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: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 05:12:41 GMT

In article <1j065fINNnsq@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>In other words, by distributing the program, you implicitly agree to distribute
>>source code.
>Right.  That's not the same thing as agreeing to let someone take source
>code.  If I agree to give you $10, I have not implicitly agreed to let you
>pick my pocket to take the $10.

Of course you haven't implicitly agreed to it.  However, I read that line in
the GPL as implying that you have.  My point is not that you really did
implicitly agree, but rather that the GPL tries to say so.
--
"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: 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: Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:18:06 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
> mathew (mathew@mantis.co.uk) wrote:
>> vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
>> > 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.
>> 
>> So why the hell did you buy the damn thing?
> 
> I wasn't working here at the time they considered X displays.  If I
> were, I'd tried to negotiate better support into the deal or enough
> technical info to be able to support these things on our own.

So your organization made a stupid decision.  Surely that's their lookout?
Why should everyone have their freedom restricted just to protect your
organization from the consequences of the decisions it makes?

> If X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer *would have to* give me
> the source.

More likely, if X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer wouldn't have
adapted it to run on his hardware, and nor would many other manufacturers. 
You'd probably be running OpenLook or NeWS, with no hope of any sort of
source, let alone source tailored to your machine.

>> Sounds to me like people have bothered to patch FSF software to work on your
>> system, but they haven't bothered to patch the free X to work on your system. 
>> So what?  There's nothing stopping you from patching X to run on your system,
>> or paying someone else to do it.
> 
> You see, there actually is something stopping me, or I would have done
> it already.  Namely, the manufacturer doesn't give out the necessary
> hardware information either, effectively blocking that path.

Again, if you buy undocumented hardware, what do you expect?

If you want special restrictive licenses to save you from the consequences of
your organization's actions, let's go the whole hog.  Let's include a section
in the GPL demanding that anyone who distributes GPL code must port it to any
other system on demand, free of charge.  Then people who buy hardware that
nobody supports won't have to face the consequences of their stupidity.

You'll never have to worry about what hardware to buy.  You'll just buy what
you like, and someone will just *have* to give you ported patched source
code appropriate for your system, right?

>>  What, you mean you didn't take that cost
>> into account when buying the system?
> 
> Nice try.  The support we have to buy now costs more than it would
> cost us to port X ourselves (my estimation).  By the way, the
> manufacturer is Digital Equipment Corp. (who participated in
> developing the original free X), and the product is their VXT 2000
> X-terminal.

If the support costs are that high, it must be cheaper to sell off all the
DEC hardware second hand and replace it with something better.  Or at least
something that you know what it does.


mathew
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
From: markp@spider.wri.com (Mark Pundurs)
Subject: Re: FSF Debate Humor
Organization: Wolfram Research, Inc.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 05:18:50 GMT

In <1993Jan9.184853.8486@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:

>The debate titled "Fund raising at the FSF" has gone on to such
>extents that I'm sure many readers have lost interest, or haven't
>the time to read it. 

Amen! What's it got to do with talk.philosophy.misc, anyway?

Mark Pundurs
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4333 talk.philosophy.misc:3233 misc.legal:22253
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: <726334555snx@crynwr.com> <1993Jan7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<C0JrIH.BEK@ssr.com> <1993Jan8.170541.19119@husc3.harvard.edu>Distribution:
Date: 8 Jan 93 19:14:28
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu's message of 8 Jan 93 22:05:39 GMT



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

   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.

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.

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.

--
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.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4398 talk.philosophy.misc:3264 misc.legal:22365
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 11 Jan 1993 21:44:30 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

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

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

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).

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

>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.

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.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4382 talk.philosophy.misc:3259
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:10:24 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In article <1ijsrmINN8jr@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.ed
> u (Tim Smith) writes:
>>If the GPL does prevent someone from doing this with a DLL, then how are
>>people able to distribute ports of Emacs for proprietary operating
>>systems?
> 
> There's an explicit exception in the GPL for OS libraries:
> 
>     For an executable file, complete source code means all the source code for
>     all modules it contains; but, as a special exception, it need not include
>     source code for modules which are standard libraries that accompany the
>     operating system on which the executable file runs.

The Microsoft C libraries aren't supplied with the MS-DOS OS.  So does that
mean MS have to give me the source because someone's developed an MS C port
of GCC?

> As for the DLL question, I think this applies:
> 
>     These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
>     identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
>     and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>     themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>     sections when you distribute them as separate works.

What a horrendously woolly definition.  That should make sure no commercial
software company touches GPL software.  Are C library routines an independent
and separate work?  Who can tell.

I don't remember this stuff.  Is it from a new version of the GPL?


mathew
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Wed, 06 Jan 93 15:52:02 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
> tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:
> >> In retrospect, I wish we had name FSF the:
> >> 	Software Freedom Foundation
> >> but it's way to late now.
> 
> In article <yqZwwB12w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
> >Why?
> 
> It would cost FSF thousands of dollars to do a name change (legal costs,
> since they are an official nonprofit corporation, stationery, office
> stuff, etc).

A fair point, but it's arguably worth the cost.

> It would create a lot of confusion.  People know who FSF is; they don't
> know who SFF is.

A short-term problem.  Lots of companies change their names.  (Honeywell have
done it four times in the last decade, and people have still heard of Bull.)

> Changing to SFF wouldn't shut people like you up, since you will continue
> to argue that Gnu-licensed code does not provide freedom.

If the FSF changed its name to, say, the Shareable Software Foundation (SSF),
that would very definitely shut me up.  As far as I can see, "Shareable
Software Foundation" describes exactly what GNU is about, no?

Tell you what:  Change the FSF's name to SSF and I promise I'll shut up.  A
bargain, no?

> No three-word name is going to be completely accurate anyway.

OK, please point out the inaccuracies in "Shareable Software Foundation".

>                                                        Why don't
> you guys go off and argue with OSF about their name for a while?

Because OSF are so low-profile they're virtually invisible, whereas GNU
evangelists are in every newsgroup.

> If this name had been chosen early on, it might have been better, but
> as Len says, it is too late now since the costs of a name change (to
> any new name) outweigh the benefits.

Depends how much you hate me, I suppose.


mathew

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.mips,alt.cd-rom
From: aclark@netcom.com (Al Clark)
Subject: Re: CD-ROM ISO 9660 format...can my system deal with it?
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 20:13:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.184715.14693@odin.corp.sgi.com> mccauley@phaeton.asd.sgi.com (Jay McCauley) writes:
>In article <C0Ez6A.LDE@dweomer.org>, brian@dweomer.org (Brian Taylor)
>writes:
>|> I'm interested in ordering the GNU CD-ROM that was just released, but
>|> due to some articles in comp.sys.mips a while ago, I'm concerned that
>|> my system (a MIPS MAGNUM 4000-PC50 running RISCos 5.0B) couldn't deal
>|> with the format. Specifically, I read somewhere that the CD-ROM that
>|> came with some (all?) MIPs systems is only for distributing their own
>|> media and almost useless for other things.
>Yup, unfortunate, but true.  ISO 9660 was "on the list" as a possible
>future effort.  There is 9660 support in a CD-ROM kit marketed by what
>was our specials group (I lost track of the names at the last reorg;-).
>It's kinda expensive, though.
>|> 
>|> Can anyone confirm or deny this? Also, if anyone has any information
>|> on incorporating an ISO-9660 filesystem into my kernel, that would also
>|> be most appreciated (thus the Xpost to alt.cd-rom)!
>MONDO HARD!  Incorporating file systems is not for the faint of heart!
>You'd need a source license to begin with (yes, I guess it's theoretically
>possible to do it without one, as the vnode interface is pretty standard).
>This is a pretty major undertaking, probably a couple of person months
>to get anything worth using.
>
>The way SGI does it for IRIX is via an external daemon, I believe.  If
>you have access to one of the IRIX systems, you could copy the stuff over.
>

     Note that Linux for 386/486 systems supports CD-ROM ISO 9660 format.
     And the source is available (under the GPL, of course).
-- 
Al - aclark@netcom.com - My opinions are my own.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.usage.english
From: bengtl@maths.lth.se (Bengt Larsson)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 19:13:56 GMT

In article <lkodpvINNs9h@cash.cs.utexas.edu> woody@cs.utexas.edu (James Woodgate) writes:
>
>  2) It's [FSF] just a name.  Who's next GM, they don't make "General"
>     motors, just ones that work in their cars.  IBM, they don't
>     just make "Business Machines" they make PC's and also sell
>     software.  In fact they could charge money to get/use/modify
>     their code, and still keep their name...

Yes, and "General Motors" is a pretty meaningless name... But
when you ask something about a GM car, you're not told that it is
so "general"! About the FSF you will hear time and time again
that the software is FREE!

Big difference.

>Announcer: Congrats Bob, we're going to give you $10 million
>           for FREE!

See? :-)

Use the acronym, FSF, to avoid problems, and call it "FSF software".
Or even better and more appropriate, call it "GPL software".

That would make things equivalent and silence the critics, even
Mathew I believe. Hell, "G" even means "general".

Bengt.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Reply-To: sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 16:26:36 GMT

In article <1iqhj2INN639@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>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?  Sure, I can sell support
>>for it, but so can other programmers.  
>
>Software written by the government, in the absence of security or any other
>restrictions or licenses, is "free."  ..................
>
>Yet the government writes an incredible amount of software each year.
>
>People at the FSF write an incredible amount of software each year.  People
>at Cygnus write an incredible amount of software each year.  Other people,
>who contribute the code to the PD or the FSF, write an incredible amount
>of software each year.
>.........................................................

Ahem. What is the incentive for FSF/Cygnus people to write GPL'd software?

Do they get paid? Or do they do it out of the goodness of their hearts 
while being supported by their parents, say? 

Just being inquisitive,

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sakari Aaltonen                            Helsinki University of Technology
Email: sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi              ------- Finns Do It on Ice ------
From: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 11 Jan 93 05:49:49 GMT
Reply-To: pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley)
Organization: Edinburgh University

Quoting chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) in article <2B4F312E.E292@tct.com>:
>It's just that spreadsheets aren't as fun to write, and don't generate
>as much peer approval, as clever programming tools.

Well, the people who write GNU things are programmers, and they tend to
write them because they feel the need for them.  They're more likely to
feel the need for programming tools than spreadsheets...
  __                                   _____
\/ o\ Paul Crowley   pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk  \\ //
/\__/ Trust me. I know what I'm doing.  \X/
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:34:55 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1993Jan12.212313.5205@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>In other words, by distributing the program, you implicitly agree to distribute
>source code.

Right.  That's not the same thing as agreeing to let someone take source
code.  If I agree to give you $10, I have not implicitly agreed to let you
pick my pocket to take the $10.

If I fail to do what I agreed to do, I have violated the agreement, and the
contract is voided.

>>It *doesn't* say that violating the agreement
>>gives third parties the right to take source code that you haven't
>>distributed.
>
>Well, it doesn't say that in section 4.

It doesn't say it *anywhere*.  Section 4 is the section that describes the
consequences of violating the license agreement.  Please find a sentence in
the GPL that says anything about *taking* source code, as opposed to
*distributing* source code.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bryan@alex.com (Bryan Boreham)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: Alex Technologies Ltd, London, England
Apparently-To: mail2news@demon.co.uk
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 17:00:22 +0000

From reading his posting, I think that John Drexler believes 
that RMS is out to destroy the current way of life for the 
software industry.  I certainly believe this.  But is it "harm",
or just a sea-change which will temporarily discomfit certain 
individuals and corporations?

Consider the poor messenger-boy, whose livelihood was destroyed
by the telephone.  Did this development "harm" the world?    
Or are there now millions of people employed to make and maintain 
telephones, exchanges, modems, and every other kind of equipment
that developed from this innovation?

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?

There is much more software that is "free off the net" than GNU: 
PD software, X, TeX, etc.  Equally, there is a lot of software 
that is "free" by dint of illegal copying.  Somehow, the industry
survives.

Bryan Boreham

Speaking for myself, not my employer.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4213 talk.philosophy.misc:3164
From: igb@fulcrum.co.uk (Ian G Batten)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 5 Jan 93 10:05:17 GMT
Organization: Fulcrum Communications

In article <1993Jan4.122552.18988@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> And Mussolini made Italian trains run on time.

He didn't.  He merely said he had done so.

ian
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Subject: Re:  GNU BOF at USENIX?
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:33:26 GMT

Joe (et al):

there will be a GNU BOF hosted by rms.
we made a reservation a few weeks back, but it seems to have been mis-filed.
see gnu.announce and comp.org.usenix in a few days.

-len
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: ns14@crux2.crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Nathan Otto Siemers)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Cornell Univ.
Date: 10 Jan 93 05:57:07

>>>>> On Sun, 10 Jan 1993 06:23:19 GMT, tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu
 john> (john drexler) said: Nntp-Posting-Host: herring.micro.umn.edu

 john> Now look:

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

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

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



	"Dumping"  does not seem correct to me.  The purpose of
dumping is to disable other producers so that the dumper can
ultimately control the market (and make handsome profits from that
control).  This is not gnu.


ps	try getting a job in chemistry before you whine about the
demise of the computer profession :)

Nathan Siemers

--
--
/  | / /__|  /  /---/ /__| /  | /    nathan@chemres.tn.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.gdb.bug