Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!argosy!doug From: doug@argosy.UUCP (Doug Hoffman) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: The GNU Public License Message-ID: <208@argosy.UUCP> Date: 31 Jul 89 17:33:18 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5351@ficc.uu.net> <9655@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Sender: news@argosy.UUCP Reply-To: doug@shark.UUCP (Doug Hoffman) Organization: MasPar Computer Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 49 Without taking any stand on the GNU question, I think there is a fairly dangerous (and erroneous) concept being presented. The idea is that the binary somehow is related to its method of generation. In article <9655@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> markv@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Mark T Vandewettering) writes: > > >Excuse me, but there seems to be a very VERY subtle difference between >these two instances. The assembly output of a compiler is in some sense >a "derivative" of the compiler. Its true that it doesn't integrate the >text of some file into its output, but the result of its output is the >derivative of the compiled rules for parsing and code generation. With >the proper perspective, the differences between the two licenses seems >almost nonsensical. > I find this much like saying that the hammer is used to build a house, and therefore you owe royalties to the manufacturer of the tool. You don't even owe anything to the lumber company (assuming you paid for the material :-) ). The house you build is the result of your using tools and material to create something. You may pay royalties to the architect for each copy you build, but that is a matter of contract with them. The binaries you create can be made any number of ways. The method of their creation is not the important thing. That you selected one or another tool for that particular process is not really important. The resultant binary is the product of your work, and it is frequently worth something. The issue of including library code is entirely different. That I would compare more to copying music. If you play a tune which you have rights to on a musical instrument, no problems. If you play that tune and include prerecorded backgroud, there may be a problem with the legal rights. If you have included someone else's code in your program, you do possibly owe them something. That is entirely dependent upon the contract you created in aquiring their code. > The true fact of the matter is, the only real >reason why RMS and the FSF grant you the right to your own binaries is >the fact that he really can't enforce taking them away and granting them >to the FSF. > I think the true fact of the matter is that you have rights to your binaries unless you include someone else's binaries as well. Since in the latter case you are including some work done by the other party, you should owe them something for it. Doug Hoffman argosy!doug@decwrl.dec.com