Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!apple!bridge2!csi!nsc!pyramid!leadsv!laic!nova!darin
From: darin@nova.laic.uucp (Darin Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Re^2: Software, development & copyrights
Message-ID: <661@laic.UUCP>
Date: 10 Aug 89 22:11:15 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> 
Sender: news@laic.UUCP
Reply-To: darin@nova.UUCP (Darin Johnson)
Organization: Lockheed AI Center, Menlo Park
Lines: 60

In article  talvola@janus.berkeley.edu (Erik Talvola) writes:
>I don't believe this is really an accurate analogy, and I would like
>to supply one which I feel is closer to the situation.
>
>Let's say that one is writing a large research paper.  In this paper, he
>is using information from several other papers written by different
>people.  Now, this person isn't deriving anything from the other papers,
>but he is using them in the writing of his paper. 
>
>I see this in being similar to the GNU stuff.  Someone wants to write a
>new compiler, and wants to use Bison.  Yes, Bison is only a tool, but it
>contains code with restrictions on it.  In the same way that you cannot
>take a chapter of a book and republish it, you cannot take a section of
>code (namely, the skeleton parser), and republish it - without the permission
>of the author.

But using the skeleton parser is not quite the same as borrowing a whole
chapter (IMHO).  Borrowing a chapter would be more like using the same
routines that are used to parse the bison input, output the tables, etc.
The skeleton parser is like the annotated bibliography - the paper is
pretty much useless without it (to most people).  Also, the skeleton
parser does not get included in the file executable, only a compiled
version of it - not a trivial matter to get it back in source form
- but I agree that object code is a derivation of source.  However, I
am pretty sure that if I distribute an executable, I am not giving away
my source or any trade-secrets, etc.  The skeleton is most likely a lot
more efficient than what most undergrads could write, but I am sure some
competent people could come up with a replacement for the skeleton pretty
easily (has anyone done this?).  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).  If someone wrote one, will FSF distribute
it without the copyleft?  If not, does FSF become monopolists and software
hoarders?

Similarly, including the GNUCC libs, is not in the same caliber as
lifting a whole chapter (especially since you are not including
source).  GNU CC is a tool to develop executables.  The GNU CC
libraries serve exactly the same purpose - a tool to develop
executables.  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 :-).  Likewise, I think
some people could come up with a compatible library (it doesn't have
to be GNU compatible, just have common C libs).  On all the systems I
use now, the GNU libraries will not be used (or allowed, else the
mythical enemy, the Russians, could just request a copy of all the
source code to all the work), but the compiler can be used because
existing libraries exist.  However, I know of people with systems
without a C compiler, who cannot afford a C compiler (why waste the
budget when FORTRAN does the job), but cannot use GNU CC because there
are no existing libraries.  So in essence, FSF is forcing people to
use FORTRAN :-) :-)

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


Darin Johnson (leadsv!laic!darin@pyramid.pyramid.com)
	We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.