Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!sun-barr!sun!kalli!kevin
From: kevin%kalli@Sun.COM (Kevin Sheehan {Consulting Poster Child})
Newsgroups: gnu.gcc
Subject: Re: If the user does the link
Message-ID: <108773@sun.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 8 Jun 89 02:02:33 GMT
References: <8906071734.AA00295@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Sender: news@sun.Eng.Sun.COM
Reply-To: kevin@sun.UUCP (Kevin Sheehan {Consulting Poster Child})
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mountain View
Lines: 60

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?
>
>If these libraries are standard, then it would be hard to argue that
>the developer is doing anything which intrinsically relates to the GNU
>libraries in question.  He might not even know whether users choose to
>link with GNU libraries or other libraries.  So this must be
>permitted.
>
>If the libraries involved were customized out of GNU software by the
>developer for this one application, then there would be an argument
>that they really are parts of one large program.
>
>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.

I agree that hoarding is Bad, but I'm compelled to point out that the
rest of the world doesn't have the freedom to consult for a living, and
do Great Software on the side.

Purely hardware companies (the orignal target of your actions in
some sense) have historically kept things proprietary to keep people
buying their hardware, and keep them paying Big Bucks for support
and availability.  A legitimate target for free software, and if the
world had been different years ago, probably a beneficiary considering
the redundant development efforts done over the years.  But they were
locked into competing with Big Blue on its terms and got stuck- I 
sincerely hope you can win that battle.

However, what about all the companies that put honest sweat and effort
into their product?  Folks that fund development with nominal charges?
They are all restricted from using the FSF software - which is where
I disagree with the copyleft - I disagree with usury, but forcing folks
who use the tools to create their product to follow along with free is
a bit hampering IMHO.

Imagine if using the worlds greatest screwdriver obligated you to give
away the system it built - if using a 68K chip obligated you to give
it and the schematics out.

Hitting companies by issuing better quality software for free as a
method of forcing them to adhere to more polite modes of business is
useful for software dependent iron companies and greedy software
companies.  FSF software can only help Apple, an iron company. But,
IMHO FSF software shouldn't penalize companies trying to use it in
an honest day's work.

If it's derived, you're entitled to demand your due from copyright
law.  If it's used as a tool, I really think you ought to let it
go.  In my case, you'd have five more companies completely sold
on the idea, if their lawyer hadn't pissed his pants first...


Kevin Sheehan
Sun Microsystems