Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: libg++ and copylefts
Message-ID: <6590203@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 17 Jul 89 16:30:27 GMT
References: <2053@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 44

>Might I suggest to potential developers for GNU a solution to the libg++
>problem:
>
>	Redevelop libg++ from scratch. Explicitly make it *PUBLIC DOMAIN*.
>	This would solve those nasty copyright problems.

Or just remove the copyleft from the existing libraries.  I keep getting
tempted to just rewrite this stuff on my own, but to do so is a bore, and
clearly to have to waste my time doing so is destructive to the interests
of humanity at large.  How much better if Gnu would simply lift these
restrictions, and I could spend my free time developing new software 
to share?  

>Copylefting library code simply insures that nobody will use them.

I wish this were the case.  I'm afraid some people get sucked into believing
Gnu software is really "free"; becoming mislead by the "FSF" nomiker 
that they can use Gnu software without restriction.  In fact many people
on the net have mistated this many times.  Example: the number of people
who don't understand the use of bison is restricted.

>It's even worse than when some misguided compiler vendors tried
>to charge royalties for products compiled by their compilers. This practice
>was soundly rejected by the marketplace (though every once in a while,
>somebody tries it again!).

Compiled? Or compiled and linked?  It would be nice to know that if one
bought a compiler one was automatically allowed to distribute executables
produced by that compiler, but I don't know how widely allowed this practice
is among compiler vendors.  I do know we have to go through a painful process
of figuring out how to make sure we're not stepping in someone's licensing
restrictions everytime we design a product where I work. 

As a compiler user, this is a pain in the butt.  Using an editor to create
source code, or a laser printer to print it, doesn't put copyright restrictions
on your work.  Why should using a compiler to compile and link it put
copyright restrictions on your work?

What it seems we need is some clever court or congress to explicetly state
that one can use a compiler for a language -- including necessary and standard
libraries -- to express oneself without reprisal.  God help us if people who
wrote editors were allowed to restrict what we could do with our work.
Why then do we tolerate compiler vendors placing these restrictions on
us?