Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!apple!ames!rex!uflorida!haven!uvaarpa!hudson!astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f From: gl8f@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: The GNU Public License Message-ID: <1831@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> Date: 2 Aug 89 07:03:27 GMT References: <1989Jul30.210646.12194@twwells.com> <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <43524@bbn.COM> Sender: news@hudson.acc.virginia.edu Reply-To: gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia Lines: 72 In article <43524@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: >The problem is that because they want to give away *their* software, they are >trying to get the laws changed so that they will force *everyone* to give >away their software. Woah! Let's not over-simplify the issue, and let's not lump software writing into political goals. There are two things going on here: 1) A group of people is writing software, and is releasing it with a license restriction that makes it "obnoxiously free"; 2) A group of people wants to modify the laws regarding copyright of software. First off, let me point out that #1 is totally admirable. If you want to give away software, that's great. If you don't like the restrictions they place on the code, don't use it. This is what I mean by ignoring FSF if you don't like their license agreement. You might not be able to use BSD anymore, but that's life. Second, note that the two groups aren't one and the same. They intersect, but they aren't identical. Using code covered by a GNU license or a GNU-like license doesn't necessarily mean that you support group 2's philosophy. One might note, for example, that NeXT is hardly giving away the source code for their operating system extensions. Third, not everyone in group #2 believes that everyone should be FORCED to give away their software on terms similar to the GNU Public License. Not only is this silly, it won't pass Congress. And not only that, I don't believe that many people in group #2 really want this. What I want, for example, is to see copyrights for computer programs treated in a similar fashion to copyrights for other works. You cannot copyright the "look and feel" of a cookbook. And you cannot copyright a computer language. You can copyright a compiler, but anyone is free to go out and write a compiler that groks the same input and generates a running program that behaves the same as the program generated by the copyrighted compiler. If you would like to discuss this, I would suggest misc.legal. I don't see that the laws on this are going to change overnight, or that it's so important to inform the poor unaware public about this that we should post this kind of stuff all over the comp.* tree. If you'd like an illustration of how the "GNU ideals" work, at least for his person (and I haven't written any code for GNU, but I love using theirs), then consider this: I'm a vegetarian. If you ask for my opinion, I'll advocate the idea that you should be a vegetarian also, because eating grain-fed beef is a huge waste of resources. However, that doesn't mean that I support a law banning beef. A tiny fraction of vegetarians might, but you can waste whatever you want, as far as I am concerned. You might not like the idea that I'm claiming the moral high ground, much like the FSF people do, but that's life. And, finally. > I think it is important to point out the flaws in the >FSF-style view of the world so that folks who might otherwise be bedazzled >into thinking it _might_ really all be able to work will be able to see >clearly the boundardies and limits on the whole approach. Point it out in the right groups. And, keep in mind that if lots of people start giving code away (group #1 above), it won't hurt anyone except commercial software houses with inferior products. It may be a strange kind of "free market philosophy" to have products out there competing which don't cost anything up-front, but it's still capitalism at work. ------ Greg Lindahl gl8f@virginia.edu I'm not the NRA.