Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!purdue!decwrl!sun-barr!texsun!texbell!uhnix1!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license. (Re: increasing yacc states)
Message-ID: <5361@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 30 Jul 89 16:04:52 GMT
References: <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu> <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 133

In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
> In article <5303@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
> <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.

This is the silliest argument for the FSF that I've ever seen. I don't *need*
the GNU PUBLIC LICENSE to give away neat software to my friends. I just do
it.

> <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.

Huh?

They require that I get their permission to share my software? Who does?
What others?

> <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.

But *my* software isn't licensed from the FSF. I wrote it myself. I'll gladly
give people copies of the GNU software I use, but I'm totally flabbergasted
at the claim that the FSF owns everything I write that might include any
FSF software. The FSF software itself, sure. But *my own code*?

"Arrogant" is about the mildest term I can think of.

> <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.

> 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.

The sources to bison? No, the sources to their own code.

> 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.

I.e., someone who can't afford to rewrite the BISON skeleton, either because
they lack the time or the skill, must give away any software they wrote using
bison. So, you're saying that only rich, well educated, and/or skillful
programmers have the right to their own code?

> This does _not_ deny them intellectual property rights to the parser.

No, it just denies them the right to excersize those rights.

> 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.

I've never said that they should. Why don't YOU go back and read what *I*
wrote? I said that the FSF can put any restrictions they want on their code,
but when they start extending them to other people's code... well, I think
arrogant is how I referred to it.

If they require that you make the GNU software you used available to your
customers for "reasonable distribution costs", that's fine. When they require
that you make the whole of any work, including the parts that aren't GNU code,
available... that's unreasonable.

> 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.

This is complete bull. I haven't seen *ANY* commercial license agreement
that claims to tell me what to do with my own source code.

> <> 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.

OK, you're saying I'm incompetant.

> 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.

For small-volume items, can you make enough to live on? I know RMS doesn't
believe in living off software sales. Do you?

> 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.

But, I do.

Oh yes... quality is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have the RAM to
spare to run GCC. I wouldn't buy a commercial product that sucked up that
much of my computer's resources. If they could get away with such waste
they would probably be able to do as good a job.

> Nope, it's part of the point. The GPL is _not_ incredibly restrictive.

Yes it is. It imposes a restriction that is completely unprecedented outside
of eastern governments.

> If this bothers you, well, then don't use the tools.

I don't. I can't afford the RAM to run them.
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now
Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' |  writing is the sentence
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |  you are now reading"