Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!vette!brooks
From: brooks@vette.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: Some people won't use GCC for imaginary reasons.
Message-ID: <26549@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>
Date: 7 Jun 89 15:49:20 GMT
References: <8906052346.AA00997@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> <1108@mcmi.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV
Reply-To: brooks@maddog.llnl.gov (Eugene Brooks)
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Lines: 38

I don't want any hate mail from the GNU staffers for this, I thought I
would answer this question as it covers an interesting point in
copyright law.  I support the GNU effort with my time now and then and
would certainly send a check to FSF if they needed to defend their
copyleft.

In article <1108@mcmi.UUCP> denny@mcmi.UUCP (Denny Page) writes:
>rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>>The other GNU libraries are copylefted, and as a result, you can't
>>distribute an executable linked with them unless you are also
>>willing to distribute the rest of that program under the copyleft.
>
>Ok, now I have a question.  What would be the attitude toward a developer
>who distributes .o files containing proprietary code, source to the GNU
>libraries in question, and leaves the end user to compile and link them
>together on his own?

This is the one certified way of beating the copyleft, which RMS does not
like to advertize.  It even has the feature that the copyleft prevents the
end user from redistributing the resulting binary because he does not have
part of the source.  Its an interesting turnabout, the copyleft is
protecting the resulting proprietary program.


Now, you might think that FSF would never sue an end user under these
conditions.  No one would think that FSF would sue an end user for
distributing proprietary code freely.  However, an interesting
feature of the copyright law is that if you don't defend your copyright
you lose it.  If you allow someone to freely distribute your goods in
violation of the copyright (as in the case of the end user noted above),
and then a company distributes the goods in violation of the copyright
in "software hoarding mode", FSF will not successfully defend the copyleft
in court against the second party unless they defended it against the
first.  This means, in effect, that FSF MUST defend your proprietary
source from redistribution if it is to keep its copyleft in force!


brooks@maddog.llnl.gov, brooks@maddog.uucp