Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!ucla-cs!taylor
From: taylor@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Charles Taylor)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: The GNU license.
Message-ID: <26027@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 26 Jul 89 18:37:29 GMT
References: <873@umb.umb.edu> <8743@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Reply-To: kennel@cognet.ucla.edu (Matt Kennel)
Distribution: na
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 30

In article <8743@attctc.Dallas.TX.US> ltf@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Lance Franklin) writes:
>So, if I get this straight, if I compile my program using GCC, then link
>with GNU's runtime library, I have to give away my source code to anybody
>who asks for it.

Not only do you have to give away your source code with your program
(software houses now will sell source code along with binaries) but
anybody who gets your program may give it away to anybody else without
compensating you.

This does _not_ only affect software developers.  Consider a typical
Programming Systems class (CS217 at Princeton, my alma mater) which
uses GCC and the libraries.  The copyleft means that Jock Bonehead,
who's running a low C- average, can demand that Joan Von Neumann give
him her A+ final programming project, complete with source code.
{Indeed, at Princeton, this class was instructed to use a
locally-developed ANSI compiler, despite the fact that GCC was readily
available and perfectly suitable, and generated better code.   I wonder...}

Whatever the legality of this matter, this doesn't sit right with me.
How can the mere linking of my program with copylefted libraries
abrogate _my_ rights to _my_ code?   Copyrighted material with power
over other material---this doesn't seem right.

>| Lance T Franklin        | | "And all who heard should see them there,



Matt Kennel
kennel@cognet.ucla.edu