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: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 21:11:06 GMT

In article <726553525snx@crynwr.com> nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson) writes:
>   But wait, I protest.  I didn't get S from a GPL program.  I
>   already had S, in a   non-GPL version.  Unfortunately, the version
>   of S which is GPL'ed is identical,   byte for byte, with the
>   version of S which is not.  It's not even clear that it's
>   _meaningful_ to say that I used one version instead of the other.
>   So I'm stuck.  The other company can pirate all they want.
>You *did* remember to register the copyright for B, didn't you?

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?
--
"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)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: zhu@athena.mit.edu (Erin Zhu)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 07:12:14 GMT

In article <1i8cvgINN9ar@shelley.u.washington.edu>
tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>>one has no billing.  Finding a better way to copyright and distribute 
>>software and source code is a subject that many have talked about;
>>the FSF (including "men" like Stallman for those who insist on 
>>personalizing) have actually taken a public position and done
>>their best to put their ideas into practice.  Few political action
>>groups have so successfully worked both the theoretical and practical 
>>sides of a difficult problem.

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

>How about the way X is distributed?

Exceedingly good point.

If I may quote from the X11R4 release notes:

"Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software
and its documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee,
provided that the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that
both that copyright notice and this permission notice appear in
supporting documentation, and that the name of M.I.T.  not be used in
advertising or publicity pertaining to distribution of the software
without specific, written prior permission.  M.I.T.  makes no
representations about the suitability of this software for any
purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or implied warranty.

This software is not subject to any license of the American Telephone
and Telegraph Company or of the Regents of the University of
California."

I believe this qualifies as an example of practical distribution of
free software which has neither hindered the popularity of the program
nor resulted in any excessive competition with copied or adapted
commercial versions.

Now if somebody would just get it into his head that Mikhail is not
merely interested in the semantical purity of the word "free", but
rather the concept of freedom as it applies to so-called "freely-
distributed" software, this discussion might become more intelligent.

  --Erin

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4190 talk.philosophy.misc:3149 alt.usage.english:10239 alt.society.anarchy:1006
From: jaenicke@emserver.ee.tu-berlin.de (Lutz Jaenicke)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 7 Jan 1993 12:12:26 GMT
Organization: TU-Berlin, Institut fuer Elektrische Maschinen
NNTP-Posting-Host: emws1.ee.tu-berlin.de

In article <1993Jan7.112550.22626@uwasa.fi> 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.

If X had been under the GPL, I really doubt it would have been such
succesfull (same applies to the BSD extensions to UNIX, e.g. networking).
The computer manufacturers, like all companies, have to make profits.
To do so, they have to sell the customers their products, which can
only be achieved by:
	1. lower prices (e.g. PC-Clone business)
	2. better (at least different) technology
The second implies, that the companies must have the possibility to keep
large parts of their knowlegde and technology _secret_. So, even if
a piece of software under GPL wouldn't make a large part of the whole
product, every manager will think _twice_ before including it.

The above statement IMHO also applies to the standardization of products.
If all companies would sell you exactly the same OS and software, who
will keep you buying _insert_your_favorite_ products rather than
the new faster workstation from _my_favorite_? So the manufacturers
are forced to be incompatible and hide their secrets.

	Lutz

PS. All comments with respect to the bad support of workstation manufacturers
still apply, even if my vendor is different from yours.
-- 
Lutz Jaenicke 				jaenicke@emserver.ee.tu-berlin.de 
Institut fuer Elektrische Maschinen	jaenicke@emapollo.ee.tu-berlin.de
Technische Universitaet Berlin		Tel. (004930)314-24552
Einsteinufer 11, D-1000 Berlin 10 	Fax. (004930)314-21133
From: sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: 10 Jan 1993 17:13:06 -0800
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.uu.net

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."  Usually public-domain, sometimes just
available to U.S. citizens.  (By security, I mean "national security," and
other restrictions, I mean that, for example, just because the gov't does
work on UNIX isn't going to make the code free, unless it is not covered by
the UNIX license.)

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.

Etc.

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
From: sja@snakemail.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 05 Jan 93 16:23:45 GMT


> "The use of GNU" does NOT place you under any legal obligation to
> anyone or anything.

Well, depends...  I usually consider use of software to include
using the source code (when available) in any public domain programs
I'm writing.  The GNU restrictions don't mix with that since I don't
want to restrict the use of my code.

Some GNU programs also include things in their output that makes
their input property of FSF.
									++sja
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4424 talk.philosophy.misc:3279 misc.legal:22407
From: kevin@edscom.demon.co.uk (Kevin Broadey)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
X-Attributions-By: Supercite 2.2
X-Disclaimer: These opinions are mine: others available on request.
Organization: EDS-Scicon, Milton Keynes, UK
X-Newsreader: GNUS 3.14.1
	<1993Jan2.220350.10661@nntp.hut.fi> <1i7jkcINNbkf@life.ai.mit.edu>
	<1993Jan3.181426.18968@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 14:20:16 GMT

>>>>> "MZ" == Michael Zeleny <zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu> writes:

MZ> Look, Michael, you are a very nice, earnest boy, but it is quite
MZ> futile for Stallman to send his lieutenants to do a man's job of
MZ> arguing.  You guys are just not up to snuff.

This argument has been very interesting, but this was a real cheap shot.
I very much doubt that RMS would send a "lieutenant" to do his dirty
work for him, and what's all this sexist crap about men being the only
ones able to carry an argument?  Keep it relevant!

Kevin
--
.signature: no such file or directory
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu (Vince Tessier)
Subject: Re: Summary of answers (GNU diff question)
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester MI.
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 23:57:14 GMT

ph12hucg@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de (Carsten Grammes) writes:

>From: Vince Tessier <vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu>
>[flame^H^H^H^H^H well meant advice deleted...]

-- 
	Vince Tessier (vtessier@vela.acs.oakland.edu)
Mort Sahl: General, aren't you supporting Castro by smoking that Havana cigar?
Alexander Haig:	I prefer to think of it as burning his crops to the ground.
(from an interview of Mort Sahl on National Public Radio, 23nov91)
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: looking for GNU's address
Date: 6 Jan 1993 20:21:11 GMT
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sentinel.ces.cwru.edu

In article <1993Jan6.142646.4676@ctsx.celtech.com> davidd@ctsx.celtech.com writes:
>Hello, I'm looking for GNU's phone number and address. I'm
>interested in getting a copy of their catalog(?). Thanks.

A copy of the latest GNU Bulletin, which includes order forms for the
GNU distributions can be obtained sending your request to the FSF address
below (including a small donation to cover copying costs is appreciated,
but is not required).  If you live in an area served by the US Post Office,
please also include a SASE (Self-Addressed Stamped Number 10 or A5 sized
Envelope).

The GNU's Bulletin is the semi-annual newsletter of the Free Software
Foundation, bringing you news about the GNU Project.

	Free Software Foundation, Inc.
	675 Massachusetts Avenue
	Cambridge, MA  02139  USA

Telephone: (617) 876-3296

A copy of the order form can also be obtained via anonymous FTP from many
GNU archive sites.

	prep.ai.mit.edu:/pub/gnu/GNUinfo/DISTRIB
	gatekeeper.dec.com:/GNU/GNUinfo/DISTRIB
	cs.ubc.ca:/mirror2/gnu/GNUinfo/DISTRIB
	isy.liu.se:/pub/gnu/GNUinfo/DISTRIB
	ftp.win.tue.nl:/pub/gnu/GNUinfo/DISTRIB
	ftp.denet.dk:/pub/gnu/GNUinfo/DISTRIB
	ftp.cs.titech.ac.jp:/pub/GNU/prep/GNUinfo/DISTRIB

Aydin Edguer
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
From: sdb@ssr.com (Scott Ballantyne)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: ScotSoft Research
	<1993Jan7.123025.19069@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:03:51 GMT

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

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

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

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

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

sdb
---
sdb@ssr.com
From: nelson@crynwr.com (Russell Nelson)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Fund raising at the FSF 
Distribution: world
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 93 04:03:01 GMT
Organization: Crynwr Software

In article <2B4BC9F1.666E@tct.com> chip@tct.com 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.

   Are there any counterexamples?

The Crynwr Packet Driver Collection.  Many commercial packages use them.

-russ <nelson@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software           Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St.              315-268-1925 Voice  |  LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676         315-268-9201 FAX    |  the harm software patents do.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4229 talk.philosophy.misc:3176 alt.usage.english:10291 alt.society.anarchy:1034
From: mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk>
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 18:25:38 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.
X-Newsreader: rusnews v0.98

tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
> OK, so some user will come along and pay me to write new software?
> But to them, software is just a tool that they use in their business.
> Isn't it going to be in their interest to ask me to develop for them
> a proprietary version?

Especially since if you develop a proprietary version, you can share your
development costs amongst thousands of users.  Has anyone managed to do this
with GPL software?  I've seen people try and fail.


mathew
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
From: wollman@aix2.emba.uvm.edu (Garrett Wollman)
Subject: Re: Copyleft vs Public Domain
Organization: University of Vermont, EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 20:52:07 GMT

In article <1993Jan11.032430.19184@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
(I think it's about time for Zeleny to join Farwell in my KILL file...)

>Huh? in what sense is the PD source not readily available?

1.  I create a PD program and pass it around to a few people (set A).
2.  One of these people (B) creates a binary from my source and gives
    it to another group of people (set C).

A is the set of people who have access to the source.  C is the set of
people who have access to the binary.  B = A\cap B = the set of people
who have the binary and the source.  The people in C - B don't have
access to the source, unless B chooses to give it to them.

>I shan't presume to speak for you or your programs, but for anyone
>*but* a skilled programmer, Emacs is *far* inferior to any generic
>(WYSIWYG, graphical) word processor.

Tell that to the graduate students and technical secretaries who use
it daily at this any many other locations around the world.

>[. . .]

>The difference is, no single, dedicated agency has ever tried to
>maintain and develop the PD extensions of X, TeX, or BSD.

Wrong.  In particular, MIT, Stanford and the University of Washington,
and UC Berkeley, respectively.

>What I have in mind may be imagined as a planned and
>coordinated counterpart to piecemeal PD software development currently
>undertaken by the US government and universities.

If the US government plans to develop *any* significant piece of
software, then they make sure that it was actually developed by
someone who can claim copyright in the work, so that they can then
turn around and charge lots of money for it.


-GAWollman

-- 
Garrett A. Wollman   | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... 
wollman@emba.uvm.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance.
uvm-gen!wollman      | It is a bond more powerful than absence.  We like people
UVM disagrees.       | who like Shashish.  - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4394 talk.philosophy.misc:3262 misc.legal:22362
From: mitch@clsi.COM (Mitchell N. Perilstein)
Subject: Re: harmful effects of gnu software
Organization: CAD Language Systems, Inc.
Date: 10 Jan 93 17:21:28

In article <1993Jan10.062319.17213@news2.cis.umn.edu> tyrell@herring.micro.umn.edu (john drexler) writes:

>       You are doing the equivalent to what the Japanese microchip
> industry did to the United States counterpart: dumping. Every time you
> create a software product, and give it out -- free -- to the public,
> some private software developer is taking the brunt of it.

To continue on the Japanese line, look at how the US auto industry
defended itself against the import cars in the last ten years, which
at the time were better quality and less expensive than US cars.  They
used better process technology and QA to improve the product.

If the software industry were to defend itself against public domain and
copyleft products, it must improve and emphasize the areas where it is
already distinguished: sales/marketing networks, glossy documentation,
support and updates, and especially QA.  Microsoft, for example, is
surely capable of producing a compiler as good as gcc or a windowing
system as as versatile as X11, but it hasn't tried yet: Joe Beancounter
is--for now--happy with the current cost, convenience, capability, and
quality levels of shrinkwrap software.

In the end, there will be both room and need for all three softwares:
PD, copyleft, and proprietary.  Their distinguishing attributes will
change.

---
 Mitchell N. Perilstein   CAD Language Systems, Inc.   410-992-5700 x225 
 Member, League for Programming Freedom.  Mail lpf@uunet.uu.net for info.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 17:35:18 GMT

In article <1ijsrmINN8jr@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

[...discussion about porting emacs to Windows via a proprietary DLL...]

Ultimately, it might take a lawyer to answer this question.  Noah's
objections notwithstanding, I don't see much difference between 
Tim's scenario and someone who ports emacs to yet another not-free
operating system.  The DLL + Windows + DOS taken as a whole provides 
a sort of not-free, but more-emacs-friendly-than-Windows operating
system to which emacs could be ported with minimal, source-included
changes.

If Tim doesn't bundle emacs sources or binaries in his distribution,
nobody can sue him for doing what he's proposed.  I think that he
might find that potential customers looking for gnu emacs would dislike
the fact that he did not plan to follow the *tradition* of distributing
software with source - and so he might have difficulty getting customers.

Practically, I've seen a few examples similar to his scenario.
Nisus Software used gnu grep in its latest release of a proprietary
text editor.  Basically they defined some call-backs and released
the interface code needed to implement them, along with the source
for gnu grep modified to be invokable in that way.  No problem --
and users benefit because they now have the information needed
to port other tools for use with the editor.

What Tim proposes is the reverse, with the large work, emacs, 
modified to interact with Windows via a smaller work, the DLL 
interface.  He could get away with distributing it, but he'd 
be making a better business decision, IMO, if he did it the 
"right" way.

Such a port wouldn't make much money (my guess) and would be 
unpopular with people who'd accuse Tim of side-stepping the intent
of the GPL even if he kept it legal.  On the other hand, if he 
did the port the "right" way, he'd make a name for yourself
that might make earn him a few bucks in support contracts, 
or other programming/porting/consulting work.  Stallman charges 
over $200 an hour for consulting, and gets it apparently, 
because people know he's good - partly because they have seen 
the proof in all the source code he's released.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949

-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 1993 05:59:55 GMT
Organization: TC Telemanagement, Clearwater, FL

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).

Hm.  Have there been no similar contributions to X?
-- 
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"
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4310 talk.philosophy.misc:3210
From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 8 Jan 93 15:24:26 GMT
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <1993Jan7.130229.8014@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU> 
idall@augean.eleceng.adelaide.edu.AU (Ian Dall) writes:

>In article <1993Jan3.171845.18963@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

X:
>>>"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.

MZ:
>>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.

ID:
>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.

Doesn't it bother you that the same thing can be said about System V?

ID:
>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.

Do you mean that there is more than one truth of the matter?

>-- 
> 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

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."