Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!att!ucbvax!agate!eris.berkeley.edu!mwm
From: mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license. (Re: increasing yacc states)
Message-ID: <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 28 Jul 89 23:22:07 GMT
References: <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu> <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26695@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5303@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: 143

In article <5303@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
<In article <26695@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
<> In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
<> <In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
<> <> The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about
<> <> the right to give away neat tools to our friends.
<
<> <No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws
<> <that are based on that right to deny it to other people.
<
<> Well, it is about the right of intellectual property.
<
<I thought you said it was about giving away neat tools to our friends.

Correct. It uses one to allow people to do the other. So in a sense,
it is about both of them. You can draw finer distinctions if you want.

<You seem to have left out one part:
<
<It also covers any software that includes any FSF software. That is,
<it makes the wholly remarkable jump to including any such software as
<being the intellectual property of the Free Software Foundation.

What's remarkable about that jump? That's what others have been doing
for years - except instead of requiring you to share your software,
they insist that you get their permission to distribute it in any way
whatsoever.

<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?

They do have more rights to the program than FSF. They have a copy,
FSF doesn't. Now, if they want to distribute copies, they have to
abide by the license agreement, just like they do with any other
licensed software.

<> It in no way denies any intellectual property rights to anyone, any
<> more than any other license agreement does.
<
<Sure it does. It denies property rights to the author of any software
<that includes any FSF software... including, say, a parser compiled
<with BISON that used the GNU skeleton. If you say this does not deny
<anyone any intellectual property rights then we're obviously not using
<the same language.

You should read what I  wrote. You should also go back and reread the GPL.
Things you've got wrong:

They have complete rights to the parser they wrote using bison. The
only thing they can't do is create binaries from it & distribute them
if they wish to hoard the sources. That's because the resulting
binaries are considered a "derivate work" under the terms of the law.
Among other things, they authers can use a different parser generator,
or rewrite the parts of bison they need to hoard their software.

This does _not_ deny them intellectual property rights to the parser.
Only to the code that comes out of it that uses FSF code. Or do you
think that someone should lose the rights to their work just because
it's not obvious that those works are being used in this case.

You might also notice I added the phrase "any mor ethan any other
license agreement does." Of course, there are license agreements that
are less restrictive. There are also license agreements that are more
restrictive. In general, the GPL is on the winning side, as it leaves
me with more rights than any commercial license agreement that I've
ever seen.

<> To claim otherwise is to lie.
<
<Let's analyse this statement.
<
<You're calling me a liar, right?

No, I'm saying you're lieing. You don't realize it, so I wouldn't call
you a liar.

<> Don't hoard your software. There are other ways to make money off of
<> it. [I'll call this <statement A>]
<
<Not if other people are "hoarding" their software.

This statemet is false. There are _lots_ of ways to make money off of
software other than hoarding it. Providing it's usefull to begin with,
that is. Even in the current atmosphere. That was my original point.

<> <I'm sure you can see other problems with that. If you can't see how
<> <giving up intellectual property rights can hurt you it's a failure
<> <in your imagination, not in the concept.
<
<> Your statement is ambiguous, and in either case makes an assertion I
<> haven't said anything about.
<
<No, it's not ambiguous. I can't see anything in it that would lead to
<interpretation two. I assume you're just playing logical games.

You assume falsely, and your statement is still ambiguous. However,
since you've clarified things, the rest is immaterial.

<> Interpretation 1) Me giving up my intellectual property rights to one
<> or more pieces of software can hurt me. Obvious.
<
<See <statement A> above. If it's obvious, why are you urging people to
<do so?

Because you left out the rest of the statement. There are obvious
harms. There are also obvious gains. I'm urging people to make the
choice that is best for everyone.

<> What's amusing about all this is that the GPL isn't that much worse
<> than licenses for commercial software that I've seen. How about
<> $2000/year for the compiler (for an IBM PC!?!?), plus royalties on the
<> library if you distribute binaries.
<
<How about $500 for the compiler with no royalties? That's the sort of
<license agreement you see these days. Market forces arising from the
<competition between different commercial compilers seem to be working
<just fine.

Except that they can't seem to produce compilers & parser generators
of the quality the FSF can. Otherwise, nobody would be bothered by the
license agreement. They'd just go buy the commercial software.

<> Even worse, copyleft is a _lot_ less restrictive than any of a large
<> number of programs that are PA, which just say "freely
<> redistributable, except for commercial purposes."
<
<This is a completely different subject and entirely irrelevent to this
<discussion.

Nope, it's part of the point. The GPL is _not_ incredibly restrictive.
It just tweaks different rights than you're used to. So you have to do
some thinking to be able to make a living off of the use of it,
instead of doing things in a rote fashion. If this bothers you, well,
then don't use the tools.

	<mike

--
Can't buy happiness no matter what you do		Mike Meyer
Can't get to heaven on roller skates			mwm@berkeley.edu
Can't take a taxicab to Timbuktu			ucbvax!mwm
Life is hard.						mwm@ucbjade.BITNET