From: mjensen@BBN.COM (Martin Jensen)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools
Subject: Re: Stallman and friends
Date: 7 Jan 1993 18:49:15 GMT
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mjensen@BBN.COM (Martin Jensen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: drspock.bbn.com

In article <D2150035.mrrnh5@outpost.SF-Bay.org> peirce@outpost.SF-Bay.org(Michael Peirce) writes:

>As to making "rash" comments, my comments were quite considered.
>I've been anti-GNU for years now.  They simple don't believe that
>people like me have the right to protect work as intellectual
>property.  I make a living developing software and selling it - I
>take this whole subject very seriously and I view the FSF ideas as
>a threat.

The FSF does not generally object to software copyrights and does not
intend to prevent people and corporations from making money from
software.  The are, however, concerned with attempts by software
companies to patent incredibly vague concepts (such as the "look and
feel" of a software interface) as well as some very basic software
algorithms (what would you do if someone copyrighted "linked lists" or
"queues"?  chances are you've been using them ...)

The  analogy  to these in the publishing industry would be if Ian Fleming
tried to copyright "a story about  an  agent  working  for  a  government
intelligence  agency"  or  the  sentence "He pulled out his gun." ... Tom
Clancy would still be selling insurance.

They DO try to encourage software authors to share  their  ideas  and  to
make those ideas available to the general public, so that the industry as
a whole may benefit from them.   The  believe  that  state-of-the-art  is
advanced  anytime  ideas  are  publically  shared.   (Have you gained any
insights or used ideas published by other authors?  I'm sure you have.)

>Also, Stallman doesn't not intend to "GIVE SOFTWARE AWAY FREELY" as
>you say.  That's the little trap he sets.  All GNU software is very
>specifically not placed into the public domain.  This is not being
>picky, it goes straight to the core of what FSF and GNU software is
>all about, that is politics.

From the preamble to the GNU General Public License ...

  "  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
  price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
  have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
  this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
  if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
  in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. 
  
     To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
  anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
  These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
  distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
  
    For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
  gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
  you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
  source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
  rights."

You are correct in saying that the software is not placed in the public
domain.  The charter of the FSF is to insure that any software they
develop is continually made freely available.  If placed in the public
domain, you could use their software in your product without continuing
to allow others to redistribute the code.

By "copylefting" their software you are free to use it, modify it and
redistribute it ... BUT ... you must allow others to do the same to your
software.  This insures that GNU and/or FSF software is ONLY propogated
in other free software.  As much as you might not want your software used
for military purposes, the FSF doesn't want its stuff used in proprietary
software.

Note that you are also free NOT to use it, but come up with your own
algorithms, buy your own compilers, and generally seek out and support
proprietary software.

I do both.  I will gladly purchase good commercial software, but I will
also continue to use free software when its quality is comparable to
commercial software.

If  you  feel  free software "threatens" you, defend yourself!  Make sure
your software is better built, better supported and better featured  than
the free stuff.  If it is, you'll always have a market.
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools,comp.windows.ms.programmer
Subject: Re: Stallman and friends
Expires: 
From: mjensen@BBN.COM (Martin Jensen)
Reply-To: mjensen@BBN.COM (Martin Jensen)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: world
Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA
Keywords: 

In article <1ig6dkINNdq5@shelley.u.washington.edu>
     tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

. FSF is inconsistent here.  You can use GCC, for example, to compile
> proprietary software, and you can use GNU Emacs to edit your proprietary
> stuff.  Yet, if you want to take one little routine from the source for
> GCC or GNU Emacs and use that in your proprietary software, FSF gets
> upset.

No.  They're very consistent here.  GCC and GNU Emacs are tools.  It's as
if you built a house using Black&Decker power tools.  B&D doesn't care if
you sell the house, but they would be a bit ticked off if you copied the
design of their tools and sold them as your own.

> Why don't they require stuff compiled with GCC to be placed under GPL,
> and things edited with GNU Emacs?

The  GPL  is  there to protect the (freedom of the) intellectual property
found in the design and implementation of the GNU  software  ...  not  in
your software.

You should also take a look at the GNU Library General Public License
(which applies to the GNU C and C++ libraries).  This allows you to use
the GNU libraries in proprietary software provided you provide the source
to the libraries and provide the object files to your code so that the
recipient can re-link the code with another library if he chooses.

The GNU GPL (as well as the charter of the FSF) does not *discourage*
proprietary software ... the are instead *encouraging* free software as
an alternative.

---   Martin Jensen     \   BBN Communications     \  #include          ---
 ---   mjensen@bbn.com   \   150 CambridgePark Dr.  \  <std.disclaimer>  ---
  ---   (617) 873-4859    \   Cambridge, MA   02140  \                    ---
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer