HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:07:51 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) in article <1993Jan9.211106.22282@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>:
>
>So suppose a slightly different scenario.  I wrote two programs, A and B,
>both of which have subroutine S in them.  Somehow A goes under the GPL,
>perhaps because I decided to put it under GPL, perhaps because I made it PD
>and someone else decided to put it under the GPL.
>
>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?

No.  Software doesn't just "fall under the GPL", it has to be put
there. I suspect that if I modify gcc and distribute it without all the
GPL notices, you don't have the right to redistribute what I've done
just because you've noticed it.  You'll have to sue me for distributing
it illegally under copyright law, and try and get the court to rule that
I must GPL my software as a result.  It could decide that I have the
option to withdraw it.  Or any such thing.

In the situation you describe, you won't be able to make your case
because I need only produce a copy of B and claim I took my source from
that and you won't be able to prove otherwise.

I am not a lawyer.  I am not from the US.  All of the above is just a
guess based on the demonstrably false assumption that there is some
logic to the way Law works.
  __                                   _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk  \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing.  \X/ 
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4330 talk.philosophy.misc:3230 misc.legal:22240
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 1993 22:14:23 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


In article <1993Jan8.212814.21601@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>
> How are you going to prove you took the code from a common (non-GPL)
> source, instead of copying from the GPL to the non-GPL program?

It doesn't matter.  If you own the original GPL'd source, you can put
whatever license on it you wish.  The GPL itself does not transfer
ownership, and it does not magically transcend copyright law.  It
cannot do either.

-- 
 \  /   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,alt.society.anarchy
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 06:02:28 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston):
>In article <1993Jan6.132121.13286@hellgate.utah.edu> Greg Alt writes:
>>But it is true that there would be less commercial products.
>
>I can't see this happening under any scenario.

I think Greg meant, "less commercial _X_ products"; after all, we're
discussion What Could Have Been if X had been GPL'd from the start.
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4391 talk.philosophy.misc:3261 alt.usage.english:10421 alt.society.anarchy:1063
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 17:20:19 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

idall@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Ian Dall) writes:
> In article <1993Jan3.171845.18963@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.ed
> u (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>The use of GNU places me under a reciprocal obligation which limits
>>its usufruit, regardless of whether or not I ever exercise my physical
>>ability to do so.  I know that it may be hard to figure out, but feel
>>free to ask somebody in your philosophy department about the meaning
>>of obligation.
> 
> But it is not the use of the software which places you under the
> obligation.

You seem to be assuming that taking bits of source code and writing other
programs from them is not "use of the software".


mathew
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 12 Jan 1993 07:06:52 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1993Jan11.215534.27348@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>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.

Yes, you would have to sue him.  But I don't think he would have a valid
defense.

The GPL requires you to distribute your source code.  But if you fail to
distribute your source code, it doesn't give someone the right to steal it.
Violating the GPL only gives the party you received the GPLed code from the
right to enjoin you from distribution (since that is the only right that
was dependent on obeying the rules of the GPL).

And if you didn't receive GPLed code in the first place then there's no one
to do even this.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Copyleft vs Public Domain
Date: 12 Jan 1993 03:05:21 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

wollman@aix2.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes:
>>Huh? in what sense is the PD source not readily available?
>
>1.  I create a PD program and pass it around to a few people (set A).
>2.  One of these people (B) creates a binary from my source and gives
>    it to another group of people (set C).
>
>A is the set of people who have access to the source.  C is the set of
>people who have access to the binary.  B = A\cap B = the set of people
>who have the binary and the source.  The people in C - B don't have
>access to the source, unless B chooses to give it to them.

The people in C-B can get the source from the people in set A.

--Tim Smith
From: mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Getting around the GPL (was Re: Fund raising at the FSF)
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:43:08 GMT
	<FRIEDMAN.93Jan8022706@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<930111.173628.1c8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: mathew@mantis.co.uk's message of 11 Jan 93 17:36:28 GMT

In article <930111.173628.1c8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

   Does this mean that because NeXT supply a copy of gcc which
   requires the NeXT C libraries, they must make the NeXT C libraries
   available to me free of charge in source code form?  If so, hadn't
   you better tell them that?

The GPL contains an explicit clause covering this:

However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not
include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or
binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on)
of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that
component itself accompanies the executable.


--
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.
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:40:27
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu> <C0Auvy.Co4@mtholyoke.edu>
	<peterd.726183882@pjd.dev.cdx.mot.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: peterd@pjd.dev.cdx.mot.com's message of Mon, 4 Jan 1993 21:44:42 GMT

In article <peterd.726183882@pjd.dev.cdx.mot.com> peterd@pjd.dev.cdx.mot.com (Peter Desnoyers) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>[...] on the other hand, as a certified misanthrope with no ready
>>ftp access, I have no way to obtain a copy for nothing.
>
>Given your email address, I would bet that you are within stumbling
>distance of the GNU machines and associated tape drives. If you really
>wanted a copy that bad you'd find someone on the net who would let you in,
>hoof it down to Tech Square, and load up a tape or two of your own. It
>would take you only an hour or two, and save the rest of us from having to
>listen to your complaining.

I doubt it.  The fact that you might have to pay money to get GNU software
is by far the least of his complaints.

In any case, two points:

   1) Even if Mikhail had ftp access, that doesn't mean everyone does.  His
      arguments, sound or otherwise, do not apply to him solely.

   2) We would rather not have hundreds of people walk into our offices and
      use our tape drives.  Aside from the nuisance factor of having people
      getting in our way and distracting us, it will also wear our tape
      drives out much faster with any monetary compensation for it.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller)
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 15:16:42 GMT
Reply-To: moller@austin.ibm.com
Organization: As little as I can get away with.

In article <2B4A0FD5.FD6B@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
> From discussion on this newsgroup, I'm given to understand that
> someone is working on a truly free (public domain or equivalent)
> C compiler.  Is this impression correct?  If so, who's doing it?

It's called `gcc', by the good folks at the Free Software Foundation.  You
can get it, and tons of other stuff, by ftp from a lot of places
(ftp.uu.net:/systems/gnu and prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu to name a couple, do
a `dir gcc*', also take a look in ./GNUinfo).  There are also a few `gnu'
newsgroups (e.g. gnu.announce, gnu.gcc.announce) that can give you more
information.

> -- 
> Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
>   "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
>    want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
>    and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "The trouble with this country is
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   that there are too many people
possibly represent its position.	|   going about saying, 'The trouble
					|   with this country is --'"
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Sinclair Lewis
From: cgra@btma74.nohost.nodomain
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Date: 11 Jan 93 13:26:03 GMT
Reply-To: cgra@se.alcbel.be


I could be wrong, because I don't actually have a copy and the term "PD" is
sometimes used rather loosely, but I think the Sozobon C compiler (for Atari
ST) is Public Domain.

I also note that the documentation for the (shareware) Gemini desktop includes
source-level patches for known bugs in this compiler, illustrating the classic
problem of PD software - no "owner" who makes it his business to fix bugs and
integrate patches.  (As a registered user of Gemini I expect and get this from
the authors).

Of course Gemini also includes patches for TOS - but at least we have Atari to
collect all the PD patches off the networks and sell them back as the latest
TOS release...

__________________________________________________________________________
Chris Gray        | Any views expressed are those of the author and not of 
cgra@se.alcbel.be | any organisation with the author may be associated.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: osyjm@cs.montana.edu (Jaye Mathisen)
Subject: Interest in a "summary" of gnu.*?
Organization: CS
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 20:11:02 GMT



I follow most of the gnu groups pretty closely, but get tired of seeing a lot
of same-old, same-old.

What I'm considering doing, pending enough interest, is starting to summarize
the articles that appear in the gnu groups that I feel are most important
to my work, digestifying them, and sending them to people that might want
to see just the "meat" of the gnu groups.

If you're interested in the concept, drop me some mail and let me know, if
I get enough response to where I feel it would be a useful service, I'll
set up a mailing list, or perhaps a newsgroup could be created to serve
the same purpose.

If you have any ideas for what you might like to see in something like this,
let me know as well.
-- 
 Jaye Mathisen, COE Systems Manager                (406) 994-4780
 410 Roberts Hall,Dept. of Computer Science
 Montana State University,Bozeman MT 59717	osyjm@cs.montana.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4353 talk.philosophy.misc:3247 misc.legal:22295
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 93 16:51:24
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<FRIEDMAN.93Jan9114839@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1993Jan9.212802.22646@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu's message of Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:28:02 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.212802.22646@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>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.  

If someone decides not to "accept" the license but happens to distribute it
under terms which coincide with the license, who cares?

If they distribute something through improper means, then yes, they have
commited a crime.  But that's true whether you "accept" the license or not.
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:27:10 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <BASHFORD.93Jan12124048@zippy.scripps.edu> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>     executable.  However, as a special exception, the source code
>     distributed need not include anything that is normally
>     distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major
>     components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system
>     on which the executable runs, unless that component itself
>     accompanies the executable.
>
>It seems to me that standard C libraries are part of "compiler, kernel,
>and so on," so that you can still distribute executables linked
>with an unbundled libc so long as you distribute your own source.

I read that paragraph, and tried real hard to interpret it such that it
referred to MS C libraries.  But I couldn't figure out how to do it. 

In the case of a PC, "the operating system on which the executable runs" is
MS-DOS, Windows, or OS/2.  In none of these cases are the standard C
libraries "normally distributed with the major components of the OS".  On
the contrary, the C libraries are normally distributed with third-party
compilers.  And the library normally "accompanies the executable", by
virtue of being linked in.

Note also that "unless" clause.  Even if the library *is* normally
distributed with the OS, by linking it into the executable that you
distribute you are apparently obliged to include its source code!

I'm not sure if this interpretation was intended, though.  It effectively
means that if you're going to distribute an executable, it must either be
linked dynamically or you must be able to distribute source to all the
libraries you link with.  Since I haven't heard of the FSF bringing action
against any of the many people who distribute executables linked with
vendor libraries, I think that last clause isn't being enforced (or I'm
totally misunderstanding the language).

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 6 Jan 1993 18:33:52 -0800
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

In article <C0GGFw.C22@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk> joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey) writes:
>Much research work in the US is funded by "Congress", and so public domain.

There is an attempt underway (which may already have passed, I don't know)
to get some classes of government-funded software copyrighted by the
employee, not the government, so that statement may no longer be true.

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: Making it easy for Mikhail (text of GPL)
Organization: Independent Network (UK)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:04:50 GMT


OK, I bite.  BTW, I'm not in the USA.....

>  Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
>that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
>software.  If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
>want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
>that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
>authors' reputations.

I *think* this will fail in the UK:

  -  your "reputation" is worth what you think it's worth. Give things
     away, any the "value" is near nothing.

Still, you're worrying about the USA....

>-- Bill Johnston

joe.
-- 
Joe Sharkey      joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk      ...!uunet!ibmpcug!jshark!joe
150 Hatfield Rd, St Albans, Herts AL1 4JA, UK        Got a real domain name
(+44) 727 838662           Mail/News Feeds (v32/v32bis): info@inet-uk.co.uk
From: gumby@tweedledumb.cygnus.com (D V Henkel-Wallace)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Where can I find a copy of COPYLEFT?
Date: 5 Jan 93 05:16:16
Organization: /0h/users/gumby/.organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: tweedledumb.cygnus.com
In-reply-to: henrik@stat.tamu.edu's message of 4 Jan 93 21:23:52 GMT

Look at the file COPYING in any GNU distribution.  Or type <help>c-C
in Emacs...
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Subject: Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 14:18:55 GMT

	       Can Technical Tricks Circumvent the GPL?

People often speculate about technical procedures that might
circumvent the GPL in some way.  For example, they may suggest a
modified version could be cut artificially into two pieces, one free
and one proprietary, that are called two independent programs.

This kind of scheme is based on the premise that the legal system
operates in the fashion of a stupid computer program, and that
superficial manipulations of the way files are grouped and labeled
would fool it.  While the legal system often does seem stupid and
easily fooled in comparison with common sense, the FSF's lawyer told
us that it would not be stupid about this.

The lawyer said that such a scheme would fail because a judge would
regard it as a subterfuge.  The judge would conclude that the two
parts are really one program in disguise, and go on from there.

Our lawyer also said that a judge would tend to be harsh toward anyone
perceived to be trying a subterfuge.

As hackers, we tend to become absorbed in the technical details of the
proposed schemes, and not pay enough attention to the wider context.
The possibility of a loophole in the GPL might be interesting
abstractly in its own right, but its main importance is in connection
with whether the GPL does what it is supposed to do: ensure that
modified versions of a program are free.

Hackers also tend to model the GPL based on concepts used for security
systems, assuming that any puncture makes it collapse like a soap
bubble.  But business doesn't move like a gas; more like molasses.  If
a real, legally sustainable loophole were found, its effect would be
diminished by the inconvenience of using it.  This is likely to be
significant, and would dissuade most companies from trying.  Thus, the
GPL would still retain most of its effect.

Experience shows that companies are not eager to try to circumvent the
GPL.  If they think their plans might conflict with the GPL, they
generally contact the FSF to make sure there is no conflict.

The most fundamental point--the "bottom line"--is that as a practical
matter the GPL does achieve its goal.  Improvements to our software
are actually made free, and no amount of speculation can override this
fact.  Apparently, any loopholes are sufficiently inconvenient that
they are not much of a factor.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 18:51:43 GMT

In article <lkodpvINNs9h@cash.cs.utexas.edu> woody@cs.utexas.edu (James Woodgate) writes:
>I don't think FSF should change their name for two reasons:
>  1) It is free, I don't have to pay to get, use, or modify
>     GNU code.  Just because they won't send me all their 
>     work for free, doesn't mean the code isn't free.  Just
>     because I can't change a couple of lines in Emacs and
>     call it "mine" doesn't mean it's not free.

You phrase this as "a couple of lines".  But the virus aspect of the GPL is
not dependent on the number of lines used.  It could just as well be that you
put a few lines from Emacs in your own program, and then it _still_ can't be
called yours.
--
"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