Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!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: <6590269@hplsla.HP.COM> Date: 29 Sep 89 17:16:34 GMT References: <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA Lines: 36 > Stallman has said that he is perfectly happy to have his work used for > commercial purposes. The copyleft does not prevent you from using it > for any commercial product or service. You "just" have to make your > source available to the customer. People don't seem to realize that these are two seperate businesses. Selling software, and selling source. When you sell source, you are really in the service business of hand-holding, writing documentation, running courses on how to port the software etc. It's not [necessarily] that companies don't want to sell source because it would be giving away the company jewels. Just as likely companies don't want to sell source because they cannot be profitable selling their source. Many years ago, in my business [building FFT based analysers] we decided to sell source for one of our instruments. It cost us something like $10,000 to get the order process set up and in the corporate computers. And we "sold" one source copy. --At this rate the "cost" of AT&T compilers look very cheap compared to the "true cost" of gnu compilers. The gnu position seems to be: a) Feel free to use our compilers if you make your source available for "free." and/or b) Feel free to use our compilers if you don't use our non-trivial libraries. Position a) is clearly stated [I believe] in the gnu licensing terms. Position b) is not clearly stated in the gnu licensing terms. If b) is truly an "official" gnu position, it would be nice to have this explicetely stated as part of the gnu licensing terms. Not having these things stated clearly should make your lawyer nervous. Good lawyers want things spelled out in black and white -- not shades of grey. Use whatever compiler you feel best about. Use lawyers or not as you see fit. It does not affect me any. I just don't want to see new users of C++ niavely sucked in by the "Free Software" nomiker.