🚀 go-pugleaf

There has been incessant discussion in this group of the form:

NON-FSF-CONVERT) If I use GNU library code such as getopt or regexp
code in my program, it falls under the GPL.  This is wrong!

FSF-CONVERT) No, it's good!  Besides, if you don't like it, just don't
use it!

NON-FSF-CONVERT) That's bad!

FSF-CONVERT) That's good!

NON-FSF-CONVERT) Bad!

FSF-CONVERT) Good!

...

I'd like to phrase this question differently: I don't care whether
it's bad or good, morally speaking; rather, is it *effective*?  If we
view the short-term goal of the FSF as the following:

  To advance the state of the computer art by targetting specific
  well-understood, generally useful utilities, such as editors or
  compilers, and producing very high quality no-cost-to-user versions.
  This should drive commercial competitors out of these markets unless
  they offer significant technical innovation.  They will hopefully
  move on to building new tools that are not yet so well-understood --
  i.e., actually advancing the state of the art.

Now, I don't claim that this is the actually the FSF's (i.e., RMS's)
goal -- it is too pragmatic, in contrast to the GNU Manifesto's overtly
morality-based arguments.  However, I would claim that it is what most
people who contribute to the FSF perceive as its goal.

If we accept the above statement as the FSF's goal, does requiring the
use of library code to draw the using work under the GPL enhance the
chances of reaching it or not?  I think it hurts; it may keep commercial
compiler vendors in business longer than necessary.  I give seminars
on C++ at industrial sites; when I discuss the available C++ compilers
I always say good things about G++, but I then have to warn about the
legal ramifications of using libg++, and the difficulty of finding
independent, unencumbered libraries you can buy.  Gcc/G++ with
unentangling libraries for free would be pretty tough competition for
compiler vendors.  If they went out of the compiler business, their
employees could get on to working on something new and difficult.

For what it's worth,



 
--
Dave Detlefs			Any correlation between my employer's opinion
Carnegie-Mellon CS		and my own is statistical rather than causal,
dld@cs.cmu.edu			except in those cases where I have helped to
				form my employer's opinion.  (Null disclaimer.)