Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!attctc!chasm
From: chasm@attctc.Dallas.TX.US (Charles Marslett)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: Copylefting
Summary: I couldn't pass up this one
Message-ID: <8871@attctc.Dallas.TX.US>
Date: 3 Aug 89 07:25:25 GMT
References: <12344@pur-ee.UUCP> <4415@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <634@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 39

In article <634@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton) writes:
> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) wrote: 
> >->Yes.  And software developed with public monies ought to be practically
> >->available to profit-making companies as well as to others.  I wish
> >->Stallman all the best in his crusade, but since I have my hand in the
> >->public till, I don't think it would be proper for me to use a copyleft.

Greg's point here is that he feels he cannot restrict his code with a
copyleft.  Please, people, the point is that the copyleft IS a copyright
[in spite of the fancy word games].  It does restrict the use of the
software to a subset of those who would otherwise use it.  I do not complain
that Microsoft does not distribute the source to OS/2 (I don't know anyone
who would care, but I digress).  I also do not complain that FSF restricts
the use of the libraries it distributes with GCC (here I care, but it is
their right to restrict access and use of their code).

> Ok, so you use public domain or else a copyright that gives away
> most of the rights.  

That's right, or I use commercial software that gives me full rights to
sell the results of my work (that is, I use AT&T yacc rather than bison).

> But some people seem to think it's wrong for FSF to take that software
> and copyleft their improvements.  Why is it ok for a profit-making
> company to keep their improvements to public domain software completely
> secret and not ok for FSF to put on their kind of restriction?

The note by Greg Lee explicitly noted that it is NOT ok for him to keep
his improvements from anyone contributing to the government of Hawaii (I
think).  BTW, the FSF license does not prohibit keeping improvements
secret -- it prohibits their distribution without full source, a completely
different animal.

Like its commercial equivalent (the shareware license), a copyleft is very
hard to enforce, but the ethical individual should abide by the author's
wishes.  And in some cases this means that a tool (even a "free" tool) is
not accessable.

Charles Marslett