Path: utzoo!telly!ddsw1!mcdchg!rutgers!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!f.gp.cs.cmu.edu!dld
From: dld@f.gp.cs.cmu.edu (David Detlefs)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: More confusion on GNU copying conditions
Summary: I'm interested, and want RMS to further clarify his position.
Message-ID: <3579@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 15 Nov 88 16:46:33 GMT
References: <1052@accelerator.eng.ohio-state.edu> <8811150000.AA01027@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 70


I've been somewhat confused by the GNU library policy, and have been
following this discussion hoping to learn the reasons behind it, but
so far have been disappointed, though we seem close.  I hope that
perhaps RMS will address the points below.

First, it seems to me that linking a .o file into a program is an
operation that is at least the rough equivalent of compiling a program
or editing a file; you are using a tool to create something new.  It
seems clear to legal minds that a copyright on a compiler gives you no
copyright interest in the object code it produces, any more than the
use of an editor gives the editor-writer an interest in the documents
produced using it.  Apparently, this is less clear in the case of a
library.  I can see that it would be less clear, but it still seems to
me that the fact that one could always circumvent this restriction by
sending a customer object files and a linker and instructions carries
some weight somehow.

So my questions are:

1) Do the gnu people really see this as a clear distinction
(editor/document is not analogous to library/executable), and if so,
have there been any legal precedents to lend weight to this view
(*not* that I intend to test it!), or

2) would the FSF try to apply the GNU copyleft to documents from
gnu-emacs or or object code produced by gcc if these were legal
possibilities?

3) or is there some third position that I've missed?

I hope no one takes offense over anything I've said; I make no value
judgements on any positions, I simply want to understand clearly what
they are.  The below, however, *is* an opinion that people may take
exception to if they wish:

I don't buy into the GNU manifesto completely; specifically, I don't
think that any mechanism will ever approach the efficiency of the free
market in determining what new and different software it will be
useful to society to have people working on.  Having found a useful
application, commercial enterprises need to get some reward
commensurate with their acheivement: they get to be the sole vendors
of this useful piece of software until someone else builds a
comparable program and competition starts bringing the price down.
Distributing source obviously creates a more attractive product for
some, and so figures in the price/value ratio.  If something is
*really* useful, someone will eventually come along and produce one
for free (out of the goodness of their heart, to make their
reputation, etc.).  At this point, commercial entities should be
driven out of the business of producing this application, and go on to
trying to find new and different useful products, which should be
their true niche in economic life.  My points are 1) that free
software falls on a continuum, and is no qualitatively different in
its economics from other software, and 2) that once a producer targets
an application (such as C compilers) his or her goal should be to get
commercial entities out of this business by producing a product they
can't compete with profitably.  This is what best serves society, I
think.  The FSF position on libraries will keep very few commercial
organizations from selling their products; it will keep them
paying $1000/machine licenses for commercial compilers, keeping smart
software people at the companies that sell compilers working on
essentially solved problems, and thus delay the advance of the state
of the software art.

Of course, I could be all wrong.
-- 
Dave Detlefs			Any correlation between my employer's opinion
Carnegie-Mellon CS		and my own is statistical rather than causal,
dld@cs.cmu.edu			except in those cases where I have helped to
				form my employer's opinion.  (Null disclaimer.)
--