Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!ncar!noao!arizona!naucse!jdc
From: jdc@naucse.UUCP (John Campbell)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: GNU Manifest
Message-ID: <621@naucse.UUCP>
Date: 30 Mar 88 14:59:14 GMT
Organization: Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ
Lines: 71
Keywords: BISON, GCC, GNU: Legalities

Recently a few of us here had the following discussion.  Since
the other two disagreed with me regarding the GNU manifest for BISON,
I thought I'd better broaded the discussion.
>
>I'm interested in opinions on interpretations of GNU's licensing
>agreements:
>
>       (1) My understanding of BISON is that if you use it, then
>           the thing you created with it must be freely distributed.
>           Agreed?
>
>       (2) What about gcc?  My understanding is that if you port
>           gcc to a new machine, it must be freely distributed.
>           Agreed?
>
>       (3) Now, what about programs compiled with gcc?  (I.e. my
>           own code, compiled to binary using gcc.  Must the
>           binaries be freely distributed?  What about the original
>           source?
>Opinions?
>

;I assume you are, in (1), referring to the following passage from the
;BISON agreement:

:  2. You may modify your copy or copies of BISON or any portion of it,
:and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of
:Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following:
:
:    a) cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating
:    that you changed the files and the date of any change; and
:
:    b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
:    that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of BISON
:    or any part thereof, to be freely distributed
:    and licensed to all third parties on terms identical to those
:    contained in this License Agreement (except that you may choose
:    to grant more extensive warranty protection to third parties,
:    at your option).

;As I read this agreement, it seems to me that part b) referes only to
;works that have BISON embedded in them (contains or is a derivative), 
;not the output of BISON.  I certainly made this assumption when I used 
;BISON to create two small compilers--if I am wrong I'm in trouble and 
;don't even know it.
;
;The clause seems to me to be a "kermit" clause.  In other words, some
;products are easily embedded into commercial products.  Thus if you build 
;a neat language building tool that is essentially YACC with a screen 
;interface, and you earn oodles of money from it, but it just puts BISON in 
;a new wrapper, you're obviously in trouble.  If you use the BISON tool to
;make a new commercial product, unrelated to BISON, you should be fine.
;
;My view leads to inevitable conclusions for questions 2) and 3):  
;2) Yes, gcc and any derivative must be supplied freely.  3) output
;from gcc is no longer the "property" of GNU.  If I am wrong I think there
;are probably a number of programs out there that GNU now "owns" and doesn't
;know about.  To carry the argument a bit further, if a defense contractor
;has GNU emacs on their machine and a top-security yo-yo writes a proposal
;regarding super-secret-who-knows-what, does this mean (since the proposal
;is the output of GNU EMACS) that GNU can now own and have rights to the
;proposal?  [If this were possible we would all be writing editors!]
;

As I said, others disagree with my interpretation.  Could someone tell me
what interpretation is correct.  (Would anyone from Free Software 
Foundation, Inc.  care to respond?)
-- 
	John Campbell               ...!arizona!naucse!jdc

	unix?  Sure send me a dozen, all different colors.