Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!bionet!agate!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-sdd!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: <6590282@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 5 Oct 89 22:37:01 GMT
References: <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 30

>>People don't seem to realize that these are two seperate businesses.
>>Selling software, and selling source.  When you sell source, you are really
>>in the service business of hand-holding, writing documentation, running
>>courses on how to port the software etc.  It's not [necessarily] that
>
>Whoa!  Where did you find this in the GNU license??
>
>Just do what the FSF does - ship them a valid source tape, cash
>their check, and show them the door.
>
>If they want services, tell them there are plenty of consultants around.
>As long as it compiles to the same binary you sold them, your obligation is met
>
>Eric Read  

Some companies believe in supporting what they sell.  Many companies view
their "obligations" as something different than [and conflicting with]
the FSF "obligations requirements."  Presumably, these companies would
rather pay for a compiler than change their corporate philosophies of
what "obligations" they feel they owe their customers.  Can you give any
examples where companies have made major changes in their business 
practices in order to be able to use FSF compilers?  NeXT maybe?
Are FSF licensing restrictions actually changing how software companies
do business, or are they just tilting at windmills?

Sometimes a company's view of their obligations make for some strange
scenerios.  Thus HP assists FSF in porting their products to HP machine,
in the hope this will benefit some HP customers, while at the same time
being frustrated by FSF licensing requirements from using the compilers 
ourselves.