HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Fund raising at the FSF 
Distribution: world
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 04:25:25 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <1993Jan8.212126.21379@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu writes:

   Suppose I write program A, with subroutine S in it.  I also write
   program B, also with subroutine S in it.  I don't release B at
   all, but either I put A under the GPL, or I release A into PD and
   someone else puts A under the GPL.

   Subroutine S is now in a GPL program.  Furthermore, subroutine S
   "infects" other code; anything with a copy of S in it is _also_
   under the GPL.

   Now, I want to release B commercially.  But a rival company
   somehow manages to find out that B contains S.  They then tell me
   "B has a subroutine in it which was obviously taken from GPL
   program A.  Therefore, B is "infected" and falls under the GPL, so
   I can legally copy program B."

   But wait, I protest.  I didn't get S from a GPL program.  I
   already had S, in a   non-GPL version.  Unfortunately, the version
   of S which is GPL'ed is identical,   byte for byte, with the
   version of S which is not.  It's not even clear that it's
   _meaningful_ to say that I used one version instead of the other.
   So I'm stuck.  The other company can pirate all they want.

You *did* remember to register the copyright for B, didn't you?

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4352 talk.philosophy.misc:3246 misc.legal:22294
From: johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 18:48:35 GMT

In article <SJA.93Jan5182345@lk-hp-16.hut.fi> sja@snakemail.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara) writes:
>
>> "The use of GNU" does NOT place you under any legal obligation to
>> anyone or anything.
>
>Well, depends...  I usually consider use of software to include
>using the source code (when available) in any public domain programs
>I'm writing.  The GNU restrictions don't mix with that since I don't
>want to restrict the use of my code.

Fine;  you'll have to consider the restrictions outweigh the benefits.

>Some GNU programs also include things in their output that makes
>their input property of FSF.

No ... programs (like bison) generate output that must fall
under the GPL.  Property implies ownership;  FSF does not
own all code that is licensed under the GPL.

Moreover, none of the GNU programs can change the status of 
your input data.   Only redistributing your work in aggregate 
with GPL'd work can do that - and all it does is dictate
the licensing status of your work as it appears in that 
aggregate.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Date: 6 Jan 1993 21:11:46 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <OZ.93Jan6152628@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
>Michael R Castle writes:
>
>   Writing a compiler is a daunting project (ask the FSF!).  Writing a portable
>   compiler, even more so.  
>
>There is LCC from princeton. The backends [that optimize as well
>or better as GCC] are not available except by special educational
>arrangement, but one can [for example] adapt arizona PO as a
>backend...

The question was about public domain compilers; as your posting makes
clear, LCC isn't even freely distributable.  As for your claim that
LCC optimizes as well as or better than GCC, this may be true, but
it would be interesting to see actual benchmarks (e.g. SPECmark
values) to back up such claims.

And take a look at this:
>    Production code generators for the VAX, MIPS, and Motorola 68020 are
>    available for research use to universities willing to execute a license
>    agreement. Contact Chris Fraser (cwf@research.att.com) for details.
>    These code generators are automatically generated from compact
>    specifications, but neither the specifications nor their processor is
>    available, only the generated code generators.

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.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.JP (Martin Pauley)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 05:20:47 GMT

In article <1iqervINNcp5@shelley.u.washington.edu>
tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software?

Programming is FUN!  Why do you need an incentive? :-)
If you need an incentive to program then you will never be at home with
GPL software.  If the software world is taking the GPL path then I would
recommend a job picking flowers in Holland: I have been told that it is
quite easy and it is very well paid! :-)

Somewhere among the tulips...

.Marty.!
[Lost in Space! (or is it Japan?)]
<pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.jp>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
From: fxars@camelot.acf-lab.alaska.edu (Allen R Sparks)
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
	<1993Jan12.160747.19249@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 02:36:30 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.160747.19249@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> 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?

Hmmm.... Are they a charity?  They do accept donations, but so does
Common Cause, the ACLU, the Heritage Foundation, etc.  Of the three,
only one, the ACLU, can remotely be called a charity, and they pick
and choose what cases they will represent for free based on their own
agenda or mission (manifesto).  They all are non-profits, and I'm sure
they are registered with the IRS as such.

Want an example of an organization that actively supports boycotting
from time to time?  How about the NAACP?  They've done that to advance
their goals.

So, are you sure you have a legitimate beef on FSF's tax exempt status?
=== Al
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: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 21:28:14 GMT

In article <1iindhINNfu5@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>The rest of your argument falls apart because you seem to be under
>the impression that I slap the GPL onto my work, I have taken rights
>away from myself.  I have not.  As the owner of the work, I can make
>another copy with a different copyright agreement attached.

As I pointed out in another article, you can't.

If you try making another copy with a different copyright agreement attached,
or even another _almost_ copy, or even another program which is mostly, but
not totally, different, all any would-be pirate has to do is say "whoops, you
used some lines of code from a GPL program in that, so the whole thing is
under the GPL".  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?
--
"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)
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4226 talk.philosophy.misc:3174 alt.usage.english:10287 alt.society.anarchy:1032
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 5 Jan 1993 23:47:50 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu


According to vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard):
>>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...

In article <2B49ED1A.7405@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>If X were a GPL product, it would be in exactly the same (good but not
>great) condition as the publically available X of today.  After all
>those who contribute patches to GPL products usually do not do so out
>of GPL-based coercion; they do so because they like to share.

Well, contrafactuals are always difficult, because we have no way to
rewind the world, make a single, isolated change (e.g. slap the GPL
on X11), crank forward and see what happens.  But the only thing I
can conclude is that both methods (GPL and X-like copyrights) have
their advantages and disadvantages, and the GPL accomplishes more
than you say that it does.

The first version of gcc was for the Vax, followed soon after by a port to
the 68000, if I remember correctly.  These are CISC machines; vendors of
RISC machines and DSP's that have used gcc would not have benefited as
much from gcc's availability if ports to other RISCs and DSPs were not
available in source form, and these ports would not have been available
without the GPL.

Given that, one might argue that if X were GPL'ed, then more X source
would be freely available and that this would assist new ports.  But on
the down side, there would have been considerably less industrial
acceptance of X if it were GPL'ed (and I know, the X bashers will now
say that this is a good thing).

So in answer to Chip's point: those who contribute patches (i.e. small bug
fixes and enhancements) to gcc or X do so because they like to share.
People who contribute major new ports representing > 1 person-year of work
are often doing so because of the GPL (e.g. Motorola's gcc port to the
56000 DSP chip, Analog Devices' gcc-based work on DSP-C, Data General and
OSF's contributions to gcc ports, NeXT's work on Objective-C).  Without
the GPL, none of these would be available to the community in source form.

Followups to gnu.misc.discuss.


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Free spreadsheets (was: Fund raising at the FSF)
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:07:46 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <2B5192CA.B54E@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>According to tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith):
>>Uh, nearly everyone I've heard of who wrote a spreadsheet was a programmer!
>
>People will do for money lots of things they won't do for fun.  Those
>who write (as opposed to maintain) free software generally do it for
>fun, not for money.  And there's not much money in giving things away.

There's another issue for spreadsheets as well: the "natural order
recalc" software patent, which, as best I can tell, makes it illegal to
write a spreadsheet that recalculates its cells based on a topological
sort of their dependencies (meaning, I suppose, that to work around
the patent you have to do the recalc the wrong way).

How does Oleo deal with this one?


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4419 talk.philosophy.misc:3275 misc.legal:22396
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 93 22:05:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan8.170541.19119
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0JrIH.BEK@ssr.com> 
sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne) writes:

>In article <1993Jan7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>You haven't read the GPL.  The FSF legally owns all code licensed under
>>the GPL, under *any* reasonable definition of intellectual property.

SB:
>If the FSF owns all code licensed under the GPL, then why can't they
>legally prevent people from running GNU products on their Apple
>computers? FSF can't legally violate the terms of the GPL anymore than
>you or I can, which is why you see many messages from rms asking
>people not to help get GNU stuff up on Apple computers, but not one
>message from a FSF lawyer threatening a suit if anyone runs emacs on a
>mac.

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.

SB:
>If all I can legally do is ask you to please not use my software, and
>please no one show you how to use my software, that doesn't seem like
>a reasonable definition of ownership.

See above.

SB:
>Really, the FSF is more of a caretaker than an owner of GPL covered
>software.

To quote Alfred Jarry, "Ha ha."

>sdb
>---
>sdb@ssr.com

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."
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4369 talk.philosophy.misc:3255 misc.legal:22311
From: ph12hucg@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de (Carsten Grammes)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GNU diff question: how to use
Date: 10 Jan 1993 16:01:31 GMT
Organization: Universitaet des Saarlandes,Rechenzentrum
NNTP-Posting-Host: sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de


Hello,

I come from the DOS world where diff is a strange word. Recently I down-
loaded GNU-diff (DOS-Version) and learnt by experimenting (not by
documentation as there was none) how to produce a diff. But would like
to know how to use the diff-files to update an older source file by help
of the diff-file to a newer one.

Should be no problem for UNIX gurus...
Thank you.

Please E-mail directly, Carsten.

*********************************************************************
Carsten Grammes			Internet: ph12hucg@rz.uni-sb.de
Experimental Physics		Voicenet: 49-681-302-3032
Universitaet Saarbruecken	Faxnet  : 49-681-302-4316
6600 Saarbruecken
Germany
*********************************************************************
From: mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 12 Jan 93 13:36:22 GMT

>What is my incentive to write new GPL'ed software?  Sure, I can sell support
>for it, but so can other programmers.  Their cost in reading and understanding
>my source sufficiently to support it is, I would guess, less than my
>development costs.  I am better off *NOT* writing the new code, and instead
>concentrating on learning to support other programmers' new code.

>OK, so some user will come along and pay me to write new software?
>But to them, software is just a tool that they use in their business.
>Isn't it going to be in their interest to ask me to develop for them
>a proprietary version?

Good point. But if most software is GPL'ed then it will presumably take
longer to develop a completely proprietary solution to the problem than
it would to develop a GPL'ed solution. The proprietary solution will cost
more to the user and they have to decide if it is worth it.

I imagine in some industries the use of one particular piece of software
over another (I have in mind a designing application) could make a large
difference to profits, so the extra expense to keep it proprietary might
be worth it.

On the other hand, for common tools, like editors and backup programs,
it makes little difference so the user will go for the best value that
meets their needs.

				Mark.
--
Mark Dobie                              M.R.Dobie@uk.ac.soton.ecs (JANET)
University of Southampton		M.R.Dobie@ecs.soton.ac.uk (The World)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk (Joe Sharkey)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Independent Network (UK)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 23:11:55 GMT

In article <1id6n6INNcn5@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>
>OSF's contributions to gcc ports, NeXT's work on Objective-C).
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It did take an awful long time for NeXT to "give it away under GPL"
-- wasn't a lawsuit threatened at one time.

Of course, *all* they gave was the gcc changes  -- we now await "GNU
Objective-C".

>the GPL, none of these would be available to the community in source form.

Maybe, maybe not...

Much research work in the US is funded by "Congress", and so public domain.
From the press, Intel have several Government "supercomputer" contracts, to
take one example, so maybe the i860 work would have been available anyway?

BTW:  What is the *original* publication date for the GNU manifesto?
      I remember reading it several years before the "current" date???

>Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu

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
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english
From: kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
X-Attributions-By: Supercite 2.2
X-Disclaimer: These opinions are mine: others available on request.
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
X-Newsreader: GNUS 3.14.1
	<C0CCt3.CG5@cs.uiuc.edu> <1993Jan5.022956.19008@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 16:25:10 GMT

>>>>> In article <1993Jan5.022956.19008@husc3.harvard.edu>,
>>>>> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>ME:
>>I believe the CopyLeft places no restrictions on "paraphrasing" -- so
>>feel free to go ahead to your heart's content.

MZ:
> Correct.  What about quotation?

Quotation or plagiarism - what's the difference?  One is a fair use of a
copyrighted work, the other isn't.


Your contention that GNU software is not "free", in that it is not
*totally* without obligation or restriction, is true.

But before you claim victory...

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.


Now that I've flogged that one to death (again), I'll move on to what I
think your real objection is:-

You object to the terms of the GPL because they require you apply the
GPL to any of your own work which you distribute with FSF work, and you
want your work to remain proprietary.

The answer to this is - don't distribute your work with FSF work.
Instead, distribute it on its own with all your lock-out, software-
hoarding conditions and include a README file listing the FSF stuff
needed to get it up and running.  This way you don't contravene the GPL
because you're not redistributing FSF software.


There is an alternative interpretation to your objection to the GPL,
based on your anarchic (no insult intended) view of "free"...

You object to the terms of the GPL because they do not allow you to
plagiarise swathes of FSF code, bundle them into your own work, then
distribute the lot with every copyright, "look-and-feel" and "trade
secret" protection that you can find.

I think this interpretation is morally reprehensible and against the
best interests of the user community the "free" software is aimed at.


Kevin
--
.signature: no such file or directory
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4332 talk.philosophy.misc:3232 misc.legal:22252
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSFReferences: <MIB.93Jan7152945@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
	<1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<1iindhINNfu5@agate.berkeley.edu>
	<1993Jan8.212814.21601@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>Distribution:
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:09:51
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu's message of 8 Jan 93 21:28:14 GMT



In article <1993Jan8.212814.21601@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:

   In article <1iindhINNfu5@agate.berkeley.edu> jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
   >The rest of your argument falls apart because you seem to be under
   >the impression that I slap the GPL onto my work, I have taken rights
   >away from myself.  I have not.  As the owner of the work, I can make
   >another copy with a different copyright agreement attached.

   As I pointed out in another article, you can't.

   If you try making another copy with a different copyright agreement
   attached, or even another _almost_ copy, or even another program
   which is mostly, but not totally, different, all any would-be
   pirate has to do is say "whoops, you used some lines of code from a
   GPL program in that, so the whole thing is under the GPL".  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? 

If YOU own the program, you can do whatever you want.  The copyright
law is really quite clear, and no assignment of particular rights
(which is what the GPL is) can restrict the owner without explicitly
saying so, and the GPL doesn't, which is intentional.

--
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.