🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan28.190731.1640@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
>In article <1992Jan27.043453.17919@actrix.gen.nz> jshaw@actrix.gen.nz (Jim Shaw) writes:
>>As far as I can see, if you want to use the FSF routines, don't bitch about
>>any restrictions they may apply. If you don't like any restrictions, don't use
>>their code......  It's very simple really (:-) 
>  I could use the same rationale to say
>that if FSF doesn't like the way Apple defends their copyrights then they 
>should just not use Apples and not worry about it, but of course it isn't
>that simple.  

There's a big difference between the GPL's restrictions and the restraints
that Apple is trying to enforce.

The GPL says that if you take the FSF's code and modify it, the result of
that modification is still covered by the GPL.

Apple and Lotus say that if you write your own code from scratch, and the
user interface is similar to theirs, you're violating their copyright.

Users don't care whether the source code of two vendors' programs is the
same, so source code restrictions don't directly affect the marketability
of a program (they do affect the cost of developing the program, though).
But user interface compatibility is often a criteria that users care about.
If I were a spreadsheet vendor, I'd expect that my program would have to be
better than Lotus in order to get many Lotus users to switch; but if they
would also have to learn a new user interface because Lotus restricts me
from emulating theirs, then I would have to be much, *much* better.  Many
potential customers wouldn't even consider switching if it means they would
have to learn a new UI.  Thus, there is a direct conflict between what the
market expects and what the big vendors allow of their competitors.

>  The same applies here, both to those who see people using a copyright
>which may be overly restrictive and thus limit the availability of code,
>and to those who have philosphical differences with the GPL.  An argument
>of "If you want to use it, don't bitch" is pretty pointless, never mind
>what it says about moral values.

Actually, moral values is what it's all about.  The FSF exists to hook
people into the GNU philosophy, and the GNU software is the bait.  They're
selling their software, but the cost isn't money, it's philosophy.  So it
makes perfect sense to answer complaints with "don't bitch".

Apple and Lotus, on the other hand, make no claims to moral reasons for
their existence.  They're simply businesses selling hardware and software.
Yet they feel they have a right to restrict what other, independent
programmers can do.  Apple presumably believes that the Mac has about as
good a UI as is feasible on workstations of that class, yet they bitch when
other programmers, who also want their programs to have a great UI, copy
the style (not code).
-- 
Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp.

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