Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #72299Re: On the multiple definitions of "free"
From: John Coolidge
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 07:16
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 07:16
39 lines
2970 bytes
2970 bytes
mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes: >coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: >> Copyleft results in a denial of "assistance"; FSF code cannot be >> used to "assist" an un'free' program (as a matter of record, I have my >> own objects with the FSF's use of 'free'). It can be argued that the FSF >> code already exists and that therefore my use of it doesn't mean they >> "assisted" me; however, I think that getting to use preexisting code >> counts, to some extent, as assistance. >I think it's a pretty odd usage of "assist". For example, consider another >example of use of some "good" software to develop some "bad" software: the >use of existing compilers as a means of developing computer viruses. >I think if you started claiming that Microsoft assist people in developing >destructive computer viruses, people would claim that you were being >misleading. Hmm. In the case of compiler use 'as a tool', the FSF (and Microsoft) both allow such usage; you can use gcc to produce encumbered binaries all you want. If, however, you're talking about using some Microsoft- derived libraries in the hypothetical virus, I would argue that MS is indeed passively assisting the virus author. Basically, they're handing out code and saying "here, use this as you wish, we give it to you." Of course, they also say "we're not resposible for the use to which third parties put this code". Interestingly, you could write a virus and reuse all the FSF code you wanted, as long as you provided source code (somehow; embedding it in the virus would be quite clever, while just posting it to the net might suffice). Would the FSF have assisted you in writing the virus? Yes, from the standpoint that they made it easier for you to write the code. No, since they provided no active assistance. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge til May: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu May: coolidge@apple.com Of course I don't speak for the U of I, Apple, or anyone else except myself Copyright 1992 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Feb26.071651.21247@m.cs.uiuc.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidgeReferences:
<1992Feb22.055929.11532@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <NgsPgB10w164w@mantis.co.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,c1e13a8fc31fc719 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-02-25 23:59:08 PST Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!m.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge From: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) Subject: Re: On the multiple definitions of "free" Message-ID: <1992Feb26.071651.21247@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@m.cs.uiuc.edu (News Database (admin-Mike Schwager)) Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL References: <1992Feb22.055929.11532@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <NgsPgB10w164w@mantis.co.uk> Distribution: world,public Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1992 07:16:51 GMT