Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!helios!bcm!dimacs.rutgers.edu!seismo!uunet!news.larc.nasa.gov!ipsun.larc.nasa.gov!jcburt
From: jcburt@ipsun.larc.nasa.gov (John Burton)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <1991Feb6.193912.6225@news.larc.nasa.gov>
Date: 6 Feb 91 19:39:12 GMT
References: <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1682@digi.lonestar.org> <4678@lib.tmc.edu>
Sender: news@news.larc.nasa.gov (USENET Network News)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Lines: 52

In article <4678@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1682@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes:
>>If you use Turbo C or Microsoft C, you are bound by similar constraints.  Both
>>Borland and Microsoft claim to still own the software they are letting you use
>>for a fee.  They have strict rules about how you may transfer use of that software
>>and both companies reserve the right to revoke the license at any time.  Indeed, if
>>they choose to revoke the license, whatever the reason, you have no recourse but
>>to comply.  The GPL, on the other hand, does not attempt to impose such sweeping
>>unlimited control over your right to use their product.
>
>The difference is that Borland and Microsoft don't claim ownership rights in
>my software just because I used their libraries. The FSF does. (At least for
>now.) That's far, far worse than having a software company claim the right
>to revoke the license to use the compiler at any time - for that still would
>not result in my losing my rights in my code.
>
>I have no problems whatsoever using Turbo C to write commercial software,
>because Borland is reasonable about my right to earn money. I wouldn't
>use gcc or g++ to do so, since RMS is rabid about taking away my right to earn
>money for writing software.
>
>>"Me thinks you complain too much!"
>
>Why? Because I refuse to let the FSF force me into their utopian ideals?
>
>-- 
>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

perhaps someone is missing the point here,
when you purchase a compiler from Borland or Microsoft, you are agreeing
to use a binary form of their software. On the other hand, FSF provides the
source code for whatever the product is. Borland does provide the source
code for their libraries, at a price GREATER than the original product, AND
with a different license agreement. are there any bets as to whether or not
the license agreement for the runtime library source code also includes
provision for royalties for products sold including portions from the
runtime source? Neither Borland or Microsoft would even think  of supplying
the source code for the compiler!!!

There is a MAJOR DIFFERENCE between using a compiler package to generate
your own executables (including linking in runtime libraries), and stealing
parts of the source code from the compiler/libraries, putting them in your
source and calling it your own. Think about it. Borland and Microsoft don't
even allow you the chance of being dishonest, but you bitch and complain
about FSF because they GIVE you the source code, and expect you to be honest
in abiding by their rules.

John Burton
(jcburt@cs.wm.edu)