Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!toylnd!dca From: dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware) Message-ID: <316@toylnd.UUCP> Date: 12 Mar 90 07:26:23 GMT References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> Lines: 48 In article <1142@mtxinu.UUCP>, frk@mtxinu.COM (Frank Korzeniewski) writes: > In article peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: > > > >Claiming rights to your code because you use a GNU library routine is just > >a bit beyond the pale for me. You may disagree, but surely you can see the > >point. > > Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What, you want money for > this software you wrote (or product you created)? How dare you?" > Let us pose these statements in a slightly different though I would argue equivalent fashion. My bricks are free. If you use my bricks I require anyone who you must compensate uses any of my bricks <-> me. in a building to give away the building for free. Oh yeah. These sound real equivalent to me. Sure.... If you believe that I also have some ocean front property in Kansas for you. Note that if I want to do commercial work these bricks are USELESS. Works that require compensation I can use they just require that I pay them their just due. These two concepts are in no way, shape, or form equivalent. And I do love how adolescent people can get when accusing others of adolescent behavior. -------- I'm intrigued, however, by a previous poster's assertion that the GNU copyleft doesn't actually extend to cover code that you wrote but rather only covers the GNU code which you used. If that is actually the case then you could still use the library but, if someone asked for it you would have to give them the sources for the GNU library not including any of the code that you created. I would think the same would hold for Bison, i.e. you would have to supply the naked parser skeleton source if requested but, not the filled in one. The filling after all, is really just a translation of your code in the same fashion that an executable oject image is the translation of C code you created. I'm going to have to go re-read the copyleft to see if I believe that is really what it says. That wasn't the impression I came away with last time I waded through it. David Albrecht