HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 21:55:34 GMT

In article <1isogrINN3k3@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>I now decide to write C, which also uses subroutine S.  If I take S from A,
>>C is infected with the GPL.  If I take S from B, C is not.
>>Yet the two copies of S are still identical, byte for byte.  I'm stuck; any
>>third party can say "oh, you just took S from the GPL program.  So C falls
>>under the GPL, so I can copy C".  Can _this_ happen and is _this_ intended?
>Just because he thinks it came from the GPL program doesn't make it so.
>I don't think someone receiving C can sue you over this, as there is no
>contract between you and he that says anything about source availability.

No, no, it's not the party receiving C who sues.  It's my competitor who
copies.  "You took it from C" is just my competitor's excuse for pirating my
work.  _I_ have to sue _him_; his possession of the excuse "well, he took it
from C, so it's GPLed and freely copyable" is his defense against my claim
that he pirated my stuff.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:28:02 GMT

In article <FRIEDMAN.93Jan9114839@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu> friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
>>The actual force of the GPL as a true "license" has never actually been
>>tested.  I'm not a lawyer, but it looks very much like "shrink-wrap"
>>licenses, which many people believe are not really enforceable.  
>Paragraph 5 of the GPL (version 2) says:
>      5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
>    signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
>    distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
>    prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.

OK, assume this part is legally valid.

>Therefore, by
>    modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
>    Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so...

Does this work?  I don't think so.  If the only way to legally distribute
the program is to accept the license, it does not follow that someone who
distributes the program has just accepted the license.  Rather, what follows is
that _either_ they accepted the license _or_ they committed a crime.  You have
no way to tell which one of these two options follows, and the logic in the
above License passage is fallacious since it does not rule out the other
option.
--
"On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Leftover Turkey!
On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me...  Turkey Casserole
    that she made from Leftover Turkey.
[days 3-4 deleted] ...  Flaming Turkey Wings! ...
   -- Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)

Ken Arromdee (arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu, arromdee@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu)
From: hammild@westminster.ac.uk (Damien Hammil)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: gdb 4.5 and gcc 2,2,2 ???
Date: 6 Jan 93 20:59:59 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of Westminster


When using gdb4.5 with binaries compiled with gcc2.2.2 I sometimes get
funnies!!  parameters all to cock that sort of thing.

Does anyone know anything about this or should it be solid?

please reply only by email

many thanks 

damian.


-- 
Damian Hamill               	    	| dh4@cel.uucp or dh4@crosfield.co.uk
Crosfield Electronics Ltd           	| pstn: +44 442 230000 x3394
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4316 talk.philosophy.misc:3214 misc.legal:22207
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:06:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: life.1ikfruINN521
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


In article <1993Jan8.115714.19103@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>
> The law does not permit selling products without warranty of any
> kind.  That does not stop the FSF from including its "NO WARRANTY"
> clause in the GPL.

Specifically, version 2 says:

    11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
  WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.

Furthermore, the FSF `sells' a distribution service, and provides for
a suitable warranty on the media used for such.

What is your point?

-- 
 \  /   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\ \   PGP public key available on request.  MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu (john drexler)
Subject: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis: Under Grad Workstation Lab.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:23:19 GMT

Now look:

I have followed the gnu project for some time, and do like (and, I admit, use )
the products that you have created. However, enough is enough. The PRINCIPLES 
upon which the gnu project was formed are quite harmful to the software industry
and software programmers in general.

	Now I realize I am not going to change your mind, but listen:

	You are doing the equivalent to what the Japanese microchip industry
did to the United States counterpart: dumping. Every time you create a software
product, and give it out -- free -- to the public, some private software 
developer is taking the brunt of it. 
	A software developer -- in the attempt to make a living -- creates a 
software program. In order for him to subsist, he HAS to charge a considerable
fee to pay for his time and effort in developing the product.
	Now YOU develop similar software for free. Which software would you 
pick as a consumer? A: Joe Schmoe's word processor -- 129.95 or B: Richard 
Stallman's super-duper gnu processor -- GRATIS. The choice is easy (as far
as the consumer is concerned, and Joe Schmoe, software developer,  
gets it directly in the teeth. 

	Aha -- but you say -- the development of free software stimulates the 
use of tools for other programmers to use in the future, to build off what 
you develop... WRONG.
	Your software gets people in VERY bad habits. They learn that what 
'they get off the net is free'	and 'why should we pay money for software? We'll
just wait until the gnu group, or some shareware group does it for free!'. I 
know this first hand, because gradually, people are 'coming around' to this 
way of thinking.

	All of the above is sad news for the future software developer. Why
ON EARTH spend 20,000+ on a college education, if the market that you are going
to go into is being deliberately sabatoged at every turn by some person who
-- out of misguided loyalties -- is periodically dumping products onto the 
market. I am one these folks, and sorry to say, I do not feel that I am going
to have the security of an academic umbrella to pay the bills.


Hey -- if you want to discuss any of the points above, just mail me. Flames are
not allowed -- I feel quite seriously about this issue, and am willing to take
all callers in turn.

Cheers,

John

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Drexler			'Gentelmen-- you can't fight in here....	
tyrell@mermaid.micro.umn.edu	 This is the WAR ROOM! ' -- Peter Sellers
CSci Undergrad, University of Minnesota
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: schrod@iti.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Joachim Schrod)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:54:30 GMT
Organization: TH Darmstadt, FG Systemprogrammierung

In article <3087@ulysse.enst.fr>, ciaran@ulysse.enst.fr (Ciaran O'Donnell) writes:
> 
> Rather than get into a long debate about freedom, I will define it.
> PLEASE ACCEPT THE DEFINITION JUST LONG ENOUGH TO READ THE POST. 
> 
> I define freedom as THE ABILITY TO DO GOOD.

I've accepted it as long as I've read the post.

But now -- you're simply not right in your definition. As everybody
knows (hopefully ;-), freedom's just another word for nothing left to
loose.

Ha, we should start discussing about the dialectic of freedom. The
more you want, the more you loose it itself. Who has read Adorno's and
Horkheimer's ``Dialectic of enlightenment''?

--
Joachim
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:16:46 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1ispnuINN4jc@early-bird.think.com> 
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

>In article <1993Jan10.125629.19161@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

BM:
>>>And given this, the terms *do* apply to the token, not the type, since
>>>copyright applies to expressions not ideas (although with software, the
>>>line between token and type is fuzzy).

MZ:
>>As you can see, there is nothing fuzzy about the distinction.

BM:
>I know what "token" and "type" mean.  But in cyberspace, many things that
>are concrete in the real world become ephemeral.  They go back and forth
>from having single to multiple instantiations, depending on point of view.
>For instance, when a program is being run there's a copy in RAM that is
>physically distinct from the copy on disk, but operationally they may be
>identical (for instance, in many virtual memory systems, if someone changes
>the disk copy, the change will be reflected immediately in the memory copy
>as well).

Operational correspondence is not identity.  Hence, your example does
not vitiate the merits of Peirce's distinction.

BM:
>In any case, the notion of copyright only makes sense when attached to
>tokens, not types.  You can't copy a type.

You can, however, instantiate it.  As for your alleged rebuttal, you
are unduly taken by the sound of the word.  Look further, towards its
meaning, and you will find that copyright is defined as a temporary,
exclusive right to the publication, production, sale, or distribution
of a *work*; accordingly, this right would not be abrogated in the
event its holder is forced to resore the work from memory, should all
of its extant copies come to be destroyed by accident.

MZ:
>>According to Paragraph 8 (V1), any of the subsequent revised versions
>>of the GPL may be selected by the licensee, at his own discretion,
>>instead of the version specified in the program he is using.

BM:
>I only have V2 of the GPL, and it says that this may only be done if the
>program specifies "and any later version" when indicating which version of
>the GPL applies.  If a program indicates only a specific version which
>applies, then you can't do that.

OK, the V2 is more flexible on this point.

>-- 
>Barry Margolin
>System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.
>
>barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 14:01:09 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1993Jan7.230129.19091@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>That depends on whether the license attaches to the program type or
>any individual token thereof.  I assume that the former is the case,
>as the latter does not seem to make any sense.  In any case, your
>claim that, "as the owner of the work, [you] can make another copy
>with a different copyright agreement attached", directly contradicts
>the statement of the GPL, which regulates *all* copying, modification,
>sublicensing, distribution, or transfer of the licensed program.
>Since any derivative code is required to be so licensed, and since we
>have _ex hypothesi_, that your code has been so derived, it appears
>that you are dead wrong.

The simple way to avoid the GPL "virus" problem on your own work is to
apply the GPL to the copy rather than the original, i.e. write a program
and make it proprietary, make a copy of it (as the owner, you have this
right), and slap the GPL on this copy.  Derivatives of the copy must
inherit the GPL, but derivatives of the original can be subject to any
terms you wish.

The actual force of the GPL as a true "license" has never actually been
tested.  I'm not a lawyer, but it looks very much like "shrink-wrap"
licenses, which many people believe are not really enforceable.  The GPL is
probably better viewed as a description of the copyright terms; thus, using
the GPL doesn't remove copyright rights such as the "fair use" doctrine.
And given this, the terms *do* apply to the token, not the type, since
copyright applies to expressions not ideas (although with software, the
line between token and type is fuzzy).

>The ownership is just what is at issue here.  I have argued that the GPL
>assigns the ownership to the FSF, superseding any existing copyrights.
>(Note that I am referring to _de facto_ ownership, as determined by the
>exclusive right to control the aforementioned activities, and not any
>official version thereof.  I am not interested in any possibility of _de
>jure_ ownership, which does not allow you to dispose of the goods as you
>see fit.)

I think this is the crux of the confusion.

If the FSF were the owner of all GPLed programs, then it could *change* the
terms of the license of any of these programs.  But it can't.  Unless he
has assigned the rights to another party, the original author is still the
only one who can set the licensing terms.  The fact that he happens to set
the same terms as the FSF does doesn't mean that the FSF takes control of
it.  As someone else pointed out, if the FSF comes out with a GPL version
3, it doesn't affect programs that are licensed using GPL v2.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4336 talk.philosophy.misc:3236 misc.legal:22272
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 93 07:50:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan9.025025.19137
 7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu><C0JrIH.BEK@ssr.com> 
 <1993Jan8.170541.19119@husc3.harvard.edu> <MIB.93Jan8191428@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

Please consider learning to edit the header.

In article <MIB.93Jan8191428@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.170541.19119@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>Sure they can, -- insofar as they explicitly reserve the right to
>>revise the terms of the GPL, which is copyrighted in their corporate
>>name, all they would have to do, is add yet another restrictive clause
>>on the copying and modification of their software.

MIB:
>This is not so.  The copyright notice used on the software says:
>
>  GNU Tar is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>  it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
>  the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
>  any later version.
>
>Even if a later version of the GPL (say version 3) does the nasty
>thing you suggest, you can still distribute under the terms of GPL
>version 2.  "Version 2 of the GPL" is a static, unalterable, legal
>document.  The later publication of a version 3 does not somehow
>magically change the wording of version 2.

This is correct, but you could still restrict the GPL, and follow by
licensing subsequent releases under the new version thereof, leaving
the dreaded software hoarders with nought but obsolete "free" software.

Regarding the touchy issue of magic changes of existing documents, I
advise you to ask Stallman about the contents of the original, pre-FSF
text of "The GNU Manifesto".  Better yet, go to the library and look
it up.

MIB:
>Moreover, changing the GPL in such a way would violate the terms of
>the assignments people have made when donating sofwtare to the FSF.
>(This is a legal transfer of copyright; merely GPL-ing does not cause
>such a transfer.)  Those assignments guarantee to the author that the
>FSF will distribute under terms essentially like those of the GPL.

The ramifications of the alleged terms of copyright assignments are a
private matter, which concerns no one but you and the authors of the
donated software; hence, unlike the GPL, the contracts in question are
not subject to public scrutiny; consequently you must forgive me for
not paying too much attention to your claim.

>--
>Michael I. Bushnell      |     Watch, for you do not know when the master of 
>+1 617 625 4518 (H)     -+-    the house will come, in the evening, or at
>+1 617 253 8568 (W)      |     midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning, 
>mib@gnu.ai.mit.edu       |     lest he come suddenly and find you asleep.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4262 alt.usage.english:10314
From: rnewman@bbn.com (Ron Newman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.usage.english
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Followup-To: don't
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:40:50 GMT
Organization: Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: spcsun25.bbn.com

Please cease posting additions to this discussion onto
the newsgroup "alt.usage.english". 

I understand that this may have started as a discussion of
how to use the English adjective "free".  By now, however,
this thread has become quite peripheral to the purpose 
of "alt.usage.english".

Your cooperation is appreciated.

-- 
Ron Newman		rnewman@bbn.com
From: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 4 Jan 93 13:32:11 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein.u.washington.edu

steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang) writes:
>A lot of improvements to the MIT X code has never been merged back
>into the free MIT distribution. For two reasons, I guess:
> 1. It won't fit into the MIT code without large modifications that
>    may affect other parts of the system.
> 2. It hasn't been made available to the X consortium.
>
>The FSF way at least seems to make more changes done by other parties
>being made available to the users of freely available GNU software (me
>among others).

So?  I don't see how it matters whether a company uses X code in their
windowing system and won't give out source as opposed to writing their
own X clone from scratch and not giving out source.  In either case,
you don't get source.

However, if they use X code from MIT, perhaps they get their product out
faster, and you get more choices in whose X implementation you use.
Furthermore, you are still free to take the X code from MIT and use it,
and the X code from people who have chosen to make their source available.

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.society.anarchy
From: drw@euclid.mit.edu (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.society.anarchy
Organization: MIT Dept. of Tetrapilotomy, Cambridge, MA, USA
	<2B49ED1A.7405@tct.com> <1993Jan6.132121.13286@hellgate.utah.edu>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 04:26:00 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.132121.13286@hellgate.utah.edu> galt%peruvian.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Greg Alt) writes:
   In article <2B49ED1A.7405@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
   >Were X to have been a GPL product from the beginning, the public
   >minded people who do contribute fixes would have continued to do so.
   >The only difference would be a loss: commercial products would never
   >have been, since GPL programs just don't provide the revenue stream.

   That isn't necessarily true... Companies that produce hardware would 
   still try to make X work better on their systems to increase hardware
   sales.

Perhaps, or they might have gone with Display PostScript or NeWS or
something even grosser, so they would have gotten software revenue as
well as hardware revenue.

Dale
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: dave@dhcs.demon.co.uk (Dave Hodgkinson)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: IISC, dept of hackery.
Apparently-To: mail2news@news.demon.co.uk
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:23:23 +0000

In article <1993Jan10.170022.24756@alex.com> bryan@alex.com (Bryan Boreham) writes:

   Other things might have an equal effect on the lot of the humble 
   programmer.  Someone might invent a system which accepts a short,
   spoken desription of any software tool, and codes it up automatically.
   (Is this more or less likely than the success of GNU: discuss :-)
   Now what?  Should we hold rallies in the streets to burn all copies?

I for one would welcome such a system :-) It would polarise
programming; those people who want to get on with writing
applications, and those of us who like tinkering at the low level
trying so get such applications to run at a reasonable speed :-)

Especially true of GUIs :-))))


   Bryan Boreham

   Speaking for myself, not my employer.

Dave

-- 
Dave Hodgkinson | Nearest thing to a Chief Wizard at IISC | +44 71 628 6960
S:10 I:17 W:8 D:14 C:13 Ch: 15      About to die: daveh@cix.compulink.co.uk
            Direct, to my desk, three times a day ... dave@dhcs.demon.co.uk
   This message brought to you by the most excellent Demon Internet Service
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 13 Jan 1993 02:46:16 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <C0rqv6.vH@cs.uiuc.edu> joshi@cs.uiuc.edu (Anil Joshi) writes:
>RMS and the GNU people copy from the existing concepts -
>
>1. GNU emacs from Gosling's emacs

Wrong.  Gosling copied from ITS Emacs, which was written mostly by RMS.

>2. All other GNU utilities from existing Unix utilities.

You forgot gcc, etc.  And many of the ideas in Unix were copied from
Multics.  We all copy.  There aren't that many original ideas in the
world, and good implementation is at least as important as invention.
To repeat a quote that Mike Tiemann has used on this subject:

"If I have seen farther, it is because I stood on the shoulders of
giants." (Isaac Newton)

The idea is to construct a world in which we build on the work of others,
rather than step on each others' toes.

>This implies that there is no creativity in what GNU people do.

In many cases they are creating better implementations that have more
options, run faster, etc.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: hanche@ams.sunysb.edu (Harald Hanche-Olsen)
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Organization: University at Stony Brook, NY
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 19:26:20 GMT

>>>>> In article <1993Jan12.173830.18153@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:

<> You bought the Mac, implicitly supporting
<> Apple's business practices--now live with your decision.  Keep the Mac and
<> forget GNU software or replace the Mac.

Or port GNU software to the Mac yourself.  Nobody's going to stop you,
though they may try to talk you out of it.

- Harald
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4334 talk.philosophy.misc:3234 misc.legal:22261