Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long)
Message-ID: <6590274@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 2 Oct 89 23:38:21 GMT
References: <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 21

> Note that the "intentions" of the FSF aren't the only relevant
> intentions. The copyleft, as the originator of this chain, potentially
> grants all kinds of rights to all sorts of others. One of them
> might decide to be a nuisance.

Ignoring the rest of this response, I think this respondee touches on an
important point.  The legal problems one runs into in the future may not
between you and your compiler supplier.  Your problems might be between
your company "Wayfarers, Inc." and competitor "Prune Computer Co." 
where Prune Computer Co. argues that they didn't infringe your product because 
your product was "Copyleftified" or "Public Domained" or whatevered because
you stepped in the compiler agreement, and thus don't own the product you
built [or something to this effect, suitably legalesed]  So it doesn't 
help even if CompilerSuppliers, Inc. are "nice guys" who are too nice to sue 
you in any case.  "Prune Computer Co." can still be a pain in the hindee unless
you can demonstrate  a perfectly clean, unbesmirched ownership of the software 
you write.  Your competitor "Prune Computer Co." [and unscrupulous software end
user company "MegaCopies, Inc"-- who might decide to copy your software without 
paying you royalties] are the real people to worry about.  You've just got to 
be able to demonstrate unbesmirched ownership to your software product.  
Muddy license agreements to compilers and/or libraries defeat this.