🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <284615A0.5415@ics.uci.edu> jhummel@wave.ics.uci.edu (Joseph Edward Hummel) writes:
>
>  My original post asked if it was legal for people to charge others for
>the work of porting gcc (or other GNUware).  Thanks to all who replied,
>here and via email.  The bottom line is that it sure is legal, and even
>desirable.

I think the general wisdom on the net is wrong.  According to the
license, once you distribute or publish a work to one party, you have
to make it available to all third parties at no charge, with the
exception of being able to charge a distribution fee for the physical
act of transferring a copy.  I'll hold my own opinion on this until
a) Stallman responds, b) someone reposts a previous response from
Stallman, or c) the GNU public license gets interpreted in a court of
law.

I think I agree that it is desirable for organizations like Cygnus to
be able to charge for more than distribution costs for ports of GNU
software, and it is unreasonable to expect someone would port GNU
software for no charge, but that is not how the license reads.  And
I am concerned that the free software movement has what appears to be
a glaring logical inconsistency at its foundation, one that outside
parties (i.e. lawyers) will sniff out in a second.  

> But something still bothers me.  One of the ideas of the FSF (correct me
>if I'm wrong) is that software should be free so that people can build on
>the work of others, instead of having to reinvent the wheel.  But if
>someone can take say gcc, port it, and yet they don't have to release it,
>where's the benefit to society?  If I have to port gcc to a similar
>platform, I end up having to reinvent.  Is this where reality (GPL)
>meets the FSF?

>
>  Related question to above, which I don't get the answer to from reading
>the license.  Suppose company X ports gcc.  I work for company X, and have
>access to the port of gcc.  Can I legally give this software away to
>others, even if X doesn't want it released?  Or does company X own the port
>of gcc at this point, and so I'm stealing by copying it?

Once again, the license seems only to refer to work that you have
distributed or published at least once.  After your organization
decides to distribute a port of gcc the first time, they are bound by
terms of the license to give it away to all third parties, but prior
to I'd guess you'd be constrained by the internal decision-making
process of your organization.

Scott E. Johnston
Advanced Decision Systems
Mt. View, CA