Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!uhccux!julian From: julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Re^2: Software, development & copyrights Message-ID: <4550@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Date: 12 Aug 89 01:52:03 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26832@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5401@ficc.uu.net> <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1312@mcrware.UUCP> <1017@anise.acc.com> <1610@bucket.UUCP> <661@laic. Organization: University of Hawaii at Manoa Lines: 88 In article <661@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson) writes: >If someone does this after a quick glance at yaccpar or the >bison skeleton, will someone else complain that it wasn't >'original' since they saw the sources (of course, the Bison >author(s) have seen yaccpar)? The FSF is concerned about this themselves, and they have a programming guidelines document that explicitly warns you not to look at the Unix sources when developing a corresponding GNU utility. They also urge you to look for newer and faster algorithms than what the originals used, since that would clear the air completely. >If someone wrote one [a skeletal parser], will FSF distribute >it without the copyleft? If not, does FSF become monopolists and software >hoarders? I doubt they would distribute something that doesn't fit in with their ideology, especially if it aides "horders", but they could not justifiably be called monopolists for doing so. Not distributing a certain piece of software is not the same as disallowing the software to be distributed in the first place, and the the FSF is under no obligation to distribute source code to anyone. In fact, they vehemently refuse to distribute source code that supports certain vendors (e.g., Apple). >I don't know how FSF can say the GCC output is not >derived work but including the libraries is - especially since it took >a lot more effort to develop the compiler than the libraries (unless >those are going to be some whiz-bang libraries :-). Consider GCC as a translator. A copy of, say, "The Satanic Verses" may be written originally in English, but a copy translated into Iranian is still the same work. The same argument can be used with GCC's output compared to the original source. The two files are intrinsically the same, except that one is machine readable, and the other is intended for people to read. However, I find the FSF's argument about how the whole executable file becomes copylefted with the inclusion of copylefted source somewhat inpalatable. In fact, if you look closely at the GPL, you'll notice that it says this: "For an executable file, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains; but, as a special exception, it need not include source code for modules which are standard libraries that accompany the operating system on which the executable file runs." (From the Emacs 18.53 copying license) This is meant to waver having to distribute proprietary C libraries, since nobody could do that. But this is almost contradictory with the FSF's current policy, since it could be applied to their library also. The AT&T Unix C library may be proprietary, but distributing executables containing it does not bring the executables under its terms (perhaps against AT&T's wishes). The GNU C libraries should not do this either. As much as I respect the FSF, I feel that RMS's insistence on this point has created many more enemies towards him since he announced it sometime last year. For the inclusion of copylefted sources besides the standard libraries, I am not sure how this affects the whole. Does the work fall under a "least common denominator" license (as the FSF is trying to make out)? Or does each separate piece of the whole get distributed (or not distributed) according to its individual license? I lean towards the latter, but it clearly means that people would then use GNU CC to develop proprietary software. I'm not saying this is bad, but it is not likely to happen since it runs contrary to RMS's firmly stated policy of not helping "hoarders". >So why doesn't someone write some compatible stuff? Or are all the >people with the free time on the FSF side? I don't see how anyone can be on either "side". People who need to make money off of their programming ability have a noble cause. So do people who enjoy making their programs available to other people. Unfortunately, at least in the way our society is set up now, the two causes contradict each other economically, but this doesn't mean that an individual doesn't want to achieve both. The thing I like about GNU is that it recognizes that there is a problem. julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu gnu emacs -- the editor that julian@uhccux.bitnet takes two newsgroups to pin down.