Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #73239Re: Wanted: blurb supporting GNU integrity
From: Jonathan Allen
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 07:30
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 1991 07:30
40 lines
2774 bytes
2774 bytes
In article <1991Oct7.134056.17739@turing.ac.uk>, mick@quoich.turing.ac.uk (Mick Buckley) wrote: > We have a problem trying to convince an industrial partner > that the GNU C++ compiler, g++, is `safe' to install at their > site. It is not completely clear what they are afraid of, but > the usual suspects are GNU's free-ness (perceived virus risk) allied to > its no-warranty status. > > Our contact within the organization is in favour of g++ and wants > to use it but he has been prevented from doing so by the `Software > Police' in his company. Our contact has requested us to write a letter > to him which somehow supports the integrity of GNU software. He hopes that > this will persuade the powers-that-be to install g++. > If I might, humbly, suggest - you haven't actually put your finger on the problem. Not, I hasten to add, intentionally. It has been our experience that inside the software industry as a whole, and the UK/European bit of it in particular, there is a significant resistance to GNU material. Now some of this is the two well-known euro-phobias: NIH (Not Invented Here) and NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). However, there is also a large amount of two more serious things: misunderstanding of the GNU copyleft and commercial protection. The GNU copyleft, as I understand it, forbids the use of GNU software in the production of commercial software items, unless the GNU copyleft is carried forward onto that product, and the one thing no software house wants to do is release source code ... especially with somthing like the GNU copyleft on it !! Secondly, most software firms have either a tame solicitor or two, or even a legal department. These people take one look at the GNU text, charter and so on, throw their hands up in horror, and whisper in the ear of the Managing Director that "he'd better not touch this - all sort of tricky legal implications here ..." and before you know what, it is cheaper and easier to buy Borland, Microsnot, Glockenspiel or whatever. It doesn't take many lawyers hours to buy multiple copies of any of the currently available C or C++ compilers ! Jonathan
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9110184648@ukmug.uk.mugnet.org>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!mimsy!prism!nmrdc1!ukmug!jonathanReferences:
<1991Oct7.134056.17739@turing.ac.uk>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,d88347b61bea92a1 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-10-19 23:21:30 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!mojo.eng.umd.edu!mimsy!prism!nmrdc1!ukmug!jonathan From: jonathan@ukmug.uk.mugnet.org (Jonathan Allen) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Wanted: blurb supporting GNU integrity Message-ID: <9110184648@ukmug.uk.mugnet.org> Date: 18 Oct 91 07:30:53 GMT References: <1991Oct7.134056.17739@turing.ac.uk> Organization: MUGNET UK Backbone (UKMUG) Lines: 40