HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 03:11:27 GMT
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>They are wrong.  They are suffering from the Zeleny delusion.  They
>would be correct only if they found out that subroutine S, written by
>ANOTHER offer and GPLed by him/her, was in the program.

Actually, if these two subroutine S implementations are independent
creations, they still would not be correct.  Of course, proving that
two identical pieces of source code (if not trivial, and not written
by Ken Thomson and Dennis Ritchie) were really two independent works
would be hard...

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: tom@smart.bo.open.de (Thomas Neumann)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 5 Jan 1993 16:58:28 GMT
Organization: News at smart
	<C0B32v.2Br@comp.vuw.ac.nz> <1i8cgeINN8l6@shelley.u.washington.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: smart.bo.open.de
X-Newsreader: Emacs 18.59.1, GNUS 3.14.1
In-reply-to: tzs@stein.u.washington.edu's message of 4 Jan 93 03:55:58 GMT

>>>>> Regarding Re: Fund raising at the FSF; tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) adds:

  tzs> [...]
  tzs> I realize that something I need to do has been done in Microsoft
  tzs> Windows.  I can't use the Windows source, however, because
  tzs> Microsoft has not shown it to me.

  tzs> [...]
  tzs> I realize that something I need to do has been done in GNU Emacs.
  tzs> I can't use the Emacs source, however, because the program I am
  tzs> working on is proprietary.

  tzs> Looks the same to me.

Well, not quite the same. You can look at the emacs source and maybe
learn something from it, heck, you might even steal(?) the idea how the
code does it's magic and I bet RMS won't send his lawyers out to punch
you because your program is also capable of "editing text in an interactive,
keyboard driven way" or something like that. Try distributing a really
market-smashing spreadsheet that uses Lotus-Style menus and you'll see what
you'll get ...

bye -- Thomas
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4241 talk.philosophy.misc:3179 alt.usage.english:10302 alt.society.anarchy:1038
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: Wed, 06 Jan 93 15:45:19 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

vinsci@brando.uwasa.fi (Leonard Norrgard) writes:
> Chip Salzenberg (chip@tct.com) wrote:
> > According to johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston):
> > >[GPL code] is free-er in every sense of the word than any other 
> > >software I've worked with...
> > 
> > Then apparently you've never used X, or Deliver, or any other system
> > either public domain or copyrighted but released for unrestricted use.
> 
> 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?  Honestly, buying hardware from a
manufacturer that treats its customers shoddily and then complaining that
you're being treated shoddily is a bit perverse.  Do you really think the GPL
would have eliminated the manufacturer's ability to treat you badly?  If so,
dream on.

> While I can't get the X bugs fixed for the reason described above, I
> *can* run all the latest and greatest FSF software on the machines
> here.

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.  What, you mean you didn't take that cost
into account when buying the system?


mathew

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Public Domain C Compiler?
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 22:08:21 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

According to mcastle@cs.umr.edu (Michael R Castle):
>In article <C0FuFu.o41@austin.ibm.com> moller@austin.ibm.com (Christian
>H. L. Moller) writes:
>>In article <2B4A0FD5.FD6B@tct.com>, chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>>>[Where is] a truly free (public domain or equivalent) C compiler?
>>
>>It's called `gcc' ...
>
>I think Chip knows very much all about gcc and the FSF.

Yes, I do.  I've even participated in the development of GCC 2.0; just
read the ChangeLog for evidence.

>What Chip want's to know about is a _truly_ pd compiler.

Not quite.  Reread my article.  I'm looking for "PD or equivalent"
compilers.  Something with terms like BSD's or X's would be just fine.
So the Princeton LCC front end is exactly the kind of software I'm
looking for.

>It becomes quite a logistic problem to try to incorporate changes into
>the original [single-target] compiler in a coherent manner.  And I feel
>it's really more than one person could handle.

True; but then, a single coordinator with many Usenet volunteers can do
more than you might think.  Consider Elm.

>I just really doubt one person could do it and remain sane (hmm....
>rms....?? nahhhh  :-)

:-)
-- 
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,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
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 21:50:29 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <1993Jan8.212126.21379@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>There's another question here: 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.

Not true.  Derivative works of program B must be GPLed.  It's this
"infect" nonsense that's fooled you.  As the author of S, you may
release it under any terms you want.

>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."

They are wrong.  They are suffering from the Zeleny delusion.  They
would be correct only if they found out that subroutine S, written by
ANOTHER offer and GPLed by him/her, was in the program.

>But wait, I protest.  I didn't get S from a GPL program.

It wouldn't matter if you had.  The important distinction is that S is
your work.  As it is your work, you may distribute it under any conditions
you please.  You always have unlimited rights to your own work unless you
sign away your ownership to someone else.





--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4408 talk.philosophy.misc:3270 misc.legal:22382
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 12 Jan 93 03:02:53 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1isrbpINNq75@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
jwe@bongo.cc.utexas.edu (John W. Eaton) writes:

>In article <1993Jan11.144521.19192@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>By the same token, should they release their programs into the public
>>domain, the FSF would *gain* the support of many people currently
>>disagreeing with the GPL.

JWE:
>No kidding.  I suspect all those who would like to get something for
>nothing by creating proprietary versions of Emacs, gcc, and other GNU
>software would be dancing in the streets.

It's the neatest thing about words, -- everyone is free to interpret
them in accordance with his own moral nature.

>--
>John W. Eaton      | 4.3BSD is not perfect.  -- Leffler, et al. (1989).
>jwe@che.utexas.edu |

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
From: mycroft@hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 15:37:03 GMT
Organization: /etc/organization
NNTP-Posting-Host: hal.gnu.ai.mit.edu


In article <1imofgINN46l@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry
Margolin) writes:
>
> (however, if you use a non-dynamic library, the linked version is a
> derivative of Emacs, and therefore all parts of it must be
> copylefted).

In this case, the work as a whole must be copylefted, not the
individual components.  This is an important distinction.

-- 
 \  /   Charles Hannum, mycroft@ai.mit.edu
 /\ \   PGP public key available on request.  MIME, AMS, NextMail accepted.
Scheme  White heterosexual atheist male (WHAM) pride!
From: henrik@stat.tamu.edu (Henrik Schmiediche)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Where can I find a copy of COPYLEFT?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 21:23:52 GMT
Organization: Department of Statistics, TAMU
NNTP-Posting-Host: data.tamu.edu


Sorry for wasting bandwidth on this, but I tried 'archie -s copyleft'
and tried prep.ai.mit.edu in /pub/gnu with no success. 

Could someone mail me a copy of 'CopyLeft' and/or tell me where I
can ftp it from?

Thanks in advance.

    - Henrik
--
Henrik Schmiediche, Dept. of Statistics, Texas A&M, College Station, TX 77843
E-mail: henrik@stat.tamu.edu  |  Tel: (409) 845-9447   |  Fax: (409) 845-3144
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 20:18:34 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

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...

Interesting definition of "working", that.  X is only the most widely
used window system in the world.  It is such due in part to fixes and
other contributions from many dedicated and talented people.

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.  (Or do
you think that I, who share my GCC patches, transmogrify into an evil
hoarder at the moment that I type "cd /usr/src/X"?)

Were X to have been a GPL product from the beginning, the public
minded people who do contribute fixes would have continued to do so.
The only difference would be a loss: commercial products would never
have been, since GPL programs just don't provide the revenue stream.

You may not like the commercial X products, but don't imagine that a
GPL'd X would have made a better commercial X for you to hack.  No way.

>> The FSF didn't invent free redistribution, it corrupted it.
>
>Clearly the FSF distribution scheme is working to the benefit of both
>the programmers and the user society...

You can't measure benefit without considering possible greater benefit
of alternatives.  I see PD (and copyrighted-but-really-free, a la X,
which is practically the same thing) as an alternative that produces a
greater net benefit than the GPL.
-- 
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
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 20:46:55 GMT

In article <726553525snx@crynwr.com> nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
>
>You *did* remember to register the copyright for B, didn't you?

The US has joined the Berne Copyright Convention.  Copyright exists by the
fact of the work existing.

Maybe we need ``software patents'' to get round this  ;)

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
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4282 talk.philosophy.misc:3199 alt.usage.english:10338 alt.society.anarchy:1050
From: seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Ditka)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Keywords: Infinite digression
Date: 7 Jan 93 16:46:00 GMT
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Duke University Medical Center
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Can any of you GNU gurus tell me why this is still being posted
to alt.anarchy?
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 9 Jan 1993 14:46:08 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: gandalf.think.com

In article <1ijsrmINN8jr@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (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.

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.

If you wrote the DLL merely to make your Emacs port effectively
proprietary, I don't think it can be "reasonably considered independent and
separate".  However, if you have a proprietary database system implemented
as a DLL, and you make a version of Emacs that uses it, I don't think you
would have to copyleft the database library (however, if you use a
non-dynamic library, the linked version is a derivative of Emacs, and
therefore all parts of it must be copylefted).

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4433 talk.philosophy.misc:3283 misc.legal:22424
From: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: FSF vs Apple -- please think again
Date: 12 Jan 93 18:09:21
Organization: Free Software Foundation, 675 Mass Ave. Cambridge, MA 02139
	<1993Jan12.160747.19249@husc3.harvard.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu's message of 12 Jan 93 21:07:46 GMT

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

   Mikhail, I get the strong impression that, at this point, you are simply
looking for anything to be contrary about just because you don't like the
FSF.  You made your original point fairly clearly, I think.  You are
greatly diminishing the force of your argument by bringing up lots of
tangential (and sometimes wrong) facts or opinions, and muddying up the
issues considerably.

   If the FSF were hurting its tax-exempt status by refusing to port GNU
software to the Mac, or refusing to merge contributed ports into our
working sources, the IRS would have known about it years ago.  It's
obviously not a problem.  We have an auditor examine our records every year
to make sure we are still complying with the tax exemption rules.

   You can't even claim we are forcing anyone else not to port GNU software
to the mac.  We haven't, and such ports already exist.  We merely ask
people not to for what we think are good reasons.
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 7 Jan 1993 19:09:11 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu


According to jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck):
>>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).

In article <2B4BC6DB.348E@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>Hm.  Have there been no similar contributions to X?

Yes, there have been substantial contributions to X as well from industry
that are freely available: Sun's xview stuff (well, the X part, not the
NeWS part), and several other extensions.  My point, though, was that
all the gcc extension projects I described above would have been
proprietary if it were not for the GPL, so Stallman has accomplished part
of his purpose by having it (using the GPL as leverage to create more
free software).

Now, I can hardly say that the GPL is right and X-style licensing is
wrong; after all, I'm one of the principal designers of Ptolemy (see
comp.dsp and comp.lsi.cad), which was released with a license adopted from
Ousterhout's Tcl/Tk, which is very similar to the terms for X (it took
some of us six months of lobbying to get Ptolemy declared free).  It's
just that there are advantages to either approach and I think you were
unfairly pretending that the GPL causes no additional sharing, when I
think I have pretty effectively demonstrated that this is not true.



--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
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 21:21:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan7.202709.19083@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>A copy of software released under the GPL maintains its original
>>copyright.  If you write something, and release it under the GPL, then
>>*that* *copy* is bound by the GPL.  But, as the copyright owner, you
>>are free to release other copies under other terms, as you see fit.
>You are contradicting yourself.  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.  The GPL expressly restricts all
>forms of copying, modification, sublicensing, distribution, or transfer
>of any code licensed under it, including, in virtue of its infamous
>"virus infection" provision, any program which contains GNU or its part,
>with or without modifications.  In other words, the GPL supersedes any
>residual rights of the copyright owner under its own terms.  It is
>ridiculous to suggest that only a particular copy of the work is so
>bound, for licensing, tike copyright, applies to the text type, rather
>than any of its instantiated tokens.

There's another question here: 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.

Is this correct?  And if so, is this outcome FSF's intent?
--
"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: 11 Jan 93 09:31:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: shelley.1ireovINNdsn
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
NNTP-Posting-Host: carson.u.washington.edu

In article <C0oDJ1.4u9@dcs.ed.ac.uk> pdc@dcs.ed.ac.uk (Paul Crowley) writes:
>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...

Uh, nearly everyone I've heard of who wrote a spreadsheet was a programmer!

--Tim Smith
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss