🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul2.183339.3838@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@stowe.cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>[...] Note I said source code - not stuff from
> the libraries, but perhaps something like taking gcc's parser, ripping
> it out and using it for something else. If I charge time+materials to
> a client for this, am I ripping of the original author of the parser,
> or simply making good use of their work ? 

You may also be making good use of their work.  But unless you give back
something to the author, you are ripping the author off by charging someone
else for the authors labor without reimbursing the author.

You are ripping off the original author of the parser if you do not release
the code.  You are charging for time and labor without paying for time and
labor.  There was time and labor that went into writing the parser.  If you
don't think there was, then why not write your own?

The GPL allows you to charge time and materials to a client (e.g. support)
as long as the code is provided, so that it can be distributed to others.

> Suppose that the mythical company referred to as "we" (you'll note my
> current address is in the .edu domain) did not charge any of its
> clients for the code that came from FSF material.

If you are not going to charge money, why do you feel it is necessary to
"hide" your code?  Why not copyright your code and release it under a GPL?

> Does the GPL imply that use of copylefted material in a non-copylefted
> program makes one financially indebted to its authors ? I thought that the
> whole point of the GPL was to remove this kind of relationship between
> software and its creators.

No, using copyrighted code does not necessarily make one financially
indebted, but it does make one _intellectually_ indebted.  You are using
the ideas and creativity of others and have a responsibility to give
them something in exchange.  You would be abusing their generosity not
to give something back.  By releasing your code you are paying them back
in kind using some of your ideas and creativity.

> One of the problems with the whole GNU idea (as wonderful as it is) is
> that it seems targetted at general purpose software (operating
> systems, compilers, various tools).

I disagree with you.  While you are correct that the FSF _has been_
targeting the tools needed to create an operating system and is
_currently_ targeting an operating system (and tools), the FSF
philosophy has nothing to do with those targets.  There are many
people outside the FSF who embrace the GNU ideals and are working
on tools in their areas of expertise.  Expecting the FSF to develop
specialized software before having all the general purpose software
in place would be poor planning.

> This is something ideally suited to general purpose software.
> I'm not sure the same model can be extended to special purpose
> systems created for 1 or 2 clients.

Why not?
If you only have one or two clients, _WHY NOT_ release your code?
As has been said before, the GPL permits you to charge money, so long as
your release your code afterwards for no more than distribution costs.
If you are working for time and materials with a company to produce
a specialized version of software, then you are already being paid.
Releasing the code after you have finished your work will not be a
loss of revenue to you since you never expect to sell it again.

I think your division between specialized and general purpose is entirely
artificial.  But if you insist on it, then I will state, "I think specialized
code is a better candidate for the GPL than general purpose code."

Aydin Edguer