🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan3.170815.18962@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <C0Ap5A.A4v@news.udel.edu> 
>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>
>>In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>MZ:
>>>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
>>>the FSF [...]
>
>BJ:
>>What legal obligation is placed upon the USER of GNU software?  
>>Be specific;  I use GNU software every day.  I have yet to pay
>>any money for it;  it works better than the commercial software 
>>it replaced, but I don't want to expose myself to unnecessary 
>>legal hassles.  What am I missing?  Am I a victim of brain-washing?
>
>You are a victim of something, but I shan't speculate on its causes.
>The obligation is not to use any part of GNU in a proprietary manner.
>Chew on that; it might allow you to shut up for a while.

You could have saved time by making it clear that what you meant 
in repeated assertions about the "use" of GNU software is really
"proprietary use of the source code".  Most computer folk employ
the term "use" in the same sense as "user", namely, someone who
"uses" the software tools.  Similarly, a driver is more apt to be
thought of as the "user" of a car than is the mechanic.

If you are complaining that the GPL does not grant you the right
to "proprietary use of the source code", well, that's tough.  

The only sense of the word "proprietary" that is applicable here
would be "made and marketed by by one having the exclusive right
to manufacture and sell" (Webster's 7th Collegiate).

So how can you complain that you cannot assert an exclusive right to 
manufacture and sell copyrighted work that has been "made" by others?

Who grants such rights to their own intellectual property?  Not those
who publish public domain software;  one cannot claim an "exclusive" 
rights to sell PD software.  It is true that one can incorporate 
PD source code in a proprietary work and claim an exclusive right 
to distribute a particular executable, or the portions of its source
that you have written.  Still, you cannot prevent others from doing 
the same thing with the public domain source code, therefore the use
of the PD code is not "exclusive".

The only way to assert a truly proprietary interest in someone 
else's work is to buy the rights to it from a copyright owner, ie,
someone who has not given up his/her intellectual property rights 
by placing the source into the public domain.  I doubt that FSF
would consider selling the rights to an entire package, but at
least it is possible to call FSF or other author/copyright holder 
of a GPL'ed product and request permission to "use" an algorithm
or two without giving up your proprietary interest in a larger work.
They own it;  therefore they have the right to refuse your request.

It is also possible to structure a proprietary work such
that it can invoke user-written sub-programs, much as emacs can 
be extended with ".el" files.  	In this case the GNU code can
be used directly;  the only "obligation" placed on the author
of the proprietary work is to release the source code that 
implements call-backs to the proprietary application, along 
with the source for any "sub-program" based on GNU code.

Finally, if what you are asking for is permission to take
emacs (for free, naturally), make minor changes, and then 
assert an exclusive right to sell your version under your
own non-GPL licensing terms -- well, good luck finding 
someone else who is willing to do it your way.  

This from the person who complained that FSF volunteers 
had unwittingly sold themselves into slavery ... sheesh!
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949