'd
library.
-mib
--
+1 617 623 3248 (H) | En arche en ho logos,
+1 617 253 8568 (W) -+- kai ho logos en pros ton theon,
1105 Broadway | kai theos en ho logos.
Somerville, MA 02144 | Kai ho logos sarx egeneto,
m...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | kai eskenosen en hemin.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!
news.uoregon.edu!gaia.ucs.orst.edu!news.reed.edu!usenet.ee.pdx.edu!
walt.ee.pdx.edu!marcus
From: mar...@ee.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 16 Sep 1994 10:04:53 GMT
Organization: Portland State University
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <MARCUS.94Sep16030453@tdb.ee.pdx.edu>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu>
<Cw66Az.9Co@info.swan.ac.uk> <MIB.94Sep15112455@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
<35a4tl$8gq@hermes.synopsys.com> <35blr1$cnm@Venus.mcs.com>
Reply-To: mar...@ee.pdx.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: ursula.ee.pdx.edu
In-reply-to: macgyver@MCS.COM's message of 16 Sep 1994 03:43:13 -0500
>>>>> "mg" == MacGyver <macgy...@MCS.COM> writes:
In article <35blr1$...@Venus.mcs.com> macgy...@MCS.COM (MacGyver) writes:
[ It does occur to me this post may be from the keyboard of a
devilishly dry wit, but, sorry, I simply lack the humor to let it slide. ]
mg> I've been following this thread since its inception, and I really
mg> would like to know something -- do we REALLY need all these
mg> restrictions and license agreements?
The intent of all GPL developers is to encourage cooperation.
To further this goal, full source distribution is necessary.
Although there is valid debate about what exact terms are legal and
realistic, there are apparently a growing number of users who
Just Don't Get It.
mg> Personally, I think the
mg> notion has been blown WAY out of proportion by the folks at FSF
mg> and a couple of other places. Placing a copyright on code you
mg> wrote is definitely something worthwhile and its not something
mg> most people dispute, but, to FORCE people who use a certain
mg> package to have to abide by any special rules is completely
mg> ridiculous.
Indeed! How absurd to think that people who devote hundreds or even
thousands hours of their own time to projects they get little or no
remuneration for should have any say about how their software is used!
What are these wiggy FSF people thinking?! Can you _imagine_?
mg> Such practices force people to look elsewhere for
mg> packages or libraries, often wasting many precious man hours
Shrug. Nine times out of ten, I'm more than happy to participate in the
inhibition of individuals who would be actively seeking to circumvent
licenses like the GPL. Handy litmus test.
mg> because a few people decided that they released something and put
mg> it under licensing terms that essentially enforce their views on
mg> source availiblity, and they get away with it!
;(
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!
convex!news.duke.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!hudson.lm.com!terrazzo.lm.com!not-for-mail
From: d...@telerama.lm.com (Jim Duke)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 16 Sep 1994 23:24:31 -0400
Organization: Telerama Public Access Internet, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <35dnhf$rfh@terrazzo.lm.com>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu> <MARCUS.94Sep16030453@tdb.ee.pdx.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: terrazzo.lm.com
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Marcus Daniels (mar...@ee.pdx.edu) wrote:
> In-reply-to: macgy...@MCS.COM's message of 16 Sep 1994 03:43:13 -0500
> mg> and a couple of other places. Placing a copyright on code you
> mg> wrote is definitely something worthwhile and its not something
> mg> most people dispute, but, to FORCE people who use a certain
> mg> package to have to abide by any special rules is completely
> mg> ridiculous.
> Indeed! How absurd to think that people who devote hundreds or even
> thousands hours of their own time to projects they get little or no
> remuneration for should have any say about how their software is used!
> What are these wiggy FSF people thinking?! Can you _imagine_?
We (the unix community in general) are fortunate that people such as the
MIT X Windows Developers (now the X Consortium) did not take such a
limiting position about their software or most unix user would still
be using character systems.
> mg> Such practices force people to look elsewhere for
> mg> packages or libraries, often wasting many precious man hours
> Shrug. Nine times out of ten, I'm more than happy to participate in the
> inhibition of individuals who would be actively seeking to circumvent
> licenses like the GPL. Handy litmus test.
mg - How true, I can't recall how many times I have seen something useful
that can't be used by me because of it's GPL or LPGL licensing. I can
understand the reasons for their (FSF) terms but feel that in general
GPL and LGPL have stifled at least as much technology as they have fostered.
Case in point, I have many useful libraries, utilities, programs etc
(Mostly X/Motif stuff) which I have developed over the years which
have been limited by GPL in a couple of ways.
1) All home development is for the eventual purpose of enhancing
my work abilities, therfore any GPL or LGPL stuff cannot be
incorporated into my home work (I do not have time to learn
anything that will not transfer directly to work).
2) Just as FSF cannot in good consience let their work be used
for un-restricted commercial use (such as the way X is used)
I can't allow anything that I would create be used to further
the goals of FSF or GPL.
Why should FSF care... well they shouldn't they don't lose out, the net
community in general does.
Actually I have had an Idea recently that people that feel as strongly
opposed to the GPL type licensing as FSF does about the unrestricted
licensing should start releaseing things with an anti-GPL. It would
be allowed to be distributed and used freely, with or without source
for, or not for profit, the only restriction would be that it could
not be used in conjunction with any GPL tools/systems/utilities.
(Note: I hope this message does not seem to inflamatory, I am trying
my best to express my feelings, and maybe to generate some useful
dialog without starting all out flameing)
If you must flame please do so by e-mail as to limit bandwidth waste
(I have already contributed enough to that)
--
Jim Duke | These opinions are my own, any
d...@telerama.lm.com | resemblance to the opinions of
Unix/X/Motif Consultant | others is strictly coincidental.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!gandalf.rutgers.edu!not-for-mail
From: mad...@gandalf.rutgers.edu (Juana Moreno)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 18 Sep 1994 06:00:04 -0400
Organization: LinuxNet
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <35h334$g83@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu> <MARCUS.94Sep16030453@tdb.ee.pdx.edu>
<35dnhf$rfh@terrazzo.lm.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.rutgers.edu
d...@telerama.lm.com (Jim Duke) writes:
>Actually I have had an Idea recently that people that feel as strongly
>opposed to the GPL type licensing as FSF does about the unrestricted
>licensing should start releaseing things with an anti-GPL. It would
>be allowed to be distributed and used freely, with or without source
>for, or not for profit, the only restriction would be that it could
>not be used in conjunction with any GPL tools/systems/utilities.
I like your idea. If you release something under this anti-GPL license,
please let me know. I will take it, make a few modifications, sell it
AND use the modified version along with GPL-ed programs. And if you
really want to enforce your license, you'll need to make your wording as
much or even more bizarre than the GPL one. So, just hire a good lawyer and
do it, please. Maybe even someone could write an anti-(anti-GPL) license?
Seriously now. If you like the GPL, then use it. If not, leave them alone
and mind your own business. Stop doing politics in a comp. group.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!agate!barrnet.net!
well!magnet.mednet.net!gonzo
From: go...@magnet.mednet.net (Patrick J. Volkerding)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 18 Sep 1994 17:52:30 GMT
Organization: Nexsys Electronics, San Francisco
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <35huou$4ks@nkosi.well.com>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<MARCUS.94Sep16030453@tdb.ee.pdx.edu> <35dnhf$rfh@terrazzo.lm.com>
<35h334$g83@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: magnet.mednet.net
In article <35h334$...@gandalf.rutgers.edu>,
Juana Moreno <mad...@gandalf.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>I like your idea. If you release something under this anti-GPL license,
>please let me know. I will take it, make a few modifications, sell it
>AND use the modified version along with GPL-ed programs. And if you
>really want to enforce your license, you'll need to make your wording as
>much or even more bizarre than the GPL one. So, just hire a good lawyer and
>do it, please. Maybe even someone could write an anti-(anti-GPL) license?
This little blurb from the "file" source is about the closest I've even
seen. I'll reproduce part of it here for everyone's enlightenment:
>This software is not subject to and may not be made subject to any
>license of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T Inc.),
>UNIX System Laboratories (USL Inc.), Novell Inc., Sun Microsystems
>Inc., Digital Equipment Inc., Lotus Development Inc., the Regents of
>the University of California, The X Consortium or MIT, or The Free
>Software Foundation.
Clearly there are people out there who aren't big fans of the GPL, and I
guess if I released something under a different (less restrictive?) license
and someone changed it a little and then GPLed it, I'm not sure how I'd
like it. FWIW, I have GPLed some of my own software before, but I think the
author has the right to say "derivatives of this software must *never*
be GPLed" just like the FSF says "derivatives of GPLed software must
*always* be GPLed".
Pat
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
europa.eng.gtefsd.com!MathWorks.Com!yeshua.marcam.com!
charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!grapevine.lcs.mit.edu!
usenet.coe.montana.edu!bsd.coe.montana.edu!nate
From: n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 18 Sep 1994 21:52:29 GMT
Organization: Montana State University, Bozeman Montana
Lines: 49
Message-ID: <35icqt$aak@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu> <Cw66Az.9Co@info.swan.ac.uk>
<MIB.94Sep15112455@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.90.192.29
[ Jumping into the fray. ]
In article <MIB.94Sep15112...@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
Michael I Bushnell <m...@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>In article <Cw66Az....@info.swan.ac.uk> iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
writes:
>
> eg - Can BSD code be incorporated and redistributed as part
> of a GPL program: Specifically does the BSD license
> requirement for credits in the documentation etc count
> as an 'additional restriction' on distribution as the GPL
> requires there are none. If it does (as my legal info says)
> then you can't mix BSD with GPL and distribute the result.
> If it doesn't can I therefore sell software GPL'd but with
> a documentation requirement of must come with this expensive
> booklet I've written ?
>
>In the United States, the anwser is that there is apparently no
>problem, because the BSD credit requirement is not thought to be
>legally enforceable by most attorneys. However, this is possibly not
>the case in other countries (notably, the UK).
Having the utmost respect for Michael and the work he has done, I must
jump in here and ask this question.
In many articles people have said that "many lawyers consider portions
of the GPL/LGPL unenforceable', and you counter with "Obviously, the FSF
lawyers and others have not seen fit to test it's legality out, so it
must be enforceable, yet in this article you present the claim the same
accusations on the BSD copyright, which was developed by lawyers of
Berkeley and the X Consortium. By stating that you don't believe it to
be enforceable, you are (IMHO) invalidating your defense of the GPL.
If that offense/defense of the GPL/BSD copyright is invalid in one case,
then it must be invalid in all cases if the situation is similar, which
I believe it is. Both groups hired lawyers to setup the clause, and the
BSD copyright was 'sort-of' tested in the counter-suit filed by UCB against
USL in the recent BSDI-USL copyright suit. UCB's suit was that USL did not
give BSD due credit where the licensing scheme required it.
All I ask for is consistancy in your defense and accusations.
Nate
--
n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu | FreeBSD core member and all around tech.
n...@cs.montana.edu | weenie.
work #: (406) 994-4836 |
home #: (406) 586-0579 | Available for contract/otherwise work.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!
info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <CwDJ4D.4Iu@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu>
<MARCUS.94Sep16030453@tdb.ee.pdx.edu> <35dnhf$rfh@terrazzo.lm.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 1994 11:12:13 GMT
Lines: 44
In article <35dnhf$...@terrazzo.lm.com> d...@telerama.lm.com (Jim Duke) writes:
>We (the unix community in general) are fortunate that people such as the
>MIT X Windows Developers (now the X Consortium) did not take such a
>limiting position about their software or most unix user would still
>be using character systems.
I doubt it. It would probably have kicked the kinks out of the GPL/LGPL but
it would have stopped people hiding tricks and dealt with some of the
'we don't tell you how our video card works' issues.
>mg - How true, I can't recall how many times I have seen something useful
>that can't be used by me because of it's GPL or LPGL licensing. I can
>understand the reasons for their (FSF) terms but feel that in general
>GPL and LGPL have stifled at least as much technology as they have fostered.
How shall I put this. If the person who wrote it believes in the GPL concept
they can use it. If you don't like that fact then negotiate an alternative
license with them and pay them lots of money.
> 2) Just as FSF cannot in good consience let their work be used
> for un-restricted commercial use (such as the way X is used)
> I can't allow anything that I would create be used to further
> the goals of FSF or GPL.
Fine. You aren't helping the FSF, they aren't helping you. Seems a fair
nonexchange.
>Actually I have had an Idea recently that people that feel as strongly
>opposed to the GPL type licensing as FSF does about the unrestricted
>licensing should start releaseing things with an anti-GPL. It would
>be allowed to be distributed and used freely, with or without source
>for, or not for profit, the only restriction would be that it could
>not be used in conjunction with any GPL tools/systems/utilities.
This has been suggested before. It wouldn't get you very far. Nobody
stops you using different licenses for stuff _YOU_ wrote. When it comes
to other peoples software play by their rules as you expect them to play
by yours.
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!
bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mib
From: m...@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Date: 20 Sep 1994 16:30:46 GMT
Organization: Touring Consulting Services
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <MIB.94Sep20123046@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
References: <1994Sep8.142206.18896@cs.cornell.edu>
<1994Sep11.201208.22928@cs.cornell.edu>
<Cw66Az.9Co@info.swan.ac.uk> <MIB.94Sep15112455@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
<35icqt$aak@pdq.coe.montana.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu's message of 18 Sep 1994 21:52:29 GMT
In article <35icqt$...@pdq.coe.montana.edu> n...@bsd.coe.montana.edu
(Nate Williams) writes:
In many articles people have said that "many lawyers consider portions
of the GPL/LGPL unenforceable', and you counter with "Obviously, the FSF
lawyers and others have not seen fit to test it's legality out, so it
must be enforceable, yet in this article you present the claim the same
accusations on the BSD copyright, which was developed by lawyers of
Berkeley and the X Consortium. By stating that you don't believe it to
be enforceable, you are (IMHO) invalidating your defense of the GPL.
If that offense/defense of the GPL/BSD copyright is invalid in one case,
then it must be invalid in all cases if the situation is similar, which
I believe it is. Both groups hired lawyers to setup the clause, and the
BSD copyright was 'sort-of' tested in the counter-suit filed by UCB against
USL in the recent BSDI-USL copyright suit. UCB's suit was that USL did not
give BSD due credit where the licensing scheme required it.
All I ask for is consistancy in your defense and accusations.
I'm sorry. It's not the general idea of attaching conditions like
this to the copyright. It's very specifically the "give credit in all
advertisement" clause. This one clause is probably unenforceable,
according to the FSF's (and AT&T's, as it happens) lawyers.
If a license said "this software may not be distributed to blacks",
that would be an unenforceable clause (on the grounds that it is
contrary to public policy) but not because attaching conditions is
bad--just because the of the specific condition.
I don't know if public policy is the reason the credit requirement is
believed to be unenforceable; I just bring this up to explain that the
offense is not the manner in which the thing is done, but the nature
of the thing that is done.
As for UCB's suit, notice that they didn't win: under the consent
decree AT&T voluntarily agreed to give credit, but there was no hint
of a finding that they had to.
--
+1 617 623 3248 (H) | En arche en ho logos,
+1 617 253 8568 (W) -+- kai ho logos en pros ton theon,
1105 Broadway | kai theos en ho logos.
Somerville, MA 02144 | Kai ho logos sarx egeneto,
m...@gnu.ai.mit.edu | kai eskenosen en hemin.
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!EU.net!uknet!
info!iialan
From: iia...@iifeak.swan.ac.uk (Alan Cox)
Subject: Re: Linux is a GNU system and the DWARF support
Message-ID: <CwH6IA.4CC@info.swan.ac.uk>
Sender: n...@info.swan.ac.uk
Nntp-Posting-Host: iifeak.swan.ac.uk
Organization: Institute For Industrial Information Technology
References: <35dnhf$rfh@terrazzo.lm.com> <35h334$g83@gandalf.rutgers.edu>
<35huou$4ks@nkosi.well.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 1994 10:30:10 GMT
Lines: 19
In article <35huou$...@nkosi.well.com> go...@magnet.mednet.net
(Patrick J. Volkerding) writes:
>like it. FWIW, I have GPLed some of my own software before, but I think the
>author has the right to say "derivatives of this software must *never*
>be GPLed" just like the FSF says "derivatives of GPLed software must
>*always* be GPLed".
Unless you explicitly permit a license that is GPL or less restrictive than
the GPL then people can't GPL your material. For example if you said
'May not be used for commercial purposes' then it couldn't get mixed with
GPL'd code. Other variants I've see are 'May not be distributed under any
license other than this one' - which is close to what the GPL does save
that it permits you to extract freer than GPL components that are
clearly seperable (eg a PD module in a Linux kernel).
Alan
--
..-----------,,----------------------------,,----------------------------,,
// Alan Cox // iia...@www.linux.org.uk // GW4PTS@GB7SWN.#45.GBR.EU //
``----------'`----------------------------'`----------------------------''