Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!scs!spl1!laidbak!att!pacbell!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM ( Jim Adcock) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: libg++ caution Message-ID: <6590057@hplsla.HP.COM> Date: 3 Jun 88 18:54:27 GMT Article-I.D.: hplsla.6590057 References: <6590055@hplsla.HP.COM> Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Lines: 60 | For those who prefer to form their own opinions, I have appended the | text of the license that applies to G++. | | I always find it strange that software developers wish to benefit from | using freed software, but don't wish to past that benefit on. I consider the issue of whether certain software tool or library is "free" to be used or not to be a valid technical issue -- just as much as a warning that the "turkey" program might distroy your file system is a valid technical issue to bring up among users who might unknowingly get their hands on the "turkey" program. If comp.lang.c++ is not the right forum to discuss possible problems with g++ and libg++, then pray tell, what would be the right forum ??? Regards the license, the problems seem to primarily center around the issue of when is an independent software work developed using FSF tools a derivative of those FSF tools, or not. If the act of compiling your independent software program using FSF tools places coded versions of FSF code in the generated results, then there might be some claim that your work is a derivative work of the FSF tool. But most compilers and libraries DO in fact do this. If FSF wanted program writers to be free to use gcc or g++ to compile whatever independent programs they develop, for whatever ends they choose -- then presumably FSF would be willing to make a statement to that effect. We have not had any luck getting this. On the contrary. I personally would be happy to pass on the benefits of "free" software use to other software developers. I would happily give some of my own salary to "free" software developers who develop tools that I am "free" to use. But in general, I and most of software writers are not "free" to allow our software development work to be usurped by proponents of "free" software. Any software that we choose to place in the "free" domain must be a conscious rational choice on our part, not an act of coercion, nor a "mistake" made on our part as a result of our misunderstanding of legal licenses. And in general, we are not "free" to do with our software development work what we please, since in general we work for one or another company, which puts restrictions on our actions. This is a choice we choose to make. Stallman made a different choice. But surprisingly or not, many of these same companies ARE willing to allow much of our work to pass into the public domain. Much software developed at these companies does become the common property of software developers everywhere. Many ideas developed at these companies are published in public journals, for use by everyone. Many of these companies, and employees of these companies donate millions, if not billions of dollars to charitable organizations, organizations that work for the benefit of everyone. But these charitable actions must be conscious, rational decisions on our part, not the result of our mistaken assuptions about various legal licenses. If I or others screw up in our understanding of these licenses, at the very least we could lose our jobs. At the worst we could get personally sued. And that doesn't sound very "free" to me. My own opinions only, and not a substitute for competent legal advice.