Compiling C++ programs with GCC --> no GPL license implications
rw...@my-deja.com
I set out on a quest to confirm the licensing that applies to C++
programs compiled with GCC version 2.95.2. The quick answer is
compiling with GCC and linking the GCC libstdc++ library does not cause
the resulting executable to fall under GPL or LGPL. Many of you might
think this was obvious but as you can see from the details below it was
not quite that simple...
Here are the details:
1) Compiling with GCC by itself does not cause any license restrictions
on the resulting binary. This has been well known and can be confirmed
by reading the GPL and LGPL licenses distributed with GCC or posted at
www.gnu.org.
2) However, linking in libraries is a different matter. C++ programs
generally link in libstdc++ and thus the libstdc++ included with GCC
must be checked (FYI: G++ always links in libstdc++)
3) The correct way to verify what license applies to the GCC libstdc++
library is to check all the source files that go into it. [BTW,
uncovering exactly what files go into libstdc++ proved to be somewhat
sticky. I broke the libstdc++.a file into .o files and used the names
of the .o files and the #includes in them to trace all the source files
in libstdc++. An alternative that was suggested to me but which I did
not have time to pursue was to use the -H flag to gcc to list all the
headers included during compilation.]
4) Most of the headers in the GCC libstdc++ sources either have no
license restrictions or, if they are covered by GPL, they contain a
special exception that says:
/* As a special exception, if you link this library with files
compiled with GCC to produce an executable, this does not cause
the resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public
License.
This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why
the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public
License. */
5) However, I found 1 source file which fell under GPL (./gcc-
2.95.2/include/ansidecl.h) and 2 which fell under LGPL (./gcc-
2.95.2/libio/ioputc.c and ./gcc-2.95.2/libio/stdio/stdio.h) that did
not include any special exception, and thus on the face of it would
cause any executable that linked in libstdc++ to fall under the GPL (as
this is one of the licensing terms within the GPL). This is not good
for commercial programs. [BTW, my .o file name matching mechanism did
lead to one false positive notably: ./gcc-
2.95.2/texinfo/lib/strerror.c. Also there were 5 .o files (cstrio.o,
cstrmain.o, dcomio.o, fcomio.o, ldcomio.o) that were unmatched but
further manual searching of ./gcc/gcc-2.95.2/libstdc++/makefile.in
shows they come from sinst.cc (covered by the "special exception") and
cinst.cc (copyright but no license).]
6) Suspecting these omissions might be an oversight by the creators of
GCC, I contacted lice...@gnu.org. After some back and forth between
myself, lice...@gnu.org, one of the GCC programmers at Redhat, and a
concluding email from Richard Stallman we resolved that:
- these files should have included the special exception,
- at this time we can consider those files to include the special
exception even though it was omitted originally.
Here is the final email reply from Richard Stallman:
>Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000 09:46:53 -0700 (MST)
>From: Richard Stallman <r...@gnu.org>
>To: jason...
>CC: rw...@my-deja.com, lice...@gnu.org
>In-reply-to: <u93dg4e...@casey.soma.redhat.com> (message from
Jason Merrill on 04 Dec 2000 14:11:49 +0000)
>Subject: Re: fwd: licensing: gcc-2.95.2 forces ALL c++ programs to be
GPL?
>
>Jason Merrill on 04 Dec 2000 writes:
>>Ralph Wayland on 01 Dec 2000 writes:
>>> Just to double check, please confirm the following:
>>> 1) The entire libstdc++ library should fall under the
>>> "special exception" clause.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>> 2) Which in turn means that all source files that go into libstdc++
>>> should include the "special exception".
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>> 3) Checking each source file is the correct way to verify licenses
>>> within GCC.
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>> 4) In a future version of GCC all the files in libstdc++ will
>>> include the "special exception".
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>> 5) It is ok today for us to consider the entirety of libstdc++
>>> as covered by the "special exception".
>>
>>I would think so, but I can't speak for the FSF on this, and
>>they hold the copyright. Richard?
>
>Yes to all.
>
<remainder of email trimmed for brevity>
Thus if your C++ program does not include any GPL or LGPL code itself,
then compiling with GCC and linking with GCC's libstdc++ does not force
your program to adopt or follow the GPL or LGPL (your program falls
under the special exception clause). QED.
Regards,
Ralph T. Wayland
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
E. Robert Tisdale
> Thus, if your C++ program does not include any GPL or LGPL code itself,
> then compiling with GCC and linking with GCC's libstdc++
> does not force your program to adopt or follow the GPL or LGPL
> (your program falls under the special exception clause). QED.
Unfortunately, you are not the final authority on this.
If you distribute an executable which was compiled with GCC
and linked to the GNU libraries someone may still sue you
to force you to disclose your source code as well.
You may be obliged to defend your right
to prevent other people from exploiting your source code
and you may even be obliged to defend your right
to exploit your own source code. The court will decide.
And, until some court does decide such a case,
Richard Stallman is just expressing his opinion
about what the GPL and the LGPL mean.
jbs
> If you distribute an executable which was compiled with GCC
> and linked to the GNU libraries someone may still sue you
> to force you to disclose your source code as well.
Who has legitimate standing to sue you? Doesn't FSF hold the copyright
on those files?
Sam Holden
The FSF owns the copyright (I believe). RMS's opinion in this
case can presumably be taken to be the FSF opinion.
If the copyright holder says that the special exception clause
applies, then it applies...
--
Sam Holden
Kaz Kylheku
Tisdale is a known troll. Save your keystrokes.
Pete Becker
Bad idea. He happens to be right. Rights under copyright law are decided
by statues and by courts, not by public announcements. Legal opinions
that you get through newsgroups aren't worth the paper they're printed
on.
--
Pete Becker
Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
Pete Becker
>
> In article <3A365911...@acm.org>,
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
> >> Tisdale is a known troll. Save your keystrokes.
> >Bad idea. He happens to be right. Rights under copyright law are decided
> >by statues and by courts, not by public announcements.
>
Perhaps, if the person doing it has authority to bind everyone who is in
a position to enforce that right. Before you risk your multi-million
dollar product on someone waiving their rights under the copyright law,
you better have something more than an assurance you saw in an e-mail
somewhere.
rw...@my-deja.com
writes:
<snip>
> Rights under copyright law are decided
> by statues and by courts, not by public announcements. Legal opinions
> that you get through newsgroups aren't worth the paper they're printed
> on.
>
> --
> Pete Becker
> Dinkumware, Ltd. (http://www.dinkumware.com)
> Contributing Editor, C/C++ Users Journal (http://www.cuj.com)
I would not call what I posted an authorative legal opinion but the
results of a research effort shared with others to reach their own
conclusions. I also hope people are not wasting paper on any newsgroup
posts ;-)
That said, information in newsgroups does have some value otherwise we
wouldn't be reading them so much.
Pete has a good point about the legalness of what appears in newsgroups.
It's difficult for the reader to discern whether something is true (and
thus would hold up in court) or not except through the thoroughness of
the argument itself, the trust they have in the others who post their
comment, and the trust they have in the system that shows those comments
actually came from who they thought they came from. These things can be
traced definitively (electronic fingerprints) but not by the average
reader. I believe this applies to email as well.
Yet the core of this discussion is correct and I believe FSF will stand
behind what I have communicated (as we all went to considerable trouble
to resolve this particular point).
It would be more definitive for the FSF to post their own synopsis of
this discussion on their website and/or include it as a text file with
future distributions of GCC. That should be more definitive as it is
somewhat more difficult for websites and the GCC distribution itself to
be faked. I'll query FSF directly to see if this discussion and it's
conclusions can be acknoledged on gnu.org somewhere.
On another note, it's my understanding that Dinkumware is trying to make
a business out of selling a version of libstdc++ that has clearer
license terms (as well as other potential features), and this situation
may make it less likely that people will buy their libstdc++ library
based on licensing concerns with the GCC libstdc++.
rw...@my-deja.com
> Kaz Kylheku wrote:
<snip>
> > Tisdale is a known troll. Save your keystrokes.
"Trolls" have their uses. I've known many. In this case it has sparked
useful discussion. But we do need to beware being dragged down into
their often labyrinthian caves ;-)
Pete Becker
>
> On another note, it's my understanding that Dinkumware is trying to make
> a business out of selling a version of libstdc++
We do not sell any version of libstdc++. We do sell our standard library
for use with gcc.
> that has clearer
> license terms (as well as other potential features), and this situation
> may make it less likely that people will buy their libstdc++ library
> based on licensing concerns with the GCC libstdc++.
Technical and quais-legal discussions should be based on facts, not on
innuendo. I make no apologies for urging people to get sound legal
advice before making business decisions that involve licensing issues.
That is simply common sense.
jbs
> rw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > On another note, it's my understanding that Dinkumware is trying to make
> > a business out of selling a version of libstdc++
>
> We do not sell any version of libstdc++. We do sell our standard library
> for use with gcc.
Thank you for providing this incentive for me and others to contribute
to the development and widespread use of the free C++ library.
Don't take it out on us if you chose a foolish way to try to make
money. And don't try to confuse and scare people into buying your
product. That's not nice.
Pete Becker
Once again: base technical decisions on facts, not on innuendo. I make
Dietmar Kuehl
Pete Becker (peteb...@acm.org) wrote:
: Technical and quais-legal discussions should be based on facts, not on
: innuendo. I make no apologies for urging people to get sound legal
: advice before making business decisions that involve licensing issues.
: That is simply common sense.
You could probably bring our point across more easily if libstdc++
weren't in direct competion one of Dinkumware's product: As is, you try
to scare people away from your competion on rather vague grounds.
Although it is true that handwaving is no legal advice, it is also true
that the libstdc++ people make sure that their product is applicable to
commercial application.
IMO other standard library implementations, like the one from
Dinkumware, also have licenses which are rather vague (eg. it is at
best unclear whether it is permittable to ship a DLL with the
Dinkumware library together with a product making use of it; actually,
it is my understanding that this is not permittable).
--
<mailto:dietma...@yahoo.de> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/~kuehl/>
Phaidros eaSE - Easy Software Engineering: <http://www.phaidros.com/>
Mike Stump
>by statues and by courts, not by public announcements. Legal opinions
>that you get through newsgroups aren't worth the paper they're printed
>on.
You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
can take them at their word they won't sue you. The law is in fact
immaterial.
You are thinking of a different case. The case more like RIPEM, where
they assert rights that you think no court would uphold. In that
case, I agree with you.
Mike Stump
This is FUD. First, anyone can sue you at any time for any
reason they want, in just about any court they want, and you may feel
obligated or not to defend yourself. This goes without saying, and we
will not mention it further.
In reality the copyright in gcc is held by the FSF and only the
copyright owner can sue you. rms is the FSF. This means that if rms
says he will not sue you and his opinion is X, then, that is that.
QED, as was said earlier. Sure, someone else could try and claim
ownership, and could try and sue you, but, they are fighting an uphill
battle, as first they have to prove ownership. This is like worrying
about using images from claimed PD clip art collection. Sure, they
can be copyrighted, and not actually PD, and someone could even sue
you and win, but generally speaking, we discount this in everyday
conversation, and say, no, you cannot be sued (successfully) for using
PD clip art.
And the court is not the end all, there are appeals, courts can change
their opinion over time, legislative bodies can issue new laws and so
on. Also, two seemingly identical cases to are not guaranteed to
yield the same results.
The world is, as the first poster presented it.
The court cannot force the FSF to sue you for what they consider a
violation. Only the FSF, through their own decision, can sue you.
Mike Stump
Ah, now you tell me. I just fired one off. We need a post moderation
autobot that will killfile trolls like Tisdale from this group. It
would save much confusion.
E. Robert Tisdale
I don't think anybody is worried about the FSF suing them
for not disclosing source code for applications
that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
The problem is that ANYONE can sue you
for not disclosing source code for applications
that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
jbs
> Once again: base technical decisions on facts, not on innuendo.
The only one spreading innuendo here is you.
> I make
> no apologies for urging people to get sound legal advice before making
> business decisions that involve licensing issues. That is simply common
> sense.
I wouldn't expect you to apologize. Nevertheless, your use of FUD to
promote your products is reprehensible.
I suggest that people get sound legal advice before using your
products. Given your propensity to distort the content and meaning of
the GNU licenses, as well as the intent of the licensor, I would be
concerned about what you might imagine your own license means, after I
invested millions of dollars in my own product that depended on it (not
that I would).
E. Robert Tisdale
There you go again.
Yes, only the FSF can sue for infringement of their copyright
but that's not the question here.
What is in question here is the terms of the GPL and the LGPL.
The FSF probably is NOT going to sue anybody
even if they modify GPL'd software and refuse to distribute
the modified source code along with the binaries.
The FSF just can't afford to do that.
If you want the modified source code
you will probably need to sue them yourself.
If you need people from the FSF to testify for you as expert witnesses,
they will almost certainly expect you to pay all of their expenses
and they have a right to charge you fees for that service as well.
If they fail to show up in court and testify on your behalf,
you will have no recourse against them. You are on your own.
Courageous
>>Unfortunately, you are not the final authority on this. If you
>>distribute an executable which was compiled with GCC and linked to
>>the GNU libraries someone may still sue you to force you to disclose
>>your source code as well.
This message contains misconceptions about the copyright laws
as enforced internationally in general and in the United States in
specific. This message also contains misconceptions about the
GPL and the LGPL, the nature of the GPL and LGPL agreements,
and the scope and authority that they have.
C//
Pete Becker
>
> Hi,
> Pete Becker (peteb...@acm.org) wrote:
> : Technical and quais-legal discussions should be based on facts, not on
> : innuendo. I make no apologies for urging people to get sound legal
> : advice before making business decisions that involve licensing issues.
> : That is simply common sense.
>
> You could probably bring our point across more easily if libstdc++
> weren't in direct competion one of Dinkumware's product: As is, you try
> to scare people away from your competion on rather vague grounds.
No. You are not in a position to make statements about what I intend to
do. You have no knowledge of that.
> Although it is true that handwaving is no legal advice, it is also true
> that the libstdc++ people make sure that their product is applicable to
> commercial application.
>
> IMO other standard library implementations, like the one from
> Dinkumware, also have licenses which are rather vague (eg. it is at
> best unclear whether it is permittable to ship a DLL with the
> Dinkumware library together with a product making use of it; actually,
> it is my understanding that this is not permittable).
Which is why I said that it is important to get sound legal advice in
this area. I don't udnerstand why this is so hard for people to accept.
Pete Becker
I have said nothing at all about the content and meaning of the GNU
licenses, nor have I said anything about the intent of the licensor.
Once again I suggest that you stick to facts, and keep the insults and
innuendos to yourself.
Pete Becker
>
> In article <3A365911...@acm.org>,
> Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
> >Bad idea. He happens to be right. Rights under copyright law are decided
> >by statues and by courts, not by public announcements. Legal opinions
> >that you get through newsgroups aren't worth the paper they're printed
> >on.
>
> You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
> if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
> can take them at their word they won't sue you. The law is in fact
> immaterial.
That is a business decision, and one that's perfectly legitimate to
make. I have made no statement about that. What I have said is that
basing such a decision on a representation from someone on the internet
that there is no problem is not legally sound. If people want to base
business decisions on shaky legal logic that is their prerogative.
E. Robert Tisdale
Oh, please Counselor, do tell us what these misconceptions are.
jbs
> > I suggest that people get sound legal advice before using your
> > products. Given your propensity to distort the content and meaning of
> > the GNU licenses, as well as the intent of the licensor, I would be
> > concerned about what you might imagine your own license means, after I
> > invested millions of dollars in my own product that depended on it (not
> > that I would).
>
> I have said nothing at all about the content and meaning of the GNU
> licenses, nor have I said anything about the intent of the licensor.
Wrong. In response to a reply to (misguided) comments by Tisdale, you
said:
"He happens to be right."
In doing so, you adopted his innuendos and misunderstandings as your
own. Of course, most people would reasonably conclude that you did so
deliberately and self-servingly, to promote your own competing products,
although of couse we can't prove this. Still, shame on you.
jbs
> What I have said is that
> basing such a decision on a representation from someone on the internet
> that there is no problem is not legally sound.
That's true, but that's hardly what reasonable and intelligent people
are basing their decisions on.
> If people want to base
> business decisions on shaky legal logic that is their prerogative.
There you go again. The logic is not necessarily (or even in this case,
at all) shaky just because it happens to be posted on the Internet.
If you want to claim that someone's legal logic is "shaky" back it up
with hard facts, case law, and citations to recognized authorities.
Otherwise, take your self-promoting FUD and take a hike.
E. Robert Tisdale
> I have said nothing at all about the content and meaning
> of the GNU licenses,
> nor have I said anything about the intent of the licensor.
> Once again I suggest that you stick to facts
> and keep the insults and innuendoes to yourself.
Hi Pete,
Please don't respond to the troll.
Insults and innuendoes are off-topic in these newsgroups
and so is any response to them.
This is not an appropriate forum for posting personal attacks
or defending yourself against them.
Peter Seebach
>You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
>if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
>can take them at their word they won't sue you.
Can you? An informal statement that they won't sue and a dollar will
buy you a bag of chips.
>The law is in fact immaterial.
No, it tells you what defenses you will have if they *do* sue, whether
or not they've said they will.
>You are thinking of a different case. The case more like RIPEM, where
>they assert rights that you think no court would uphold. In that
>case, I agree with you.
That, too, is worth considering. You have to recognize that people,
in general, make legal claims that are not well supported. They make
them for a number of reasons, and really, the only thing you can do
is get your own legal council.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Peter Seebach
>There you go again. The logic is not necessarily (or even in this case,
>at all) shaky just because it happens to be posted on the Internet.
True. However, it's not exactly well-supported.
>If you want to claim that someone's legal logic is "shaky" back it up
>with hard facts, case law, and citations to recognized authorities.
If you want to claim that some logic *isn't* shaky, why not have an actual
lawyer come in and give legal advice? :)
Note that merely being logical is not much of a defense in a court system...
John Hasler
> The problem is that ANYONE can sue you for not disclosing source code for
> applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
No. Only the owner of the copyright on the libraries can sue.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
jbs
> In article <3A36FBFF...@quiotix.com>, jbs <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> >There you go again. The logic is not necessarily (or even in this case,
> >at all) shaky just because it happens to be posted on the Internet.
>
> True. However, it's not exactly well-supported.
Huh? The original poster said that every file in the library, except
one, had a "special exception" that permitted linking with an executable
without requiring that executable to be covered by GPL.
There is nothing "shaky" about that -- it is purely factual.
The original poster then said that he talked to the developers of the
library, as well as the holders of the copyright of the library to ask
whether the omission was an inadverant and unintentional error (as would
appear overwhelmingly likely anyway). They said yes.
He then asked if the omission will be corrected in future releases.
They said yes.
What's "shaky" about any this?
If you are uncomfortable relying on their representations in email, then
just wait for the next release. Or grab a developer snapshot which might
well have incorporated the licensing correction already (or wait for one
that does).
> If you want to claim that some logic *isn't* shaky, why not have an actual
> lawyer come in and give legal advice? :)
No lawyer is going to give "legal advice" in a newsgroup. Anyone who
wants to consult a lawyer to get individual legal advice is of course
free to do so.
I don't personally see using GPL software as requiring any more legal
advice than using any other licensed software. Probably less, given
that GPL is at least standardized and relatively well understood by the
community as a practical matter, while commercial licenses tend to all
be different. But that's just my personal opinion, formed over nearly
20 years of being involved with free software, and 10 years as a
businessperson and consultant advising businesses on the use of free
softare. Form your own opinion.
> Note that merely being logical is not much of a defense in a court system...
What matters in the court system does not necessarily matter very much
to what happens in the real world. While it would be foolish to ignore
legal considerations, it is also foolish to unnecessarily elevate legal
maters to the level where they routinely drive business decisions.
Any good business lawyer will tell you that legal considerations are
just that and that business decisions need to be made considering legal
concerns, but almost never made *by* legal concerns.
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker wrote:
> > > I suggest that people get sound legal advice before using your
> > > products. Given your propensity to distort the content and meaning of
> > > the GNU licenses, as well as the intent of the licensor, I would be
> > > concerned about what you might imagine your own license means, after I
> > > invested millions of dollars in my own product that depended on it (not
> > > that I would).
> >
> > I have said nothing at all about the content and meaning of the GNU
> > licenses, nor have I said anything about the intent of the licensor.
>
> Wrong. In response to a reply to (misguided) comments by Tisdale, you
> said:
>
> "He happens to be right."
>
> In doing so, you adopted his innuendos and misunderstandings as your
> own.
I see. So from four words you infer a "propensity to distort." You're
treading dangerously close to libel.
>Of course, most people would reasonably conclude that you did so
> deliberately and self-servingly, to promote your own competing products,
> although of couse we can't prove this. Still, shame on you.
Whatever you think "most people would reasonably conclude" is not fact,
and in this case it happens to be wrong.
Pete Becker
You seem to think that I have said that there is some serious flaw in
GNU's licensing. I have not. What I have said, and I'll say it again, is
that business decisions based on opinions garnered from newsgroups are
inherently more risky than business decisions based on sound legal
advice. I don't understand why this is so controversial.
jbs
> I see. So from four words you infer
OK, you tell me. What does "He happens to be right" mean, when "he" is
presenting a bizarre, distorted, wholely unsupported, and probably silly
position on who can sue whom in the case of GPL-licensed software.
Moreover, you contradict yourself, again self-servingly, by dismissing
most "legal opinions" on newsgroups that disagree with your stated
position and apparent interests as not being worth the paper they are
printed on, but endorsing Tisdale's "legal opinion" as right.
jbs
> What I have said, and I'll say it again, is
> that business decisions based on opinions garnered from newsgroups are
> inherently more risky than business decisions based on sound legal
> advice. I don't understand why this is so controversial.
Because it is a silly generalization. There are valuable opinions
offered on newsgroups, although of course there are also bad ones. It
is up to the reader to judge the value of any opinion presented here,
just as anywhere else.
It can be highly risky, costly, and frequently bad strategy, from a
business point of view, to rely on "sound legal advice." Legal advice
is just one factor to be considered in making a good business decision,
and usually not a major one.
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker wrote:
> > I see. So from four words you infer
>
Something seems to have gotten cut off. Here's a more complete quote: 'I
see. So from four words you infer a "propensity to distort."'
> OK, you tell me. What does "He happens to be right" mean, when "he" is
> presenting a bizarre, distorted, wholely unsupported, and probably silly
> position on who can sue whom in the case of GPL-licensed software.
No, you tell me, how does saying "he happens to be right" constitute a
"propensity to distort"? A propensity involves a series of actions, not
an isolated one. So even assuming that your attribution of his position
to me is valid, it does not demonstrate a propensity to do anything.
jbs
> So from four words you infer a "propensity to distort."'
I inferred nothing from four words alone. I inferred it from the four
words in connection with what it was you were, with those four words,
agreeing with. That was much more than four words.
> No, you tell me, how does saying "he happens to be right" constitute a
> "propensity to distort"? A propensity involves a series of actions, not
> an isolated one. So even assuming that your attribution of his position
> to me is valid, it does not demonstrate a propensity to do anything.
I stand corrected on the usage of the word propensity, and I apologize
for making that mistake. A better phrase would be "having distorted."
brl...@sperience.com
> It would be more definitive for the FSF to post their own synopsis of
> this discussion on their website and/or include it as a text file with
> future distributions of GCC. That should be more definitive as it is
> somewhat more difficult for websites and the GCC distribution itself to
> be faked. I'll query FSF directly to see if this discussion and it's
> conclusions can be acknoledged on gnu.org somewhere.
Despite Becker's comments to the contrary, The GPL language is already
clear and definitive. I think it's unlikely the FSF will be interested
in spelling it out any more than they already have.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
E. Robert Tisdale
> E. Robert Tisdale writes:
>
> > The problem is that ANYONE can sue you
> > for not disclosing source code
> > for applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
>
> No. Only the owner of the copyright on the libraries can sue.
No. If that were true, then the following provision:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
is meaningless because the FSF cannot afford
to sue every programmer who violates it.
Sam Holden
Just because a license demands something that it is unlikely that the
copyright owneer will enforce does not change the way copyright law works.
I believe the FSF will sue if they situation is dire enough. So far all
they have ever needed to do is inform the violator of the license and the
source code has been released or the product withdrawn.
The law of the land doesn't change just because the FSF doesn't have unlimited
money...
--
Mike Stump
>who violates it.
Prove they cannot. I dare you. My counter claim is that in fact they
are rich enough to sue 100% of the people that they care to.
Anyway, the meaningfulness or not of a clause cannot determine what
the law is. The law exists despite _any_ words in the GPL. You are
confused.
If what you say is true, please provide evidence of a single case that
has been litigated and won, where someone else besides the FSF sued.
I bet you cannot.
Mike Stump
>for applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
Let me repeat, anyone can sue anyone at anytime for any reason they
want, so the above is obviously true, but what of it?
Are you also claiming that the law is such that they could ever win?
If so, please provide more detail, as I don't believe that is the
case.
Let say the FSF and I have a private agreement that allows me to do
anything I want, at all with the glibc. Now, this is hypothetical,
but let's say I do. You're telling me that someone besides the FSF
can sue me because I didn't release source, and win? Do I have that
right?
Mike Stump
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>In article <G5HHA...@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump <m...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>You only ignore one small fact, no court can force the FSF to sue you,
>>if it wishes to not sue you. When the FSF says it won't sue you, we
>>can take them at their word they won't sue you.
>
>Can you? An informal statement that they won't sue and a dollar will
>buy you a bag of chips.
Sure, I can. I never said the statement _had_ to be informal, those
are your words. One can try and make it as formal as they want.
I find the notion that just because you don't know the FSF well enough
or rms well enough to not be able to take their word for it that
others must therefore not take them at their word to be distressing.
We aren't talking about Microsoft here.
If you don't trust the FSF, please go away, and stop using and
supporting the FSF's software.
E. Robert Tisdale
> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
>
> > The problem is that ANYONE can sue you
> > for not disclosing source code
> > for applications that depend upon GPL'd libraries.
>
> Let me repeat, anyone can sue anyone at anytime
> for any reason they want, so the above is obviously true,
> but what of it?
>
> Are you also claiming that the law is such that they could ever win?
>
> If so, please provide more detail,
> as I don't believe that is the case.
>
> Let say the FSF and I have a private agreement
> that allows me to do anything I want, at all with the glibc.
> Now, this is hypothetical, but let's say I do.
> You're telling me that someone besides the FSF can sue me
> because I didn't release source,
Yes.
> and win?
Once again.
Only the courts can decide that.
> Do I have that right?
You just said so didn't you?
You would be obliged to sue
to get someone to disclose GPL'd code.
The FSF won't do it for you
nor will the owners of the copyright
if it doesn't benefit them materially.
Look Mike,
Move this discussion over to one of the legal newsgroups
if you want to hone your skills as a lawyer.
You're just off-topic here.
All I can tell you -- all Pete Becker can tell you
is that you need to consult a competent lawyer
before you make any business decisions
that depend upon GPL'd or LGPL'd software.
A good lawyer can advise you on the potential risks
and the probable outcome of any litigation.
But the fact is that nobody will really know
until more cases have been decided in the courts.
Mike Stump
>GPL'd software and refuse to distribute the modified source code
>along with the binaries.
This and a dollar will get you sued, be my guest, try it, let us all
know the outcome.
>The FSF just can't afford to do that.
Sure they can.
>If you want the modified source code you will probably need to sue
>them yourself.
Ok, you want to go that route, quote the law the permits you to win
such a suit. If you cannot quote it, describe it in detail as best
you can, and we can see if others can help identify it.
Mike Stump
>Pete Becker wrote:
>It can be highly risky, costly, and frequently bad strategy, from a
>business point of view, to rely on "sound legal advice." Legal
>advice is just one factor to be considered in making a good business
>decision, and usually not a major one.
Agreed.
Also, let me state that relying upon legal advice is shakey to the
exclusion of our advice, is risky. Ponder that for a little while.
This is why, asking and discussing these topics here, is in fact can
be more beneficial than merely talking it over with lawyer types.
E. Robert Tisdale
> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:
>
> > the FSF cannot afford to sue every programmer who violates it.
>
> Prove they cannot. I dare you. My counter claim is that in fact
> they are rich enough to sue 100% of the people that they care to.
I agree. I don't think that they care to sue anybody.
> Anyway, the meaningfulness or not of a clause
> cannot determine what the law is.
> The law exists despite _any_ words in the GPL.
What law is that?
> If what you say is true, please provide evidence of a single case
> that has been litigated and won, where someone else besides the FSF sued.
Please provide evidence of any case
that has been litigated and LOST
jbs
> All I can tell you -- all Pete Becker can tell you
> is that you need to consult a competent lawyer
> before you make any business decisions
> that depend upon GPL'd or LGPL'd software.
No more so than any other software. Possibly less, given that the GPL
licenses, unlike commercial licenses, are standardized and have been
extensively scrutinized and studied.
Austin Ziegler
The biggest difference is that the GPL licences -- indeed, all open
source licences -- have not been tested in court. Most commercial
licences haven't, either, but some have.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
jbs
> The biggest difference is that the GPL licences -- indeed, all open
> source licences -- have not been tested in court.
That's probably not the biggest difference. The biggest difference is
that open source licenses are enforced largely by community consensus
and peer pressure.
Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god that Tisdale
worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
As I said before, legalities and court cases are not all that matter.
People who fixate on them have lost sight of the big picture. That's
true for business decisions made in the context of commercial software
licenses, but even more so for open source licenses.
> Most commercial licences haven't, either, but some have.
Right. Between changing licenses, changing law, different
jurisdictions, and different facts, it would be *very* unusual for a
commercial license having "been to court" to be worth much of anything.
Pete Becker
>
> Also, let me state that relying upon legal advice is shakey to the
> exclusion of our advice, is risky. Ponder that for a little while.
I have. It is so muddled that I have no idea what it means.
> This is why, asking and discussing these topics here, is in fact can
> be more beneficial than merely talking it over with lawyer types.
I think you've just demonstrated the opposite. I can guess at what
you're trying to say, but I would never base a business decision on
guessing the meaning of such muddled sentences.
jbs
> Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
> well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god that Tisdale
> worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
Oops. I got Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum's names reversed. That should
be:
Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god that Becker
worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Tisdale dreads.
Pete Becker
>
> the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
>
Watch your attributions. I have made no such statement.
jbs
> jbs wrote:
> >
> > the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Becker dreads.
> >
>
> Watch your attributions. I have made no such statement.
Corrected shortly after original post.
Pete Becker
>
> Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup might
> worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman that Tisdale dreads.
If you get into court, your "informed opinions on a newsgroup" are
worthless. Of course, you are free to ignore that risk, but a fair
discussion ought to at least acknowledge that it exists.
jbs
> If you get into court, your "informed opinions on a newsgroup" are
> worthless.
Please tell us how many users of open source software have gotten into
court.
> Of course, you are free to ignore that risk
I never said I would ignore it, nor did I suggest doing so.
> but a fair discussion ought to at least acknowledge that it exists.
Proportionate with its significance.
Pete Becker
>
> Pete Becker wrote:
> > If you get into court, your "informed opinions on a newsgroup" are
> > worthless.
>
> Please tell us how many users of open source software have gotten into
> court.
I have no idea. That doesn't mean that the risk doesn't exist.
Mike Stump
>Austin Ziegler wrote:
>That's probably not the biggest difference. The biggest difference
>is that open source licenses are enforced largely by community
>consensus and peer pressure.
I agree. And in fact, I like a world where people can operate this
way, and don't need to go to court to work together. Some companies
might not mind loosing a $10,000 judgement in a copyright case, but
might not like a $100,000 loss in good will that not conforming to
peer pressure and working with the community might bring. Then again,
I may be an eternal optimist.
Apple lost good will with the FSF and look where it got them.
:-)
Mike Stump
Pete Becker <peteb...@acm.org> wrote:
>If you get into court, your "informed opinions on a newsgroup" are
>worthless.
And that is our point. If one heeds the informed opinions on a
newsgroup, one greatly reduces the risk of getting hauled into court.
It may, or may not help _in_ court once your there, but one excellent
way of not loosing in court, is to not be there in the first place.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
I think a good balance for me between heeding advice on a newsgroup
and the sound legal advice is about 10 to 1. What balance do others
feel is best?
jbs
> Apple lost good will with the FSF and look where it got them.
> :-)
It probably got them knocked down harder than you might think. I
believe that the cold shoulder Apple has gotten from the free software
community with their Darwin project is partially due to remnants bad
will from the days of the FSF boycott, along with the defects in their
license which the FSF and free software community has identified.
Play nice and you get cooperation. Step out of line and you get
ostracized.
Pete Becker
>
> I think a good balance for me between heeding advice on a newsgroup
> and the sound legal advice is about 10 to 1. What balance do others
> feel is best?
14.7. Just as meaningless.
Austin Ziegler
Doesn't seem to have hurt them at all. There are other things that hurt
them, but pissing off the FSF is one of my smallest worries, and is
likely to be Apple's, too.
I also find your 'dream world' a nightmare -- peer pressure shouldn't
have anything to do with why one shares one's code, and admitting that
it's required indicates a lot about the so-called 'free' software
movement.
Give your code away because you want to, not because some pissant
writes a licence that tells you that you have to.
-f
--
Austin Ziegler
I'm so glad that you're there to tell us what playing nice is ... good
thing that there's the rule of law to prevent tyrants like you from running
things into the ground (and the same for corporations).
-f
--
Kaz Kylheku
wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>> Apple lost good will with the FSF and look where it got them.
>> :-)
>
>Doesn't seem to have hurt them at all. There are other things that hurt
>them, but pissing off the FSF is one of my smallest worries, and is
>likely to be Apple's, too.
>
>I also find your 'dream world' a nightmare -- peer pressure shouldn't
>have anything to do with why one shares one's code, and admitting that
>it's required indicates a lot about the so-called 'free' software
>movement.
>
>Give your code away because you want to, not because some pissant
>writes a licence that tells you that you have to.
You mean like some pissant from some company that wants to jump on the
open sourc bandwagon to reap the development benefits, while keeping
the software as proprietary as possible? Damn the FSF for opposing
that!
Peter Seebach
>If what you say is true, please provide evidence of a single case that
>has been litigated and won, where someone else besides the FSF sued.
>I bet you cannot.
Has the FSF ever actually won a case, as opposed to getting a settlement,
on this issue?
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
E. Robert Tisdale
> That's probably not the biggest difference.
> The biggest difference is that
> open source licenses are enforced
> largely by community consensus and peer pressure.
>
> Of course, this would mean that informed opinions on a newsgroup
> might well be *more valuable* than the "sound legal advice" god
> that Becker worships, or the "anybody can sue you" bogeyman
> that Tisdale dreads.
You know, until just a couple of days ago,
I thought that voters -- and not the courts -- would decide
who would be President of the United States.
Austin Ziegler
> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000 21:47:33 -0500, Austin Ziegler <azie...@the-wire.com>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Dec 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
>>> Apple lost good will with the FSF and look where it got them.
>>> :-)
>> Doesn't seem to have hurt them at all. There are other things that hurt
>> them, but pissing off the FSF is one of my smallest worries, and is
>> likely to be Apple's, too.
>> I also find your 'dream world' a nightmare -- peer pressure shouldn't
>> have anything to do with why one shares one's code, and admitting that
>> it's required indicates a lot about the so-called 'free' software
>> movement.
>> Give your code away because you want to, not because some pissant
>> writes a licence that tells you that you have to.
> You mean like some pissant from some company [...]
Nope. Please work on your reading comprehension skills. I said no such
thing.
E. Robert Tisdale
Once again, I'm not a lawyer.
I can't advise you or anyone else on the law.
I am not a judge. I can't decide your suit.
If you want to continue this discussion,
please move it to one of the legal newsgroups
where it might be appreciated.
It is off-topic in these newsgroups.
jbs
> It is off-topic in these newsgroups.
It is not offtopic in the newsgroup I am reading.
Mike Stump
E. Robert Tisdale <ed...@netwood.net> wrote:
>Once again, I'm not a lawyer. I can't advise you or anyone else on
>the law.
I see. You want to play judge and/or lawyer when it suits you, and
then be coy when I refute your position. Look, it is simple, be
consistent, either play lawyer or not, I don't care which, but don't
play it half way. If you are going to tell people when they can be
sued, you are playing lawyer. If you are going to play lawyer in this
group, then I will play with you, that is _my_ purpose for being here.
If you dont' want to play the game, don't play. Saying what you said
is a cop out midgame.
Oh, any playing lawyer is exactly on topic for the group I am in.
Pete Becker
>
> In article <3A39989D...@netwood.net>,
> E. Robert Tisdale <ed...@netwood.net> wrote:
> >Once again, I'm not a lawyer. I can't advise you or anyone else on
> >the law.
>
> I see. You want to play judge and/or lawyer when it suits you, and
> then be coy when I refute your position. Look, it is simple, be
> consistent, either play lawyer or not, I don't care which, but don't
> play it half way.
There is a difference between "I know what this means" and "There could
be problems here." The former is a legal judgment. The latter is not.
jbs
> There is a difference between "I know what this means" and "There could
> be problems here." The former is a legal judgment. The latter is not.
The former is a useful statement. The latter is not.
Peter Seebach
No, the latter is also useful, because it alerts you to the possibility that,
if it would matter to you if there were problems, you might benefit from
having it reviewed.
I spent a number of hours reviewing an IP agreement. I thought I'd caught
everything... so I showed it to a lawyer, who found a few things I missed.
"There could be problems here", even though it was all anyone could tell
me, was enough to alert me to the *potential* for it to be useful to show
it to a lawyer.
jbs
>
> In article <3A3ACBFA...@quiotix.com>, jbs <j...@quiotix.com> wrote:
> >Pete Becker wrote:
> >> There is a difference between "I know what this means" and "There could
> >> be problems here." The former is a legal judgment. The latter is not.
>
> >The former is a useful statement. The latter is not.
>
It is not a useful statement because there could be problems *anywhere*.
Austin Ziegler
And if the former is, in fact, incorrect or in conflict with the law...
jbs
> On Fri, 15 Dec 2000, jbs wrote:
> > Pete Becker wrote:
> >> There is a difference between "I know what this means" and "There could
> >> be problems here." The former is a legal judgment. The latter is not.
> > The former is a useful statement. The latter is not.
>
> And if the former is, in fact, incorrect or in conflict with the law...
Then you might, as always, be screwed by relying on it. Always consider
the credibility of your source. Always.
Nix
> In article <G5JK9...@kithrup.com>, Mike Stump <m...@kithrup.com>
> wrote:
>>If what you say is true, please provide evidence of a single case that
>>has been litigated and won, where someone else besides the FSF sued.
>>I bet you cannot.
>
> Has the FSF ever actually won a case, as opposed to getting a
> settlement, on this issue?
It has never needed to go further than nasty letters; the guilty
parties have always backed down to date.
(IIRC.)
--
Not speaking for Boskone at the moment.
Stefaan A Eeckels
"E. Robert Tisdale" <ed...@netwood.net> writes:
>
> You know, until just a couple of days ago,
> I thought that voters -- and not the courts -- would decide
> who would be President of the United States.
correctly, which is for the courts to decide.
Anyway, the truly amazing thing was that on 6M
votes, only a few hundred separated the candidates.
I'm now seriously worried about being hit by a
stray meteorite.
--
Stefaan
--
Ninety-Ninety Rule of Project Schedules:
The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of
the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent.
Stefaan A Eeckels
jbs <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
>
> It can be highly risky, costly, and frequently bad strategy, from a
> business point of view, to rely on "sound legal advice." Legal advice
> is just one factor to be considered in making a good business decision,
> and usually not a major one.
Especially because lawyers will not, and cannot, guarantee that
their opinion will prevail in court. Sound legal advice will ensure
that you're not labouring under a lot of common misconceptions,
nothing more. As two of my uncles (who in their working days were
lawyers of some repute) were wont to say: "It looks like you might
have a case, you should test it in court...". They were remarkably
unanimous on this one.
Take care,
HomerWelch
>
> In article <3A3995EC...@netwood.net>,
> "E. Robert Tisdale" <ed...@netwood.net> writes:
> >
> > You know, until just a couple of days ago,
> > I thought that voters -- and not the courts -- would decide
> > who would be President of the United States.
> The voters decided. What wasn't clear was who voted
> correctly, which is for the courts to decide.
[snip]
Oh, is Al Gore President?
--
Homer J. Welch hjw...@home.com
Troy, Michigan
Tor Slettnes
HomerWelch> Oh, is Al Gore President?
Yes.
--
Får i ulveklær
cbbr...@hex.net
Austin> On Wed, 13 Dec 2000, jbs wrote:
>> "E. Robert Tisdale" wrote:
>>> All I can tell you -- all Pete Becker can tell you is that you
>>> need to consult a competent lawyer before you make any
>>> business decisions that depend upon GPL'd or LGPL'd software.
>> No more so than any other software. Possibly less, given that
>> the GPL licenses, unlike commercial licenses, are standardized
>> and have been extensively scrutinized and studied.
Austin> The biggest difference is that the GPL licences -- indeed, all
Austin> open source licences -- have not been tested in court. Most
Austin> commercial licences haven't, either, but some have.
Courts tend to only be necessary when relationships and understandings
break down _so_ desparately that they need a judge [and perhaps jury]
to indicate what to do about an extreme situation.
The lack of "court involvement" suggests that the legalities have been
clear enough not to _need_ such an arbiter.
Your implication seems to be that the lack of court involvement
indicates that only weak claims may be made about the GPL; it could be
as readily argued that the lack of _need_ of court involvement
indicates that one can make Very Strong Claims about the public
understanding of the implications of the GPL.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa"))
<http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/>
For example, if errors are detected in one of the disk drives, the system
will allow read-only access to memory until the problem is resolved. This,
PE claimed, prohibits a damaged disk drive from entering errors into the
system.
-- Computerworld 8 Nov 82 page 4.
Stefaan A Eeckels
HomerWelch <hjw...@home.com> writes:
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>>
>> In article <3A3995EC...@netwood.net>,
>> "E. Robert Tisdale" <ed...@netwood.net> writes:
>> >
>> > You know, until just a couple of days ago,
>> > I thought that voters -- and not the courts -- would decide
>> > who would be President of the United States.
>> The voters decided. What wasn't clear was who voted
>> correctly, which is for the courts to decide.
>
> [snip]
>
> Oh, is Al Gore President?
by overall popular vote. Tell your elected representatives
to change the system if you don't like it.
E. Robert Tisdale
> Last time I checked,
> your President is not elected by overall popular vote.
> Tell your elected representatives
> to change the system if you don't like it.
Last time I checked, the President of the United States
was elected by the United States Supreme Court.
He's NOT my President.
Peter Seebach
E. Robert Tisdale <ed...@netwood.net> wrote:
>Last time I checked, the President of the United States
>was elected by the United States Supreme Court.
No, he was elected by electors, based on rulings made by a number of
courts and lawyers.
It's always annoying when a system of laws is actually *used*.
Tor Slettnes
>>>>> "HomerWelch" == HomerWelch <hjw...@home.com> writes:
HomerWelch> Oh, is Al Gore President?
Tor> Yes.
Sorry, I read "vice president". That he is.
No flame or confusion intended. :-/
-tor
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> > Last time I checked,
> > your President is not elected by overall popular vote.
> > Tell your elected representatives
>
> Last time I checked, the President of the United States
> was elected by the United States Supreme Court.
Were it not for the Supreme Court, he might well have been "elected" by
the Florida Legislature, since that is what the Consitution says, right?
Show me where in the Constitution it says that voters vote for President
*at all*.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Al Gore, and you probably voted for him, but part of
the deal in a democracy is that the winner of the election
is _everybody's_ President. The simple fact is that
something extremely unlikely happened (a couple of hundred
votes difference on 6M cast), and that such an occurrence,
by (Florida) law, requires a recount, which turned out to
be a mess, due to voting machine and ballot design problems.
It's normal that cases where people cannot find a common
ground are dealt with by the courts --it's their basic
function.
IMHO, ballots which were not obviously correct should have
been discounted. There's a definite onus on the voter to
ensure that his/her selection is _clearly_ evident from
the ballot paper. The moment you start trying to guess what
the intention might have been, you're in trouble, as the
Florida farce clearly proved.
Praise yourself lucky you've got a system that works, and
stop making stupid statements. Like him or not, George Bush is
_your_ President. It does not matter whether he won by 570
votes, or 570,000. If you can only accept a President (or
senator, or congresperson or mayor...) when you've voted for
them, then _you_ are a danger for any form of democracy.
Take a leaf out of Al Gore's book --disagree with the ruling,
but accept it.
brl...@sperience.com
this is most off-topic.
Stefaan...@ecc.lu (Stefaan A Eeckels) writes:
> part of
> the deal in a democracy is that the winner of the election
> is _everybody's_ President.
Agreed. And I would assert that the U.S. *is* still a democracy, even
if some biased supreme court justices decided that deadlines are more
important than determining the will of the people. We may not be as
strong a democracy as we were a month ago, but we're still a democracy.
Let me clarify what I mean by "biased". If they were jurors, they would
have been impaneled and asked questions exposing their interest in the
outcome of the case -- retirement depending on Bush winning; child
expecting a position in the Bush administration. They would have been
disqualified. When I did jury duty earlier this month, the judge
explained that "biased" is not a pejorative term in this context, it's a
statement of fact about your relationship to the case.
> The simple fact is that
> something extremely unlikely happened (a couple of hundred
> votes difference on 6M cast), and that such an occurrence,
> by (Florida) law, requires a recount, which turned out to
> be a mess, due to voting machine and ballot design problems.
> It's normal that cases where people cannot find a common
> ground are dealt with by the courts --it's their basic
> function.
It is normal for courts to decide. I do understand the constitutional
concerns 7 of the justices had about voting procedures, so I accept that
the US SC should decide. However, the decision by 5 justices that it
was too late to address those issues was not normal. I agree with the
four dissenting justices that democracy should take precedence over
deadlines, as inconvenient as that is for the media who want something
to report right away.
> IMHO, ballots which were not obviously correct should have
> been discounted. There's a definite onus on the voter to
> ensure that his/her selection is _clearly_ evident from
> the ballot paper.
See http://www.geocities.com/redflagsinflorida/irregularities.htm
7. Many Palm Beach county voters who mis-voted but caught it
immediately and asked for another ballot were told they could not
have another ballot by poll workers, in violation of county
rules.
(NPR, 11/10/00)
I would also add that putting more onus on some voters (e.g. "punch the
third hole on the ballot to vote for the second candidate listed") than
on other voters ("punch the first hole for the first candidate listed")
is undemocratic.
> The moment you start trying to guess what
> the intention might have been, you're in trouble, as the
> Florida farce clearly proved.
The Florida situation did not prove that standards for clear voter
intent cannot be established.
> Like him or not, George Bush is
> _your_ President. It does not matter whether he won by 570
> votes, or 570,000.
I don't know why you use such big numbers. Only 9 votes counted this
year, and Bush won by a margin of 1.
> If you can only accept a President (or
> senator, or congresperson or mayor...) when you've voted for
> them, then _you_ are a danger for any form of democracy.
Yes, but it would be easier if we knew it was the president that Florida
voted for.
> Take a leaf out of Al Gore's book --disagree with the ruling,
> but accept it.
I agree that we should accept Bush's appointment to the office of
President. But four supreme court justices and I still feel that the
decision was wrong and did damage to our democracy.
What the SC should have done was send it back to Florida, deadlines
postponed. The Florida SC would then give a deadline to the
legislature's appointed overseer of the election (Sec'y of State
Katherine Harris, Bush's former campaign co-chair) to establish
statewide guidelines for determining voter intent. It's not the court's
job to compose such standards, only to evaluate standards that somebody
else comes up with to make sure they're legal.
Any disputes about Harris' guidelines would be resolved by the Florida
SC and problems remanded to Harris' office. Once the guidelines are
deemed legal, a statewide recount begins.
It would take a lot more time and be inconvenient for everybody, but the
advantage of this method over, say, a coin toss to resolve the
statistical tie, would be that voters would really feel that their vote
counts. Instead, we have the situation that voters will feel that even
in a close election, their vote might not count due to machine error,
ballots being misplaced, etc.
The only thing I like about the SC decision is that the words of the
dissenting justices are included. Worth a read.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
Isaac
wrote:
>
>IMHO, ballots which were not obviously correct should have
>been discounted. There's a definite onus on the voter to
Sure should have been. Of course that would require someone to
actually look at them. This isn't something that should have been
left without some human discretion IMO. If the machine is
spitting out some ballots uncounted, wouldn't it make some
sense to look at the uncounted ones if only to determine if the
machine were working properly?
I'll admit that the human discretion also creates problems, but
the whole dispute was over the criteria to be used for counting
and discounting. It's silly to just say that "ballots which
were not obviously correct should have been discounted".
Why not just say, that once the correct winner was picked, all
of the legal wrangling was just a divisive, embittering waste
of time.
Isaac
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> If the machine is
> spitting out some ballots uncounted, wouldn't it make some
> sense to look at the uncounted ones if only to determine if the
> machine were working properly?
Was there any evidence that the machines were not working within their
design paramters?
Mike Stump
And you're more likely to be hit today by that meteorite, because you
weren't hit yesterday. :-)
Ronald Cole
> In article <3A3EDAD7...@netwood.net>,
> E. Robert Tisdale <ed...@netwood.net> wrote:
> >Last time I checked, the President of the United States
> >was elected by the United States Supreme Court.
>
> No, he was elected by electors, based on rulings made by a number of
> courts and lawyers.
Actually, all the rulings were overturned and no remedy issued forth.
The Secretary of State's certification after adding the hand counts by
order of the Florida supreme court (which was reversed after the
certification) is really a difference with no difference: Bush won
either way.
> It's always annoying when a system of laws is actually *used*.
The end result was exactly what the Florida Supreme Court said after
the second remand: the Florida Election Code, as it existed on
election day, did not provide for a remedy. In effect: there were no
laws that could be used to resolve the question of the chad.
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ron...@forte-intl.com> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My GPG fingerprint: C3AF 4BE9 BEA6 F1C2 B084 4A88 8851 E6C8 69E3 B00B
Sam Holden
I have found the news coverage of this US election very humourous and a
little interesting. Our current government is the Coalition (the Liberal
and National parties - the Liberal party is confusingly enough not the
liberal end of mainstream politics but the conservative end...) so I guess
our media would like annoying them and thus be biased towards the Democrats...
Does the Florida election code (I'm guessing it's a state issue) say what
error rate is acceptable in a vote counting machine? Or could they use the
new Democrat2000 which only counts the votes for democrats and discards all
others...?
The way the recounts that were done progresses were very strange to me. How
can one side be so dominant in the reocunting of the machine rejected ballots?
The recount should have no effect since the chance of a rejection should be
the same no matter who the vote was for. I can only guess that there were more
stupid people who voted democrat, or more weak people who can't punch a hole
in a ballot who voted democrat, or more not working correctly machines in
democrat leaning polling booths. None of those options seem very satisfactory.
Another alternative is that the hand counters are biased towards democrats, but
that also seems unlikely since assumming you use a similar system to us, a
republican and a democrat observor get to check every ballot...
We hand count every vote here - and we use a preferential system that means
counting is much more complicated, luckily we have a tiny population so it
doesn't cost too much... I still can't see the problem with hand counting all
the machine rejected ballots (checking a sample of the counted ones to make
sure the machine is working as well), if there is a statistical difference
between the hand and machine counted ones then you have a problem with the
election hardware somewhere along the line (probably the punchers not the
counters) that really should be found and fixed.
If it takes until January to count them, then wait until January. I'm sure
Clinton won't mind staying on a couple of weeks ;)
The Supreme Court ruling was very strange, but understandable. The courts are
not apolitical after all, if they were stacked the other way the ruling would
probably have been equally strange. Not counting ballots that are valid
according to the appropriate election codes because the clock has run out due
to the courts stopping the counting while they made up their minds at each
step seems a remarkably stupid thing to do.
You Americans are going to have a fun 4 years I guess... Especially when they
unofficially recount those ballots and see who would have won if the
deadline had been a little later (I'm guessing the media will do that as fast
as they can)....
Anyway I've gotten in enough kill files now...
--
Jeffrey B. Siegal
> Does the Florida election code (I'm guessing it's a state issue) say what
> error rate is acceptable in a vote counting machine?
I don't believe so. The error rates which appear legally acceptable are
absolutely atrocious, and precluded ever determining an objectively
accurate winner in such a close race.
> Or could they use the
> new Democrat2000 which only counts the votes for democrats and discards all
> others...?
I suspect that such a machine would violate the Equal Protection clause
of the Constitution which prohibits states from legislating in favor of
any particular group. In general, this is a gray area, which has to be
decided by litigation on a case-by-case basis. Your hypothetical
machine would almost certainly fail, but apparently rules that say the
dominant party gets its candidate at the top of the ballot is
acceptable, at least so far. (FWIW, California arranges its ballots
randomly.)
> How
> can one side be so dominant in the reocunting of the machine rejected ballots?
> The recount should have no effect since the chance of a rejection should be
> the same no matter who the vote was for.
The counties being recounted were those where there was a majority of
Democratic votes. Those were the counties which tended to use the older
and more problem-prone punch-card machines. So even if the chance of a
rejection was the same, more of the votes would tend to be Democratic,
in those counties.
> Another alternative is that the hand counters are biased towards democrats, but
> that also seems unlikely since assumming you use a similar system to us, a
> republican and a democrat observor get to check every ballot...
There is some subtlety here. There was a Republican, and Democrat, and
a representative of the county board of elections. Since these were
Democratic counties, the boards of elections were controlled by
Democrats, so one could argue that the representative was likely to be
Democratic leaning, though this person need not *necessarily* have been
a Democrat.
> Not counting ballots that are valid
> according to the appropriate election codes because the clock has run out due
> to the courts stopping the counting while they made up their minds at each
> step seems a remarkably stupid thing to do.
The Court ruled that the way the votes were being counted was illegal,
so it wouldn't have mattered if they let the counting continue while
they made up their minds, because that count would have been thrown out
anyway.
The only count that could have been legally valid would have been one
that started after the court made its ruling and then a state-wide
counting standard was established. But there wasn't time for that,
according to Florida law, so the vote count had to stay the way it was.
Fergus Henderson
Why do you ask?
If you're implying that the uncounted ballots should not be looked at
unless there is some evidence that the machines were not working
within their design parameters, that sounds like a catch-22
requirement, since the most obvious way of obtaining such evidence
would be precisely by looking at the ballots.
--
Fergus Henderson <f...@cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
| of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
Isaac
Please forgive me for ducking the issue, but I'm quite exhausted on the
topic. I responded to the last poster in a moment of weakness.
Isaac
Jeffrey B. Siegal
>
> "Jeffrey B. Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> writes:
>
> >Isaac wrote:
> >> If the machine is
> >> spitting out some ballots uncounted, wouldn't it make some
> >> sense to look at the uncounted ones if only to determine if the
> >> machine were working properly?
> >
> >Was there any evidence that the machines were not working within their
> >design paramters?
>
> Why do you ask?
Because the original poster suggested that spitting out some ballots
uncounted would suggest that the machine was not working properly.
That's not necessarily true. The machines are not perfect, even by
design. There is a margin of error which was deemed acceptable when the
decision was made to place the machines into service. A machine may be
spitting out "some" ballots uncounted and still be working "properly."
Also, if you were to audit the machines to determine if they were
working within their design parameters, you'd want to hand-count either
all the votes, or a random sample thereof. Just examining the votes
that get spit out uncounted do not objectively measure whether the
machine is working properly overall. (It might be double counting other
ballots, which would partially cancel the effect of uncounted ballots,
for example.)
Isaac
>
>Also, if you were to audit the machines to determine if they were
>working within their design parameters, you'd want to hand-count either
>all the votes, or a random sample thereof. Just examining the votes
>that get spit out uncounted do not objectively measure whether the
>machine is working properly overall. (It might be double counting other
>ballots, which would partially cancel the effect of uncounted ballots,
>for example.)
mischaracterized was too much.
If the uncounted votes were examined and found to contain votes which
by design should have been counted, I think that does objectively show
the machine to be working improperly in at least one fashion. I agree
that you cannot verify that the machine does or does not have other
problems only by looking at the uncounted ballots.
You then seem to be saying if a machine is shown to be improperly rejecting
votes, that is not an objective measurement because there might be an
additional compensating flaw. I'd suggest that once the counting
machine has been shown to be failing in some significant way, it would
be foolish to simply hope that the machine is giving an accurate
count. In fact it's highly unlikely that it would be doing so.
Assuming the number of uncounted votes is small compared to
the total, and statistically significant, checking them first to
make sure the machine was rejecting only what it was designed to reject
seems prudent and expedient.
Isaac
brl...@sperience.com
(least off-topic of all the newsgroups, though still OT)
sho...@pgrad.cs.usyd.edu.au (Sam Holden) writes:
> The recount should have no effect since the chance of a rejection
> should be the same no matter who the vote was for. I can only guess
> that there were more stupid people who voted democrat, or more weak
> people who can't punch a hole in a ballot who voted democrat, or more
> not working correctly machines in democrat leaning polling
> booths. None of those options seem very satisfactory.
Poorer precincts tend to vote democratic, and poorer precincts have
older/worse equipment with higher error rates.
The other issue is the Dade County butterfly ballot. An article at
http://www.larrysworld.com/articles/ups_ballot.htm
has a link to a photo of it.
If you take a thorough look at the whole ballot, it's clear what hole
goes with what candidate. However, for someone less careful or with
poor eyesight, it might not be clear that you need to punch the third
hole down to vote for the second candidate on the list. You might not
realize that the arrow from the number 5 to the third hole is actually
telling you how to vote for the second candidate.
If you're voting for Bush, there's no confusion because the top hole
goes with the top candidate. But it's no surpise that a small
percentage of voters who intended a Gore vote ended up with a Buchanan
vote (the second hole). This cost Gore at least 2000 votes.
Dade County voters started complaining at 7:05a.m. of officials
illegally denying them a second ballot when they messed up the first
one. 19,000 double-punched ballots were rejected. I don't know how
much this has been followed up on.
We don't know if democratic voters are statistically more stupid than
republican voters, but we do know that the democratic officials who
(along with republican officials) approved the ballot didn't know much
about user interface issues.
> You Americans are going to have a fun 4 years I guess...
Yes, but don't blame Florida. They voted for Gore.