🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Jan10.182824.15726@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt
Epstein) writes:
> In <iRNaeB6w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
> >I've certainly encountered compilers where there was an explicit statement
> >saying that you could do what you liked with the sample code.  It's quite
> >common to include free stuff.
> 
> Someone else also sent me email clarifying the fact that you were
> referring to sample code that might come with the compiler.
> Unfortunately, when you compare this sample code to GNU code, you are
> comparing apples and oranges.  This sample code was explicitly meant
> to be used and copied.  However, I bet there isn't the same lack of
> restriction on the source code for the compiler itself.  Comparing the
> restrictions on the compiler's source to those on GNU source would be
> much fairer.

But what do I want the compiler's source for?  How many people who have
gcc actually want to build programs using code taken from gcc, compared
to the number who want a C compiler?

> >If you link your programs with a library under the GLPL, you have to supply
> >object code for your programs.
> 
> Yes, you have to supply object code, so that customres can recompile
> and relink with a perhaps modified library.  But object code is not
> source code.

Indeed.  It's still an annoying restriction, though.

> >Oh, they can.  But I reserve the right to complain when they start telling
> >me how I can use code *I* have written.
> 
> But basically when you use code that they have written, it as if you
> have gone into a joint venture -- you both (you and GNU) have
> contributed code, so why can't they specify restrictions on how that
> code is used.

They can, but I'm arguing that the restrictions they're imposing are 
unnecessary given most of their goals.  Justifications for GNU such as
"Users need source code" and "Software costs nothing to duplicate" are
completely bogus as they don't justify putting GPL-like restrictions on
source code.  In fact, last time I read the GNU manifesto I don't recall
seeing it come out and justify the GPL in raw terms.

If this use of GNU code really is a "joint venture", why should they be able
to set all the conditions and me none?

>           You don't have to use their code in the first place,
> you know.

And as I have said, I don't.  I am explaining why.  [ Cliche alert:  "You
don't have to use GNU stuff in the first place" is the most commonly repeated
mantra when a true believer is faced with a criticism of the way the FSF
is doing things.  Its protective power is extremely limited. ]

> >If the GPL said that I had to provide source to any GNU code I used,
> >that would be fine.  It's the fact that it says that I have to provide source
> >to my code as well that's the problem.
> 
> But it doesn't say that -- in the example above, you need to provide
> OBJECT code, not source.

No, the GPL (not the GLPL) does say that.  If I take a ten-line strupr()
routine and include it in my 100K office automation system, I have to give
away the sources to the whole lot, not just to the GNU bit (the strupr()
routine).

> >It puts restrictions on me which other companies' licenses don't, and doesn't
> >give me much in return (i.e., all it gives me which commercial licenses
> >don't is the right to freely copy other people's software).
> 
> When you rephrase that as giving everyone the write to freely copy
> others' software, it sure sounds like it is giving you (and everyone)
> a lot.

Yes, because when you say that you are carefully omitting the fact that
there will generally be less software to copy.  I'd rather have lots of
good games available for ten quid each rather than just NetHack for free.
I'd rather have lots of different text editors, rather than just Emacs.

>      It restricts you so that you can't make money and/or not make
> source code available when you include some code that someone else
> wrote -- but why is that unfair?

Would it be fair if I said people had to make money and were not allowed
to provide sources for their software if they used my freely-redistributable
code?

>                                   That seems like it would benefit
> everyone.

If you don't look at the quality and quantity of the software, yes.

> >>             If you want/need to use their products so much, then you
> >> must put up with their license.  And if you don't like their license,
> >> can't you just not use their code?
> >
> >So why do people complain about AT&T licenses, eh?  Same argument applies,
> >does it not?
> 
> Sure, and that seems to be a major part of the reason for the GNU
> project in the first place.

So will we see a Truly Free Software Foundation writing an OS to get around
the restrictions of the GPL and GLPL?

> >> >The FSF tries to get me to overlook these restrictions by bribing me with
> >> >the source code for the whole package, and by telling me I can give
> >> >away copies of the whole package.
> >> 
> >> But many people may not consider these to be restrictions.
> >
> >Can I then claim that many people don't consider "You may not copy this
> >software" to be a restriction, and that therefore the AT&T licenses contain
> >no restrictions?
> 
> You are using some strange logic here -- I did not say that because
> many people may not consider the conditions on the GNU license to be
> restrictions that therefore we may conclude that there are no
> restrictions.

What WERE you saying then?  Why did you say "But many people may not consider
these to be restrictions" if that is in no way meant to be a defense of
the restrictions in the GPL and GLPL?

>                                   With the GNU license, only those who
> wish to use GNU code in proprietary (by that I mean restricted source)
> code will be affected.

No, those who want to use GNU code in commercial software for which all
purchasers get source will also be affected.  Those who want to use GNU
code in truly free software will be affected.

>                       With the other license, any one who wishes to
> copy the code

But I never want to make a wholesale copy of commercial software, except
to have a look at it and see if it's any good.  I either buy it, or if 
it's too expensive I buy a cheaper competing product.

Why should I want to spend my time copying MS-DOS GCC for all and sundry,
when people can send thirty quid to Borland and get a nice shiny box with
Turbo C, a set of manuals, and proper technical support?

> >One of the arguments put forward in favour of GNU is that it will ensure
> >that people don't have to reinvent and reimplement things all the time.
> >Yet here you are, saying "If you don't like the way I'm telling you to
> >distribute your code, go away and reimplement what I've done."
> 
> Ahhh, I see now -- you want free access to whatever code you
> want/need, but you also want to be able to restrict access to code you
> write.  Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me.

Why?

> >> OK, you've given several examples of types of people that will like
> >> the GNU license -- now what types of people will not like it?  One
> >> would be someone who wants to use others' work in something that they
> >> intend to restrict in some way.
> >
> >Correct.
> 
> So why should they be allowed to control a product that they only
> partially wrote?

Why should the FSF be able to control a product that they only partially
wrote?

> I still don't see that you've given any unbiased reason for finding
> the GNU license unreasonable.

What biased reasons do you think I have?


mathew

-- 
Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices / If
you know where I can buy the CD "In Mysterious Ways" by John Foxx, please send
me email / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! / My PGP RSA public key is
available on request / Desperately seeking CD of "U2" by Negativland / 4 lines