Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ncar!ames!uhccux!julian
From: julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Julian Cowley)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Re^2: Software, development & copyrights
Message-ID: <4550@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 12 Aug 89 01:52:03 GMT
References:  <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26832@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <5401@ficc.uu.net> <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <1312@mcrware.UUCP> <1017@anise.acc.com> <1610@bucket.UUCP>  <661@laic.
Organization: University of Hawaii at Manoa
Lines: 88

In article <661@laic.UUCP> darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson) writes:
>If someone does this after a quick glance at yaccpar or the
>bison skeleton, will someone else complain that it wasn't
>'original' since they saw the sources (of course, the Bison
>author(s) have seen yaccpar)?

The FSF is concerned about this themselves, and they have a
programming guidelines document that explicitly warns you not to
look at the Unix sources when developing a corresponding GNU
utility.  They also urge you to look for newer and faster
algorithms than what the originals used, since that would clear
the air completely.

>If someone wrote one [a skeletal parser], will FSF distribute
>it without the copyleft?  If not, does FSF become monopolists and software
>hoarders?

I doubt they would distribute something that doesn't fit in with
their ideology, especially if it aides "horders", but they could
not justifiably be called monopolists for doing so.  Not
distributing a certain piece of software is not the same as
disallowing the software to be distributed in the first place,
and the the FSF is under no obligation to distribute source code
to anyone.  In fact, they vehemently refuse to distribute source
code that supports certain vendors (e.g., Apple).

>I don't know how FSF can say the GCC output is not
>derived work but including the libraries is - especially since it took
>a lot more effort to develop the compiler than the libraries (unless
>those are going to be some whiz-bang libraries :-).

Consider GCC as a translator.  A copy of, say, "The Satanic
Verses" may be written originally in English, but a copy
translated into Iranian is still the same work.  The same
argument can be used with GCC's output compared to the original
source.  The two files are intrinsically the same, except that one
is machine readable, and the other is intended for people to
read.

However, I find the FSF's argument about how the whole executable
file becomes copylefted with the inclusion of copylefted source
somewhat inpalatable.  In fact, if you look closely at the GPL,
you'll notice that it says this:

   "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."

    (From the Emacs 18.53 copying license)

This is meant to waver having to distribute proprietary C
libraries, since nobody could do that.  But this is almost
contradictory with the FSF's current policy, since it could be
applied to their library also.  The AT&T Unix C library may be
proprietary, but distributing executables containing it does not
bring the executables under its terms (perhaps against AT&T's
wishes).  The GNU C libraries should not do this either.  As much
as I respect the FSF, I feel that RMS's insistence on this point
has created many more enemies towards him since he announced it
sometime last year.

For the inclusion of copylefted sources besides the standard
libraries, I am not sure how this affects the whole.  Does the
work fall under a "least common denominator" license (as the FSF
is trying to make out)?  Or does each separate piece of the
whole get distributed (or not distributed) according to its
individual license?  I lean towards the latter, but it clearly
means that people would then use GNU CC to develop proprietary
software.  I'm not saying this is bad, but it is not likely to
happen since it runs contrary to RMS's firmly stated policy of
not helping "hoarders".

>So why doesn't someone write some compatible stuff?  Or are all the
>people with the free time on the FSF side?

I don't see how anyone can be on either "side".  People who need
to make money off of their programming ability have a noble
cause.  So do people who enjoy making their programs available
to other people.  Unfortunately, at least in the way our society
is set up now, the two causes contradict each other economically,
but this doesn't mean that an individual doesn't want to achieve
both.  The thing I like about GNU is that it recognizes that
there is a problem.

julian@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu		gnu emacs -- the editor that
julian@uhccux.bitnet			takes two newsgroups to pin down.