🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 30 Apr 90 05:37:22 GMT
   From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu

   Let me restrict attention to just one scenario: John Shmoe writes a
   program that uses the g++ libraries. He sells the source to the program,
   for a hefty $150 per tape. To install the program, the recipients need
   only compile it---under g++, of course.

   This is the ``GPL Library Scenario.'' Notice that someone could get into
   the scenario without ever seeing any g++ source, or even the GPL.

I don't understand.  The end user could do so without seeing the
source, but so what?  And for reasons outlined in my previous message,
it would be hard to use the libraries without being pointed at the GNU GPL.

   The FSF has repeatedly claimed that such a program must fall under the
   GPL, by section 2(b). I find this virus effect an outrageous expression
   of a morally corrupt attempt to trap people into accepting a philosophy
   that should be a matter of individual choice...

If this is a moral, rather than technical argument, then where's the
beef?  Positing for the moment that there might be no opportunity for
the user to escape seeing the GPL, then this is entirely a free-choice
transaction.  The FSF is hardly a monopoly software provider, so if
you choose to use their code you also must choose to agree to their
terms.  The choice is the individual's.

Positing that there may be a notification problem, make a suggestion.
Or are you saying there's no valid way to distribute the software
without charging for it (so that you can verify that each user has read
and signed an agreement?)

   In article <35894@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jbuck@galileo.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
   > Every module of every GNU program is clearly labeled.

   Bullshit. I can use g++ without seeing even a mutter of the GPL. Nothing
   in the g++ installation instructions even gives a hint that there's a
   potential problem.

It turns out that the README file lacks a GPL pointer, and that
someone who is lucky enough to be able to install it with no problems
and without reading the Makefile (step 3 says "Read carefully the
comments at the top of the Makefile" -- which contains at the top a
pointer to the GPL) could just possibly avoid learning that there is a
public license.  This will be rectified in the next distribution.

   > The GNU Public License doesn't force you to give your code away; you
   > have several options:
   > 	1) Distribute your code with the GNU code according to the
   > 	GNU License.

   To some people, that's giving your code away.

Get a grip!  To some people taxation is theft.  To some people
anything is bad.  YOU DON`T HAVE TO USE GNU CODE!  THERE IS NO GUN
POINTED TO YOUR HEAD.  THEY HAVE NO MONOPOLY.

   > 	2) Develop with Gnu tools, but make sure that everything you
   > 	ship is your own.

   I'll believe that the FSF understands this when I see it.

Gee, it's pretty hard to miss.  Think of all the companies which used
GCC or G++ to develop and distribute proprietary code: Sun, NeXT, DG,
Thinking Machines, Intel, Motorola, just to name a few off the top of
my head.  Their lawyers apparently didn't see any harm with it.
Neither has the FSF.

   > 	3) Use your combined software within your own organization,
   > 	but don't distribute it to anyone else.

   That's a very bad idea. A disgruntled employee could then force you to
   make the source code free, and your whimpered ``sorry, Your Honor, I
   didn't understand what distribution meant'' wouldn't go over too well.

Oh foo.  There's nothing special about this.  A disgruntled or
unthinking employee could reveal the source to ANY company's special
product (even the coke formula; there's nothing special about software
in this regard) or could make 200 copies of Lotus 1-2-3.

1> Most of us have signed agreements as to how the company treats
   this.  Non-disclosure of company secrets or enforcement of company
   licenses.  The copyleft is irrelevent to this.

2> I doubt that the foundation would enforce the copyleft in this case
   (come on, they're human!) but in any case the company would have
   more important things to worry about that that.  If some
   disgruntled employee were revealing company secrets, the company
   would have to deal with the secrets' becoming public knowledge.
   The degree of resistance to closing the barn door would be irrelevent.