Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!apple!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!ads.com!killer!usenet
From: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Gnu C Compiler for MPW Unchained!
Message-ID: <1990Dec11.202347.26210@verity.com>
Date: 11 Dec 90 20:23:47 GMT
References: <46962@apple.Apple.COM> <BRIANJ.90Dec5010246@witsend.cs.umd.edu> <1990Dec5.202855.6434@eng.umd.edu> <1990Dec11.140812.1003@chinet.chi.il.us>
Sender: usenet@verity.com (USENET News)
Reply-To: anders@verity.com (Anders Wallgren)
Organization: Verity, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Lines: 49
In-Reply-To: laird@chinet.chi.il.us (Laird J. Heal)

In article <1990Dec11.140812.1003@chinet.chi.il.us>, laird@chinet (Laird J. Heal) writes:
>
>Here, however I would like to note that the GNU Public License (which Apple
>is probably subscribing to - I have not bothered to ftp COPYING from the gcc
>distribution at apple) requires a vendor to make ALL source code available.
			^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Apple is saying that the binaries they are distributing require the sources
>for gcc to be compiled by the MPW C compiler.  It would seem to me, then,
>that they are incorporating the MPW C compiler as a part of their port of
>gcc, and they should release the sources to MPW C as an integral part of
>the distribution.
>


This is wrong and just plain absurd!  Along that same line of
reasoning, since we need MPW in the first place, Apple should release
the source code to that as well.  Oh, but you also need to run the
Macintosh OS in order to run MPW, so I guess we'll have to give you
the sources to that, too.  I don't think this was the original
intention of the GNU project's copyleft policy.  More specifically, at
the bottom of Paragraph 3 in COPYING:

	"Source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
	 for making modifications to it.  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, or for standard header files or definitions files
	 that accompany the operating system."

The key phrase is "for making modifications to it," not "for compiling
it in the first place."  I interpret this to also include tools and
executables which accompany the operating system, namely MPW and it's
C compiler.

Don't get me wrong - I think the GNU project has contributed immensely
to the state of the art, and I believe that its policy on distributing
source code works well and that GNU are well within their rights to do
so.  However, I don't think its intention was, nor is it capable of,
being a means of coercing other entities (ie.  Apple, or you and me)
to follow the same philosophy as the GNU project with respect to THEIR
PRODUCTS.

I leave the argument of whether it is morally/ethically correct to
port and support GNU products on platforms that GNU is boycotting up
to each individual.  Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong
with it as long as the source code policy is followed, but I can
understand why other people argue differently.