Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!mtxinu!frk From: frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware) Message-ID: <1150@mtxinu.UUCP> Date: 12 Mar 90 00:25:17 GMT References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp> <796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> <1990Mar11.192604.7216@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Reply-To: frk@mtxinu.UUCP (Frank Korzeniewski) Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley Lines: 99 In article <1990Mar11.192604.7216@ddsw1.MCS.COM> karl@mcs.MCS.COM (Karl Denninger) writes: Ah, Mr. Denninger, we cross swords again. Well, lets have at it. #Let's stick to the issues -- the Gnu license in this case. I have heard #several reasoned voices saying that it is in many ways a "virus", in that it #tends to infest code that comes in contact with it. # Let me make you aware of the following: CMU distributes MACH with the restriction that any enhancements made to it are to be returned to CMU, to be included in further MACH distributions. This may sound familiar. Kyoto Common Lisp requires that you sign a license to get their free lisp system with C source. You have access to the source before they recieve the license. This license requires, among other things, that you get permission from them before you can distribute any modified copies to others. These are just two instances that I know of, of academia protecting themselves from the commercial world. These concepts, like those in GNU, are not the first, nor will they be the last, of people trying to protect their interests. I find the examples that you and peter have chosen (of getopt and bison) to be somewhat contrived. Setting aside the issue of including GNU source into your programs for the moment, we are left with the following: The GNU C compiler has only the restriction that the inclusion of the runtime library in your program then subjects your program to the GNU license. This library consists of a handfull of machine dependant math routines, and can be rewritten in a day. So, in effect, the GNU C compiler has no real restrictions on its use. There are no such complications with the GNU assembler (GAS) or the GNU loader (GLD). Nor with all the numerous utilities. So getopt and bison are really special cases in that the generate code to be included or are themselves included in your programs. If you look around you, the streets are almost crawling with parser generators, that you can purchase for little money. It is not a loss to not have access to bison. The exists a public domain getopt in the net source archives. Getopt is likewise expendable. So the "nasty" virus-like qualities you and peter attribute to GNU just do not really exist for the use of the GNU programs. Including GNU source on the other hand, does subject your code to the provisions os the GNU license. I see nothing wrong with this. In our legal system of property rights, you have to put restrictions on in order to protect your work. That is just how life is in our case. #My response is not to improve GNU packages. Those we find useful, we #compile up and use. Support and enhance them? No bloody way, since we #then HAVE TO GIVE AWAY OUR ENHANCEMENTS TO ANYONE WHO ASKS. Support is #also in this picture, since support often entails bug fixes, modifications #for specific user needs, and enhancements -- all of which GNU expects us #to give away. The only exceptions are those few packages which we make #trivial changes to, and don't mind giving away the enhancements. Once we #put more than an hour or so into the changes, we stop. Simple enough. You object to giving away your enhancements to something you acquired for nothing. I find that bizarre. If it were not available you would have nothing to enhance. I have seen plenty of your postings on the net criticizing SCO and Interactive for bugs in their software. They do not provide you the source, so you cannot fix or enhance their products. You have made all of us aware of your displeasure in this case. #Tell me -- let's say you could get GNU C freely, OR you could buy a GNU #C-based compiler for $500 from some company, but the enhanced version could #not be distributed. Why object to that? If you don't like the fee, get the #free version! Of course, the free version doesn't include the efforts of #the people who enhanced it later on. Such is the price of the #enhancements; you're not being forced to buy them! But this is what we have now. You can buy compilers like GNU (without source), and you cannot distribute them. GNU is just providing the other option. What is YOUR objection? GNU now gives you access to the numerous enhancements that have been added by others, and people continue to enhance it. The quality of the current GNU programs exceeds what you can get commercialy, and I can only see that situation continuing. In the future I see GNU will outpace commercial products in quality and functionality. The loss of any enhancements by people turned off to the GNU license is just a myth. You would not be able to get them free in any case, so who cares about them. #(Donning asbestos flame-proof suit!) # #-- #Karl Denninger (karl@ddsw1.MCS.COM, !ddsw1!karl) #Public Access Data Line: [+1 708 566-8911], Voice: [+1 708 566-8910] #Macro Computer Solutions, Inc. "Quality Solutions at a Fair Price" Nice suit. I remember a hue and cry raised about you signature a year ago. After complaints about you advertising there, you removed the ad. I notice that the ad is back. Perhaps you have a short memory. We don't. Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)