Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!nic.MR.NET!thor.acc.stolaf.edu!mike From: mike@thor.acc.stolaf.edu (Mike Haertel) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++ Subject: Re: Questions about "Free Software Foundation" (long) Message-ID: <6602@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> Date: 28 Sep 89 02:45:24 GMT References: <980@mrsvr.UUCP> <6590268@hplsla.HP.COM> Reply-To: mike@thor.stolaf.edu () Organization: Free Software Foundation Lines: 77 In article <6590268@hplsla.HP.COM> jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes: >>Only using the libg++ library does the GNU copyleft problem arise. >I dispute this. [but note I'm not a lawyer so what I'm really saying is >go ask your lawyer which bring me back to my original statement that using >g++ on commercial work entangles you in copyright issues so why not just >use AT&T's [or other commercial] compiler.] I think this is total nonsense. I'm not a lawyer either, but I'd like to clarify a few things. I work for the Free Software Foundation. >I believe _main and builtin_new, and .h files at the very least, also >complicate the issue. The compiler's invisible runtime support routines are explicitly in the public domain. The only trivial .h files like, , and are also in the public domain. >Even the templates by which C++ code get converted >to a particular CPU's assembly language could cloud these issues. Not so; could you copyright the word "the"? Individual instructions are below the level of what is a copyrightable entity. These objections are total nonsense. The real objection lawyers have against us is that they worry that, since we have no profit motive to keep us from doing so, we might engage in nuisance suits against people we doing things we don't like with our programs. What the lawyers fail to see, are perhaps incapable of seeing, is that there's more to life than profit. Our motive is that we *want people to use our programs*. So we're not going to go around engaging in frivolous suits that we'd lose anyway, just to bug people. Because people would stop using our programs. (Just like if, say, AT&T went around gratuitously suing people, people would stop *buying* their stuff, and AT&T would stop making money. Silly lawyers seem to think profit is a greater incentive than personal satisfaction.) >Stallman's statements not withstanding, I do not believe issue of copyright >infringement where a compiler "automatically" injects a greater or lessor >amount of its own source code into a user's work to be compiled/assembled >has been legally tested. "Fair Usage" rules certainly apply here, but what is >"fair use" when an author publicly states he doesn't really want his >work used for commercial purposes? ...I suspect the courts might find a very >narrow view of "fair use" in those circumstances. About the largest verbatim copy from the compiler sources is probably procedure prologues and epilogues, on some machines. Taken by themselves, they are obviously on the same level as the aforementioned word "the" and thus uncopyrightable. I suspect it will be a long time, if ever, before such a case makes the courts, as most people have better things to do than engage in suits they're 99.9% likely to lose. >..........In any case, if you want to use g++ for commercial work only a >competent patent/intellectual property lawyer can decide for you and your >company. Just make darned sure you and the lawyer know the intimate details >of how g++, .h files, porting to multiple machines, etc, work. 1. You can use g++ for commercial work. 2. You cannot use libg++ in commercial products without bringing them within the scope of the GNU license. We may change this in the future, if we think that is the only way GNU will be accepted into widespread use. But we will look long and hard at such a change first. Of course, you can always write a library of your own, or obtain from some other source a library that you can legally use, and compile it with g++, and use that. 3. If your lawyers worry about nuisance suits point out that we have neither the inclination, time, nor money to engage in such frivolous pursuits, and besides we're nice guys. If your lawyers still bug you, maybe it's time to get new lawyers. -- Mike Haertel ``There's nothing remarkable about it. All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself.'' -- J. S. Bach