🚀 go-pugleaf

mikc@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Mike Coughlin) writes:

>  The FSF's idea that everyone should have the source for their
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>system is not new, original or creative, but it is an idea that
 ^^^^^^
>many do not understand. If the FSF can show the world that free source
>code is similar to and as important as free speech and a
>free press, it will be a great help to everyone who wants to have
>new creative computer systems.

Although I do not fully understand all of the motivations and legal
ramificatings of the GNU position, here are some comments from
a novice who quite likes many of the GNU products....

This discussion regarding "source freedom" seems to ignore the fact that
there are two basic groups that have agreed to disagree. 

The GNU folk tend to develop packages that I could consider to be
"operating system software". Their primary motivation (IMHO) is to
provide a UNIX type of environment that is free of "redistribuition
encumberances". In part, this means that all parts of AT&T's general
design of UNIX must be replicated and enhanced in such a manner that it
can be freely distributed.

In a certain sense, GNU has chosen to "compete" with AT&T (and companies
that port AT&T code) by delivering a similar type of product that has
a forgiving license requirement, possibly of higher quality, and
(probably) a significantly lower cost. For all intent and purposes, the
only competition GNU has is AT&T: other high quality software originated
at various universities cannot be considered as "competition" in the
sense that much of it is issued under licenses that is similiar in
flavour to the GNU license.

The group that "disagrees" with the GNU philosophy tend to be people
developing "application software" (not operating system software). For
example, we develop graphic software for use by Geologists. This, I
assume, is an area of software that GNU does not choose to explore. Quite
possibly, GNU does not wish to develop any "application" software (by
which I mean packages such as General Accounting systems, word
processors, petroleum engineering data bases, etc.). Of course, you could
consider "ispell" to be application software, however i seem to recollect
that ispell was only recently (a year or two ago) adopted into the GNU
fold - an is not (IMHO) a complete product.

Competition within this second group is quite fierce: there must be a
dozen or two companies in every market area (even in the same city) that
provide various quality of similar products for sale. The use of "freely
distributable software" is NOT the chosen method of competition.  In
fact, inovative features (and a very clever marketing staff) are
the only way that small companies can survive.

From my perspective, it seems unreasonable to have the GNU license
forced upon ALL users of GNU software because the "market place"
that the GNU has designed the license for is different than than
the market place of many people who wish to use GNU tools.  After all,
lcenses are specifically written to address perceived requirements of
a target market: different markets need different licenses!

I have no objection to providing "free" operating system software to the
computing community and have done so on a few occasions - however I would
be extremely reluctant to even consider making my geological software
"freely distributable" since my competition would have access to my
tricks. In many cases, they have more $$$ available and could immediately
add my software's features to their products. By issuing my sources under
the GNU license, I would cause the death of my company since I do not
have the income of many of my competitors - in spite of the fact that I
might have a better product.

I guess the real problem is that of balance: If I use the GNU edition of
getopt() because it has a few nice features, is it reasonable to subject
my entire software offering to the GNU license agreement? I kind of wish
that it would be considerd adquate for me to include credits to GNU on
the introduction pages of my hard copy manuals.

Application system developers are not "VARS" of gnu products. We do not
normally "package and enhance" gnu code. If we do so, the restrictions
within the GNU license are quite reasonable.

On the other hand, if we use GNU tools and/or some code fragments, we
must carefully consider the potential implication of the GNU license on
the products we deliver.  For example, the edition of getopt() that
I feel I must distribute with sources that I post to the net is the
public domain version provided by AT&T at the 1985 UNIFORUM conference in
Dallas.

tony...
-- 
Tony Field:                            tony@ajfcal.cuc.ab.ca
Calgary, Alberta, Canada