Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!CS.PURDUE.EDU!spaf From: spaf@CS.PURDUE.EDU (Gene Spafford) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc Subject: Re: Some people won't use GCC Message-ID: <8906022354.AA28510@uther.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 2 Jun 89 23:54:27 GMT References: <8906022109.AA00195@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Distribution: gnu Organization: GNUs Not Usenet Lines: 94 Sigh. I'm not getting across to the GNUers with this, I guess. I have heard from people at nearly 16 universities and 4 research labs who do understand, however, and would be interested in a true public domain ANSI C compiler. So, you may not understand (or agree with) what I've been saying, but there does seem to be a group who do...and that's just the response from those on this mailing list! Since this group is for technical discussion about the compiler, and since I don't seem to be getting through, I won't continue posting this here. I would like to respond to a few of your points, though. >> Date: Fri, 2 Jun 89 17:09:00 EDT >> From: rms@ai.mit.edu >> To: spaf >> To: info-gcc@prep.ai.mit.edu >> Subject: Some people won't use GCC >> >> 1. My lawyer says we can enforce the copyleft. There is no reason to >> believe a government agency merely by deciding to do so could defeat >> it. I hope your lawyer is a good one if it ever comes to that. I've talked to a number of lawyers, including those for the University and the general consensus is the copyleft is unenforceable. First and foremost, the whole issue of "shrinkwrap" forms of licenses has not been fully addressed in court. You do have copyright, but it may end at the traditional rights. There's also the question of whether its a valid license since there is no exchange of considerations. Even if the copyleft is ever ruled valid, it is not valid to cause someone to give up their Federal rights under copyright in software they have not yet even written yet (I am told). Of course, unless it comes to trial, we'll never know, but there is enough difference of opinion to give one less than a certain feeling. And if the oppposing party happened to be a government agency....how long can you continue to pay your lawyer? >> 2. The reasons you give for which certain companies won't use GCC seem >> rather irrational. My policies have been consistent and have varied >> only in small details ever since the GNU project has existed. Maybe so, but you are espousing something contrary to their commonly accepted standards of law and business, and you have a reputation as a fanatic. You are not trusted to behave rationally, and so they have to react according to worst-case scenerios. Thus, they aren't being irrational at all. >> 3. I know for a fact that Digital employees use GNU software all over >> the place; and IBM people have also submitted extensions to it. So I >> doubt very much that these companies have a uniform policy of the sort >> you describe. I agree. I also know many of these same people. However, the folks in the areas developing language-based software tools are the ones I've been talking to. And just because employees use it doesn't meant the company as a whole has a policy on it. Yet. If one of those employees writes computer viruses at work, does that mean the company has an official policy allowing it? >> In addition, various companies, including MCC and NeXT, have found in >> practice that the problems referred to do not exist. So? We're not a consortium like MCC nor a start-up like NeXT. Their concerns and risks are different. >> 4. It may still be true that some parts of those companies have the >> beliefs and follow the policies you quote. If so, it's their loss. The whole community's loss, actually, and you could affect it if you wanted (for the better). >> 5. I am willing to believe that, for this reason, you wish for a >> compiler that these companies could use in proprietary software. In a >> nutshell, those parts of those companies demand your support for their >> policies of restricting the users, and you wish to give it to them. Bullshit. You completely misunderstand the interest. I want a compiler that I can use to prototype and demonstrate new software tools and approaches that can then be shared by the community. What I produce will not be marketable. We don't do company proprietary research here -- this is a university! I'm not seeking to oppress the masses or any other such nonsense. I'm attempting to advance the state-of-the-art in software engineering. When I do, I will publish the results and share the technology when I can -- and I won't restrict others in the way it can be used. My bottom line is that GNU software *is* *proprietary* too!! It cannot be used freely by others. It is effectively share-ware -- to use it, we have to support your political philosophy. Calling the software "free" under these circumstances is an interesting use of doublespeak. I don't wish you ill, and I will continue to be interested in what the FSF does. However, I also wish you would really live up to the name "Free Software Foundation."