Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!uunet!mtxinu!frk From: frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: What does free mean. Message-ID: <1151@mtxinu.UUCP> Date: 12 Mar 90 08:25:34 GMT Reply-To: frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) Distribution: usa Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley Lines: 118 Subject: What does free mean. [ rn dies when I try to followup to this article, so I re-posted ] In article <1990Mar12.060117.2305@brutus.cs.uiuc.edu> coolidge@cassius.cs.uiuc.edu (John Coolidge) writes: #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 :-) # Listen carefully. The source is available through anonymous ftp. You are on your honor not to steal it. When you sign and mail the license you can access the source, without waiting for them to recieve and process it. If you have a problem with this procedure, don't take it up with me. #>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. # Thank you for helping my case. I was not aware that gnulib was not covered, however it makes no difference. #>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. # Fine, I forgot about libg++ because I do not use it. I have no problems with the legality or the ethics of their position. Like you, I am not a lawyer either. #>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. # This comment of yours makes absolutely no sense. I see nothing breaking badly in your statements. #>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. # Noone forces you to link with the GNU code. Noone forces you to jump off a cliff either. You do both at your own risk. You are aware of the consequences of both (I hope). Others of us happen to agree with the FSF position. Given our legal system, they either have the restrictions they do, or people can subvert their intentions to keep their code free. Our legal system gives us choices like this. Take it up with the government if you disagree. #--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. # Your signature carries the GNU philosophy. The intent of both is to retain the rights. I find it amusing that you object to the FSF. Frank Korzeniewski (frk@mtxinu.com)