Xref: utzoo comp.misc:11254 gnu.misc.discuss:2275
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!bu.edu!xylogics!samsung!emory!utkcs2!news
From: de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill)
Newsgroups: comp.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <1991Jan29.182433.10585@cs.utk.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 91 18:24:33 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu>
Sender: news@cs.utk.edu (USENET News System)
Reply-To: de5@ornl.gov
Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Lines: 60


 
In article <4607@lib.tmc.edu>, jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>
>Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in
>maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public [License] claims;
>rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia.

It means he's not willing to compromise his belief in the advantages
of Free software to benefit a group that doesn't share that belief.
To do otherwise would be counterproductive to his, and the FSF's,
goals.


>Hence,
>his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of
>buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely.

Not selling someone else's product without their consent is hardly a
stiff price to pay.  You're asking people to not only give you their
code, but to give you their rights to it.

>I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its
>software to further his goals.

I find it rather clever that we're able to fight fire with fire.

>This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my
>computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted
>by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I
>can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my
>programming.

This is sheer alarmist nonsense.  There's no more danger of
GNU-license legal challenges than there is from any other licensed
product.  In fact, I'd think a megabucks/megalawyer operation like
AT&T would be more likely to enforce it's System V source licensing.
Are you paranoid about *all* licensed code, or just GNU-licensed code?
If you sold source to your products, how would it be licensed, and
what protection would your customers have against it "infecting"
*their* product?

>This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not
>acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll
>be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors
>(even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to
>license their code under non-utopian terms.

What's a shame is that you've got such a paranoia about the GNU
license that you won't even use any of the GNU tools.  Do you think,
perhaps, that a snippet of GNU code might inject itself into your
product?

I suspect that, in fact, you're really *not* that afraid, and you're
just trying to make a point.

--
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)	  It will be a great day when our schools have
Martin Marietta Energy Systems    all the money they need and the Air Force
Workstation Support               has to hold a bake sale to buy a new bomber.