HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 14:16:08 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


In article <C0K0qL.HH8@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk> joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk
(Joe Sharkey) writes:
>
> In article <BASHFORD.93Jan7194947@zippy.scripps.edu>
> bashford@scripps.edu (Don &) writes:
>>
>> But if, say, a good PC word processer were released with a GPL, I
>> suspect it would do well.
>
> What would it give "users" that shareware/freeware wouldn't?

Source, and the ability to get support from a third party.

> Except for "problems" of course...

Would you care to elaborate?  What "problems"?

> And they'd need a compiler...

That doesn't follow.  The GPL doesn't prevent someone from distributing
binaries.  Indeed, I have an entire system of GPL'd programs, none of
which I compiled myself; it's called Linux SLS.

-- 
 \  /   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\ \   PGP public key available on request.  MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4335 talk.philosophy.misc:3235 misc.legal:22262
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Date: 12 Jan 93 21:07:46 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan12.160747.19249
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1993Jan12.173830.18153@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
writes apropos of the boycott of Apple by the FSF, allegedly initiated
in order not to "waste FSF resources supporting a company with
particularly anti-FSF business practices":

>It's not a squabble.  Please don't ask them (us) to compromise their (our)
>beliefs for your convenience.  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.  The choice is yours.

How interesting.  I would like to find out to find the extent to which
the Foundation's pursuit of its beliefs in this matter conflicts with
its tax-exempt status, insofar as it surely contradicts its alleged
charitable ends.  Is there a lawyer in the house?

>-- 
>Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)                 Computers should work the way beginners
>Martin Marietta Energy Systems           expect them to, and one day they will.
>Workstation Support                                                -- Ted Nelson


cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Les beaulx bastisseurs nouveaulx de pierres mortes ne sont escriptz
en mon livre de vie.  Je ne bastis que pierres vives: ce sont hommes."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Organization: University of Vaasa, Finland
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL7]
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 09:07:12 GMT

Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) wrote:
> According to johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston):
> >[GPL code] is free-er in every sense of the word than any other 
> >software I've worked with...
> 
> Then apparently you've never used X, or Deliver, or any other system
> either public domain or copyrighted but released for unrestricted use.

Unfortunately, I have to use a hoarded X display every day at work.
The makers of it won't give us sources so we could fix the bugs
ourselves.  Clearly, the X way of distribution is not working;
improvements as well as support for new platforms doesn't get back
into the distributed sources.  That's a corrupted distribution scheme.

> The FSF didn't invent free redistribution, it corrupted it.

While I can't get the X bugs fixed for the reason described above, I
*can* run all the latest and greatest FSF software on the machines
here.  Clearly the FSF distribution scheme is working to the benefit
of both the programmers and the user society, whereas public domain
distribution does not, or does so for only a short period of time.

> Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>

--
Leonard Norrgard, vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi, +358-61-3248-435.
"I'll carry your books, I'll carry a tune, I'll carry on, carry over, carry
forward, Cary Grant, cash & carry, Carry Me Back To Old Virginia, I'll even
Hara Kari if you show me how, but I will not carry a gun."
					  -- Hawkeye from M*A*S*H
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4315 talk.philosophy.misc:3213 misc.legal:22206
From: gmh@cloud.awd.cdc.com (Gregory M. Heideman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:45:27 GMT
Organization: Automated Wagering Intl.

In article <C0FuFu.o41@austin.ibm.com>, moller@austin.ibm.com (Chris Moller) writes:
|> 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.

[stuff deleted ]

Hey you forgot to mention gnu.misc.discuss :-)


--
gmh@awd.cdc.com              |  "Hey look, over there!
Greg Heideman                |   It's Frank Sinatra, sitting in a chair,
Automated Wagering Int.      |   And he's blowing perfect smoke rings
                             |   Up into the air!" -Laurie Anderson
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:18:55
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu

There has been an awful lot of flamage on this subject.  People are welcome
to disagree and voice their opinions, but flaming really doesn't advance
your cause regardless of which side you're on.  Particularly for those
people who are trying to defend the GNU Project, we appreciate your
intentions, but flaming does not help us.

Misunderstanding doesn't help either.  Take a few minutes to think about
what other people are *trying* to say regardless of what your immediate
interpretation leads you to believe they meant.  If you need clarification
from someone, ask them.  But don't do it in a condescending way.

It takes a certain amount of self-restraint not to follow up with flames
when someone says something initially inflammatory.  That self-restraint is
well worth the effort.

One thing that may help when writing responses is to write the reply, then
wait 24 hours.  Read it at the end of that time and decide if your argument
is calm and reasonably constructive.  If it isn't, edit it until it is.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4410 talk.philosophy.misc:3272
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: 8 Jan 93 02:44:48
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<1iindhINNfu5@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1993Jan7.230129.19091@husc3.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu's message of 8 Jan 93 04:01:27 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.230129.19091@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
[ argument about whether the owner of a program can make multiple copies
  with different copyright and license agreements elided ]

>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.  

Mikhail, regardless of what you *think* the GPL intends, that's not what it
actually says or implies.  The GPL can't supercede an owner's rights in
this fashion.  The law doesn't permit that.

Software authors can and *do* distribute identical versions of their
programs with different licensing terms (including the GPL), and it's
perfectly legitimate.

I've become confused about exactly what you mean when you speak of
ownership.  Lately I've come to believe you are referring to property in
some philosophical sense, not in a legal one, because legally we do not own
any piece of software for which no explicit and written copyright
assignment has been made.  I would appreciate it if you would clarify.
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:23:39 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1993Jan9.211106.22282@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>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.

Right.

>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.
I think that only the parties to a contract can sue over contract
violation.  So this third party would have to contact the originator of the
code and convince him that you violated his license to you.

>How could I possibly prove otherwise?

Explain the genesis of your program, just as you did in your posting, and
hope the court believes you.  If you have versions of the program dated
earlier than those of the person who claims to have originated it then
you'll have a pretty good case against having copied it.

By the way, I think this addresses the earlier issue of whether copylefting
a program makes the FSF the de facto owner.  I think the only third party
who could sue you over violating the GPL is the person who claims to have
distributed the software containing GPLed code to you; he could claim that
by not distributing the source to a derivative you're violating the license
agreement you implicitly accepted by distributing the binaries.  He can
force you either to stop distributing the program or to start distributing
binaries.  If a GPLed program contains no FSF code, the FSF hasn't licensed
anything to you, so they can't demand anything of you.

So, I write program A and copyleft it.  I then derive program B from this,
but don't copyleft it.  Since I'm not going to sue myself over violating my
own license, I'm in no danger.  And the FSF can't sue me because they're
not a party to this license contract (they merely authored the text of the
license on A).  Neither is any recipient of B, so they can't force me to
distribute the sources to B.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 15:58:30 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

fgray@cardinal.ncsc.org (Frederick E Gray) writes:
> In <1993Jan5.022956.19008@husc3.harvard.edu>, <zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu> (Mi
> >Nonsense.  What I am saying is that I am not free to use GNU in any way
> >I see fit; more importantly, nor am I free of legal obligation implicit
> >in, and specific to its use.  Consequently, it is not free.  Is this so
> >hard to understand?
>  
> It is ridiculous to claim that a "freedom" must entail no obligations.

True in general.  But in this specific case, it is demonstrably true that
software *can* be free with no obligations.

One Fallacy of Accident shot down.  Next?


mathew

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: Copyleft vs Public Domain
Organization: Independent Network (UK)
Distribution: gnu
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:15:42 GMT

In article <9301090813.AA20380@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:

>freedom to redistribute and change it.  That is not just speculation;
>the examples of X Windows, TeX,

The main difference I can see is that both Knuth (TeX) and Tanenbaum (Minix)
put their reputations on the line...

  ``Minix is written by Andy Tanenbaum of Vrigte(?) Universiry...''

Project GNU doesn't  -- but the licence *still* seeks to protect your
reputation!

>The GPL also encourages companies which make improved versions to
>return their improvements for inclusion in the standard version.  If
>not for this, GCC and Emacs would not be nearly as good as they are.

I built EMACS in 1987 - didn't like it, haven't used it since.

GCC: Several companies (Intel and OSF spring to mind) have provided "ports"
     over the years. How many provided new algorithms/optimisations?

>That is not the philosophy of the GNU project, however.  We are not
>pacifists, and being passive and never saying "No" to anyone is not
>our goal.  Our aim is positive--to give the users the freedom to
>cooperate, which is distinguished from the freedom to obstruct.  That
>has been the goal ever since the beginning.

You want to change the way I work/get employment.

F**king great!  *You* do it from a "friendly" University  --  over
here, we don't have any.  Maybe we need sofdtware tarrifs against
zealots...

>If we put our software in the public domain, then we would have a
>great excuse to make.  We could say, "Don't blame us if you have no
>freedom to share and change this program--it was that other guy who
>redistributed it with a nondisclosure license and no source."  But we
>want to succeed in giving users that freedom, not prepare excuses for
>failure.  We use the GPL because it succeeds.

You still deny any responsibily for "fitness of purpose".  What's the
difference?

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
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4418 talk.philosophy.misc:3274 misc.legal:22394
From: mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:15:16
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
	7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu><C0JrIH.BEK@ssr.com>
	<1993Jan8.170541.19119@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<MIB.93Jan8191428@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu's message of 9 Jan 93 07:50:23 GMT

In article <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

   Please consider learning to edit the header.

Please consider learning not to use public mailing lists as a way to
attempt to be condescending to people.

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

   >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.

It's also important to remember that the FSF is a public charity.  The
laws of Massachusetts restrict it in many ways.  If the FSF tried to
do as you suggest, then we would likely be promptly shut down.

   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.

Any significant contribution to GNU software is bound by these
assignments.  The contracts *are* subject to public scrutiny; I can
send you a copy if you are interested in the wording.  (Remember, we
are a public charity; we can't just march on doing whatever we
please.)  Any significant piece of GNU software incorporates such
contributions, and so such a modification of the GPL would be illegal.

	
--
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.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<OZ.93Jan6152628@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> <1ifhuiINNns7@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 00:08:40 GMT

Joe Buck writes:

   The question was about public domain compilers; 

That's the subject line. My response was for a *different* statement by
M. Castle, not to Chip's original query. lcc is a fast, readable ansi-C
front end. It also happens to be free, but not PD.

						as your posting makes
   clear, LCC isn't even freely distributable.

No, the lcc front end is freely distributable, in any sense of the term
free as understood by the regular readers of this newsgroup.

					...  As for your claim that
   LCC optimizes as well as or better than GCC, this may be true...

I remember seeing a sigplan paper. Feel free to ask Chris Fraser if you
are that interested.

   And take a look at this:

[part about licensing the code generators elided]

   Even if a university executes a license, the most interesting part of
   the compiler for those who would port to new platforms is not available.

That's just one set of back-ends. Having looked at PO some years ago, I
suspect that it wouldn't be too difficult to make it work with LCC, and 
other back-ends may be in the works. In other words, a freer C compiler
as an alternative to GCC is not as far away as as most people may think.

oz
---
If you can't understand it, you certainly  |  electric: oz@sis.yorku.ca
can't trust it.           -- Doug McIlroy  |  ph: [416] 736 2100 x33976


Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4401 talk.philosophy.misc:3265
From: jwe@bongo.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Eaton)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Copyleft vs Public Domain
Date: 11 Jan 1993 22:07:50 GMT
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
NNTP-Posting-Host: bongo.cc.utexas.edu

In article <1993Jan11.032430.19184@husc3.harvard.edu>
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

> I shan't presume to speak for you or your programs, but for anyone
> *but* a skilled programmer, Emacs is *far* inferior to any generic
> (WYSIWYG, graphical) word processor.

Thanks for speaking for everyone else *but* skilled programmers though!

I know several people who are definitely not skilled programmers but
who still find Emacs to be far *superior* to MS Word (for example).

--
Virtually all of the programs obtained by our sampling | John W. Eaton
procedure were written in FORTRAN.  -- Donald E. Knuth | jwe@che.utexas.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 08:25:04 GMT

In article <1itqmcINNsm7@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>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).

Then explain this quote (which is from the GPL, but which I had to cut and
paste out of my own articles, lacking other copies but having quoted it before)

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

That doesn't sound like it's saying "if you violate the GPL by distributing
without source, you can be prevented from distribution".  It sounds more like
"if you distribute without source, you just gave implicit consent for someone
to copy your 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,alt.usage.english
From: gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Cuddlehogs Anonymous
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 10:30:57 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.004313.19059@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
:>You object to the use of the word "free" in "Free Software Foundation"
:>because the "freedom" is restricted by a caveat in the form of the
:>General Public Licence.  Many contributors have already pointed out that
:>"free" is always restricted by the context in which it is used, so you
:>can't use a linguistic argument.
:
:I am not using a linguistic argument.

Well in that case would you mind keeping it out of alt.usage.english please?

G