🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cc7sgB21w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
>For example, suppose I create a complete version control system which happens
>to use GNU tar for creating archives of old versions.  First of all, does
>the GPL cover my program if it calls a standalone GNU tar?  The FSF answer
>seems to be "hire expensive lawyers".  What about if I provide .o files
>and get the user to link during installation?  What about if I build the
>GNU tar code into my code for efficiency?

I don't think I've seen anyone from the FSF say "hire expensive lawyers".
Other people have suggested that you probably need expensive lawyers to
interpret the GPL and copyright laws for you; I happen to find the GPL
pretty understandable, so I would trust my own judgement to interpret it,
but if you're not as confident then you may want to follow their advice.
There's another alternative: contact the FSF and *ask* them.  The GPL
specifically says that in cases where someone wishes to negotiate different
copying terms they're willing to discuss it; here's the relevant text from
the GNU Emacs GPL:

      5. If you wish to incorporate parts of GNU Emacs into other free programs
    whose distribution conditions are different, write to the Free Software
    Foundation.  We have not yet worked out a simple rule that can be stated
    here, but we will often permit this.  We will be guided by the two goals of
    preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of
    promoting the sharing and reuse of software.

Regarding your specific example, except for the last sentence, it looks to
me like the "mere aggregation" clause of the GPL would allow you to
distribute GNU tar along with your package without infecting your code.

>I mean, I could write my own archiver.  But isn't it better that I use a
>standard format like tar format that people can get "free" software to use?

I sure hope you would use a standard format whether or not you were writing
it from scratch.

>Isn't it better that I spend my time working on GNU tar, improving it and
>fixing bugs and distributing those improvements "freely"?

So just because you work on one free program you should be permitted to
hoard lots of other software?

RMS is a bit of an extremist.  I think he would rather you be distributing
your own software freely.

>I'm not arguing that nobody needs source code.  I'm arguing that many people
>don't WANT source code.  

So they won't ask for it.

>Now, you may personally have decided differently.  That's your choice. 
>And CHOICE is the key word.  I think it should be up to the user to choose
>whether he wants to buy a "hoarded" product or copy a "free" one.

I agree that choice is the key word, but not with the conclusion you draw.
The user's choice should be whether he wants the source code to Lotus 1-2-3
so he can fix and enhance it himself, or whether he wants to wait for new
releases.

If I needed something like Lotus 1-2-3, and there were a clone that had
source available, I might buy the clone.  The problem is when no one is
distributing a version of a program with source.  Then the choice isn't
available.

>Another difference comes when I make use of someone else's code in my program.
>For example, when I link my C++ program with someone's libaries, or use
>some source code for a useful utility or sample program as a tiny bit of my
>program.
>
>The FSF says that when I do that, my code becomes theirs.  The commercial
>companies do not (in general) make similar claims.

Well, the file that results from linking contains lots of their code.  If
you compile a "hello world" program, 90% of the code in the executable was
written by the library provider.  Sure sounds like a derivative work to me.

Note, however, that the FSF has developed the GLPL to alleviate this
problem.  I've been told that version 2 of libg++ will be distributed under
the GLPL.

While the commercial companies don't claim that the result of linking is a
derivative work of theirs, many of them do require you to pay license fees
when you distribute the result.

>> Therefore, I am aware of the danger of allowing anybody to
>> redistribute my code without source: the user, the category 3 person,
>> might wind up with a product that is less useful than the one I want
>> to provide.
>
>But the user CHOSE that product.  Why don't you spend your time offering
>him a better alternative, rather than trying to force everyone to release
>source "freely"?
>
>If what the FSF claims is right -- if free software is really better than
>hoarded software -- then free software should be able to win just by being
>better.  People won't buy hoarded software, because they'll recognize that
>free software is so much better.  Eventually, there'll be no market for
>hoarded software.

This may yet happen.  GNU Emacs is almost certainly the dominant
third-party text editor for Unix, it's very popular on VMS, and now it's
spread to MS-DOS.  It certainly seems to have beaten the commercial Emacs
implementations.  Gcc is also phenominaly popular.  Some commercial Unix
vendors are including these as parts of their standard systems.

One of the reasons the GNU software isn't even more popular is that many of
the potential users don't know about it.  The FSF doesn't advertise, nor is
their software available from many traditional sources.  It's well known on
the net, but not everyone is on the net.  However, just about every CD-ROM
collection contains the GNU software, so there's likely to be an explosion
of popularity as these CD-ROMs attain wide distribution.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar