Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!gatech!mcnc!uvaarpa!umd5!ncifcrf!randy
From: randy@ncifcrf.gov (The Computer Grue)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: "Open" Software Foundation: GNU
Message-ID: <508@fcs280s.ncifcrf.gov>
Date: 10 Jun 88 18:31:00 GMT
References: <4630@hoptoad.uucp> <5910001@hplsla.HP.COM> <1144@mcgill-vision.UUCP>
Reply-To: randy@ncifcrf.gov (The Computer Grue)
Organization: NCI Supercomputer Center, Frederick, MD
Lines: 50


    I'd like to correct a misconception that appears to have showed up
on the net.  

In article <1144@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
>	However, gcc appears to be different.  I don't have the gcc license on
>	hand at the moment, but if it's as similar to the emacs license as I
>	expect, a good case could be made that anything compiled with gcc (or
>	*certainly* anything linked with the gcc-distribution library routines)
>	cannot be distributed for-profit or otherwise contrary to Richard's
>	ideals as embodied in the license.  Sorry, but I can't live with that.
>	Not that I want to make megabucks off my programs (though I wouldn't
>	object to it! :-); in fact I've posted some of my software to the net
>	and would post more if it weren't for all the local library routines.
>	I just resist being told I *have* to do it that way.

    I quote from rms' interview with BYTE (provided with the gnu-emacs
distribution in etc/INTERVIEW):

----
BYTE: Do you obtain any rights over the executable code derived from
the C compiler?

Stallman: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from
the compiler, so it doesn't give me a way to say anything about that,
and in fact I don't try to.  I don't sympathize with people developing
proprietary products with any compiler, but it doesn't seem especially
useful to try to stop them from developing them with this compiler, so
I am not going to.
-----

    Now obviously if you are *real* worried, talk with your lawyers
and if *they're* worried, they should talk to Freesoft, but Stallman's
intention is *not* to restrict the output of the C compiler this way,
so presumably you can get around what legal hassles might be currently
in your way (tr: Poor wording in the license).  Just thought I'd clear
this up.

						-- Randy

    Disclaimer 1: I'm going to work with Freesoft next month.  If
that's not a bias, I'm not sure what is.

    Disclaimer 2 (neccesitated by Disclaimer 1):  I do NOT speak for
Freesoft in any way, shape or form.  Talk to rms for that.


-- 
  Randy Smith    @	NCI Supercomputer Facility
  Phone: (301) 698-5660 Email: randy@ncifcrf.gov
  As of July 1st:              randy@wheaties.ai.mit.edu