Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!rpi!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!coolidge From: coolidge@cassius.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware) Summary: Non sequitors, license agreements, libraries, and free software Message-ID: <1990Mar12.060117.2305@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> Date: 12 Mar 90 06:01:17 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> < Sender: news@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu Reply-To: coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu Organization: U of Illinois, CS Dept., Systems Research Group Lines: 79 frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: >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. This is a non sequitor. If you have access to the source before you give them the license, then there's no way they can force you to file the license. A license is _only_ binding if 1) it is agreed upon _before_ transfer of goods, and 2) there is a transfer of "valuable consideration" on both sides. In other words, you have to execute the license _before_ you get the source code, and you have to give the KCL people something in exchange for the source, or the license is non-binding. NOTE: this is "Business Law" law --- it could be wrong, but my Business Law prof. might be unhappy to find that out. In other words, I'm not a lawyer :-) >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. The 'gnulib' library, which comes with GCC, is _explicitly_ not covered by the copyleft restrictions --- or so the FSF says every few months when this comes up on the gnu.* newsgroups. >There are no such complications with the GNU assembler (GAS) or the GNU >loader (GLD). Nor with all the numerous utilities. libg++ _is_ explicitly under the copyleft, and anything linked with it must (if released) be covered by the copyleft. In fact, the FSF claims even stronger protection for libg++ (and other Gnu code): any package designed to link with libg++ or the source to a Gnu tool _must_ be covered by the copyleft. Furthermore, any libg++-compatible library must also be covered by the copyleft. This was all posted to gnu.g++ and/or gnu.misc.discuss (by the authors of the respective packages). I have major doubts about the both the legality and the ethics of this stance, but it's the current position. >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. What if AT&T libc carried a similar restriction (namely, that any code linked with it would fall under the AT&T copyrights)? In that case, building GCC would place it under the AT&T copyright. In other words, your "it's not a problem, there are other sources" attitude works for the small case, but breaks badly in the larger scheme of things. >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. I think everything is wrong with the idea that including GNU source in my program puts my code under the provisions of the GNU copyright (copyleft). My code is _my code_, and I hold the copyright to it. I don't think the copyleft is how things work (legally) or how they should work (ethically). I think the FSF has a perfect right to demand that their code be exchanged freely --- it's their code, and they have a right to control how it's distributed. On the other hand, I think the FSF has _no_ right to control how _my_ code is distributed, _even_ if it's linked with a FSF-supplied program. As long as I distribute, in full and with full source, the FSF source code I use, I should (and probably do --- cf many discussions in gnu.misc.discuss) have the right to distribute _my_ code in binary-only form. That's what _my_ copyright on my code allows _me_ to do. --John -------------------------------------------------------------------------- John L. Coolidge Internet:coolidge@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP:uiucdcs!coolidge Of course I don't speak for the U of I (or anyone else except myself) Copyright 1990 John L. Coolidge. Copying allowed if (and only if) attributed. You may redistribute this article if and only if your recipients may as well.