Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!garnet.berkeley.edu!ked From: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license. (Re: increasing yacc states) Message-ID: <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: 28 Jul 89 02:41:06 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26695@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5303@ficc.uu.net> Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 27 [much heated debate removed along with attribution which is not important to the point I want to make.] >Don't you suppose that the author of a program that happens to have >been compiled with the GCC compiler using the GNU libraries should >have more right to the program than the FSF? Can someone explain to me how it is software vendors can assert control over what is done with a product once it is sold? (I mean the ~reasoning~ behind the law, not the law itself.) Simple soul that I am, I think in analogies. For example, I buy a Caddy rag top. The license from GM specifies "daily, domestic use only." This precludes going to a drive in and necking. However, for an extra fee, I can purchase an unrestricted nocturnal-use license that permits after-dark usage. I must, however, present a copy of the usage agreement every time I climb in the backseat. Unless I purchase "under the hood rights," I cannot (legally) open the sucker up to see how it works. Still less can I modify what I find there or trade chunks with anyone else. Simple soul that I am, I think in analogies (and repeat myself). Since most commercial software is about as reliable as GM automobiles (which is to say, not very), when you buy (or are given) it, as long as you do not kill anyone with it or prevent dogs from finding fire hydrants with it, you should be able to do whatever you want with the object in question.