GPL not bypassed
Mark C. Henderson
>It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
>The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
>and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
>I informed the distributors of this.
And Mark Riordan has removed it from the distribution. I respect
his decision to do so. It is disappointing not to be able to hook
free software together with free software to make better free
software.
I'm certainly not convinced that what Richard Stallman says the
GPL implies is what the GPL implies. For instance, if I go out and
write my own library with calls like mpz_mul and such and then distribute
the hooks with that, am I still violating the GPL?
I'm going to offer some observations about how I did this, for
informational purposes only. It represents an hour or two of work.
This will only make sense, if you have both gmp documentation and
access to RSAREF (or, at least the portion of RSAREF published in
DDJ last year).
I wrote two routines to essentially perform the functions of NN_Encode
and NN_Decode to translate to and from the GNU mp format instead of
the format required by nn.c
Second I modified the routines in rsa.c and r_keygen.c to
translate call these new functions (lets call them MP_Encode and MP_Decode)
and the appropriate functions in gmp.
Some examples of the appropriate translation are as follows:
NN_Encode MP_Encode
NN_Decode MP_Decode
NN_ModExp mpz_powm
NN_Mod mpz_mmod
NN_Cmp mpz_cmp
NN_AssignZero mpz_set_ui (with zero as second parameter)
NN_ModMult mpz_mul followed by mpz_mmod
NN_Add mpz_add
NN_ModInv mpz_gcdext with appropriate parameters
NN_Assign mpz_set
NN_AssignDigit mpz_set_ui
The only part of this that required any thought is the writing of
MP_Encode and MP_Decode. The rest was purely mechanical. If any
of you have picked up my LUC package (called L3), functions very
similar to the MP_Encode and MP_Decode you'd need to write are used to
encode chunks of pseudo-random data into MP_INTs and reverse
this operation. These are called mptcs and cstmp, in the file lucas.c
(these stand for character string to mp and mp to character string).
The resulting RIPEM (TIS/PEM) is roughly twice as fast (better on some
platforms). Presumably if RSADSI and the PGP folks come to an agreement
the same technique could be applied to PGP.
The above is for informational purposes only. Consider it the report
of an interesting experiment or a testimony to how good gmp really is.
--
Mark Henderson
ma...@wimsey.bc.ca (personal account)
RIPEM key available by key server/finger/E-mail
MD5OfPublicKey: F1F5F0C3984CBEAF3889ADAFA2437433
Mark C. Henderson
>gs...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>If writing code such as
>>
>>main(){
>> call gpl_function();
>>}
>>
>>is subject to the GNU copyright terms, isn't this the same argument
>>that USL is using to claim that the Net-2 distribution is a derived
>>work?
>
>It's not clear to me that this is what RMS is claiming. With Net-2,
>the analogy would be that gpl_function() has been cloned. If there were
>another multiprecision math package in existence with the same interface
>as GNU MP, then RMS would have no legitimate objection to it without
>making a user interface claim. But what he is objecting to here is that
>the system is designed to use GNU MP, the instructions say to use GNU MP
>and that is what the makefiles are set up to do -- there is no alternative
>provided. It seems reasonable to say that what is being distributed is a
>system that includes GPL code, it's just being distributed in two pieces.
I'm not going to distribute RSAREF with gmp hooks. This code is dead.
In the end it doesn't make a lot of difference. RIPEM performance
is still competitive when compared to PGP and TIS/PEM. The RSAREF
distributed with RIPEM 1.1a (with no gmp hooks), is still much faster
than "virgin" RSAREF 1.0 as distributed by RSADSI. I'll personally
continue working to improve the performance of this GNU-free version
of RSAREF. Others will too. As a result, we'll all be able to use faster
versions of free RSAREF based applications, including RIPEM, TIS/PEM and
hopefully, in the future, PGP.
It is annoying to have to duplicate effort, but it is only a minor setback.
It just isn't worth the effort to try and work around this.
If RSAREF w/ gmp could have been a reality, I would have put my
efforts into working with the author of gmp to improve the GNU package.
As we (Americans and Canadians) can't legally use anything other than
RSAREF to do RSA without paying a licence fee, I don't see any
particular point in expending effort to improve gmp in the context
of using RSA.
We all lose.
Mark Henderson
Michael Golan
>In article <930702193...@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
>>It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
>>The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
>>and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
>>I informed the distributors of this.
>It is disappointing not to be able to hook
>free software together with free software to make better free
>software.
By definition of "free", it is possible to do what you would like.
Unfortunately, GPL'ed code is not free. It is nothing more than
FSF copyrighted code with limited free distribution and a license.
Maybe this will wake up some people to stop writing GPL code and
stop enhancing GNU tools, and write real free code: public domain.
See duel for an example.
-- Michael
--
Michael Golan | Duel, an addon to gdb, allows "x[..100] >? 0" to
m...@cs.princeton.edu | show the positive elements of x in the debugger.
| annon ftp ftp.cs.princeton.edu:/duel or send me mail!
Michael Golan
>In article <212hdt$k...@agate.berkeley.edu> jb...@foucault.eecs.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>>gs...@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>>>If writing code such as
>>>
>>>main(){
>>> call gpl_function();
>>>}
>>>
>>>is subject to the GNU copyright terms, isn't this the same argument
>>>that USL is using to claim that the Net-2 distribution is a derived
>>>work?
>>
>>It's not clear to me that this is what RMS is claiming.
from private mail to RMS, it sure seems to be his claim! Maybe not
in this over-simplified form, but if you called a bunch of
specific functions in a specific way - yes.
i would like to see rms himself answer this one!
It seems the FSF believes that providing a patch to GPL code, a patch
that was derived independently of GNU code, must be covered by
the GPL license. If I sold such a patch, FSF claims that what I have
done is really sell GPL software, splitted into various files, in order
to sabotage the GPL! Again, this is what I understood from RMS in
private mail (I don't want to say he said it - I'll be happy to hear
a denial) I also understood the FSF got a legal opinion to claim this
and intend to sue in such a case if needed.
I find this claim ridicules. People have been selling "patches" and
"add-ons" to COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS for years, and recent supreme court
decision seems to indicate that a hardware patch is legal (and I think
a software patch would be just as legal, and so do the lawyers I
talked to. i am referring to the nintendo case. Of course, the FSF and
thier lawyer seems to think that this hardware patch is somehow different.
Hence if I made a hardware device to type on your keyboard to patch GPL
code it might be ok, but not if I provided a software path :-)
In the case of Nintendo, the judges said Nintendo copyrights can not be
violated because people must still buy the game! I believe the same is
true for commerical software, and also to GNU software (it's the FSF "fault"
for "selling" GPL code for zero.)
People have been discussing theoretical cases for a while here ... why
don't you try a practical example. Duel. Duel is an add-on that is currently
useful only when linked to gdb. I wrote Duel and released its code
to the public domain, so the independent code could be used with other
debuggers [the gdb related code is about 10% in a single source file]
According to me, I am not violating the GPL, and if I wanted to sell Duel's
code, I could. According to the FSF, I a not violating the GPL only becuase
I am covered by it (my code is freely available) and I couldn't sell it.
Since Duel is PD, anyone of you out there can take it, modify it a tiny
bit, and re-release it as commercial product. As the author of the original
code, I encourage you to do so! (I believe in the free market. Either your
code is so good it is worth paying for, or people will just get the PD
version and use that. I am not afraid of you making a little money of my
work. I released my code to the public to help the public. If the public
purchase your code based on my, the public is being helped!)
So here is the deal: take Duel, add some code, make it ftp-able but
add a note: this code costs money. You should send me $10 if you use it.
Non-binding, but still, a commerical offering. If you are in a large
institution, you can even make the $10 payable to the institution. Many
academic institution would support such a commerical effort if they get
the money. And the legal responsibility is theirs. Then,
we can see if RMS actually sues the institute for copyright violation
or not. I would very much would like him to, for it will prove, at least
partially, if the GPL is indeed legally binding or a good fairytale.
-- Michael
ps. You can get duel and details about it from ftp.cs.princeton.edu:/duel
Why haven't *I* released it commercially to test this? because I had
an interest in a public domain Duel, not a crusade againt the GPL.
Mark Riordan
: >In article <930702193...@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
: >>It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
: >>The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
: >>and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
: >>I informed the distributors of this.
: By definition of "free", it is possible to do what you would like.
: Unfortunately, GPL'ed code is not free. It is nothing more than
: FSF copyrighted code with limited free distribution and a license.
: Maybe this will wake up some people to stop writing GPL code and
: stop enhancing GNU tools, and write real free code: public domain.
My feelings, too.
In fact, I do not think that distributing RIPEM with optional
GMP hooks violated the GNU copyleft.
However, I ceased distributing the hooks because, as nice as
GMP is, it's just not worth the hassle and ill will that would
be generated by its proprietors.
This quibbling is an example of why I never write GPL code;
if I want my code to be free, I simply place it in the public
domain.
Mark R.
John Franks
>ma...@vanbc.wimsey.com (Mark C. Henderson) writes:
>
>>In article <930702193...@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
>>>It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
>>>The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
>>>and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
>>>I informed the distributors of this.
>
>>It is disappointing not to be able to hook
>>free software together with free software to make better free
>>software.
>
>By definition of "free", it is possible to do what you would like.
>Unfortunately, GPL'ed code is not free. It is nothing more than
>FSF copyrighted code with limited free distribution and a license.
>
This argument seems completely backwards. The reason these cannot
be linked is because of restrictions on RSAREF not because of problems
with the GPL. In fact as readers on this group well know the entire
field of encryption is a prime example of how bad things can get
when patents and copyright are used to restrict the creation of software.
I always thought that perhaps the "hoarding" bogeyman which Stallman
holds up might be a little bit of overreaction. But what has happened
in the area of encryption is as bad as anyone's worst nightmare. In the
context of RSA and PKP to claim that GNU is at fault boggles my mind!
John Franks Dept of Math. Northwestern University
jo...@math.nwu.edu
Charles Geyer
writes:
> I always thought that perhaps the "hoarding" bogeyman which Stallman
> holds up might be a little bit of overreaction. But what has happened
> in the area of encryption is as bad as anyone's worst nightmare. In the
> context of RSA and PKP to claim that GNU is at fault boggles my mind!
Right. The bad guys can yell and scream all they want, but they're not
fooling anyone.
--
Charles Geyer
School of Statistics
University of Minnesota
cha...@umnstat.stat.umn.edu
Richard Pieri
> It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
> The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
> and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
> I informed the distributors of this.
Mark> And Mark Riordan has removed it from the distribution. I respect
Mark> his decision to do so. It is disappointing not to be able to hook
Mark> free software together with free software to make better free
Mark> software.
*sigh*
RIPEM is *NOT* free. It is unavailabe outside the United States, therefore
it is not completely freely distributable.
--Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat
PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
I'd rather be a pig than a fascist. --Porco Roso (The Crimson Pig)
Marc VanHeyningen
>RIPEM is *NOT* free. It is unavailabe outside the United States, therefore
>it is not completely freely distributable.
RIPEM is in the public domain and thus is more free than PGP or any
GNU stuff. It's just the RSAREF library that has a license associated
with it.
There exist copies of RSAREF that have been smuggled abroad just as
PGP was smuggled abroad. These restrictions are due to U.S. export
regulations and have nothing to do with licensing terms of the
software in question, or with the discussion here. FSF has never
cited export restrictions as a rationale for their claim. (Actually,
they've yet to give any rationale at all.)
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvan...@cs.indiana.edu MIME, RIPEM & HTTP spoken here
Jurgen Botz
>We all lose.
This, unfortunately, is true. However, it bears adding that
ultimately we have been losing far more as a result of the existence
of such rediculously broad software patents as PKP's claims on all
forms of public key cryptography than as a result of this unfortunate
incompatibility of RIPEM and the GPL.
--
Jurgen Botz, jb...@mtholyoke.edu | ``Accountability is the price of openness''
South Hadley, MA, USA | - Daniel Geer
Richard Pieri
Marc> Thus said rat...@denali.ccs.neu.edu (Richard Pieri):
> RIPEM is *NOT* free. It is unavailabe outside the United States, therefore
> it is not completely freely distributable.
Marc> RIPEM is in the public domain and thus is more free than PGP or any
Marc> GNU stuff. It's just the RSAREF library that has a license
Marc> associated with it.
Part of the Free Software Foundation's definition of "free software"
includes the provision that anyone who wants GPL code can acquire, use, or
modify that code in any way they want, so long as that such acquisition,
use, or modification does not violate the GNU Copyleft. RIPEM meets none of
these provisions; I will deal with them in order.
* Anyone that wants can acquire GPL software: RIPEM is unavailable legally
outside of the United States due to US export laws concerning
cryptographic software. This contradicts the freely redistributable
clause of the Copyleft. This is a technicality and a conflict of two sets
of US laws: Copyright and Export, and the export laws have won.
* Anyone that wants can use GPL software: see previous. If you can't
legally acquire the source code for RIPEM, you can't legally use it. This
contradicts the freely usable clause of the Copyleft.
* Anyone that wants can modify GPL software: It has been forbidden by PKP
to modify the RSAREF code or to use it in a manner other than the
approved, documented methods. This contradicts the freely modifiable
clause and the freely usable clause of the Copyleft.
--Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat
PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
Sleep with one eye open/Gripping your pillow tight...
Exit: Light/Enter: Night/Take my hand/We're off to Never-Never Land
--Metallica, Enter Sandman
Peter Honeyman
|> In article <21454r$a...@news.acns.nwu.edu> jo...@hopf.math.nwu.edu (John Franks)
|> writes:
|>
|> > I always thought that perhaps the "hoarding" bogeyman which Stallman
|> > holds up might be a little bit of overreaction. But what has happened
|> > in the area of encryption is as bad as anyone's worst nightmare. In the
|> > context of RSA and PKP to claim that GNU is at fault boggles my mind!
|>
|> Right. The bad guys can yell and scream all they want, but they're not
|> fooling anyone.
i would be amused to see rms spend fsf $$$ prosecuting mvanheyn's
supposed gpl violation. free software?!? rms runs a software jail.
by me, rms and pkp are in the same camp.
peter
Vesselin Bontchev
> Thus said rat...@denali.ccs.neu.edu (Richard Pieri):
> >RIPEM is *NOT* free. It is unavailabe outside the United States, therefore
> >it is not completely freely distributable.
> RIPEM is in the public domain and thus is more free than PGP or any
> GNU stuff. It's just the RSAREF library that has a license associated
> with it.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the last time I looked, RIPEM was NOT
freely distributable, even WITHOUT the RSAREF library. Maybe I have
read the docs wrong, but I got the impression that the author of RIPEM
does not want it distributed outside the USA. In fact, this is what
has stopped me from giving it to anybody who wishes; not the US export
restrictions.
Do you mean that RIPEM (without the RSAREF library) may be freely
distributed?
> There exist copies of RSAREF that have been smuggled abroad just as
> PGP was smuggled abroad.
Minor nit-picking - you mean "as PGP 1.0", I presume. Because PGP 2.0
and above was not "smuggled" abroad - it was developped abroad.
Regards,
Vesselin
--
Vesselin Vladimirov Bontchev Virus Test Center, University of Hamburg
Tel.:+49-40-54715-224, Fax: +49-40-54715-226 Fachbereich Informatik - AGN
< PGP 2.3 public key available on request. > Vogt-Koelln-Strasse 30, rm. 107 C
e-mail: bont...@fbihh.informatik.uni-hamburg.de 22527 Hamburg, Germany
Bill Johnston
>i would be amused to see rms spend fsf $$$ prosecuting mvanheyn's
>supposed gpl violation.
Ignoring the insults, there is at least one misunderstanding here:
the case of a publisher enforcing a copyright is not like that of
a cabbage seller, who can selectively ignore one hungry shoplifter
without giving up his right to prosecute others. The responsibility
for enforcing a copyright lies with the copyright owner; if it can
be shown that the copyright owner is (knowingly, I suppose) failing
to enforce it, the copyright itself may be judged to be surrendered.
It's unfortunate that the alleged violator in this case seems to
have been reasonably well-intentioned judging by the outcry from
many free-software supporters, but unfortunately that's the way
copyright law apparently works. Please note that I haven't got
a clue whether GPL was actually violated in this case; all I
know is that FSF thinks it has been, they have to act.
--
-- Bill Johnston (john...@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Bill Johnston
>Ignoring the insults, there is at least one misunderstanding here:
>the case of a publisher enforcing a copyright is not like that of
>a cabbage seller, who can selectively ignore one hungry shoplifter
>without giving up his right to prosecute others.
Rats! In my rush to reintroduce the cabbage analogy ;-) I've been
sloppy with the armchair lawyer'ing ... sorry, IANAL. I wrote:
> The responsibility
>for enforcing a copyright lies with the copyright owner; if it can
>be shown that the copyright owner is (knowingly, I suppose) failing
>to enforce it, the copyright itself may be judged to be surrendered.
This should probably read:
The responsibility for enforcing a license lies with the copyright
owner; if it can be shown that the license owner is (knowingly,
I suppose) failing to enforce it, the part of the license that has
been violated may be invalidated.
This too may be wrong. Does the Berne convention permit me to
publish something with a silly license, ignore its enforcement,
then come back and expect to win a lawsuit against the 1,000,000th
violator? Silly doesn't matter here, but suppose for the sake of
argument that I ask redistributors to send me a postcard if they
publish code derived from my work? I've knowingly ignored this
for years because I happen to like the way in which the code has
been used ... say, to promote some social good. Later on, I discover
that big bad MegaSoft has used the code; I don't like MegaSoft,
because their last product ate my hard disk, so I get pissed and
try to sue because they didn't send me a post-card. Is my license
still enforceable?
Joe Buck
>Ignoring the insults, there is at least one misunderstanding here:
>the case of a publisher enforcing a copyright is not like that of
>a cabbage seller, who can selectively ignore one hungry shoplifter
>without giving up his right to prosecute others. The responsibility
>for enforcing a copyright lies with the copyright owner; if it can
>be shown that the copyright owner is (knowingly, I suppose) failing
>to enforce it, the copyright itself may be judged to be surrendered.
Absolutely false.
You are confusing trademarks and copyrights. A trademark holder must
actively defend the trademark; a copyright holder can go to sleep for
years and then come back to prosecute everyone.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Paul Eggert
>i would be amused to see rms spend fsf $$$ prosecuting mvanheyn's
>supposed gpl violation. free software?!? rms runs a software jail.
We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not mean
the same thing. With some, the word liberty may mean for each man to
do as he pleases with himself and the product of his labor; while with
others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with
other men and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only
different, but incompatible things, called by the same name, liberty.
And it follows that each of the things is by the respective parties
called by two different and incompatible names, liberty and tyranny.
The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces
him for the same act.... Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed
upon the definition of liberty.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Address at the Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, April 18, 1864
Alan Barrett
mvan...@cs.indiana.edu (Marc VanHeyningen) writes:
> RIPEM is in the public domain and thus is more free than PGP or any
> GNU stuff. It's just the RSAREF library that has a license associated
> with it.
Where can I get a copy of RIPEM without the obnoxious "please swear that
you are a US citizen" stuff that Mark Riordan's ftp site serves up?
--apb
Alan Barrett, Dept. of Electronic Eng., Univ. of Natal, Durban, South Africa
RFC822: bar...@ee.und.ac.za
Michael Golan
>>Ignoring the insults, there is at least one misunderstanding here:
>>the case of a publisher enforcing a copyright is not like that of
>>a cabbage seller, who can selectively ignore one hungry shoplifter
>>without giving up his right to prosecute others.
>The responsibility for enforcing a license lies with the copyright
>owner; if it can be shown that the license owner is (knowingly,
>I suppose) failing to enforce it, the part of the license that has
>been violated may be invalidated.
Oh what a sad excuse! RMS might be forced to enforce his own license
even though he don't want to? (never mind this legal argument is unclear)
Gee, did it occur to you that RMS could provide anyone with a license
to use any specific FSF copyrighted code in any way RMS would like,
the GPL not withstanding?
If RMS wanted to allow RIPEM to use that specific GNU code in that
special way, he has the tools to allow it. Since he decided not to,
he is clearly fight it because he would like to fight it.
-- Michael
Wayne Hayes
>In article <930702193...@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:
>>It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
>>The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
>>and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
>>I informed the distributors of this.
>And Mark Riordan has removed it from the distribution. I respect
>his decision to do so. It is disappointing not to be able to hook
>free software together with free software to make better free
>software.
I'm confused. I've read about 70 messages so far on this subject and
I have to come back to this one because nobody seems to have posted all
the necessary facts for me to form an opinion.
Markh seems to claim that RSAREF is "free" in some sense, and that thus
it is a shame not to be able to hook it into other free software (GMP)
to make better free software. The other 69 messages seem to imply that
there is something in RSAREF (or something associated with it) that is
*not* free, by any definition, and so this is the basis of RMS's claim
that RSAREF can't use GMP.
So which is it? Is RSAREF free, or isn't it? I've never heard of it
so I'm simply asking out of ignorance. If it's free (ie I or anyone
else can get a copy of it from a BBS, or via ftp, or whatever, and
modify and redistribute it, either public domain or GPL), then I don't
see RMS's claim. If it's not, then I don't see markh's claim that it's
"free". Both RMS and markh seem to know what they're talking about
otherwise.
As an aside, I'd just got a copy of GMP from prep.ai, and it was covered
by the GPL, rather than the library GPL. This seems odd. Who made that
decision? It would seem that if we just made GMP be covered by the LGPL,
all tihs would go away.
Please enlighten me.
--
If the Earth is the size of a pea in New York, then the Sun is a beachball 50m
away, Pluto is 2km away, and the next nearest star is in Tokyo. Now shrink
Pluto's orbit into a coffee cup; then our Milky Way Galaxy fills North America.
Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wa...@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
Richard Pieri
Wayne> Markh seems to claim that RSAREF is "free" in some sense, and that
Wayne> thus it is a shame not to be able to hook it into other free
Wayne> software (GMP) to make better free software.
The definition of "free" used by Mark and Marc is *not* the same definition
of "free" used by the FSF.
RIPEM is "free" in the sense that you don't have to pay money for it. It
is, to a limited extent, in the public domain.
GPL code is "free" in the sense that it's "freely available and usable".
GPL code is *NOT* in the public domain.
The RSAREF library--the core of RIPEM--is not in the public domain, and
there is a very specific and very restrictive license attached to its use.
Due to the RSAREF library, RIPEM can not be "free" by the FSF's definition.
Because RIPEM is not "free" by that definition, the FSF does not want GPL
code used with it.
It isn't a matter of not being able to hook "free" software with other
"free" software, but using GPL software with restricted software.
Does that make (more) sense?
--Rat <rat...@ccs.neu.edu> Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat
PGP Public Key Block available upon request Ask about rat-pgp.el
||||| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |||||
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra and then suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.
--Nietzsche [or Matt Groening]
Paul Smith
CG> From: cha...@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer)
CG> Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
CG> Right. The bad guys can yell and scream all they want, but they're
CG> not fooling anyone.
Not fooling anyone who's got experience with the arguments, that is. I
imagine that RMS must look like a pretty big bad guy if one only hears the
RSADSI side of the argument.
The Cavalier .. Society for the Freedom of Information
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.11
Christopher M. Conway
In article <1993Jul3.0...@Princeton.EDU>, m...@hart.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan) writes:
-
- It seems the FSF believes that providing a patch to GPL code, a patch
- that was derived independently of GNU code, must be covered by
- the GPL license. If I sold such a patch, FSF claims that what I have
- done is really sell GPL software, splitted into various files, in order
- to sabotage the GPL! Again, this is what I understood from RMS in
- private mail (I don't want to say he said it - I'll be happy to hear
- a denial) I also understood the FSF got a legal opinion to claim this
- and intend to sue in such a case if needed.
I would like to point out that PKP makes *exactly* this claim. One part of
their license provides that changes may not be made without their permission
(section 2.d.). Another provides that they receive a "perpetual, royalty-free
license to use and distribute such modifications and Application Programs"
(section 1.c.). Note especially that last bit-- application programs which
incorporate rsaref in any way is subject to distribution *on their terms*.
I'd be willing to bet you that Richard Stallman would be only to happy to
allow use of the GMP if they distributed the software which incorporates
it under the terms of the GPL. They don't, so he won't.
--
In no way should any statement, question, or other transferral of
information in this post be construed in any way as being an
official communication of Digital Equipment Corporation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Conway | U*ix and C Guru
wom...@nfinit.enet.dec.com | Legalize Freedom!
wom...@juliet.ll.mit.edu | Resist the Tyrants in Washington, D.C.!
nfinit::wombat (DECnet internal)| "We must all hang together or, most
P.O. Box 92703 | assuredly, we will all hang separately"
Albuquerque, NM 87199 | (505)761-2413 DTN 552-2413
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone sending email to the me implicitly releases said email for whatever
use I choose, including, but not necessarily limited to, posting publicly.
If you do not accept these terms, do not send me email. These terms do not
apply to email the sole purpose of which is discussion of these terms, or
to messages sent to mailing lists to which I have requested a subscription.
Russell McOrmond
: The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the
: sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces
: him for the same act.... Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed
: upon the definition of liberty.
A good analogy. Thanks.
I myself write software to solve some problem. I release this software,
and the most basic thing that I ask is that anyone who benifits from
my software should in some way contribute to improving the state of the
software. 'Public Domain' definetely does not encourage this, and the
GPL is the only licence that begins to strongly encourage (Actually, DEMAND)
that people who 'take from the pot' also must 'put back into the pot' when
they enhance the products.
If it were not for the GPL, I likely would not have bothered releasing the
software at all - Of what benifit would it be to me to write documentation
or to spend the time to release if there is no way for me to get anything
in return? Everyone has a goal when they write software, and when I think
strongly about what I am doing, releasing my work so that people would
benifit from my work with no 'returning of the favour' would just not cut
it.
Why oppose GPL? If you don't like the strong encouragement to
'put back into the pot', then please just go and ignore the fact that the
software library exists. Go ahead and re-invent the wheel all the
time (Which is what modified PD and commercial software causes) and
waste your time. Don't be arrogant and try to steal the work of people
who have decided that in order for you to benifit from their work, that
you should do the same back.
: -- Abraham Lincoln, Address at the Sanitary Fair, Baltimore, April 18, 1864
---
Russell McOrmond, Ottawa Ontario, Canada | Opinions expressed
Freenet: aa...@freenet.carleton.ca (Faster) | in this message are
Home: r...@Atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca | my own and I
FidoNet 1:163/109 Current WPL | represent nobody
WPL Help 1:1/139 keeper of sources. | else.
Russell McOrmond
: Maybe this will wake up some people to stop writing GPL code and
Give me a greak. Public domain is NOT 'liberated'. Rather than just
unlocking the door and letting one person out, the GPL is intended to
destroy the jail.
Some of the sillyness that people like you discuss is a large
part of the reason I GPL my code to ensure that it will RAMAIN
LIBERATED.
: -- Michael
Jeff Butterworth
>The plain fact is that GPL code is copyrighted
>just as rigidly as any copyrighted material...
I agree, GPL code is copyrighted. That doesn't make me think any less
of RMS. If I work hard to create something I want to retain some
control over it too.
>The only true free code is that in the public domain,
>which means I can freely *sell* it, make it part
>of my copyrighted products, or anything I want.
>
>Note that the 'anything I want' is the essence of
>freedom.
You seem pretty upset that RMS isn't giving you code for "free".
It's not your code. RMS doesn't owe you anything. If you don't
like the way he shares code then write it yourself. I don't recall
him asking you to use his code.
>RMS just wants it both ways: to be thought of as a
>grand benefactor of humanity, yet continue to hold
>title lest anyone forget how munificent his paternity
>was...
I do think RMS is a grand benefactor of humanity. The GNU products
greatly increase the productivity of thousands of programmers around
the world and he is largely responsible for this.
Jeff Butterworth
"Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
- U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's Motto
Mike Haertel
>RMS just wants it both ways: to be thought of as a
>grand benefactor of humanity, yet continue to hold
>title lest anyone forget how munificent his paternity
>was.
Note that RMS personally owns copyright on very little software
anymore, since he assigned his rights on most things to the FSF.
I think your theories are a little farfetched.
--
Mike Haertel <mi...@ichips.intel.com>
This is a private posting; it does not indicate opinions or positions
of Intel Corp.
Olaf Seibert
>By definition of "free", it is possible to do what you would like.
>Unfortunately, GPL'ed code is not free. It is nothing more than
>FSF copyrighted code with limited free distribution and a license.
That's not true. The *text of the licence* is copyrighted by the FSF. The
program is copyrighted by the author, as the GPL explains.
>Maybe this will wake up some people to stop writing GPL code and
>stop enhancing GNU tools, and write real free code: public domain.
No-one can stop the copyright holder to *also* licence the same software
under less restrictive terms to someone. So I don't see the problem.
--
___ Olaf 'Rhialto' Seibert B4H7f+-t-w--g+k+(+)svmrp+
\X/ I can bicycle on both sides of the road - rhi...@mbfys.kun.nl
Olaf Seibert
>Thus said rat...@denali.ccs.neu.edu (Richard Pieri):
>>RIPEM is *NOT* free. It is unavailabe outside the United States, therefore
>>it is not completely freely distributable.
>
>RIPEM is in the public domain and thus is more free than PGP or any
>GNU stuff. It's just the RSAREF library that has a license associated
>with it.
I don't see the use of RIPEM as long as I officially can't use it. The world
is larger than the USA! The USA isn't even the center of the world,
despite what many seem to think.
On the other hand, USA export regulations are absolutely none of my
concern, so I *could* use RIPEM. But I think I prefer PGP because of the
principle of free software.
>... FSF has never
>cited export restrictions as a rationale for their claim. (Actually,
>they've yet to give any rationale at all.)
Rationale for the GPL you mean? It's in the Preamble.
>Marc VanHeyningen
-Olaf.
Tim Smith
> If it were not for the GPL, I likely would not have bothered releasing the
>software at all - Of what benifit would it be to me to write documentation
>or to spend the time to release if there is no way for me to get anything
>in return? Everyone has a goal when they write software, and when I think
>strongly about what I am doing, releasing my work so that people would
>benifit from my work with no 'returning of the favour' would just not cut
>it.
What about end users? How do they return the favor when they use your
software?
--
"Pope moved that we strike from the State's brief and appendix a selection from
the Year Book of 1484 written in Medieval Latin and references thereto. The
State provided no translation and conceded a total lack of knowledge of what it
meant. The motion is granted" 396 A.2d 1054 --Tim Smith
Michael Golan
>Michael Golan (m...@hart.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>: Maybe this will wake up some people to stop writing GPL code and
>: stop enhancing GNU tools, and write real free code: public domain.
> Give me a greak. Public domain is NOT 'liberated'. Rather than just
>unlocking the door and letting one person out, the GPL is intended to
>destroy the jail.
liberated is your term, not mine. PD is simply free.
What is this jail of yours, anyway?
> Some of the sillyness that people like you discuss is a large
>part of the reason I GPL my code to ensure that it will RAMAIN
>LIBERATED.
fine. If you care that your code will be "liberated" if and when
the "jail" is destroyed, make it GPLish. If you care for the
public interest and the usefuless of your code in advancing the
state of the art, in marching technology forward, and in increasing
the GNP, maybe you should reconsider.
-- Michael
--
Michael Golan | Duel, PD add-on to gdb, allows "x[..100] >? 0" to
m...@cs.princeton.edu | show the positive elements of x in the debugger, etc.
Michael Golan
> I myself write software to solve some problem. I release this software,
>and the most basic thing that I ask is that anyone who benifits from
>my software should in some way contribute to improving the state of the
>software. 'Public Domain' definetely does not encourage this, and the
>GPL is the only licence that begins to strongly encourage (Actually, DEMAND)
>that people who 'take from the pot' also must 'put back into the pot' when
>they enhance the products.
PD doesn't encourage socialism. I'm glad it doesn't.
> If it were not for the GPL, I likely would not have bothered releasing the
>software at all - Of what benifit would it be to me to write documentation
>or to spend the time to release if there is no way for me to get anything
>in return? Everyone has a goal when they write software, and when I think
>strongly about what I am doing, releasing my work so that people would
>benifit from my work with no 'returning of the favour' would just not cut
>it.
Fine, so you have no interest providing public benefits. You only have
an interest in getting something for anything you give away, directly
or indirectly. Nothing wrong with that, 99% of software written is
based on the same interests. Just don't pretend your software is free.
It might not cost anything to get it, but it is hardly free. It
carries legal and moral obligations to "pay back."
If I am releasing code for others to use, other people who I never
met and whose motives and behavior I do not know, I do it for
the benefit of society. I don't get anything in return, except
that good warm feeling and lots of nice email messages that thank me.
If I was really good, like rms, maybe I could derive true fame.
Therefore, I release my code as PD, w/o any restrictions, and I
encourage others who would like to advance the public interest
to release code with no or little restrictions.
> Why oppose GPL? If you don't like the strong encouragement to
>'put back into the pot', then please just go and ignore the fact that the
>software library exists. Go ahead and re-invent the wheel all the
>time (Which is what modified PD and commercial software causes) and
>waste your time. Don't be arrogant and try to steal the work of people
>who have decided that in order for you to benifit from their work, that
>you should do the same back.
Are you accusing me or anyone else of stealing? Why don't you call
the police instead of posting on usenet?
Why oppose the GPL? I don't oppose the GPL per se. It makes no sense
to "oppose the GPL" on its own. I oppose the propaganda the FSF is
providing and their attempt to sway free software writers into
releasing it under the GPL instead of as PD. Why? for the same reasons
as above - I care for the public interest and feel it isn't in
the public interest if software is released under the GPL instead of
PD (I do think it is more benficial to release it under the GPL than
not at all, of course.)
I might add that if the FSF claims as explained in many of their
writings would be similar to yours above, I wouldn't be so worried
or oppose it as actively as I do.
Heikki Suonsivu
Yes, that is quite correct. Has someone told you differently? At least
all the material I have see released by FSF has thoushands of lines of GPL
which is quite clearly a hairy copyright telling you what to do what the
code and what not. Just like Lotus-1-2-3 or like. FSF makes those rules
to stop the code from being restricted, while Lotus make the rules to
restrict, but the idea is the same, writing a copyright which, according to
law, protects the code the way the copyright owner likes it to be
protected.
The only true free code is that in the public domain,
which means I can freely *sell* it, make it part
You can sell it and you can sell support to it. You just can't stop anyone
else to from doing it, so you gotta be better than anyone else to succeed.
Pure competition as its best.
of my copyrighted products, or anything I want.
You can't use it in products with different copyright, that is correct.
That's the basic idea. If someone told you otherwise, you should read GPL
again.
Note that the 'anything I want' is the essence of
freedom.
Personally, I don't agree with you with the definition of the word
"freedom", as the FSF uses the copyright to protect the freedom, not to
restrict, but I guess this is a matter of definition. Anybody got good
quotes for this?
If you think you disagree with FSF, you should set up PDSF, Public Domain
Software Foundation or similar, and start competing with FSF in this field.
Commercial companies might give you lot of support, because they could use
your code any way they like.
grand benefactor of humanity, yet continue to hold
I don't think RMS has been asking for any titles. He probably has got many
of them, but I think those have been given to him because he earns them.
Many people think so, beleive it or not.
I don't know whether RMS is a nice guy, but that is irrelevant to whether
he is a grand benefactor of humanity. People don't come grand benefactors
of humanity by being nice to everyone, but by doing something. Often this
involved doing something he thinks is right, like vote to women, freedom of
speech, or free software (in FSF or any other sense). You should notice
that these things might not be nice to everyone. Many men didn't like
voting rights to women, communists didn't like the freedom of speech, and
many commercial companies don't like free software. And still, I think RMS
is a great benefactor of humanity.
Again, we might have different opinions here, and we have right to express
them, granted by the freedom of speech available to us because some great
benefactors of humanity did good things many years ago. Freedom of speech
generates lots of noise (like this message), which is a pity, but it also
generates good things, so I think we should live with it.
that's all. His contribution to 'free' software is
I'm writing this in Emacs, which I use for almost all editing. I use GCC
GDB and other GNU tools in all my programming, and love them, no commercial
software I have seen has been this good. Even though RMS didn't write all
this stuff himself, he has done a lot of work to make other people to write
GPL'd code instead of making it restricted.
I certainly rather GPL the code I write instead of make it pd. This is for
many reasons (these are mine):
- GPL protects the derived versions to be free, and thus they can be merged
to the one version. This prevents the nasty effect with pd software; it
splits to multiple versions, so that version a has features x and y but not
z, while b has z, but not the x and y. And often these have different
copyrights and restrictions so that they cannot be merged to one version
any more. This is stupid. GPL doesn' make those versions to go together,
but at least makes it more probable and possible (we don't have AGCC and
BGCC, for example, and even if we had, we could merge them).
- GPL protects my code from being used by someone I don't like to it, like
companies which use nasty (to my opinion) methods to crush the competition.
- Nobody can take my software, make modifications, and prevent me from
getting them, thus getting benefit from my work but not giving me anything.
- I can still sell the less-restricted license to those people who want to
sell commercial products based on my code. Even though I don't personally
like to use any commercial software if I can avoid it, I don't mind if
someone sells commercial products to someone and I get my share. Thus, GPL
protects me from being ripped off. FSF does not, to my knowledge, agree
with this idea, and I do understand their point of view, but that is
another matter.
Maybe I'm greedy, but most people are, they like to get food to eat, free
software to use and a house to live in. The bigger the better :-)
-
Heikki Suonsivu, T{ysikuu 10 C 83/02210 Espoo/FINLAND,
h...@cs.hut.fi +358-0-8031121 riippu SN Email preferable
/G=Heikki/S=Suonsivu/O=hut/OU=cs/PRMD=Inet/ADMD=Fumail/C=FI
D. J. Bernstein
> If you think you disagree with FSF, you should set up PDSF, Public Domain
> Software Foundation or similar, and start competing with FSF in this field.
> Commercial companies might give you lot of support, because they could use
> your code any way they like.
Ever hear of CSRG? Sure, BSD code is not really in the public domain,
but it's about as close as the Berkeley lawyers would let them get. In
particular, companies can sell their versions of the code without giving
improvements back to CSRG. Yet CSRG was immensely successful.
(It's interesting to note that BSD 4.4 uses gcc.)
> - GPL protects the derived versions to be free, and thus they can be merged
> to the one version.
Huh? You can merge GPL extensions of GPL code into GPL code. You can't
merge non-GPL extensions of GPL code into GPL code. Similarly, you can
merge PD extensions of PD code into PD code. You can't merge non-PD
extensions of PD code into PD code.
This ``merging'' issue is a red herring. If PD or GPL source code is
distributed then it can be merged with other (PD or GPL, respectively)
source code. What you're missing is that the real goal of the GPL is to
encourage source code _distribution_ in the first place. I don't know
whether it is more effective or less effective than PD code at this.
(I can cite examples supporting both sides of the argument.)
> - GPL protects my code from being used by someone I don't like to it, like
> companies which use nasty (to my opinion) methods to crush the competition.
No, it doesn't. GPL doesn't say ``You can use this, unless I express the
opinion that you use nasty methods.''
> - Nobody can take my software, make modifications, and prevent me from
> getting them, thus getting benefit from my work but not giving me anything.
False. You have no control over users. And vendors who sell proprietary
patches to your code do not need to give you anything. (These are points
of U.S. law; Finland may differ.)
> - I can still sell the less-restricted license to those people who want to
> sell commercial products based on my code.
But they'd be fools to pay you.
---Dan
Lulu of the lotus-eaters
>Huh? You can merge GPL extensions of GPL code into GPL code. You can't
>merge non-GPL extensions of GPL code into GPL code. Similarly, you can
>merge PD extensions of PD code into PD code. You can't merge non-PD
>extensions of PD code into PD code.
Well, to clarify somewhat, I can't see any reason you can't "merge" PD
code into GPL code. It's just that the merged version becomes GPL
forever, and may never revert to PD. You definitely can't put GPL
code into PD products without violating copyright. Also, whether you
can use non-GPL copyrighted code in either GPL or PD products is up to
the copyrighter. There's no single rule about that (though obviously,
if my non-GPL copyrighted code is legally used in a GPL product, I've
therefore subjected my code to GPL restrictions... also, likewise, if
used in PD products, I've lost some of my copyright protection --
although I could specify only certain *uses* for my code in PD
products).
None of this is to side on the GPL vs. PD debate. My mind isn't
really made up on the relative virtues of each.
Yours, Lulu...
--
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[qui...@philos.umass.edu]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Peter Honeyman
|> Maybe I'm greedy, but most people are, they like to get food to eat, free
|> software to use and a house to live in. The bigger the better :-)
i'm not particularly sympathetic to this rationalization for gpl, but
it is a lot clearer than rms' goals. which, btw, i doubt that you
share.
peter
Peter Honeyman
... about cabbages and kings ...
|> It's unfortunate that the alleged violator in this case seems to
|> have been reasonably well-intentioned judging by the outcry from
|> many free-software supporters, but unfortunately that's the way
|> copyright law apparently works. Please note that I haven't got
|> a clue whether GPL was actually violated in this case; all I
|> know is that FSF thinks it has been, they have to act.
i need some clarification here. at first reading, i thought the ripem
violators were forced to tear out their gpl math library calls due to
rms' legal muscling. other articles indicate that the offense was
more heinous: that the ripem violators included performance enhancing
diffs to the gpl math library.
what's the real story? how grave was the crime?
peter
Peter Honeyman
|> ... Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed
|> upon the definition of liberty.
|>
|> -- Abraham Lincoln
well, ok, paul, but i do think i understand what rms means by free.
by me, free is the wrong word for gpl'ed software. bound is more
like it.
peter
Russell McOrmond
: >strongly about what I am doing, releasing my work so that people would
: >benifit from my work with no 'returning of the favour' would just not cut
: >it.
:
: What about end users? How do they return the favor when they use your
: software?
The same way they would with commercial software, only they have their
choice of many programmers to pay to get further development done!
The whole point is to keep development moving so that the tools will
be improved - I need these tools as well.
: meant. The motion is granted" 396 A.2d 1054 --Tim Smith