Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb.ucdavis.edu!cck From: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license Message-ID: <5023@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Date: 3 Aug 89 00:10:59 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26695@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5303@ficc.uu.net> <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1447@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> Sender: uucp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Reply-To: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 53 In article <1447@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <26759@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > >workstations. People have been spoiled by the real UNIX(r) software >license which makes no claims on the final product, and may not realize >that these workstations are covered by a more (or less, depending on >your view) restrictive agreement. I'm not sure that "real UNIX(r)" makes no claims on software developed under it. Some ATT shysters should speak to this. In any event, it has in the past. In 1980 I started writing a freeform database. This was originaly for my own use, but while crude, it had some features that allowed it to handle data that other products could not. After a brief mention in an academic journal, I started getting requests, both from academic and non-academic sources. My own inclination was simply to give the code away provided the user agreed to do the same to anyone who asked. Before doing this, I checked with the university computer center. They claimed that their ATT license precluded even giving away software unless the recipient had a similar ATT license. This may have been an artifact of the litigation ATT was then engaged in, but I believe similar restrictive arrangements cover some of the VAX machines the university has. I don't remember the details (I'll check if there is interest), but as I recall, if I use certain of the university DEC machines running **IX to develop software that I charge for, DEC will have a shit fit and send its legal buzzards after my carcass. I have two answers for this, one intelectual and one practical. (a) I really develop most of my software under SCO Xenix or MKS Toolkit/Borland Turbo C and only test compatability on the DEC machines. [This is the intellectual argument.] (b) DEC/ATT may have billions, but I don't have squat. So they sue my ass off. They get my Toyota with 101,200 miles on the odometer. I live within walking distance of work and don't drive anyway. Change of subject: I'm disappointed that there has been no response to one of my proposed threads. (a) I think many 'rights' claimed by software vendors are absurd; (b) if claimed, should be backed by acceptance of liability for damages resulting from bugs; (c) academics should be allowed to claim similar rights for lecture materials (differential pricing for commercial and non-commercial usage of material, restrictive covenants on usage, royalties for commercial usage, etc.). I think any programmer who learned a commercial useful technique from a comp-sci prof should be paying royalties (if that idea is not clearly in the public domain). Naturally, the prof should be able to duck all responsiblity for damage resulting from half-assed ideas and boring lectures, the same way software vendors duck all responsibility for bugs and simply dumb code.