Xref: utzoo gnu.g++.help:471 comp.lang.c++:11645
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!clyde.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!eng.sun.com!tiemann
From: tiemann@eng.sun.com (Michael Tiemann)
Newsgroups: gnu.g++.help,comp.lang.c++
Subject: LGPL
Message-ID: <9102131748.AA12880@teacake.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 13 Feb 91 17:48:55 GMT
References: <70502@microsoft.UUCP>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Reply-To: tiemann@cygnus.com
Followup-To: gnu.g++.help
Organization: Cygnus Support (+1 415 322 3811)
Lines: 69

I can't stand reading Jim's disinformation any longer.  I have let
about 5 of his random flames fly, and this one has put me over the
top.  If you regularly disregard Jim's postings, you might as well
disregard this one.

    Again, I disagree.  The FSF licenses prevent the vast majority of 
    programmers from using any libraries with such licensing restrictions.
    The reason being that most programmers work for companies distributing
    software that cannot be profitably supported in source form.  When
    "for profit" companies see the opportunity to provide software in 
    source form, at a reasonable support cost, then they so provide the
    software.  A case in point being reusable object-oriented libraries
    written in C++.  The consensus -- in the industry -- seems to be that
    such libraries need to be distributed in source form in order for 
    them to be truly useful to programmers.  Surprise! -- industry supplies
    such software in source form, without unduly restrictive licenses.

This paragraph contains 3 anti-facts.  First, the FSF licenses in not
way restrict programmers from *using* FSF libraries.  I have supported
many a proprietary programming effort in my time, and they all used
the FSF libraries for prototyping.  Some of them even *learned*
something about coding style.  Second, most companies have no idea how
profitable supporting source code can be; they just don't even try.
I'm not saying that my software support company (Cygnus) is making
Milken or Helmsley look poor, but we do alright.  I'm sure that most
software companies can make money in all sorts of different ways.  Out
of laziness, they choose to follow Microsoft's and IBM's model of
software hoarding.  Finally, I looked at the licensing terms of
`Classix', a C++ class library.  Yes, they do distribute their sources
because they have to so that it works with conventional C++ compilers.
But, they have the most restrictive licensing terms I have seen for a
while.  You cannot use, modify or distribute them in 98% of the ways I
consider useful.

    If for-profit industry can provide source-form reusable object-oriented
    software libraries at hardly more than the "distribution" costs of
    "Free" software, and can do so without unduly restrictive licensing agreements,
    then, if people were to mistakenly distribute their work under Stallman's
    restrictive licenses, society loses.  We'd all be better off if the authors
    of such software distributed ["sold"] the software themselves.

Garbage, since I have yet to see less restrictive instead of more
restrictive licenses.  Also, I don't buy the argument even if true.
Laws which enforce safety are a restriction on society.  Does society
lose by being safer, or by having the freedom to endanger itself?
Should I be able to walk to my local gun shop and buy a tactical
nuclear warhead or a binary nerve gas system?  Maybe I should...maybe
it would benefit society to keep the whining down in certain parts of
Washington.  Is this the kind of freedom-without-restrictions that I
should enjoy?  No: I prefer to compete within the restrictions of our
current laws.

The rest of his posting is hard to argue with, only because by now it
is based on such flakey assumptions that there is no coherent point
which can be argued.  Suffice it to say that Jim's idea of what
constitutes "overly restrictive" and what constitutes "useful" are
diametrically opposed to what I have found.  When I fire up a spread
sheet and it doesn't do what I want, without source, I'm screwed.

Since starting a company, and using software commercially, the
importance I place on source availability has *increased*, as has my
contempt for people who continue to argue about the unreasonableness
of the FSF licenses.  It's not the licenses that slow us down, it's
hiring people, paying taxes, bidding too agressively, disk errors,
unexpected market events, etc.  In other words, by looking at our
business, you can't tell that we're not just another software company,
except that our customers have no problems getting source from us.

Michael