Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: libg++ and copylefts
Message-ID: <6590206@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 19 Jul 89 17:32:48 GMT
References: <2053@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 67

I believe a lot of people are mistating a lot of the issues here:

I don't believe one can "trivially" derive a work and place a new copyright on
it.  You must substantially derived the work before you can place a new
copyright on it.

In any case, if both PD and slightly different FSF versions of a PD product
are floating around, then the ownership issue, "who derived from who" issues
etc, rapidly develop, and people who work for companies can no longer use
the software.  Because software they use must be clearly "in the clear."

I claim the following is a "standard" C++ program:

#include <stream.h>
void main()
{
  cout << "Am I in the clear?\n";
};

If I use compilerX to compile this, am I in the clear?  Many claim yes --
I claim NO!

If I use compilerX to compile and link this, am I in the clear?  Most say
no, and I agree with them.

Even compiling this most trivial, standard C++ example embroils one in
a zillion issues.  A .h file is used to include in-line functions.  Does
that violate the copy[left/right]?  Linking main causes _main to be called.
Is copy[left/right] violated?  Running the compiler causes one or more
lines of assembly to be emitted "in source form" from the guts of the
compiler.  Is copy[left/right] violated?  The compilation contains multi-lines
from the compiler to be emitted to handle "new's."  Copyleftright violated?
Multiple lines of stuff from the compiler get emitted to handle initialization.
Copyleftright violated? Or I qoute examples one the net of the kind of code 
compi lerX generates for some of these things.  Have I violated the
copy[left/right]?

These issues are much more complicated and serious in C++ than C since
C++ compilers include much larger portions of their source in the generated
code in a much larger number of standard circumstances.

How is this different than if I send a copy of my listing to some [hypothetical]
Postscript clone that in the process of generating all those pretty black dots
on white paper makes an intermediate representation that includes the notice:

Copyright 1992 JoeSchmuck Corporation

Did my brilliant new novel that I printed turn into the property of JoeSchmuck?

If I run my code through compilerX in order to turn it into executable dots
on disc, and if as part of that process compilerX generates an intermediate
form claiming:

Copyright 1992 JoeSchmuck Corporation

does my code now belong to JoeSchmuck?

I am not asking to be able to steal FSF code, nor anybody elses code.
I am asking that I be able to use C++ compilers, including the standard,
normal, everyday features of the language, without having compiler vendors
steal *my* code.  Said standard features including streams, complex numbers,
new, delete, _main, object initialization protocols, etc.

Further, it does me no good to make PD versions of these things if 1)
they can't be reused between different compilers 2) if JoeSchmuck Corp.
is going to just turn around and slap their copy[left/right] on it also,
clouding the ownership issue again.