🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1407@disuns2.epfl.ch> pulfer@lamisun3.epfl.ch (PULFER Jean-Michel) writes:
>
>status for selling gnu-* produced code in an embedded system that has
>not much display for a copyright and/or warranty notice ?

If you mean non-Gnu code compiled with a Gnu compiler, the consensus
of opinion seems to be that such compiled non-Gnu code belongs to you,
not to the Gnu FSF. Since there's often differences of opinion on legal
issues, I'll further point out that a large number of companies (the one I
work for included) compile the software we develop and sell with GNU cc/g++
without fear that their/our vast investment will suddenly belong to the FSF.

I suspect that if the FSF took someone to court and tried to claim
that the non-Gnu software belonged to the FSF simply because it
was compiled with Gnu tools, then the court would very likely regard
that as unfair restraint of trade, regardless of interpretation of
fine print. That's just my personal opinion, of course.
	Doug
--
	Doug Merritt		doug@eris.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!eris!doug)
			or	uunet.uu.net!crossck!dougm

In article <1991Feb1.232018.11616@agate.berkeley.edu>, doug@eris.berkeley.edu (Doug Merritt) writes:
> I suspect that if the FSF took someone to court and tried to claim
> that the non-Gnu software belonged to the FSF simply because it
> was compiled with Gnu tools, then the court would very likely regard
> that as unfair restraint of trade, regardless of interpretation of
> fine print. That's just my personal opinion, of course.

Since it's also Richard Stallman's opinion that FSF has no more rights
to code compiled with gcc (or assembled with gas) than to text edited
by Emacs, you're clearly on safe ground.  However, if you link with
Gnu libraries it's another story.

--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck	

In article <10761@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>
>Since it's also Richard Stallman's opinion that FSF has no more rights
>to code compiled with gcc (or assembled with gas) than to text edited
>by Emacs, you're clearly on safe ground.  However, if you link with
>Gnu libraries it's another story.

I take it that Stallman believes that if you link with Gnu libraries,
then the entire s/w is then under the Gnu copyright? Radical.

We did our own C++ library just to avoid that possibility, but I still
have personal difficulty with that point. From a *technical* point of
view, using a library shouldn't allow what amounts to confiscation of
the software using the library. Interpretation of the *law* is quite another
matter, of course, but perhaps the law needs to be amended. Our fine
judicial and legislative system unfortunately tends to be quite clueless
on technical issues.
	Doug
--
	Doug Merritt		doug@eris.berkeley.edu (ucbvax!eris!doug)
			or	uunet.uu.net!crossck!dougm

doug@eris.berkeley.edu (Doug Merritt) writes:



>I take it that Stallman believes that if you link with Gnu libraries,

I don't think this is true. FSF is still trying to resolve the legal
issues surrounding copylefted libriaries to address just this issue.
From what I've read on gnu.announce, FSF doesn't want to restrain use of
their libraries because of developers reluctance to use them because
technically they would have to distribute their source code with their
binaries.

Also I'm working on a Motorola compatable assembler for the 56000. I'm
going to port it to the SPARC. If any one is interested in beta-testing
drop me e-mail and I'll get a binary to you.

cheers

Followups are directed to gnu.misc.discuss; let's not take over
comp.dsp with this discussion.

In article <10761@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
> >Since it's also Richard Stallman's opinion that FSF has no more rights
> >to code compiled with gcc (or assembled with gas) than to text edited
> >by Emacs, you're clearly on safe ground.  However, if you link with
> >Gnu libraries it's another story.

In article <1991Feb5.154259.27045@agate.berkeley.edu>, doug@eris.berkeley.edu (Doug Merritt) writes:
> I take it that Stallman believes that if you link with Gnu libraries,
> then the entire s/w is then under the Gnu copyright? Radical.

Well, yes, it's radical; he's trying to construct a new world where
you can get the source to every program you have.  But it isn't the
copyright that does this; it's the Gnu license.  Basically, with any
software license, you are only permitted to use the software under
conditions of the license.  The question then comes up: what happens
if you violate the licensing conditions?  The text says your source
code becomes freely redistributable; a court might not accept that
and just make you pay a heavy damage assessment instead.  Still, you
can't violate software licenses with impunity.

Actually, you have two options for code that includes or is derived
from Gnu code: make the source freely redistributable, or do not
distribute the program at all (you can keep it for your own use).

But the new library license relaxes the conditions; when it becomes
effective, you can use gnu libraries and have your program be proprietary
as long as you meet certain conditions (THERE IS NO FINAL DRAFT YET but,
roughly, you send your .o files, a Makefile, and the source+objects to
whatever Gnu library you use, and you may not prohibit your users from
using a debugger or doing reverse engineering to try to improve the
program).

Just to be clear on the original discussion: Stallman and FSF make no
claims to gcc output (or, for that matter, to g++ output except that
libg++ is their code -- replace libg++ and the code is entirely yours).

--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck