Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!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: <26880@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 2 Aug 89 06:33:21 GMT
References: <Jul.5.09.29.33.1989.23541@topaz.rutgers.edu> <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5361@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: 135

In article <5361@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
<In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
<> 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.

Do you tell the people who hold the copyrights on those tools that
you're doing that?

<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.

They don't claim they own it. They merely claim partial ownership of
derivative works - which the law allows them to do. They don't let you
distribute copies of those works unless you agree to their terms for
doing so. This is _exactly_ what copyright is for - to control the
conditions under which others can copy your works.

<> 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?

Nope, only that such programmers are the only ones who can use the GNU
tools and hoard the resuls. This should be compared with commercial
tools, where it doesn't matter how skillfull you are, you just have to
be rich. So if you're not a member  of the privileged classes, you
have two choices: use the GNU tools and abide by their terms, or don't
use any tools at all. The commercial licenses have really helped them
out a lot, haven't they?

<> 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.

You didn't say it, but I don't think I misreprestented your position.
You don't want FSF exercising their copyrights on derivative works if
it's not an obvious derivation. That you consider how they choose to
exercise it arrogant is immaterial - you're denying them the very
rights you accuse them of denying others.

#> 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.

Correct. However, I don't see any commercial license agreement that
doesn't require that either I buy time on the target hardware, or that
the owner of the target hardware buy the commercial product, if I want
them to have a trivial installation process. I'd much rather have
someone control sources if they're derivative than my installation
procedures - even if the works _aren't_ derivative.

Of course, if you don't like people telling you what you can do with
your source, you better not look at the AT&T System V binary license.
It tells you that you can't accept derivative works - even in binary
form - from anyone but the person who issued you the license. Which
means that you can't sell/give/etc _binaries_ to a derivative work to
anyone running a binary license who didn't buy it from you.

<OK, you're saying I'm incompetant.

Either that, or misininformed. Probably a mixture of both.

<> 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?

Yes, you can make enough to live on (quite comfortably) on small
volume items. Check out the salaries people pay Unix systems
programmers for maintenance positions.

And do I what? Make a living off software sales? No. Believe that
making a living off software sales is immoral? No - not so long as you
don't hoard the software.

<Oh yes... quality is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have the RAM to
<spare to run GCC.

Given the current memory prices, not buying a single commercial
compiler would pay for that ram.

<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.

Of course, you're running sub-state-of-the-art hardware. Whereas GNU
software is aimed at beyond state-of-the-art hardware. As a result, it
sucks resources like crazy. On the other hand, the software production
utilities outperform commercial utilities for the same target
hardware. 

<> 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.

Sorry, but you're wrong. People have sold compilers with yearly rental
fees and requirements for royalties. Those set a nice precedent. In
any case, being told "you can't give away binaries that we own part of
unless you give away sources" is no worse than being told "you can't
give away all the tools somebody needs to build your product." Unless
you want to do one of those two things and not the other, of course.

	<mike
--
All around my hat, I will wear the green willow.		Mike Meyer
And all around my hat, for a twelve-month and a day.	mwm@berkeley.edu
And if anyone should ask me, the reason why I'm wearing it,	ucbvax!mwm
It's all for my true love, who's far far away.		mwm@ucbjade.BITNET