Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!lib!thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu
From: jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <4613@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 30 Jan 91 03:27:53 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1991Jan29.182433.10585@cs.utk.edu>
Sender: usenet@lib.tmc.edu
Organization: University of Texas Medical School at Houston
Lines: 104
Nntp-Posting-Host: thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu

Yea, verily, my mailbox runneth over.

I've gotten a flood of comments, both here in comp.misc (I don't get any of
the gnu.* groups) and by email, generally blasting me for contending that
the FSF may not be snow-pure because of what I see as an unreasonable
license policy.

My problem is with the part of the GNU General Public Virus that causes
"the whole of any work" that contains any GPV-infected code to fall under
the terms of that license. There are problems with that provision, but the
FSF has stood firmly behind their right to dictate others' disposition
of code that the FSF didn't provide.

I'll answer Dave Sill's comments here, since they're representative of what
has been flooding my mailbox.

In article <1991Jan29.182433.10585@cs.utk.edu> de5@ornl.gov writes:
>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 Virus 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.

That's great as far as it goes...but why does he exhort people to place their
code under the GPV, claiming that doing so would maximize the sharing and
reuse of code? It's having the opposite effect in practice: people have
removed GPV-infected code from their work when they discovered its effects.

>>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.

As opposed to the GPV, which doesn't ask me if I want to surrender my code,
but rather demands it.

I don't want to sell GPV-infected code. I simply want to use it, as others
can do with the full consent of the FSF.

>>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 statement has apparently confused some folks (though not Dave). They've
reminded me that compiling my program with gcc doesn't mean that the program
is infected. I understand that; my problem is from another angle:

Having GPV-infected code on my computer leaves me open to the charge that
I have used that code in my program. I must defend myself from this charge,
with the attendant legal expense and hassle *whether or not the charges are
true*, or else release my code to the clutches of the GPV. Since I cannot
afford the former, as can such corporate giants as DG, NeXT, and others who
ship gcc as the standard C compiler, and do not wish to do the latter, that
leaves me unable to have the code on my machine at all.

>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?

I have no non-PD source code on my computer that I am not licensed to use
to develop programs without restrictions. Further, I will not have any
such code there unless I am satisfied that the license provisions do not
leave me in a similar position.

I do not provide source to my programs under any conditions. Further, none
of my customers has ever asked about it.

>>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?

No, but I have no assurance that the FSF might not think so at some point in
the future. As Michael C. Berch put it, I'd rather not have the status of my
programs depend on what RMS had for breakfast.

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

I'd love to be able to use the FSF's code; I understand that it's quite
good and usable. I simply find the potential cost too high.

-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu  | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret
Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein