Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!garcon.cso.uiuc.edu!grunwald From: grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu (Dirk Grunwald) Newsgroups: gnu.gcc Subject: Re: If the user does the link Message-ID: Date: 7 Jun 89 18:50:53 GMT References: <8906071734.AA00295@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> Sender: news@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu Reply-To: grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu Distribution: gnu Organization: University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Lines: 41 In-reply-to: rms@AI.MIT.EDU's message of 7 Jun 89 17:34:04 GMT In article <8906071734.AA00295@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: 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? ....... My lawyer says it isn't clear what the law says about this. Since aiding hoarders is not my aim, I don't see a point in conceding this particular issue in advance. ----- The issue is, in fact, important, if not to the software horders, than to the people who develop Gnu library routines. Say I've put some code in libg++. By putting in the ``public trust'' of FSF, I'm hoping that it will benefit all. If anyone is going to make money off of it by hording software, I'd rather it was me. Unless those library copylefts are bullet-proof, the copyleft provides the illusion of protection without the mechanism of enforcement. If they are not bullet-proof, they should either be changed or the attitude to libraries should be changed. Perhaps the libraries should be licensed products, with a specific re-distribution clause that precludes these sorts of activities. Does your control increase when you license software, rather than copyright it? The hard part is making it easy enough to get the license if you're ``a good guy'' but still having enough teeth to bite ``a bad guy''. -- Dirk Grunwald -- Univ. of Illinois (grunwald@flute.cs.uiuc.edu)