Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm
From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license. (Re: increasing yacc states)
Message-ID: <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 24 Jul 89 06:51:53 GMT
References: <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu> <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <23837@santra.UUCP> <5207@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 58

In article <5207@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
<If I'm not a private hobbyist or a university, then what is the purpose of
<writing this code? To make a profit off it, of course... either because it
<provides a competitive advantage, or because the code (or some system for
<which the code is part) is to be sold for profit.

Peter, you mentioned in passing a category of software developers, but
didn't really consider how the copyleft affects them. Since they are
the largest single group of software developers, I think this should
be fixed.

The in passing reference "either because it provides a competitive
advantage". In other words, the software is a tool that makes doing
some part of a job easier or faster, and lowers the cost.

Every place I've been employed has been in that category. Most of them
realized this, and put all software into one of two categories:
general tool, usefull to just about anybody; or specific to our
business, usefull only to us and our competion. Most of them were
reasonable enough to freely distribute stuff in the former category
(after all, they'd gotten their money's worth; why not let others us
it?). The stuff in the latter category they weren't going to let
anyone have, no way, no how.

Given that, copyleft doesn't affect them at all. The stuff they give
away, they give away sources to, thus meeting the requirements. The
stuff they don't let anyone have, they don't have to worry about the
copyleft, because it only applies if they let someone else have it.

<I'm not saying Stallman should give me GCC. Unlike him, I'm not going to deny
<anyone profit (and he does profit from GCC... maybe not directly financially,
<but it's only a Marxist fallacy that negotiable goods are the only form of
<profit). I'm just explaining why I can't use it.

Sorry, but copyleft doesn't deny you a profit on software. You're free
to charge anyone whatever you want for copies. However, if the
software is covered by copyleft, you must let them have source if they
want it, and you can't prevent them from giving away binaries & source
to people who haven't bought a copy from you. 

There are a number of ways to make a profit on copylefted material.
The easiest is to use it to get a competitive edge, and never release
copies to anyone. Others can be found by looking at what the shareware
people are doing (no, I still don't condone shareware, but that
doesn't prevent me from pointing out that you can use it's technics).

The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about
the right to give away neat tools to our friends. That's why the
legalease talks about copying, and providing source, not about selling
or money. If you can't see a way to make a profit in that situation,
the failure in in your imagination, not in the License.

	<mike
--
Tried to amend my carnivorous habits			Mike Meyer
Made it nearly seventy days				mwm@berkeley.edu
Loosing weight without speed				ucbvax!mwm
Eatin' sunflower seeds					mwm@ucbjade.BITNET