Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!AI.MIT.EDU!tower
From: tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Some people won't use GCC
Message-ID: <8906052357.AA00981@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 89 23:57:32 GMT
References: <108109@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: daemon@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 104


   From: sally!plocher@sun.com  (John Plocher)
   Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View

   ...<TEXT_DELETED>...

GPL=GNU Public License

   But there is a third prong in the GPL:

   Any software developed using Gnu software,

Not true.  Keep on reading.
          
   or incorporating
   parts of Gnu software, which is distributed to others must be
   available to them under the terms of the GPL:  Free, with
   source, and without any restrictions on redistribution.

true.

   This seems to mean that if I re-use some functions from (say) the Gnu C
   compiler in my pocket sized ADA(tm) interpreter, I can not make a
   commercial product out of it.

You could sell and service it, but you would have to make ALL the
source available.  You might have said: "a proprietary product out of
it".

   I can live with this - after all, I couldn't take parts of AT&T's C
   compiler and use them in my own product either.

great!

   BUT - it also seems to mean that if I use gcc to compile my software
   then my software is covered by the GPL.  i.e., I am including Gnu
   header files and libraries into my code.  That means that my code "IN
   WHOLE OR IN PART CONTAINS OR IS A DERIVATIVE OF GNU___ OR ANY PART
   THEREOF".  (same arguments about flex, bison...)

rms and others have straighten this out any number of times.
Particularly here on info-gcc/gnu.gcc.  Probably have enough new
readers to explain this again.

Caveat: I am not a lawyer.  Use your own lawyer when making legal
decisions.

When you use a program that MERELY translates one representation of a
program into another, the author of that program has nothing to say
about the legal status of your program.  This means you can use
(e.g.):
	- GNU Emacs to edit your own files
	- gawk to do transformations using your awk scripts on your
	  files
	- gas to assemble your files
and the GPL doesn't apply to the output.  Note though the GPL does
apply to GNU Emacs, gawk and gas.  That is, if you ship them or use
part of their source code with your source to form a program, the GPL
applies.

Now using Bison, lib-g++, or the (mostly un-released) GNU C Libraries
does cause the GPL to apply.  You are combining your source code with
GPL'ed source code.  If you don't wish to do this, you are free to
find other ways of accomplishing your task.  The combined work becomes
a derived work of both your work and the work of the copyright holder
who choose to use the GPL.  You both have original expression in the
combined derived work.  Note that the source code being translated
into another format (e.g. ar format in C libraries) doesn't void the
GPL.

Finally, GCC.  You can use GCC as long as you don't use any GPL'ed
libraries with it.  GCC then is just a translator, like GAWK, GNU
Emacs, or gas.

Note we have a preference that GNU tools not be used to develop
proprietary software, but we can't legally prevent you from using GNU
tools that merely do translation.  We live with it.  GNU and FSF is a
legal effort to promote freed software.

A small side benefit is that such use does show off how good freed
shared software is to more people.

   THIS IS THE REASON THAT I (as a seller of commercial software) DON'T
   DARE USE GNU SOFTWARE in any way relating to the products that I ship.
   It is because of this threat of "contamination". [1]

   ---------------------------------------------------------------
   [1]
     I don't mean anything bad in the use of the word "contamination".  In
   experimental science a sample is said to be contaminated when it is made 
   impure by contact or mixture with anything outside the sample.

Try hard to not use language that could be construed to be `bad' or
language that could be confusing.  Spend a few more minutes and find a
good way of saying it.  Thousands of people are reading your words.
That a fraction of a second per person!

This is much better than explaining a bad or confusing usage.

E.g. you might have said:

      It is because of this threat of my software being made freed.

enjoy -len