🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <26027@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (Matt Kennel) writes:
>In article <8743@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> ltf@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) writes:
>>So, if I get this straight, if I compile my program using GCC, then link
>>with GNU's runtime library, I have to give away my source code to anybody
>>who asks for it.

Wrong.  You only have to do this if you are making your binaries available
to the general public.  Then (and only then) do you need to make your
source available.  If you are only writing for yourself, then there is no
need to make source available.  But go ahead, do it.

>Not only do you have to give away your source code with your program
>(software houses now will sell source code along with binaries) but
>anybody who gets your program may give it away to anybody else without
>compensating you.

Sure.  Why not.  But if someone wants support for your product, offer it
to them (for a fee).  Do *you* want to use a system for which you don't
have support from the manufacturer.  No?  Then buy support from someone
for the software you got for free.  But what if I don't want support? Why
should I not be able to get the free code for free.


>This does _not_ only affect software developers.  Consider a typical
>Programming Systems class (CS217 at Princeton, my alma mater) which
>uses GCC and the libraries.  The copyleft means that Jock Bonehead,
>who's running a low C- average, can demand that Joan Von Neumann give
>him her A+ final programming project, complete with source code.
>{Indeed, at Princeton, this class was instructed to use a
>locally-developed ANSI compiler, despite the fact that GCC was readily
>available and perfectly suitable, and generated better code.   I wonder...}

This is a bogus example.  If Joan's software is not made freely distributable
(which given the environment, is a reasonable thing to do), then she can just
tell Jack to go away: this code is hers.  Or she can give it to him (after
the program is due).  

The GNU software states that if you modify and redistribute the code, 
you must clearly note this (the modifications) in each file.  So if Jack turns
in Joan's code, let him.  He just won't get credit for this since Joan's
statement at the beginning which places that work under the GPL indicates
the she is the author of this code.  If Jack does modify the code and not
indicate the origins, then he has broken the copyright restrictions and
is subject to academic discipline (at my school anyway).  It's common sense:
No credit for work which you don't do.

>Whatever the legality of this matter, this doesn't sit right with me.
>How can the mere linking of my program with copylefted libraries
>abrogate _my_ rights to _my_ code?   Copyrighted material with power
>over other material---this doesn't seem right.
>
>>| Lance T Franklin        | | "And all who heard should see them there,
>
>Matt Kennel
>kennel@cognet.ucla.edu

If it doesn't sit right with you, then don't use the tools.  It's as simple
as that.  If you support software hoarding, then don't use the tools that
you haven't bought.  If you use the GNU tools, and try to weasel your way
around the GPL, then you may not violate the law, but you are being
hypocritical in your views.

No one says that you must use the software that is freely available.  It's
your choice not to.  It's my choice to do so.



David D "Zoo" Zuhn //    University of Minnesota      \\ Twin Cities
          Computer Science Systems Consultant, EE/CS 4-204
zuhn@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu,    zuhn@umn-cs.UUCP,   ..rutgers!umn-cs!zuhn