🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul2.203850.6505@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>, edguer@charlie.CES.CWRU.Edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
|> 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?

While I support the FSF and am glad they are around, there are occasionally
problems, even for people trying to produce freely redistributable code.

For example, here at Berkeley we produce a lot of freely redistributable
code.  The conditions on that code do not correspond to the conditions
on the GPL, because of pressure from the people who fund the research.
This falls into several categories:

1.  Some granting agencies want an audit of how many people are using
code produced under their sponsorship.

2.  Commercial companies who fund us would like to be able to use our
code to make proprietary products, evil software hoarders that they are.

3.  Some government agencies would like to deny CAD technology to some
countries, since it seems some of them are still fighting the Cold War.

As a result, our group produces semi-freely-redistributable software:
for example, to get Gabriel, you can anonymous FTP to copernicus.berkeley.edu,
grab the license agreement, sign it, mail it back in by paper mail, and
then we'll tell you the password that will let you FTP the real code.
I don't care for the bureaucracy, but in the end, just about anybody
can get the code (exceptions for China, South Africa, and a few other
disapproved-of-by-Uncle-Sam countries).

What all this means is that up until recently, we were doing our best
to avoid becoming dependent on libg++, since our code would then become
"contaminated" and we'd be forced to use the RMS conditions instead of
our conditions.  The new library license removes our concerns (although
not completely, since officially the old Gnu license still applies to
all current versions of libg++ -- when are you going to fix that, guys?).

|> 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."

I agree.  In a world without software copyrights (Gnu nirvana?) there wouldn't
be profit in writing general-purpose PC application software (you could
still call it shareware and ask for money, but the request for money would
strictly be a request).  But a specialized expert could still get big money
writing custom software for someone with special needs.  The PC software
industry would disappear, but people who write contract software for the
government wouldn't be slowed down a bit.

I'm not sure I want such a world; there is a place for proprietary software.
I'd prefer to see freely redistributable software simply out-compete
proprietary software.


--
Joe Buck
jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu	 {uunet,ucbvax}!galileo.berkeley.edu!jbuck