🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Jan7.231421.27402@sunb10.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt 
Epstein) writes:
> In <Pmq7DB12w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
> >With Microsoft and other commercial licenses, I can use the sample source
> >code provided in any way I like, and I can do whatever I want with programs
> >which I have written and linked using their libraries.
> 
> Is the first part of this statement really true?  For example, can you
> take bits of their source code and put them into a program that you
> are going to sell (without the need to make retribution to them in any
> way)?  That doesn't sound right to me.

Well, the Quick C for Windows user guide encourages the user to copy 
one of the sample applications to a new directory and then modify it 
to build his software on top.  Obviously they expect you to copy their
sample applications and distribute derivative works based on them.

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.

My Modula-2 compiler is supplied with source code for the libraries, and
you can do anything except distribute source code for the libraries... and
you can even do that for the purposes of porting your programs to different
M2 systems.

>                                          If so, why is the FSF going to
> the trouble of rewriting all of the UNIX(TM) utilities so that there
> is no AT&T source code in them?

Because AT&T licenses are basically unreasonable, even compared with a lot
of other commercial licenses.

> >and I can't do whatever I want with programs which I have written and linked
> >using their libraries.
> 
> From a quick read of some files on COPYING GNU stuff I picked up from
> prep.ai.mit.edu, it looks like any restrictions placed on programs
> written independently but linked using their libraries have to do with
> making the libraries available so that the program can be recompiled
> -- the source for the independently written programs need not be
> provided. 

If you link your programs with a library under the GLPL, you have to supply
object code for your programs.

> Further, they are providing you with the source code and the libraries
> -- why can't they tell you how you can use code they have written?

Oh, they can.  But I reserve the right to complain when they start telling
me how I can use code *I* have written.

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.

> I don't see how you have answered Jurgen Botz' questions, i.e.
> basically, how is the GNU license worse than other companies'
> licenses?

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).

>             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?

I don't use GNU products unless there is no alternative.  However, I feel
obliged to point out that if people who spend their time writing GNU
software were to spend their time writing free software instead, everyone
could benefit.

> >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?

> >Whether you think this is a good deal depends upon how much you value being
> >allowed to fiddle with other people's source code and copy other people's
> >software, measured against how much you value being allowed to do what you
> >want with software you have written (even if you've included bits from
> >other people's code).
> 
> Ahh, but that parenthetical comment makes a big difference -- others    
> have contributed, so you must accept their conditions for using their
> contributions.

Right.  That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to disagree with the conditions
they put on using their contributions, where I perceive the conditions
to be unreasonable.

> If you want full control over it, shouldn't you have written it yourself?

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."

> 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.

> >I'd much rather that the effort being spent on developing FSF software got
> >spent on developing software that's truly free, so everyone can benefit.
> 
> So, who is not benefitting from this setup?

People who need to restrict the redistribution of the software they write
so that they can recoup the money they had to spend in order to write
it.  People who want to write software which is free of restrictions.


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