HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steinarb@idt.unit.no (Steinar Bang)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 4 Jan 93 10:25:26 GMT
	<1i8cvgINN9ar@shelley.u.washington.edu>
	<1993Jan4.071214.759@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Norwegian Inst. of Tech./University of Trondheim, Trondheim,
	Norway

On ways of distributing free software johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>>> If you have a better idea, please share it;  we're interested.

To this tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) replies:

>> How about the way X is distributed?

And zhu@athena.mit.edu (Erin Zhu), follows up with:

> Exceedingly good point.

> If I may quote from the X11R4 release notes:
  [deleted]

A lot of improvements to the MIT X code has never been merged back
into the free MIT distribution. For two reasons, I guess:
 1. It won't fit into the MIT code without large modifications that
    may affect other parts of the system.
 2. It hasn't been made available to the X consortium.

The FSF way at least seems to make more changes done by other parties
being made available to the users of freely available GNU software (me
among others).

Example:
 o I can use GCC (with all the newest improvements) on a Linux machine
   at home without paying for it.
 o I can't use Motif at home without paying for it (Then again: why
   would I want to...? :-). I would be surprised if there's *no* MIT
   code in the Motif toolkit.

- Steinar
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
	<1993Jan3.171845.18963@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<1993Jan4.062526.8117@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 15:55:49 GMT

Jonathan Magid writes:

   	... The price you pay for using GNU software is that you have become 
   "infected" by the GNU manifesto; you have given up part of your independence
   for using their software. 

The price is too high, especially when it also includes having to put
up with holier-than-thou attitudes of various GNUholics.

oz
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 5 Jan 1993 19:26:08 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu


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).

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

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

No three-word name is going to be completely accurate anyway.  Why don't
you guys go off and argue with OSF about their name for a while?

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.


--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4355 talk.philosophy.misc:3249 misc.legal:22297
From: burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 10 Jan 93 01:27:13 GMT
	<1993Jan7.230129.19091@husc3.harvard.edu>
	<1imlr5INN2tu@early-bird.think.com>
Organization: Free Software Foundation 545 Tech Square Cambridge, MA 02139
NNTP-Posting-Host: apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: barmar@think.com's message of 9 Jan 1993 14:01:09 GMT

In article <1imlr5INN2tu@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:

   The simple way to avoid the GPL "virus" problem on your own work is to
   apply the GPL to the copy rather than the original, i.e. write a program
                        ^^^^
   and make it proprietary, make a copy of it (as the owner, you have this
                                   ^^^^
   right), and slap the GPL on this copy.  Derivatives of the copy must
                                    ^^^^                      ^^^^
   inherit the GPL, but derivatives of the original can be subject to any
   terms you wish.

As I posted in response to a mib posting, I suggest that instead of "copy"
you really mean "derivate work" [based on the original].

And the fact that a derivative work is, in this case, identical to the
original, and hence not truly derivative, shows the fallacy of believing
that one loses the copyright to one's own work by releasing it under the
GPL.  You lose only the ability to restrict recipients of the GPL-protected
version so they can't share copies with their neighbors.
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) lpf@uunet.uu.net
From: mib@churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 12 Jan 93 00:41:08 GMT
	<1iqhj2INN639@ftp.UU.NET> <1993Jan11.162636.9836@nntp.hut.fi>
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: churchy.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi's message of 11 Jan 93 16:26:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.162636.9836@nntp.hut.fi> sakaria@vipunen.hut.fi (Sakari Aaltonen) writes:

   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? 

The FSF and Cygnus support are totally different organizations.
Please don't confuse them.  The FSF staff programmers are paid by the
FSF at a rate considerably lower than industry standard.  We accept
lower salaries for many reasons, among them are the sense that we are
doing good for society, the opportunity to do more interesting work,
the more pleasant work environment/culture, etc.  The FSF also gets
donations from many people for many reasons.  You'd have to ask
individuals for their individual reasons.

Cygnus sells support contracts, and spends some of that money helping
to develop free software.  They believe (probably rightly) that the
better the free software is, the more support contracts they will get.
In addition, they now write some free software for contract, like the
ports to Solaris.

--
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: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Public Domain C Compiler?
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 22:46:44 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

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?
-- 
Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT  <chip@tct.com>, <73717.366@compuserve.com>
  "you make me want to break the laws of time and space / you make me
   want to eat pork / you make me want to staple bagels to my face /
   and remove them with a pitchfork" -- Weird Al Yankovic, "You Make Me"
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
From: hes@unity.ncsu.edu (Henry E. Schaffer)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:16:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
> ...  A copyright is a temporary, exclusive
                                   ^^^^^^^^^
>legal right, which entitles its owner to produce, publish, and sell
>copies of his original work.  As such, copyright attaches to the work,
>and not to any specific copy thereof.   ...

  I think that this statement is at the heart of the disagreement.
It isn't clear to me that copyright is "exclusive", but the example
I have in mind isn't exactly relevant to the software issue.  Still
it is a copyright example:

  Author A writes a poem and owns the copyright.  Editor B includes
the poem (by permission, and with copyright notice attached) in a
collection of poetry and owns a copyright on the book as a 
collection.  Performer C buys a copy of the book and wants to
read the poem as a paid performance.  C must get permission from
both A and B.  Therefore the poem is "covered" by two copyrights
simultaneously.  However if C obtains a copy of the poem which
was published other than in the book, then B's permission is not
necessary.  In this case there can be different copies of the
poem which are treated differently with respect to needed
permission(s) and possibly with respect to license terms.

  Am I representing the poem copyright situation correctly?

  Is this analogous to any part of the FSF license question?

--henry schaffer
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4320 talk.philosophy.misc:3218 misc.legal:22215
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 19:39:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan8.143933.19114
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1ikfruINN521@life.ai.mit.edu> 
mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum) writes:

>In article <1993Jan8.115714.19103@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>> The law does not permit selling products without warranty of any
>> kind.  That does not stop the FSF from including its "NO WARRANTY"
>> clause in the GPL.

CH:
>Specifically, version 2 says:
>
>    11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO
>  WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.

Note the final qualification.  I know of no place in the so-called
First World, where FSF would not be held liable for the damage
incurred by a virus contained in its distribution tapes or CD-ROM.
Other kinds of irrevocable implied warranty may be readily adduced to
the same effect.

CH:
>Furthermore, the FSF `sells' a distribution service, and provides for
>a suitable warranty on the media used for such.

Case in point.

CH:
>What is your point?

Only that (by analogy) the FSF can be no more successful in its
efforts to override the copyright of derivative works falling under
the provisions of the GPL, than is permitted under the copyright law.

>-- 
> \  /   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
> /\ \   PGP public key available on request.  MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
>Scheme  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: scheurer@lithnext.epfl.ch (Marco Scheurer)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Discussion about the FSF in...
Date: 6 Jan 93 17:26:23 GMT
Reply-To: scheurer@lithnext.epfl.ch

comp.sys.mac.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.tools,comp.os.ms-windows. 
programmer.misc (don t ask me why I happen to read one of these :-)

It's called Stallman and friends. Many assertions about the FSF and the GNU  
manifesto. Just to let you know.
______
Marco Scheurer	scheurer@lithnext.epfl.ch (NeXTMail)
Laboratoire d'Informatique Theorique
Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne
IN-Ecublens
CH-1015 Lausanne (Switzerland)
(+41) 21 693-2589
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 10 Jan 1993 21:57:07 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan10.062319.17213@news2.cis.umn.edu> tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:
>I have followed the gnu project for some time, and do like (and, I admit, use)
>the products that you have created. However, enough is enough. The PRINCIPLES 
>upon which the gnu project was formed are quite harmful to the software
>industry and software programmers in general.

No kidding.  Stallman intends to destroy the software industry as it now
constitutes itself, and replace it with something different.  In this
new industry, programmers will make a living in a service mode (solving
people's problems) rather than in a product mode (write a hit program,
then retire and collect revenues).

You believe that programmers have an indefinite right to make money as
they now do.  Stallman believes differently.  I'm not a strict GNUist;
I see a role for proprietary software in some cases, but prefer a world
in which as much software is freely distributable as possible.

>	Now YOU develop similar software for free. Which software would you 
>pick as a consumer? A: Joe Schmoe's word processor -- 129.95 or B: Richard 
>Stallman's super-duper gnu processor -- GRATIS. The choice is easy (as far
>as the consumer is concerned, and Joe Schmoe, software developer,  
>gets it directly in the teeth. 

This is the free market in action.  Joe Schmoe has been out-competed.  If
he can write a word processor that is worth $129.95 more to the end user
than Gnu Emacs is, he can sell it.  The effect of FSF at this point is
to place a floor under the level of crap that the software industry can
unload on users; you can't sell a compiler that is vastly worse than gcc
for very long anymore.  This is good for the end user.  It may be bad news
for the budding young software capitalist, but the world doesn't owe you
a living.  

>	All of the above is sad news for the future software developer. Why
>ON EARTH spend 20,000+ on a college education, if the market that you are
>going to go into is being deliberately sabatoged at every turn by some
>person who
>-- out of misguided loyalties -- is periodically dumping products onto the 
>market. I am one these folks, and sorry to say, I do not feel that I am going
>to have the security of an academic umbrella to pay the bills.

Tough.  If you were an expert in manufacturing carriages around 1890,
you'd have similar complaints against the automobile manufacturers.
And even if FSF weren't around, why are you so sure that you'd be making
a lucrative living selling your own software?  It's a lot tougher than
it used to be; most of the skills required have nothing to do with
programming, but rather have to do with marketing, business planning,
user support, and so forth.

--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4267 talk.philosophy.misc:3192 alt.usage.english:10323
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 12 Jan 1993 20:56:23 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1993Jan12.082504.15062@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>>>    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".

"Your acceptance of this License" means that you agree to distribute source
code.  GPL v2 section 3 describes what it means to distribute source code:
a) include the source code with the binary; b) include a written offer to
deliver source code; or c) include the original author's offer to deliver
source code.  It also says, "If distribution of executable or object code
is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering
equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code"; this covers FTP servers.

From section 4: "Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or
distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your
rights under this License."  It *doesn't* say that violating the agreement
gives third parties the right to take source code that you haven't
distributed.


-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4323 talk.philosophy.misc:3223 misc.legal:22223
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 1993 21:40:45 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu


>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.

In article <1993Jan8.212814.21601@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>As I pointed out in another article, you can't.

Legally you can.  Practically, there may be some difficulties.

>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?

You're assuming that the alternate licensing would be an X or Tcl/Tk
type license.  And I agree, if you did so exactly your scenario would
result.  But if the alternate licensing were to give a specific company
the right to make a proprietary product based on the code, no such result
would happen.

The idea is that this kind of thing would change "no one can make a
'hoarded' product based on my code" to "no one but company XYZ can".
This kind of thing is enforceable.  It's against the spirit of the
GPL, but the author of GhostScript has indicated that he plans to do
precisely this.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 10 Jan 93 07:48:07 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <1993Jan9.211106.22282@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu 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.
   
   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?
   
   Or imagine that someone else wrote S, which is PD.  Me and the GNU
   programmer independently used S in our programs.  Once again some
   third party comes by and   says "oh, you took S from the GPL
   program.  I think I'll pirate your stuff." (Of course, if I
   register first, I've escaped, but what if I didn't manage to?)
   How could I possibly prove otherwise?

It seems like the only way to resolve this paradox is by saying that
something in the public domain remains in the public domain, even
though someone might incorporate it into a copyrighted work.  I
believe that this is the way the legal system resolves it, but IANAL,
and logic is too much to expect from the legal system.

-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.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: Johns Hopkins University CS Dept.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 22:58:24 GMT

In article <NS14.93Jan10055707@crux2.crux2.cit.cornell.edu> ns14@crux2.crux2.cit.cornell.edu (Nathan Otto Siemers) writes:
>	"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.

Of course.  Gnu "dumping" only seeks to disable other producers so the market
can all be the way the dumper wants it, so they don't _need_ to control it....
--
"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: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 10 Jan 1993 12:45:40 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <1ioemkINNgs7@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>Yes, you can.  You should be able to buy a book on Perl at bookstores,
>and you can buy the GNU EMACS books from the FSF (I *think* there might
>be a book on emacs published by O'Reilly & Associates, but I'm not sure,
>so I won't say more than that :)).

There's also one from HP Books, I believe.  I seem to recall another one, too,
but I'm not too sure (that is, I seem to recall that there is the FSF one,
the O'Reilly one, the HP one, and one other -- no, I'm not thinking of the
book about writing Emacs-type editors...).

--Tim Smith
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4246 comp.sys.mips:1149 alt.cd-rom:5482