HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 7 Jan 93 05:50:58
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1id6n6INNcn5@agate.berkeley.edu> <2B4BC9F1.666E@tct.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: chip@tct.com's message of 7 Jan 93 06:13:04 GMT

In article <2B4BC9F1.666E@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>I propose that a software system can have either industry acceptance or
>GPL coverage, but not both.  I make one exception: software development
>tools.  After all, tools are by and large obtained at specific programmer
>request, and programmers love source code.

You may be right, but no one knows for certain yet.  The GNU Project hasn't
produced much except development tools and unix-replacing utilities which
by and large are only used by people who like those sorts of things.  :-)
That's already got us too occupied to do much else.

There may be any number of reasons why nobody else has developed any GPL'ed
"applications" yet.  A large part of it, in my speculative opinion, is that
it's a fairly new idea and most companies don't yet accept that it could
work.  Very few radical ideas have met with overwhelming approval at their
introduction.

We'll see if Oleo takes off when it gets into better shape.
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 1993 01:09:13 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:                               
>If X had been under the GPL, the manufacturer *would have to* give me
>the source.  There is no escape to that.  I don't care if their           
>support is bad, as long as there is an alternative.  Since I can't get      
>the source, there really is no alternative as of now.
 
Or they would have implemented their own version, not using GPL'ed code. 
                                                                       
There is also the possibility that they would simply arrange things so that
the source you get is not all you need.  Suppose, for example, someone wanted
to use GNU Emacs in a proprietary editor for Microsoft Windows.  What would    
stop them from doing the following:

        1. Find the places where they want to make proprietary changes to  
        GNU Emacs.

        2. Rewrite those parts so that they depend on a DLL (dynamic link
        library) to perform the functions that they want to do    
        proprietarily (sp?).

        3. Distribute the modified GNU Emacs under GPL.

        4. Implement a proprietary DLL, which is not distributed under
        GPL.

Is this a violation of GPL?

--Tim Smith

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 7 Jan 93 06:09:17 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <88PywB28w165w@mantis.co.uk> 
mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:

>fgray@cardinal.ncsc.org (Frederick E Gray) writes:

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

MZ:
>>>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?

FEG: 
>>It is ridiculous to claim that a "freedom" must entail no obligations.

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

A nuance: I did say "specific to its use".  TeX comes with an implicit
obligation to its owner, and so does X; nevertheless it is undeniable
that neither of these obligations is comparable to the one imposed on
the programmer by the GPL.  Again, in the standard sense of this word in
the context of intellectual property, the GPL is expressly designed to
automatically *appropriate* on behalf of the FSF all code which contains
a fragment of GNU.

M:
>One Fallacy of Accident shot down.  Next?

Try not to forget that you are dealing with a cult.

>mathew

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: FSF Debate Humor
Date: 9 Jan 93 18:48:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: raven.1993Jan9.184853.8486
Organization: University of Alaska Computer Network

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.  That is a shame because the primary debators
have been providing a show worth watching no matter which side one
does or not agree with!

I pulled this particular snippet out because it is so funny,
logically, that I just had to repost it under a different title so
that perhaps others could share the laugh.

In article <1993Jan8.222849.19131@husc3.harvard.edu> 
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <C0K4xx.Cos@news.udel.edu> 
>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>
>MZ:
>>>________________________________
>>>
>>>	5.  You may not copy, modify, sublicense, distribute or transfer
>>>	the Program except as expressly provided under this General
>>>	Public License.   .....
>>>
>>>________________________________
>
>BJ:
>>This statement expresses one of several "terms and conditions 
>>for copying, distribution and modification" set forth by the 
>>"licensor" (aka "owner", or "copyright holder")  which describe 
>>and limit the rights of licensees.  It does not describe or limit 
>>the rights of the licensor.
>
>This would have been a good distinction, had it been borne out by the
>text of the GPL.  Alas, it is not.  While the term "licensor" occurs
>in the statement of Version 1, Paragraph 7, the text does not in any
>way suggest that the right of the licensor is in any way different
>from the right of the licensee, as constrained by Paragraph 5.

Yeah, right...  the license terms for the licensee obviously apply
to the licensor.

Remember the name Mikhail Zeleny, he said that.
-- 
floyd@ims.alaska.edu        A guest on the Institute of Marine Science computer
Salcha, Alaska              system at the University of Alaska at Fairbanks.
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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 20:35:36 GMT

In article <1immn8INNgmm@life.ai.mit.edu> mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:
>
>In article <C0K0qL.HH8@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk> joe@jshark.inet-uk.co.uk
>(Joe Sharkey) writes:
>>
>> What would it give "users" that shareware/freeware wouldn't?
>Source, and the ability to get support from a third party.

Sorry?  What would it give "users"...?

>> Except for "problems" of course...
>Would you care to elaborate?  What "problems"?

I could say "get a life" - but you seem to post from there :-)

"We" are all knowledgable software people who would have no problem
installing "GNU Wp", "GNU Sheet", "GNU Draw" etc.  *From source*. Any
problems, well we do have source...

Further, I can walk into *any* bookshop and buy books about WP/123/Corel
et al.  I can contact *any* "training/educational" firm for help.

GNU?  *Now*, I cannot.

   - Cygnus: too expensive for day-to-day Oleo support (just a guess...)
   - Russ Nelson: standardised on *one* a while ago.
   - etc etc

>> 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.

And you have some parts of statically linked, some with the "jump-table"
shared libraries... (2 copies of X?) 

Linux looks to be heading for a major hiatus when 1.0 comes out :-(

Again:  What use is Linux to someone who just wants to run spreadsheets
        or Word Processing?

        I say: "None - there's no support."

> mycroft@ai.mit.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
From: pen@lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:29:59 GMT
Organization: Lysator ACC at Linkoping University

This article was probably generated by a buggy news reader.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bashford@scripps.edu (Don &)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA
	<930111.181024.7A8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk>
	<1itsemINN3v@early-bird.think.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 20:41:56 GMT

barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) wrote:

barmar> There's an explicit exception in the GPL for OS libraries:
barmar> 
barmar>		 For an executable file, complete source code means
barmar>	      all the source code for all modules it contains; but, as
barmar>	      a special exception, it need not include source code for
barmar>	      modules which are standard libraries that accompany the
barmar>	      operating system on which the executable file runs.

So in article <930111.181024.7A8.rusnews.w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> asks:

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

And in article <1itsemINN3v@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) responds

barmar> Good question.  The GPL doesn't specifically mention this
barmar> case.  However, this doesn't mean that MS has to give you the
barmar> source.  Rather, it means that no one can distribute a port of
barmar> GCC compiled with MS C, due to the following clause: "If you
barmar> cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your
barmar> obligations under this License and any other pertinent
barmar> obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the
barmar> Program at all."

HOLD ON THERE!  Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that the
recent trend toward the unbundling of libraries has created a big
problem with the GPL, let's have a look at the relevant paragraph
of the GPL, IN FULL (Version 2, June 1992):

     The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work
     for making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete
     source code means all the source code for all modules it
     contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus
     the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the
     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.

Don Bashford
bashford@scripps.edu
From: calyx.corp@mixcom.mixcom.com (calyx.corp)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: CVS: need help w/ export, network access, shared modules
Date: 12 Jan 93 22:44:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.

Our company is switching over from using SCCS to CVS.
Does anyone use CVS?  I have some questions about it's use, and would
apprieciate any suggestions.

[1] How do you deal with "shared" modules, like shared header files?
If we set up a module for an entire software package, with submodules
underneath it, including a module for the header files shared across the
entire package, do you always checkout/update the shared headers module
when you checkout/update a submodule of the package?  The simplest solution
seems to be to always checkout/update the entire package, but our development
department (8 programmers) works on a single Unix machine, and we don't have
enough hard disk space to let everyone checkout their own private copies of
our main software package (which is currently non-modular and huge).

[2] How do you deal with network access?  The simplest solution appears to
be to put the source repository on NFS, but are there any other ways?
We can barely keep our current heterogeous network functional, and it doesn't
look like we'll have the time or money to put NFS on all our machines
(we're just now getting rid of machines that don't even support
rlogin or rcp....)

- Nels Olsen
-- 
calyx.corp@mixcom.com
From: pauley@tai.jkj.sii.co.JP (Martin Pauley)
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Distribution: gnu
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 1993 01:42:25 GMT

In another article, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) wrote:
>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.

It may not be his choice!  Maybe the Mac is part of his course/job.
I sympathise in this case.

I have a friend who has to complete a piece of software on the Mac for
her final year Biochemistry project.  The people who began the program
knew little about computers and the program became a large mess.  My
friend, although quite proficient with computers, does not have the time
to tidy the entire program.  Most of the changes required are regular so
an Emacs Lisp utility could fix it with a little help.  Unfortunately,
no Emacs!

I don't disagree with the boycott; I'm just looking at things from both
sides and wishing there was a better course of action against companies
like Apple.
From: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: RMS isn't going to reply to Michael
Date: 5 Jan 93 02:13:04 GMT
Organization: Clarkson University, Potsdam NY

RMS isn't going to reply to Michael.  His kind are never going to be
convinced by words.  Even actions may not be enough for him.  Far better to
spend the time writing GPL software than to argue the merits of the GPL.
And so, off I go, to write more GPL software...

--
--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> Businesses persuade; Governments force.
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: RMS isn't going to reply to Michael
Date: 5 Jan 93 08:50:30
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu's message of 5 Jan 93 02:13:04 GMT

In article <NELSON.93Jan4211304@cheetah.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
>RMS isn't going to reply to Michael.  His kind are never going to be
>convinced by words.  Even actions may not be enough for him.  

He doesn't read this mailing list, in any case.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4344 talk.philosophy.misc:3238 misc.legal:22279
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: 9 Jan 1993 14:27:08 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


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, [...]

The FSF cannot revise the terms of a license on a specific program.  It
can only publish a later version of the GPL, which people may or may
not decide to use.

To quote the GPL itself:

  Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the
  Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to
  it and "any later version", you have the option of following the
  terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version
  published by the Free Software Foundation.  If the Program does not
  specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version
  ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

And later on, the sample copyright message:

    This program 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 of the
    License, or (at your option) any later version.

The phrase `or ... any later version' is only suggested, not required.

-- 
 \  /   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
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:09:40 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1993Jan12.173830.18153@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
>The goal of the boycott is to not waste FSF resources supporting a company
>with particularly anti-FSF business practices.   The goal is not to cause
>Apple grief. 

I don't think this is true.  If it were, the FSF wouldn't try to convince
others not to port their software to the Mac, since that doesn't use FSF
resources.

The goal of the boycott is to convince Apple to change its practices.  The
hope is that some users will choose not to purchase Apple computers because
GNU software isn't available for it, and other users will choose not to
purchase Apple computers because they are actively participating in the
boycott.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
From: johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 23:08:18 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?

Because in the text of the code contributed to the GPL'd program, 
the author took the trouble to attach his/her copyright notice to
his/her contributed code, which is something that the GPL permits,
or perhaps the author took other measures to document his/her
ownership/authorship of that particular code.

The fact that such an action makes it difficult to "prove" the 
status of the code is not in any way relevant;  it is always the
responsibility of the copyright holder to document and enforce
his/her copyright.  In this case, a paranoid contributor to a
GPL'd program might wish to file a dated, notarized copy of the
source at with his or her attorney.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: FSF actions vs purposes
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 93 13:15:34 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
> But many users seem to find out about GNU software without reading
> these things, and they formulate an inaccurate idea of what we stand
> for.
> 
> Eventually they discover facts that don't jibe with this idea, and
> they may then conclude that we are false to "our own" principles.  Of
> course, our real principles are something else, but they don't realize
> that.

It seems to me that you're admitting that the term "Free Software" as used by
GNU misleads people.

> It is a shame if people have misunderstandings about what GNU stands
> for--even if the result is that they think they agree.  To help
> prevent this, I plan to write a few messages addressing philosophical
> issues, and have them posted from time to time.

To help prevent it, why don't you give the FSF an honest name which people
can't be misled by?


mathew
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: tim@maths.tcd.ie (Timothy Murphy)
Subject: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Summary: It hurts me more than it hurts Apple
Keywords: FSF Apple boycott
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:11:16 GMT

As a humble Mac user,
I find your boycott most upsetting.
I'm sure no-one in Apple is losing sleep over it.
And it doesn't affect anyone at FSF,
as you all have your personal Sparcs under the bed.

We -- the great unSunned masses --
are the only people affected.
Please try to think of it from our point of view,
and find some other way to pursue your squabble.

-- 
Timothy Murphy  
e-mail: tim@maths.tcd.ie
tel: +353-1-2842366
s-mail: School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4311 talk.philosophy.misc:3212 misc.legal:22197
From: leavens@cs.iastate.edu (Gary Leavens)
Subject: latexinfo?  where to get latest?
Summary: Where is the latest latexinfo?
Keywords: latexinfo, info,
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:17:33 GMT

Is latexinfo still supported?   I got a release a year or so ago and
now I can't find it on prep.ai.mit.edu or the place I originally got it.
I like it better than texinfo, but hate to use something that has no future.

	Gary Leavens

--
	229 Atanasoff Hall, Department of Computer Science
	Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011-1040, USA
	phone: (515) 294-1580  fax: (515) 294-0258
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: idall@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Ian Dall)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Electrical and Electronic Eng., University of Adelaide
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 13:02:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.171845.18963@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>"The use of GNU" does NOT place you under any legal obligation to
>>anyone or anything.  Only the redistribution of GNU places you under
>>legal obligations to the copyright holder, the FSF.
>
>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 have a legal obligation to not include FSF software in
a proprietory product (paraphrased) but that obligation exists whether
or not you use the software. There is no *additional* legal obligation
incurred in you using the software so it is in that sense free.

You, and others, will never agree that the FSF definition of "free" is
a reasonable one, so why not agree to differ. This interminable debate
never gets anywhere.

-- 
 Ian Dall           life (n). A sexually transmitted disease which afflicts
                              some people more severely than others.
   ACSnet: idall@augean.oz
 Internet: idall@augean.oz.au