GPL not bypassed
Richard Stallman
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.
Christopher Davis
RS> It is not as easy to bypass the GPL as some people might think.
RS> The GPL does not permit what is being done with RSAREF and GNU mp,
RS> and as soon as I found out about it (a couple of hours ago)
RS> I informed the distributors of this.
The GPL does not permit writing a program which *is capable* of being
linked with GNU code? Does this mean that if I have a yacc grammar that I
can't tell people they can use 'bison -y', as that might violate the GPL?
This seems very odd to me.
--
* Christopher Davis * <c...@eff.org> * <c...@kei.com> * [CKD1] * MIME * RIPEM *
"Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repost it every month,
with diffs marked with change bars." --Ed Vielmetti <e...@msen.com>
Mark C. Henderson
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
Greg Hennessy
#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.
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?
That sword cuts both ways.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
John F Carr
>The GPL does not permit writing a program which *is capable* of being
>linked with GNU code? Does this mean that if I have a yacc grammar that I
>can't tell people they can use 'bison -y', as that might violate the GPL?
It's standard procedure to make agressive claims about one's intellectual
property rights. The FSF won't get more than they ask for, but they may
get less. If someone is persuaded to distribute software under the GPL,
that's a victory for the FSF. If not, have they lost anything?
If the information here is accurate, which is not certain (I like the quote
by Vinge: "they don't call it the net of a million lies for nothing"), then
the FSF is claiming an interface copyright (though it's an API, not a user
interface) and I'm going to be very careful in the future to avoid writing
programs which can be linked with GNU software.
--
John Carr (j...@athena.mit.edu)
Patrick MacRoberts
% 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.
What specifically in the Gnu-GPL doesn't permit the ability to
interface with GNU code?
What I assume the GNU Project has done is suppressed distribution of a
derivative work (basically, an interface translator).
Is this the case? If so, I find it startlingly appropriate that GNU
has made itself into what it claims to hate, a suppressor of free
software distribution.
-Patrick
Alan Morgan
Would you mind explaining why? From what I heard and my (presumably
faulty) understanding of the GPL and GLPL what they were doing
seemed above board.
Alan
Mark C. Henderson
>
>If the information here is accurate, which is not certain (I like the quote
>by Vinge: "they don't call it the net of a million lies for nothing"), then
>the FSF is claiming an interface copyright (though it's an API, not a user
>interface) and I'm going to be very careful in the future to avoid writing
>programs which can be linked with GNU software.
>
>--
> John Carr (j...@athena.mit.edu)
Well, I can tell you that there was never any GNU code in the ripem
distribution.
So, here's a hypothetical question:
Say I write bozo-mp. bozo-mp, would consist of one C file, bozo-mp.c, with
functions with names and interfaces exactly like the functions in GMP
that I need: e.g. mpz_mul, mpz_add, mpz_init, mpz_powm... Then, of course,
I distribute bozo-mp hooks.
Now, say bozo-mp is correct. i.e. That it is possible to really run
ripem with bozo-mp. I would think it would be pretty slow, because
I wouldn't care one way or another. But they key is, that a clever
person could just remove bozo-mp.o from the link and add libgmp.a,
and then build a nice fast ripem binary. Of course, the bozo-mp
documentation wouldn't mention this. >:->
The same goes for other RSAREF applications like TIS/PEM (and maybe,
in the future, PGP)
Is anyone asserting that distributing bozo-mp and the bozo-mp hooks
would violate the GPL?
If so, then it does sound like they are claiming the exclusive rights
to the interface of libgmp.
If not, then maybe I should start coding ;-)
Personally, I wouldn't have made the same decision as Mark Riordan.
But he is the author of RIPEM, and as I see it, has a right to make
that sort of decision.
But I expect you all realise that Stallman is using the same sort
of tactics that PKP/RSADSI used to stop RPEM distribution a few
years ago. These tactics often work.
Of course, he uses these tactics in the interest of the FSF.
PKP/RSADSI uses these tactics in the interest of PKP/RSADSI.
I'm not saying that there is no difference, but am just remarking
on the similarities.
It isn't that I don't have sympathy with the views and goals of the
FSF/LPF. However, I do think, that in this case, the actions of the
FSF are misguided. The assertion of intellectual property rights
in this case is a political move without real legal basis.
I've probably said enough. Anyone want to comment on the viability
of bozo-mp?
Mark
Joe Buck
>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.
If it is indeed possible to bypass the GPL this way, the GPL is
effectively dead. Anyone can bypass it by shipping a system that contains
no GPL'd code, but has a script that opens an anonymous FTP connection,
downloads GPL'ed code, patches it and merges it into the proprietary code.
Compiler writers can build on gcc's back end in exactly the same way as
RSAREF proposes to use GNU MP.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Tim Smith
Could you please post what was done that violates GPL? So far, all
that has been posted is examples of the kind of things that people
say was done.
--
"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
Marc VanHeyningen
Would you mind being a little more specific about which portion of the
GPL was violated? Is the interface to GMP copyrighted?
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvan...@cs.indiana.edu MIME, RIPEM & HTTP spoken here
Marc VanHeyningen
>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.
This is simply false. Following the installation rules provided with
the RIPEM 1.1 distribution will build the system without GNU MP, and
it works fine (just a little slower) without it; using it requires
following editing makefiles and stuff.
Jason Robbins
This stallman guy is treatening our _right_ to write programs.
In order to be consistant with its other policies, I think that the
FSF has no choice other than boycotting that nut.
I've been waiting for this one a long time!!!
-jason
--
"See them try to bring the hammer down.
No damn chains can hold me to the ground." --Metalica
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
Bill Johnston
>If it is indeed possible to bypass the GPL this way, the GPL is
>effectively dead.
I disagree. The GPL has other merits. Even if some people violate
its spirit by distributing software under any of the various proprietary
extension scenarios discussed periodically in gnu.misc.discuss, free
software will continue to advance simply because the GPL and FSF provides
a useful framework for people to make and contribute improvements.
Proprietary extensions to GPL'd software will have approximately the
same effect on this process that continued development of cheaper and
better commercial software will have. If someone chooses to develop
and distribute an inexpensive commercial alternative to gcc or emacs,
there will be people who choose to use it. When the temporary advantage
afforded by such proprietary software is implemented in GPL'd software,
these users may choose to switch back -- or not. It's their choice.
The GPL is `dead' in such a scenario only if one believes that the
GPL needs to succeed completely as an instrument to coerce people
into adopting a `purist' attitude to software development and use.
I think that FSF is correct in attempting to vigorously enforce
its license; such efforts may result in would-be GPL-circumventers
choosing better distribution policies for their work. If some attempts
to circumvent the GPL succeed, the free software community is still free
to make progress by working with from existing base of free software.
Competition from proprietary alternatives may slow the development
of free software, but it cannot stop it. That's the real strength
of the GPL -- no more orphaned products or ideas. Progress continues.
--
-- Bill Johnston (john...@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Bill Johnston
>It's standard procedure to make agressive claims about one's intellectual
>property rights. The FSF won't get more than they ask for, but they may
>get less. If someone is persuaded to distribute software under the GPL,
>that's a victory for the FSF. If not, have they lost anything?
That's standard procedure for lawyers and businessmen who operate
in a competitive, adversarial climate, but I do think there would
be something lost if everyone behaved this way.
Given my druthers, I'd rather have an FSF that is open about the
alternatives that people have in distributing software, because
I think that the GPL will eventually succeed by virtue of its
merits with respect to promoting software improvements, rather
than by its strength as a legal instrument, which is unfortunately
limited by the time, money, and lawyers that FSF can afford to
spend to enforce it. I understand the viewpoint of those who want
to fight fire with fire, but it's tough to beat lawyers and money.
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.
Michael Golan
>The GPL does not permit writing a program which *is capable* of being
>linked with GNU code? Does this mean that if I have a yacc grammar that I
>can't tell people they can use 'bison -y', as that might violate the GPL?
>This seems very odd to me.
No, your code is clearly an independent unit that can be used with
various tools. So it is not covered by the GPL. the FSF claims seems to
apply only in the case of code whose sole purpose or use is to be
linked with GPL code. I say 'seems' because that's my understanding.
I would be happy to see the FSF offical reply to this.
But you have raised an interesting question! If your code is only
usable with bison - because you have used some bison special feature,
the your resulting usable binary must contain some GPL code - hence
it would seems that you are covered under the FSF *claims*. The latest
claims, that is. FSF seems to have clearly claimed that just the source
for a bison code does not make the code GPLish?!
So let me ask instead: If I write source code whose only usable
compiled binary includes GPL code, must my code be under the GPL terms?
-- Michael
ps see my other post regarding whether I think the FSF claims are correct.
Michael Golan
>It's standard procedure to make agressive claims about one's intellectual
>property rights.
yes, but not with aggressive claims against other's intellectual property
rights :-) Well, most of the time. The "good & nice" large software companies
seems to be doing just that.
>The FSF won't get more than they ask for, but they may
>get less. If someone is persuaded to distribute software under the GPL,
>that's a victory for the FSF. If not, have they lost anything?
^^^^^^^
Yes, but is it a victory for the people, and for those of us who write,
use, and modify free code? Or did we loose one more useful piece of code
that could have been made public domain due to FSF propaganda?
>If the information here is accurate, which is not certain (I like the quote
>by Vinge: "they don't call it the net of a million lies for nothing"), then
>the FSF is claiming an interface copyright (though it's an API, not a user
>interface) and I'm going to be very careful in the future to avoid writing
>programs which can be linked with GNU software.
I would hope you will be careful not to help the GNU project by writing GPL
code and by suggesting that people make their code public domain instead
of GPLish. I like the GPL quote:
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid..."
-- Michael
Michael Golan
>In article <212hdt$k...@agate.berkeley.edu> jb...@foucault.eecs.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) writes:
>>If it is indeed possible to bypass the GPL this way, the GPL is
>>effectively dead.
>I disagree. The GPL has other merits. Even if some people violate
>its spirit by distributing software under any of the various proprietary
>extension scenarios discussed periodically in gnu.misc.discuss, free
>software will continue to advance simply because the GPL and FSF provides
>a useful framework for people to make and contribute improvements.
And what exactly is this framework that can not be sustained without
a limiting and confuisng license? There is plenty of evidence of
PD and free software that has been a success and still succeed.
IMNHO, the GNU project has succeeded so well primarily due to the
efforts of a few very smart people who are also exceptionally good
programmers, and their dedication to a whole project of freely
available software.
>The GPL is `dead' in such a scenario only if one believes that the
>GPL needs to succeed completely as an instrument to coerce people
>into adopting a `purist' attitude to software development and use.
Well, why not do away with the GPL? make the software REALLY FREE!
I am cetrain, like you seems to be, that the project will continue
to evolve - maybe even at a greater speed - there are many people
out there who would like to contribute free software, but are not
willing to do so under a limited restricting license. I can assure
you that Duel would still be free code, but much better integrated
with GDB and much easier to write, if I didn't have to work around
the GPL restrictions and not copy a single line of gdb code. The
recent security software is just another case of free software being
limited in usefulness simply because the GNU code isn't really free.
>I think that FSF is correct in attempting to vigorously enforce
>its license; such efforts may result in would-be GPL-circumventers
>choosing better distribution policies for their work. If some attempts
>to circumvent the GPL succeed, the free software community is still free
>to make progress by working with from existing base of free software.
Now you start to sound like a lawyer. The FSF sure seems to be able
to catch the "bad guys", while the good guys simply avoid touching
or using GNU code. That's the way to go! make life harder for everyone
in order to catch a few bad guys. the US government seems to be on the
same track. cool.
>Competition from proprietary alternatives may slow the development
>of free software, but it cannot stop it. That's the real strength
>of the GPL -- no more orphaned products or ideas. Progress continues.
No, its the strength of free software. the GPL merely handicap it.
Sure, if there was no GPL, there would have been more GNU-based
commercial software. I don't think this is bad - if anything, it
will increase knowledge about the existence of the free software
and drive commercial software into more competition, not less.
You should also note that few commerical companies who could have
taken advantage of GNU code have done so - for example, GNU utils
could have been added to the Borland compiler. Borland had nothing
to loose, it only enhance the overall product, and having binaries
of GNU products (if the source is available someplace) within
the distribution is totally allowed. So, have they done so? nope!
Too much legal hassle, not enough utility, I suppose. my loss.
Marc VanHeyningen
>>>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.
>ma...@vanbc.wimsey.com (Mark C. Henderson) writes:
>>It is disappointing not to be able to hook
>>free software together with free software to make better free
>>software.
Thus said m...@hart.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan):
>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.
To be fair, neither of the two pieces of software in question (GMP and
RSAREF) are "free" in the sense of being public domain. RSAREF has
conditions which, at first glance, appear more restrictive than GMPs.
However, anyone who wants to is "free" to write code that conforms to
the RSAREF interface (which has been published) and distribute it
without it being covered by their license restrictions (e.g. the
non-cryptographic code in RIPEM is in the public domain. I don't know
exactly how far this freedom extends; RSADSI might object if money
were involved, since RSAREF is licensed only for noncommercial use.
TIS/PEM comes with its own non-free license and uses RSAREF.)
On the other hand, it seems that this is not the case for GMP. Code
that conforms to its interface standard, it is claimed, is covered by
the GPV (er, GPL.)
Jim Bidzos allows interface standards to be used elsewhere; Richard
Stallman claims copyright restrictions on an interface. The world is
upside-down.
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
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Golan <m...@hart.Princeton.EDU> writes:
Michael> Well, why not do away with the GPL?
There would not have been a GNU Objective C front end, had NeXT not
been forced to donate it to FSF because of the GPL.
Michael> I am cetrain, like you seems to be, that the project will continue
Michael> to evolve - maybe even at a greater speed - there are many people
Michael> out there who would like to contribute free software, but are not
Michael> willing to do so under a limited restricting license.
It is interesting to compare how 386BSD (very generous copyright) and
Linux (GPL) evolve. 386BSD had a head start, but by now Linux seems
to be more popular and evolving faster.
Michael> I can assure
Michael> you that Duel would still be free code, but much better integrated
Michael> with GDB and much easier to write, if I didn't have to work around
Michael> the GPL restrictions and not copy a single line of gdb code.
If people insist on making life difficult for themselves, there are
little FSF can do to help them.
When I give my software away for free, I prefer to give it only to
people who in return will give me any enhancement or bug fixes they
make. The simplest way to ensure that, is to cover the software by
the GPL.
Michael> Sure, if there was no GPL, there would have been more GNU-based
Michael> commercial software.
There would also have been less free software. There have been large
contributions to GPL'ed software by companies who otherwise would have
kept it proprietary. The availability of commercial software would
most likely also delay the development of free equivalents.
Michael> for example, GNU utils could have been added to the Borland
Michael> compiler.
Luckily, this never happened. I doubt the DOS version of GCC would
have been so popular, had there existed a cheap 32-bit compiler from
Borland.
Joe Buck
posting where I misunderstood what RIPEM was doing:
>This is simply false. Following the installation rules provided with
>the RIPEM 1.1 distribution will build the system without GNU MP, and
>it works fine (just a little slower) without it; using it requires
>following editing makefiles and stuff.
In that case, I must assume that either RMS was confused in the same way I
was, or that he is way out of bounds. The GPL cannot restrict the actions
of people who are not distributing GPL'ed code; it could make "tricks"
illegal (e.g. I ship you an .o file and then tell you to grab GPL'ed code
to complete the system), but unless there is something I am missing, it
seems that does not apply here.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Marc VanHeyningen
>was, or that he is way out of bounds. The GPL cannot restrict the actions
>of people who are not distributing GPL'ed code; it could make "tricks"
>illegal (e.g. I ship you an .o file and then tell you to grab GPL'ed code
>to complete the system), but unless there is something I am missing, it
>seems that does not apply here.
It's not surprising that confusion would abound, particularly given
that Mark has some restrictions on his FTP site to keep in the clear
with (dumb) federal export laws for strong cryptographic software;
presumably RMS (and you) couldn't immediately just get the code and
look at it, which would have made things seem a lot less threatening.
To make sure there is no confusion, here is what you had to do to
compile RSAREF and RIPEM with GMP under the (now dead) 1.1
distribution:
1 Check that you have GMP and know its location (many sites presumably
already have it)
2 Untar the distribution
3 Untar an enclosed tar file with some slightly different versions of
some RSAREF files
4 Read an enclosed README explaining, among other things, that you
should read both the RSAREF license and the GPL and be sure to
comply with both
5 Replace a few default .c files with the ones from the above archive;
these files are all minor derivative works of the RSAREF
distribution, mostly with changes like replacing "NN_Cmp" with
"mpz_cmp"
6 Edit the makefile for RSAREF
7 Build the RSAREF library
8 Edit the makefile for RIPEM
9 Build RIPEM
The "standard" instructions (steps 2, 7 and 9) build RIPEM without GMP.
Trevor Darrell
I am new to this GPL discussion and this group, and am intrigued by
some of the claims as to the strength of the library GPL. Could
someone enlighten me as to by what mechanism the library GPL could
possibly restrict me from distributing proprietary source code or
object code that uses a "GPL'ed" library? Is the FSF legal opinion on
this matter available? To members of FSF?
My copy of the library GPL (excerpted below) seems quite clear that
source code which calls the library (but does not incorporate any
source code or header files) are *not* covered by the GPL. (Indeed
they couldn't be, as far as I understand copyright law, since those
aspects of the work are functional and thus uncopyrightable, so why
would I bother with the GPL.)
It seems that the header files the the only hook by which the GPL
prevents distributing object files that are to be linked against a
"GPL'ed" library, since a compiled object file may indeed have
literally included copyrighted material.
Which leads me to an interesting proposal. If I were to reverse
enginner a set of header files from the library interface
specifications, and I were to put this in the public domain, would
this significantly weaken the library GPL as regards object files?
--trevor
(oh and I sure do hope that the fsf considers my quoting portions
their copyrighted license "fair use" :-) ...
GNU LIBRARY GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991
...
5. A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the
Library, but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or
linked with it, is called a "work that uses the Library". Such a
work, in isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and
therefore falls outside the scope of this License.
However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library
creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it
contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the
library". The executable is therefore covered by this License.
Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables.
When a "work that uses the Library" uses material from a header file
that is part of the Library, the object code for the work may be a
derivative work of the Library even though the source code is not.
Whether this is true is especially significant if the work can be
linked without the Library, or if the work is itself a library. The
threshold for this to be true is not precisely defined by law.
If such an object file uses only numerical parameters, data
structure layouts and accessors, and small macros and small inline
functions (ten lines or less in length), then the use of the object
file is unrestricted, regardless of whether it is legally a derivative
work. (Executables containing this object code plus portions of the
Library will still fall under Section 6.)
Otherwise, if the work is a derivative of the Library, you may
distribute the object code for the work under the terms of Section 6.
Any executables containing that work also fall under Section 6,
whether or not they are linked directly with the Library itself.
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
Geoffrey Clemm
With all the whining and griping about the terrible restrictions involved
in complying with the GPL, I'm reminded of the bumper sticker:
"If you're against abortion, don't have one."
If you're against the GPL, don't take advantage of any GPL restricted code.
Surely you don't need a lawyer to explain to you whether or not you are
taking advantage of GPL code -- use your common sense. And if you don't
want to comply with the spirit of the GPL, *don't take advantage of the
hard work of programmers who want their work to only be used in the context
of the GPL*. Yes, it's easy to steal their stuff, but then to turn around
and *complain* about the restrictions they've asked you to comply with in
return for the use of their work, *that's* pretty incredible.
A little more integrity and a little less emphasis on "what can I get away"
would be a refreshing change.
Cheers,
Geoff
Michael Golan
>Marc VanHeyningen <mvan...@cs.indiana.edu> writes, in response to my
>posting where I misunderstood what RIPEM was doing:
>>This is simply false. Following the installation rules provided with
>>the RIPEM 1.1 distribution will build the system without GNU MP, and
>>it works fine (just a little slower) without it; using it requires
>>following editing makefiles and stuff.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You should realize that having to follow instructions and edit things
yourself, or having a script to do the work would make no difference
regarding the legality of the code. Thieves don't get off because they
"worked really hard to get that diamond" :-)
If it is legal to give instructions to edit your code and GPL'ed code
together, it is most likely legal to provide an automatic script for it.
Since the GPLed code could be freely distributed as a package on the same
"tape" or ftp site, it follows that I could combine my patch & the GPL
code into one proprietary package that I sell and which configures
itself automatically into a GPL-based proprietary program.
So, either the RIPEM w/GPL instructions was illegal, or anyone could
rip'em the GPL code with the above "trick" ... Of course, I claim
that the above is totally legal, exactly because the GPL code is
freely distributable by anyone and everyone.
>In that case, I must assume that either RMS was confused in the same way I
>was, or that he is way out of bounds. The GPL cannot restrict the actions
>of people who are not distributing GPL'ed code; it could make "tricks"
>illegal (e.g. I ship you an .o file and then tell you to grab GPL'ed code
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>to complete the system), but unless there is something I am missing, it
>seems that does not apply here.
Kindly expalin why this is a "trick" that can be prevented by by the GPL
while "The GPL cannot restrict the actions of people who are not
distributing GPL'ed code"?
If your .o file is not GPLed, what's the difference? what if I distributed
the source to this .o file instead? This is essentially the case with
Duel, so we have a practical example. Do you think I could have sold Duel
as a proprietary add-on to gdb or not??
Luckily, there is no middle ground here - either all patches & add-ons
that need to be linked with GPL code must be covered by the GPL (which
seems to be the FSF claims, which I find ridicules), or the GPL is
practically useless due to the ability to distribute patches that auto-
configure. Unfortunately no one seems to want to try this question in
court, so we are likely to be stuck with the GPL for a while more, without
knowing whether it is legally binding (we can argue this forever, but
until a case goes to court and decided, no one really knows.)
Michael Golan
>When I give my software away for free, I prefer to give it only to
>people who in return will give me any enhancement or bug fixes they
>make. The simplest way to ensure that, is to cover the software by
>the GPL.
This summarize the attitude that many GPL supporters seems to take,
even if it isn't the FSF's attitude.
Wake up! What you are saying is similar to "If I give poor people money
for food, I prefer to give it only to people who will vote for me".
Requiring someone to do you a favor in return for your free gift is an
oxymoron. Your gift is simply not free, even if it might not cost money.
The whole point of releasing code to the public domain, in making code
freely available, is that you allow EVERYONE to use it, whether you like
the way they use it or not.
-- Michael
ps. your arguments why the GPL is better than PD software (e.g., Obj-C) doesn't
convince me, but this is another issue. Also, the whole legality and
practicality of the GPL is questionable given the attitude you (and FSF?)
present, while at the same time using the copyright law as a shield. This
is another argument that can not be decided until the GPL goes to court,
of course, so I won't start it (again :-)
Marc VanHeyningen
>>posting where I misunderstood what RIPEM was doing:
>
>>>This is simply false. Following the installation rules provided with
>>>the RIPEM 1.1 distribution will build the system without GNU MP, and
>>>it works fine (just a little slower) without it; using it requires
>>>following editing makefiles and stuff.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>You should realize that having to follow instructions and edit things
>yourself, or having a script to do the work would make no difference
>regarding the legality of the code. Thieves don't get off because they
>"worked really hard to get that diamond" :-)
I didn't claim it made a difference; the article I cited (which you
deleted) did. Nobody can know if it does or not unless FSF gives some
kind of explanation of how exactly their terms were violated; no such
explanation has been given, and I'm skeptical about the existence of
one.
to...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
enjoy -len
Member, League for Programming Freedom. Ask: l...@uunet.uu.net
Re:
To: gnu-misc...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Date: 3 Jul 93 19:35:39 GMT
Organization: Bellcore
From: ge...@flash.bellcore.com (Geoffrey Clemm)
Sender: gnu-misc-dis...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Subject: Re: GPL not bypassed? Try Duel!
Michael Golan
>well put. thank you!
>enjoy -len
>Re:
>>If you're against the GPL, don't take advantage of any GPL restricted code.
[much morality eduction removed. see the original]
Len,
you are posting with the GNU project as your official "Organization:".
I would very much like to know if this statement, that you have quoted,
is the official GNU standing on this issue - that the GNU project (& FSF?)
discourages use of its software by anyone not agreeing with GNU's ideas,
especially those in the GNU manifesto.
I always thought that the GNU project encouraged people to use its software,
as long as the terms of the GPL are *observed*, even if differences of
ideology exist. Contrary to FSF/cygnus (seemingly) position that they will
not support Duel because it was written by a politically-incorrect person,
Duel specifically encourage any & all usages of its code.
Regarding my own morals in using GPL code, I don't feel I should avoid
using any useful code (at least in an allowed licensed manner), just because
of my political or religious opinions. After all, this GPLed code is given
away to anyone. If the code writers have a problem with my use of their code,
they could have limited its distribution.
Finally: regarding the bumper sticker quote about abortion, I don't see any
parallels between abortion and GPLed code. I also don't crusade to outlaw the
GNU project (god forbid :-), I am merely trying to stir some people away
from GPLed code efforts into putting such efforts into (real) free software.
-- Michael
Ozan S. Yigit
A little more integrity and a little less emphasis on "what can I get away"
would be a refreshing change.
are you questioning the integrity of those of us who dislike RMSs
methods? Or the authors of RIPEM?
are you sure you have enough material to question anyone's integrity?
I suggest that you retract.
Tim Smith
>Michael> Well, why not do away with the GPL?
>
>There would not have been a GNU Objective C front end, had NeXT not
>been forced to donate it to FSF because of the GPL.
NeXT are the only people in the world capable of writing one?
--
"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 Kenney
>code and by suggesting that people make their code public domain instead
>of GPLish. I like the GPL quote:
>
> "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid..."
>
Yeah ... That statement does sound a bit Orwellian :-).
>-- 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!
----
Mike Kenney
UW Applied Physics Lab
mi...@apl.washington.edu
Michael Kenney
>
>>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Golan <m...@hart.Princeton.EDU> writes:
>
>Michael> Well, why not do away with the GPL?
>
>There would not have been a GNU Objective C front end, had NeXT not
>been forced to donate it to FSF because of the GPL.
>
>Michael> I am cetrain, like you seems to be, that the project will continue
>Michael> to evolve - maybe even at a greater speed - there are many people
>Michael> out there who would like to contribute free software, but are not
>Michael> willing to do so under a limited restricting license.
>
>It is interesting to compare how 386BSD (very generous copyright) and
>Linux (GPL) evolve. 386BSD had a head start, but by now Linux seems
>to be more popular and evolving faster.
>
Weak argument.
The speed of evolution of Linux compared to 386BSD has, IMHO, nothing to
do with the copyright/copyleft differences. Both products are excellent
but are developed in completely different ways ... Linux's distributed
development encourages lots of new features also it can run on smaller
systems than 386BSD, this probably explains why it is more popular.
(claiming that one is more popular than the other is sure to draw some
flames :-).
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Golan <m...@hart.Princeton.EDU> writes:
> abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>When I give my software away for free, I prefer to give it only to
>people who in return will give me any enhancement or bug fixes they
>make. The simplest way to ensure that, is to cover the software by
>the GPL.
Michael> This summarize the attitude that many GPL supporters seems to take,
Michael> even if it isn't the FSF's attitude.
Thanks, I know my motives are very different from FSF's. FSF is a
political organization with the goal of changing society. I am just
looking for the biggest return of my investment in writing software.
The GPL happens to provide that.
Michael> Wake up! What you are saying is similar to "If I give poor
Michael> people money for food, I prefer to give it only to people who
Michael> will vote for me".
Have you ever seen an example where using an analogy clarified an
issue in an Usenet discussion? Why should you or I care how a
politician spend his own money?
Michael> Requiring someone to do you a favor in return for your free
Michael> gift is an oxymoron. Your gift is simply not free, even if it
Michael> might not cost money.
I don't care for playing word games. I give up several - but not all
- of my rights without requiring anything in return. This is what I
mean when I say I give software away for free.
Michael> The whole point of releasing code to the public domain, in
Michael> making code freely available, is that you allow EVERYONE to
Michael> use it, whether you like the way they use it or not.
I don't see why this is relevant. I am specifically not making the
software public domain, and don't claim to be.
Per Abrahamsen
abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>There would not have been a GNU Objective C front end, had NeXT not
>been forced to donate it to FSF because of the GPL.
>>>>> "Tim" == Tim Smith <t...@stein2.u.washington.edu> writes:
Tim> NeXT are the only people in the world capable of writing one?
They are the only one with a sufficient large financial interest in
Objective-C to write one.
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)
Fergus James HENDERSON
>abr...@iesd.auc.dk (Per Abrahamsen) writes:
>>
>>It is interesting to compare how 386BSD (very generous copyright) and
>>Linux (GPL) evolve. 386BSD had a head start, but by now Linux seems
>>to be more popular and evolving faster.
>>
>
>Weak argument.
Indeed.
>The speed of evolution of Linux compared to 386BSD has, IMHO, nothing to
>do with the copyright/copyleft differences.
Yes, as Linus Torvalds himself has pointed out several times, the
reason why Linux is more popular than 386BSD is because of the
cool name :-)
--
Fergus Henderson This .signature virus might be
f...@munta.cs.mu.OZ.AU getting old, but you still can't
consistently believe it unless you
Linux: Choice of a GNU Generation copy it to your own .signature file!
11086
>In article <1993Jul3.0...@Princeton.EDU> m...@hart.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan) writes:
>>
>>I would hope you will be careful not to help the GNU project by writing GPL
>>code and by suggesting that people make their code public domain instead
>>of GPLish. I like the GPL quote:
>>
>> "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid..."
>>
>
>Yeah ... That statement does sound a bit Orwellian :-).
>
No more so than "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions
that forbid you from shooting people in the head arbitrarily."
Some restrictions are necessary to protect the rights of *everyone*.
Anarchy is not freedom. (I'm not sure how this ties into GPL/free
software, but we are being idealogical anyway. :-) )
Jim West
Associate Professor
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Oklahoma State University
jw...@jwest.ecen.okstate.edu
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.)
Jurgen Botz
>I am new to this GPL discussion and this group, and am intrigued by
>some of the claims as to the strength of the library GPL. Could
>someone enlighten me as to by what mechanism the library GPL could
>possibly restrict me from distributing proprietary source code or
>object code that uses a "GPL'ed" library?
The code in question in this discussion (gmp) is not covered by the
LGPL but by the GPL. I believe the LGPL only applies to glibc and
libg++. Furthermore, at the recent Usenix GNU BOF, RMS stated that he
considered the LGPL to be essentially a "failed experiment" and that
the FSF likely would not place any additional libraries under its
scope.
--
Jurgen Botz, jb...@mtholyoke.edu | ``Accountability is the price of openness''
South Hadley, MA, USA | - Daniel Geer
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.
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
Sakari Jalovaara
>>been forced to donate it to FSF because of the GPL.
>Tim> NeXT are the only people in the world capable of writing one?
>They are the only one with a sufficient large financial interest in
>Objective-C to write one.
Is financial interest somehow relevant? Hint: "no".
Do you have first hand knowledge (or *any* likely indication) that
1) NeXT would not have made their compiler front-end available
without threat of legal persecution by the FSF?
2) that soneone else would not have thought, "heck; if those
guys can write an Objective-C compiler, so can I" and proceeded
to produce one?
Is there some real indication that if the GPL gave people the freedom
of choice, there would be less GNU code?
(Point to the contrary: I have written enhancements to GPL'd code but
can't give them away because I find the "*force* someone to donate
software to FSF" sentiment unethical. I can't put that requirement
on my code, sorry. Well, I'm re-writing some of the GPL'd base from
scratch now. If enough of the GNU code gets re-implemented without
the legal GPL baggage, maybe others won't have the trouble with FSF that
RSAREF is having.)
++sja
Sakari Jalovaara
> take advantage of the hard work of programmers who want their work
> to only be used in the context of the GPL*.
Help, call the thought police! There is a non-GNU-believer using gcc!
Supporter of unrestricted freedom,
wrongful thinker:
++sja
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
Stephane Boucher
Sakari>(Point to the contrary: I have written enhancements to GPL'd
Sakari>code but can't give them away because I find the "*force*
Sakari>someone to donate software to FSF" sentiment unethical. I
Sakari>can't put that requirement on my code, sorry. Well, I'm
Sakari>re-writing some of the GPL'd base from scratch now. If enough
Sakari>of the GNU code gets re-implemented without the legal GPL
Sakari>baggage, maybe others won't have the trouble with FSF that
Sakari>RSAREF is having.)
Bingo!
If you don't like GPL, rewrite the code yourself, and let the FSF do
whatever it wants. The FSF is not forcing anybody to use its
softwares.
--
,
Stephane Boucher Recherche Bell-Northern Research
s...@bnr.ca
[Mes opinions sont les miennes -- My opinions are mine]
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?
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Sakari" == Sakari Jalovaara <s...@snakemail.hut.fi> writes:
Sakari> Is financial interest somehow relevant? Hint: "no".
Do you really believe that financial interest is irrelevant for what
software is produced? Now that Finland had left the soviet union, you
better start learning something about market economy.
Sakari> Do you have first hand knowledge (or *any* likely indication) that
Sakari> 1) NeXT would not have made their compiler front-end available
Sakari> without threat of legal persecution by the FSF?
Obviously I can't prove anything, but here are two indications:
- What software has NeXT made freely available?
- Steve Jobs has publically stated that he is a strong believer in
proprietary software.
Sun might have donated the software, but not NeXT. NeXT is simply not
that kind of a company. Although it is slowly learning...
Sakari> 2) that soneone else would not have thought, "heck; if those
Sakari> guys can write an Objective-C compiler, so can I" and proceeded
Sakari> to produce one?
Instead of reinventing the compiler, someone can now say: "Hey, what a
nice compiler. Let me start writing a good class library." And
someone has, in fact, done exactly that.
Sakari> Is there some real indication that if the GPL gave people the freedom
Sakari> of choice, there would be less GNU code?
Lots of software donated by companies who usually are not in to free
software. And software ported by people and companies who would
instead have bought a commercial version, had one been available (this
is _not_ uncommon).
Sakari> Point to the contrary: I have written enhancements to GPL'd code but
Sakari> can't give them away because I find the "*force* someone to donate
Sakari> software to FSF" sentiment unethical.
The GPL don't force anyone to do anything. You are free to distribute
GPL'ed software without donating your changes to the FSF. Claiming
that the GPL force you to donate the software is plain false.
Sakari> I can't put that requirement on my code, sorry. Well, I'm
Sakari> re-writing some of the GPL'd base from scratch now.
I fully support your right to waste your time in way you might find
preferable.
Sakari> If enough of the GNU code gets re-implemented without the
Sakari> legal GPL baggage, maybe others won't have the trouble with
Sakari> FSF that RSAREF is having.
There are often being written PD equivalents to GPL'ed software. They
usually disappear after some time. Remember the PD PostScript
previewer for SunView? Well, I doubt many people does, if it is used
today, it is as a part of a commercial product. The free alternative
today is GhostScript. Another example is the PD C compiler for Atari,
that appeared about the same time as the GNU C compiler. How many
platforms have it been ported to today?
PS: I would personally prefer that the LGPL was used for all GNU
libraries instead of the GPL. I can't argue that it would help the
FSF, but it would make their license uniformly more liberal that what
is used for commercial software. But I think GPL is perfect for
application software.
Linus Torvalds
>ken...@stein.u.washington.edu (Michael Kenney) writes:
>
>>The speed of evolution of Linux compared to 386BSD has, IMHO, nothing to
>>do with the copyright/copyleft differences.
Actually, there was something of a "copyleft/copyright" argument in the
386bsd camp - William Jolitz and the CSGR had a disagreement about the
conditions of the first 386bsd version which resulted in the current
386bsd <-> bsdi split, and Bill had to start over "from scratch" for the
free 386bsd release (somewhat simplified, but..). So even though the
386bsd project got started before linux did, 386bsd was available for
the public later. Of course, this might be due to my incredible coding
skills (and modesty), but there are some aspects of copyright problems
within the bsd groups.
But I agree that the biggest reason is probably the open development
which turns out to be a very good idea (not that it's without its
problems, but I can generally warmly recommend it).
>Yes, as Linus Torvalds himself has pointed out several times, the
>reason why Linux is more popular than 386BSD is because of the
>cool name :-)
Tongue firmly in cheek,
Linus
Sakari Jalovaara
> Sakari>re-writing some of the GPL'd base from scratch now.
>
> whatever it wants.
Yup. As free alternatives to GPL'd code become available, I'll try
to improve and promote those when I can. 'Tho I will continue to warn
others about the dangers and pitfalls of GPL - both for those who write
GPL'd code and those who might be tempted to use it.
Incidentally, when you say "rewrite the code yourself":
check out the GNU Manifesto about "wasteful duplication of system
programming effort". Oh well. So much for *that* theory.
(Is it just me or do others find "supercite" obnoxious?)
++sja
Sakari Jalovaara
>Do you really believe that financial interest is irrelevant for what
>software is produced? Now that Finland had left the soviet union, you
>better start learning something about market economy.
Btw, thanks for the out-of-context quoting!
You *are* getting a slow news feed! Finland left Russia what,
75 years ago (even then, Finland never fully was a proper part
of Russia.) Since that, Finland has been a democratic republic.
If you really care, have lived in a market economy all my life.
I *do* find your comment "you better start learning..." highly
offensive.
(Rest deleted - too p.o.'d to really care. Have a nice day.)
++sja
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
Mark C. Henderson
->Sakari> re-writing some of the GPL'd base from scratch now.
->
->I fully support your right to waste your time in way you might find
->preferable.
Of course, from the point of view of RSAREF, it isn't a waste of
time. If we want to use RSA legally and without paying anything,
we must use RSAREF (of course, in Canada and the U.S. only).
All this makes me wonder about the status of other things
that may be designed to work with GNU software, but are not
covered by the GPL.
The following might be interesting tests of exactly what is
permitted.
1. Selling a perl script (but not providing perl with it).
2. Building and running RIPEM/RSAREF (without gmp, of course) on
a Linux system.
3. Putting code into RSAREF which uses special features available
only in gcc (like those cool asm directives with constraints).
4. Selling Motif (window manager and libraries) for Linux (there is
a company doing this).
In all of these cases, the product includes no GNU code, but is
specifically designed to work with GNU code, and is pretty useless
without that GNU code.
Comments?
Are these all permitted?
I'd like to see an authoritative answer from the FSF so that I know
what the FSF thinks the limits of the GPL are. (This is a request
for information, not an attempt to incite further argument).
--
Mark Henderson
ma...@wimsey.bc.ca (personal account)
RIPEM key available by key server/finger/E-mail
MD5OfPublicKey: F1F5F0C3984CBEAF3889ADAFA2437433
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
Ozan S. Yigit
...
I fully support your right to waste your time in way you might find
preferable.
He no doubt supports yours, likewise.
There are often being written PD equivalents to GPL'ed software. They
usually disappear after some time. ...
some GPL'ed software ought to dissapear too, but it unfortunately cannot.
In one case, mediocrity is self-limiting, as it ought to be. In the other
case, it just happens to have the right connections. :-]
oz
rodrigo vanegas
> I always thought that the GNU project encouraged people to use its software,
> as long as the terms of the GPL are *observed*, even if differences of
> ideology exist.
Not the terms. The *spirit*. The FSF has made it clear -- if not
with the GPL document, then informally such as with the post which
began this thread -- that the use of GNU code in question is frowned
upon. Isn't that enough to settle it?
"Ideological" identity is not necessary to comply with the basic aims
of the GNU project when using their code, but a measure of respect for
their work is. Sniping at their requests that people use *their* code
in some particular way is inappropriate.
> Regarding my own morals in using GPL code, I don't feel I should
> avoid using any useful code (at least in an allowed licensed
> manner), just because of my political or religious opinions. After
> all, this GPLed code is given away to anyone. If the code writers
> have a problem with my use of their code, they could have limited
> its distribution.
GPLed code *does* have a limited distribution. Although it is true
that anyone can get a copy -- typically without payment -- it is under
the terms of a very specific and restrictive license.
> I am merely
> trying to stir some people away from GPLed code efforts into putting
> such efforts into (real) free software.
Don't use GPLed code to do this. The FSF is not interested in the
public domain.
rodrigo vanegas
r...@cs.brown.edu
rodrigo vanegas
> Requiring someone to do you a favor in return for your free gift is an
> oxymoron. Your gift is simply not free, even if it might not cost money.
That's true. But software under the GPL is not a gift. The 'L'
stands for license which means that it is the property of the
copyright holder.
> The whole point of releasing code to the public domain, in making code
> freely available, is that you allow EVERYONE to use it, whether you like
> the way they use it or not.
Also very true. But software under the GPL is not in the public
domain. PD software does not require copyrights or licenses -- both
are used in GPLed software.
rodrigo vanegas
r...@cs.brown.edu
Greg Hennessy
#If it is indeed possible to bypass the GPL this way, the GPL is
#effectively dead.
But this scheme only works if the author of the pacage provides
source, which is then very like the GLPL, which requires shipping of a
linkable binary.
--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gs...@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Michael Golan
>Is there some real indication that if the GPL gave people the freedom
>of choice, there would be less GNU code?
>(Point to the contrary: I have written enhancements to GPL'd code but
>can't give them away because I find the "*force* someone to donate
>software to FSF" sentiment unethical. I can't put that requirement
>on my code, sorry. Well, I'm re-writing some of the GPL'd base from
>scratch now.
There are more points to the contrary on my side, and I think many others.
>If enough of the GNU code gets re-implemented without
>the legal GPL baggage, maybe others won't have the trouble with FSF that
>RSAREF is having.)
> ++sja
Indeed, I'm have done just that with DUEL and I hope many other people
will do the same. Specifically, I call everyone who submit a
modification to a GNU utility to place a note in the code that it is
also available in the PD and the instance under the GPL is nothing
more than a GPL stamp on top. And I call upon RMS/FSF/GNU/Cygnus to
resepct these notes and not eliminate them (though they could, legally.)
right now, it seems GNU/cygnus won't accept any code that they can't
have total control over (i.e. a version exist in the PD, like Duel.)
Finally, I call upon GNU to stop distributing PD software like RCS
under directories and confusing names that might imply to someone
that the code is GPLed. What is RCS doing under the /gnu/bin on my
department's filesystem?
-- 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
>Bingo!
>If you don't like GPL, rewrite the code yourself, and let the FSF do
>whatever it wants. The FSF is not forcing anybody to use its
>softwares.
The FSF doesn't force anyone to use GNU code. But it is engaged in
propaganda to fool people into thinking that GNU is the "real free
software" and that using & supporting GNU is better than using
and supporting PD. This is what I and others are fighting against.
Maybe it is time for the RFSF - the Real Free Software Foundation,
which will collect under one roof all the PD code and provide a
measure against the FSF propaganda machine.
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 Golan
>> Sakari>I can't put that requirement on my code, sorry. Well, I'm
>> Sakari>re-writing some of the GPL'd base from scratch now.
>>
>> If you don't like GPL, rewrite the code yourself, and let the FSF do
>> whatever it wants.
>Yup. As free alternatives to GPL'd code become available, I'll try
>to improve and promote those when I can. 'Tho I will continue to warn
>others about the dangers and pitfalls of GPL - both for those who write
>GPL'd code and those who might be tempted to use it.
To learn more about alternatives to GPL'd code and the dangers and pitfalls
of the GPL, you can get the file gnu-vs-duel.doc from the Duel distribution
available from ftp.cs.princeton.edu:/duel. It is far from perfect, I would
welcome improvements. Or you could just post a modified file - after all,
that file, too, is PD.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only "crazy person" who think PD is better than
GPLed code.
Michael Golan
>Joe Buck writes:
>#If it is indeed possible to bypass the GPL this way, the GPL is
>#effectively dead.
>But this scheme only works if the author of the pacage provides
>source, which is then very like the GLPL, which requires shipping of a
>linkable binary.
Your imagination is highly limited, I'm afraid. Partially encrypted
binary parts and obfuscated source could easily be used.
If I can sell a patch to a GNU program, I could put that patch on the
same tape as the GNU program itself, include an automatic script,
and sell commerical copies which are not covered by the GPL (the other
parts on the tape, which are all mine, are not covered by the GPL.
The resulting binary and the patch part of the tape can not be
further distributed.)
This makes the GPL (and seemingly, any modified future GPL) effectively dead.
The only question is, can I provide a proprietary patch, an add-on, or an
enhancement to a GNU program, assuming no GPLed code is part of it.
I believe the answer is yes, and there are plenty of commercial offerings
of add-ons and patches in my favor. There is even a court decisions in
my favor (a hardware patch to Nintendo.) I'm not a lawyer, BTW. I talk
to some.
the FSF seems to think the answer is false, based on their lawyers opinion
that such patchs are a "sabotage" of the GPL. Until someone forces the FSF
to try and sue about this, the FSF will continue to claim this and to
threat people with such claims (like with RIPEM), and we will never know
who is right. This is why I have suggested that someone (with financial
backing) would provide a proprietary version of Duel, and see what the FSF
does. Email me for details.
-- Michael
ps. I have posted quite a few claims about what the FSF position is,
and I have specifically asked for an offical denial or correction.
Since RMS is clearly reading this group and has not responded, I can
only conclude my claims were correct. Some of these claimed are expressed
again above w/o explicitly saying that they or merely my understanding
of what the FSF position/saying are. If any of it is wrong, please post
corrections!
Ola Rinta-Koski
>
>Sakari> Is financial interest somehow relevant? Hint: "no".
>
>Do you really believe that financial interest is irrelevant for what
>software is produced? Now that Finland had left the soviet union, you
>better start learning something about market economy.
And this from someone from Denmark, another Baltic country. (OK,
just an assumption based on the originating address, but still.)
As sja indicated, Finland has been independent for more than 3/4 of
the century now. Even before that, Finland could hardly be construed
as part of Soviet Union: Soviet Union didn't even EXIST at the time
Finland became independent, just as it does not anymore.
We now return you back to our regular flamefest...
--
FASCINATIN' NEW MEXICO FACT: 2/3 of the seniors graduating from the Wagon
Mound, NM high school in 1988 were named Michelle! By the way, the population
of the village of Wagon Mound is 390 persons. The total number of seniors in
the Class of '88 was 3. Two of them were named Michelle. //o...@vipunen.hut.fi
Sakari Jalovaara
> preferable.
>
> He no doubt supports yours, likewise.
Well, I should hope I could control my temper and not use flame baits
like saying that writing unrestricted software is "wasting one's time".
Other than that, yes; I am strongly in favor of freedom of personal
choice in regard to how a person uses the wealth created by his craft.
Which pretty much sums up why I find GPL objectionable.
++sja
Idle Raffish Hippy Grocer
writes:
> Maybe it is time for the RFSF - the Real Free Software Foundation,
> which will collect under one roof all the PD code and provide a
> measure against the FSF propaganda machine.
My, what an original idea in this newsgroup. Funny, somebody said that
last year too. And, I think, the year before.
Go ahead. The last proposers don't seem to gave got anywhere with it;
perhaps you'll have more luck.
And then a company will come along, take all your code, sell it, improve
it, and bug fix it. And then you can do the same patches yourself
(without their help, of course, so you'll have to reinvent them).
(Perhaps they won't; until there is a group of people who are willing to
try, we'll never know, will we? Richard Stallman had the courage of his
convinctions; it doesn't appear that there is anybody who is willing to
do the same for the `RFSF'.)
Yep, it's a different way of doing things (and equally valid -- I take
nothing away from people who want their code to be PD -- all power to
them); it's just not the way I would want *my* code you be distributed.
Each to their own. You can call yours `really free' and people will say
`but I have to pay for it! and I can't get the source from that company
who is selling it!' And then you'll find that you really shouldn't
use the word `free' at all because lots of people will say it isn't --
even though *you* know what you mean... (The term `PDSF' is probably
more accurate, anyway, for what you are suggesting.)
I use the GPL because it is what *I* want to use -- you can argue
semantics about whether it is free or not, but the fact is that most
people who use the GPL to protect their own code know exactly what they
are doing, and want it done that way. Any implication that people using
the GPL to protect their own code are being fooled is rather insulting
(to me, anyway).
pihl
rodrigo vanegas
> Finally, I call upon GNU to stop distributing PD software like RCS
> under directories and confusing names that might imply to someone
> that the code is GPLed. What is RCS doing under the /gnu/bin on my
> department's filesystem?
> 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!
GNU stands for (GNU's Not Unix) which is an FSF project to implement a
freely redistributable unix clone. The use of the GPL on code written
by the FSF is an instrument to further the ends of freely
redistributable software, an aim which does not fully intersect with
the GNU project. Since the FSF prefers the GPL to putting software in
the PD, much of GNU is in fact GPLed, but when available PD code, which
the FSF deems could be useful to GNU exists, they include it.
The confusion is only yours since all of the GNU software was never
intended to be under the GPL.
rodrigo vanegas
r...@cs.brown.edu
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Sakari" == Sakari Jalovaara <s...@snakemail.hut.fi> writes:
Sakari> Other than that, yes; I am strongly in favor of freedom of personal
Sakari> choice in regard to how a person uses the wealth created by his craft.
Sakari> Which pretty much sums up why I find GPL objectionable.
Please answer the following:
- Do you support my right to release code under the GPL?
- Do you find it objectionable that I release my code in a form that
helps many - but not all - people?
- In general, does helping some people gives one a moral obligation to
help all people?
[ BTW: I wrote the `Soviet Finland' reference because I was offended
by your ``hint: "no"'' line. People from Suomi are often a bit
touchy on that subject :-) ]
Trevor Darrell
>
>With all the whining and griping about the terrible restrictions involved
>in complying with the GPL, I'm reminded of the bumper sticker:
>
>"If you're against abortion, don't have one."
>
>If you're against the GPL, don't take advantage of any GPL restricted code.
>
Your prose nicely evokes the spirit of the free software struggle, but
misses the point. What I want to know is whether FSF is in fact
advocating an interface copyright in LGPL. RMS and LPF have made
statements to the effect that if I write code which can be run using a
LGPL'ed library, I am a thief if I sell my own code, even if it
contains no LGPL code.
I have read what rights are actually granted in the LPGL, and I am
confident that it is in fact perfectly legal to distribute my code in
this case. But it troubles me that the FSF may now attempt to argue
that it is immoral if not illegal, because in doing so they advance
the case for interface copyright, which I strongly oppose both in
doctrinal and moral terms. Does anyone from FSF care to confirm or
deny this position?
Several years ago I considered myself a supporter if not a formal
member of FSF. I have written free software which has been distributed
widely, and advocate and support the activity. But from what I hear
now, it seems that the FSF has gone down an ideological path which
advocates interface copyright so they can amass power in their "war on
software patents". I think they have lost touch, and may be about to
lose a good deal of support. I hope I am wrong.
--tjd
Paul Eggert
>... Finally, I call upon GNU to stop distributing PD software like RCS...
RCS is not now, and never has been, in the public domain.
Geoffrey Clemm
[much morality eduction removed. see the original]
And why does this not surprise me ? (:-)
In article <OZ.93Ju...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> o...@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan S. Yigit) writes:
are you questioning the integrity of those of us who dislike RMSs
methods? Or the authors of RIPEM?
I am questioning the integrity of those who are using the work of others in
ways that directly violate the express wishes of those others.
are you sure you have enough material to question anyone's integrity?
Plenty has been provided in postings to this newsgroup.
Apparently my distinction between "integrity" and "what can I get away with"
has been too subtle for some. I'll give a couple of contrasting examples.
- You wish to take advantage of the work of someone else, and aren't sure
of whether they would like what you are going to do with it. You write to
them, ask them if you could use their work, and follow their wishes.
This is an example of "integrity".
- You wish to take advantage of the work of someone else, and you find out
that they explicitly do not want you to use their work in the way you have
intended. You respond by saying "I don't like how you want your work to be
used, so I will ignore your express wishes because I don't think you
could win if you tried to sue me in court".
This is an example of "what can I get away with".
Cheers,
Geoff
--
ge...@bellcore.com
Garrett Wollman
>Finally, I call upon GNU to stop distributing PD software like RCS
>under directories and confusing names that might imply to someone
>that the code is GPLed.
BZZZZT! Wrong, but thanks for playing...
Excerpts from $CVSROOT/gnu/rcs/src/rcs.c,v:
-------------------------------------------
/* Copyright (C) 1982, 1988, 1989 Walter Tichy
Copyright 1990 by Paul Eggert
Distributed under license by the Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This file is part of RCS.
RCS is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 1, or (at your option)
any later version.
-----------------------------------------
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ...
wol...@emba.uvm.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance.
uvm-gen!wollman | It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people
UVM disagrees. | who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
to...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Organization: Princeton University
From: m...@elan.princeton.edu (Michael Golan)
Sender: gnu-misc-dis...@cis.ohio-state.edu
s...@bcars656.bnr.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:
>Bingo!
>If you don't like GPL, rewrite the code yourself, and let the FSF
>do whatever it wants. The FSF is not forcing anybody to use its
>softwares.
The FSF doesn't force anyone to use GNU code. But it is engaged in
propaganda to fool people into thinking that GNU is the "real free
software" and that using & supporting GNU is better than using
and supporting PD.
To the best of my knowledge, FSF has never engaged in propaganda as
that word is defined and used by most people.
It's sad that Michael Golan finds it necessary to use language like
this in pursuing his goals.
FSF works to be very clear about what it stands for and how it
wishes to accomplish its aims. The GNU Manifesto, the GPL and LGPL,
articles in the GNU's Bulletin, etc. have all been written in a
straightforward upright manner. FSF has invested a lot of time and
energy to do this.
As always, FSF is open to comments on how to improve the way these
documents etc. communicate its goals. Please send them to
g...@prep.ai.mit.edu
thanx -len
Member, League for Programming Freedom. Ask: l...@uunet.uu.net
Craig Burley
Maybe it is time for the RFSF - the Real Free Software Foundation,
which will collect under one roof all the PD code and provide a
measure against the FSF propaganda machine.
Where have you been? It has been "time" for the RFSF for at least 1.5
years, as I recall.
This subject has been beaten to death over and over again, and each
time it is (usually) a new person or persons who claims PD is
better than the GPL, and ends up saying "well, let's create a
RFSF that does PD code". Last I heard, there was a serious attempt
at writing a PD C compiler from scratch, to compete with GCC. I
haven't heard anything since, but writing a C compiler takes quite a
bit of time. (I should know, I'm writing GNU Fortran. :-)
So, please contact the other people so obviously enthusiastic about
creating a RFSF, and get going on writing PD software that proves
PD is better than the GPL! You'll only make things better, not
worse, since the cross-pollination that will result will be quite
beneficial -- and lots of VARs who currently avoid anything called
"free software" because it's generally either PD binary-only
(sourceless) or GNU (source but with GPL restrictions) will be
more than happy to swarm over all the new high-quality PD source-
available software you create, making copyrighted proprietary
executables out of it that you won't be able to maintain yourself.
(But, they'll have the freedom to do that, which is clearly what
you want, and is exactly what many GPL supporters would like
to prevent happening to their code.)
On a related topic, I hardly see it as a swipe against the GPL that
the Manifesto makes claims about "reinventing the wheel" not being
necessary and yet GPL supporters tell PD supporters to just rewrite
code. The whole point of the GPL is that _if_ you buy into the
idea of the GPL, you need _neither_ to reinvent the wheel _nor_ to
pay huge sums of money to make use of free (source-available) code
(or any of its derivatives, such as executables). People who'd
rather have everything be PD obviously haven't bought into the GPL
any more than people who want to have everything be proprietary (and,
interestingly, those two camps support each other somewhat), so
naturally at the "meta-level" of licensing issues, reinvention _is_
necessary.
Yes, the FSF has to use some anti-freedom tactics in their overall
strategy to promote (source-code) freedom. Inevitably, the FSF
might go too far in one direction or another. The cost of being
too permissive is that all the GPL code in existence will end up
being (essentially) PD, which will result in the very things
happening that not only are not desired by rms and his followers,
but which he has already _proven_ WILL happen (by his own
experience). The cost of being too aggressive is that it hurts the
FSF's image as promoting freedom -- but as long as that aggressiveness
is properly within (and understood as) the bounds of protecting
the FSF's own investment in the GPL and GPL'ed software as _source-free_
(and derivative-protected) software, the FSF can at least be said
to be acting within its own interests (including its desires for
making free software widely available, where "free" means "source
available for original and derivatives, including executables", among
other things).
But keep in mind the opposing tactics of those who are against free
(GPL-style) software, especially those who actually prefer totally
proprietary software. Remember, to create proprietary executables,
you can use PD code. Therefore, the availability of high-quality
PD source code can decrease your R&D cost without having to pass _any_
savings on to your consumers (and you don't have to tell them about
the PD origins of any of your products). So, you might be eyeing
GCC, but as its under the GPL, you can't (ab)use it as you wish.
However, any means by which you can convince those who write things
like GCC to instead make their code PD will help you, including such
means as claiming to be in favor of "really free" software and,
ironically, portraying the FSF as "against really free" software because
they attack your public attempts to make PD software available that
uses (or might use) GPL'ed software.
Now obviously there are many who truly, in their hearts, feel PD is
better than the GPL, and wouldn't _ever_ themselves release anything
_other_ than PD source code, probably including most, or all, of
those who in g.m.d object to the GPL.
However, given that once something is PD, there _is_ no author, in
terms of the resulting intellectual market, what difference _is_
there between someone who sincerely prefers PD over the GPL and
thus doesn't like the FSF, and someone who simply makes such a claim
but would turn around and take any and all PD source and make proprietary
executables out of it (plus mods that are hard to reverse-engineer,
of course)? The answer in this context is that there is no difference.
It does not matter whether contributors like myself are convinced to
release source code as PD instead of under the GPL by "true believers"
in PD or by wolves' in sheeps' clothing. If we are so convinced, our
source code _will_ be used (freely) by those who are totally _against_
free software in _any_ context, and are happy to have the free ammunition
(unless our code is next to useless). There is no debate on this point;
it has been proven true, and supporters of PD software clearly admit
it (that's their point of "truly free"; truly free to make totally
unfree derivatives).
So, to other contributors who, like myself, are intending to release
code under the GPL but see recurring threads in g.m.d and elsewhere
telling you to make it PD or you aren't really "freedom-minded", I
suggest you think long and hard about who will _really_ benefit _most_
from having your source code available in the public domain before
you take that step (something that cannot be untaken, unlike placing
it in the GPL and later making it PD, as long as you retain copyright).
--
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) l...@uunet.uu.net
Craig Burley
Other than that, yes; I am strongly in favor of freedom of personal
choice in regard to how a person uses the wealth created by his craft.
Which pretty much sums up why I find GPL objectionable.
The GPL in no way limits how you use the wealth created by your craft.
At least, I cannot find any way in which it does so.
It does have the advantage over distributing one's own code as PD that
one can obtain more wealth by being able to maintain all released
derivatives of said code.
Ozan S. Yigit
So, please contact the other people so obviously enthusiastic about
creating a RFSF, and get going on writing PD software that proves
PD is better than the GPL!
There is no need for RFSF. All one needs to to is to contribute to
efforts similar to BSD, X or whatever else that comes up that does
not create a false dichotomy such as "the bad hoarders vs us". The
results may not be absolutely PD, but close enough while remaining
free and without ideological baggage.
... You'll only make things better, not
worse, since the cross-pollination that will result will be quite
beneficial --
This has been proven already.
oz
Michael Golan
>In article <1993Jul5.0...@Princeton.EDU> m...@elan.Princeton.EDU (Michael Golan) writes:
>But keep in mind the opposing tactics of those who are against free
>(GPL-style) software, especially those who actually prefer totally
>proprietary software. Remember, to create proprietary executables,
>you can use PD code. Therefore, the availability of high-quality
>PD source code can decrease your R&D cost without having to pass _any_
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>savings on to your consumers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You must have not heard of the free market. In the free market, if someone
can make a product for $n but sell it for $m, and m >> n (>> "much bigger",
not shift right :-), someone else can and often does come along and
produce the same $n product but sell it for $k, where m>k>n)
In words: the reduced R&D costs are passed to consumers in a free market.
>It does not matter whether contributors like myself are convinced to
>release source code as PD instead of under the GPL by "true believers"
>in PD or by wolves' in sheeps' clothing. If we are so convinced, our
>source code _will_ be used (freely) by those who are totally _against_
>free software in _any_ context, and are happy to have the free ammunition
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>(unless our code is next to useless). There is no debate on this point;
>it has been proven true, and supporters of PD software clearly admit
^^^^^
>it (that's their point of "truly free"; truly free to make totally
>unfree derivatives).
I am sorry to get the feeling you are treating this as some kind of war.
There is nothing for PD supporters to "admit", PD is designed to help
society in multiple ways, including, when *consumers* find it most useful,
through commercial proprietary software. You fail to understand that
a large pool of PD software, however used, is going to provide better
and cheaper software overall, be it free or not. You also seems to
believe that consumers are idiots - that they will purchase a slightly
modified free software rather than get that free software directly.
The assumptions that consumers are idiots and won't purchase or pursue
their best interests (including the availability of source code), is
a common claim of people who oppose the way the free market operate.
Some even go so far as suggest that all programmers will be hired and
paid only by the government.
PD supporters often take a practical approach. Just because someone could
abuse some of the code some of the time doesn't make the code bad - in the
long run and on the average it will improve things. GPL supporters seems
be engaged in a war between "totally free" and "totally proprietary"
software, fighting for totally free software (and total here means all
useful programs), and loosing sight of the practical public interest.
>So, to other contributors who, like myself, are intending to release
>code under the GPL but see recurring threads in g.m.d and elsewhere
>telling you to make it PD or you aren't really "freedom-minded", I
>suggest you think long and hard about who will _really_ benefit _most_
>from having your source code available in the public domain before
>you take that step (something that cannot be untaken, unlike placing
>it in the GPL and later making it PD, as long as you retain copyright).
I would also suggest that contributors think long and hard why they
are releasing the code in the first place.
If you are releasing code for the BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, you should be
releasing PD code, for in the long run, the public would get the most
benefit of it (even if some private people would make a bundle as a side
effect - even MS, with all the money that they made (and not from PD btw),
have certainly improved the US economy and the availability of cheap
quality software to consumers.)
If you believe that large companies like MS are somehow evil and we should
fight them in a "software war" by creating a wall (an RMS term for GPL) between
freely-available and commercial software, if you believe such a war is
ever win-able, and if you don't mind the ways RMS and FSF are using the
power given to them by the existence of lots of high-quality GPL code,
by all means, release your code under the GPL.
Pat Monardo
>In <1993Jul5.0...@princeton.edu>, Michael Golan <m...@elan.Princeton.EDU>
>writes:
>> Maybe it is time for the RFSF - the Real Free Software Foundation,
>> which will collect under one roof all the PD code and provide a
>> measure against the FSF propaganda machine.
>
>My, what an original idea in this newsgroup. Funny, somebody said that
>last year too. And, I think, the year before.
>
>Go ahead. The last proposers don't seem to gave got anywhere with it;
>perhaps you'll have more luck.
>
>And then a company will come along, take all your code, sell it, improve
>it, and bug fix it. And then you can do the same patches yourself
Exactly! Or turn around and try to sell it to Japan Inc or China Inc.
I am sure there are Hoards of people who would try to be first to
sell any or all software around the world. Hmmm, i get it, FSF represents
the Herds vs the Hoards. RFSF would simply be fodder.
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
Sakari Jalovaara
> And then a company will come along, take all your code, sell it, improve
> it, and bug fix it. And then you can do the same patches yourself
> (without their help, of course, so you'll have to reinvent them).
Sure, this happens. The trick is to recognize that a competitive
version will not make your version disappear (unless, of course,
your version is so bad it can't survive competition. Think of
it as evolution in action.)
I don't mind competition (and I don't mind someone else making money;
I hope they'll buy something really nice for themselves/their families.)
> (Perhaps they won't; until there is a group of people who are willing to
> try, we'll never know, will we?
Ooh, sure we know! The largest examples that come immediately to
mind are BSD UN*X, TeX and X. Two (if memory serves) of the three
are not PD but neither do they "infect" other programmers' code. All
exist in both "free" and "hoarded" (for a lack of a less silly word)
form.
Take your pick; exercise your freedom.
Do you need the enhanced versions? See the classified ads. Want the
free source? It's there. Want enhanced versions? Write them, ask for
$$ for your effort and compete with your excellent programming skills.
Or make them PD and *really* blow away the competition.
According to one theory, it is simply such a *good* thing to have
source code to the programs you use that free software will triumph
in the end. Strangely enough, there is another theory that states
that software needs restirctions of use and bogosities like proprietary
programming interfaces (gmp_mul() or whatever) to survive.
> Each to their own. You can call yours `really free' and people will say
> `but I have to pay for it! and I can't get the source from that company
> who is selling it!'
This doesn't follow. If you assume that a PD program is enhanced and
redistributed (or redistributed unchanged) for financial compensation,
surely that doesn't affect the original free version? Put it out for
FTP; as long as you don't "rm" it it'll be there, assuming it is worth
the disk space.
If someone wants the source, give it to them! If they absolutely need
commercially produced enhancements, tell them to either
- implement them themselves (which is what FSF proponents
sometimes tell people.)
- hire someone (e.g. you) to implement them (which is what FSF
proponents sometimes tell people.)
- accept that what they have is not the PD program (there are
commercial C compilers - whether they use a PD version as
an ancestor or not makes little difference at the end - except
that one using a PD base is likely to be less expensive
due to smaller development cost and increased competition.
And if you want the source, the PD base version will *still*
be there.)
++sja
Sakari Jalovaara
> worse, since the cross-pollination that will result will be quite
> beneficial
Except that with GPL and PD it is one way if the unrestricted
software is to be kept that way. (As far as biology is concerned,
a less pleasant term than "cross-pollination" comes to mind.)
Why should there be a foundation for free software? Free software
has existed a long time without one... (Though there are concortia
and such for individual pieces.)
> [VARs will be] making copyrighted proprietary
> executables out of it that you won't be able to maintain yourself.
Pardo my ignorance, why should I be maintaining someone else's code?
I'll maintain my code, occasionally other unrestricted code and code I
get paid for to maintain. If a "VAR" wants to write a competing, better
product it's up to him.
Not Afraid Of Competition. Freedom, source code availability and
low price (as low as $0) are good competitive arguments, some claim.
> (But, they'll have the freedom to do that, which is clearly what
> you want
Yes! *Hell*, yes!! Not Afraid Of Competition.
If I write a great editor and someone turns it into an even greater
desk-top publishing system, all the power to him! He'll be able to
concentrate on *improving* the fine points of his product instead of
starting from scratch. ("Now what is a good data structure for
inserting characters into a text buffer?")
Heck, if he is freedom-minded, maybe he'll get a job at McDonald's for
money (or bug his daddy for bucks), and write a *free* DTP system.
Or someone else will. Or a third person will write another commercial
version, competing with the first guy - lowering prices and causing
product improvement through competition.
> Remember, to create proprietary executables,
> you can use PD code. Therefore, the availability of high-quality
> PD source code can decrease your R&D cost without having to pass _any_
> savings on to your consumers
You are ignoring that with a sufficiently large unrestricted software
base, *competition* will give savings to consumers. Competition from
both free software and other similar commercial programs.
This of course relies partly on the theory that free software is *good*
for people. So good that they will write it even if not mandated by
legal restrictions. (Such as proprietary programming interfaces or
licenses on libraries/programming tools.)
> (and you don't have to tell them about the PD origins of any of
> your products).
This would indeed be rather uninteresting information to most.
> I suggest you think long and hard about who will _really_ benefit
> _most_ from having your source code available in the public domain
On the long run, the public. Whether they get to use the PD code
as a solid, dependable, well-tested base of commercial software or
as actual PD software products.
It will offer more choice in products, make it easier to produce
high-quality commercial software since there are good building blocks
available and drive cost of production down.
And the PD stuff will still be there; once something is in the PD
it won't become non-PD ever again.
> (something that cannot be untaken, unlike placing
> it in the GPL and later making it PD, as long as you retain copyright).
Sure you can make PD copyrighted! In fact, *anyone* can do it
if they figure it is worth it somehow! Of course, you might have
trouble convincing people to use the B&D stuff since it is available
unrestricted as well.
++sja
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Sakari" == Sakari Jalovaara <s...@snakemail.hut.fi> writes:
Sakari> I don't mind competition (and I don't mind someone else making
Sakari> money; I hope they'll buy something really nice for
Sakari> themselves/their families.)
I agree 100%, and this is the beauty of the GPL. Unlike proprietary
programs, the competition does not need to clone your work first. On
the other hand, unlike public domain software, you do not need to
clone the competitions work either. This makes the GPL the best
choice if you want a strongly competing market.
Sakari> This doesn't follow. If you assume that a PD program is enhanced and
Sakari> redistributed (or redistributed unchanged) for financial compensation,
Sakari> surely that doesn't affect the original free version?
It does negatively effect the development of free variant. A customer
who needs some feature only found in the proprietary variant can now
just buy it, instead of paying someone to enhance the free version.
I don't see any problems with redistributing it unchanged, in that
case you are just selling support.
Stephane Boucher
>Craig Burley writes:
> So, please contact the other people so obviously enthusiastic about
> creating a RFSF, and get going on writing PD software that proves
> PD is better than the GPL!
>There is no need for RFSF. All one needs to to is to contribute to
>efforts similar to BSD, X or whatever else that comes up that does
>not create a false dichotomy such as "the bad hoarders vs us". The
>results may not be absolutely PD, but close enough while remaining
>free and without ideological baggage.
Interestingly enough, 386BSD and BSD/386 are loaded with GNU tools. I
wonder what people are waiting for to replace those unfree tools :-)
--
,
Stephane Boucher Recherche Bell-Northern Research
s...@bnr.ca
[Mes opinions sont les miennes -- My opinions are mine]
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Sakari" == Sakari Jalovaara <s...@snakemail.hut.fi> writes:
Sakari> Except that with GPL and PD it is one way if the unrestricted
Sakari> software is to be kept that way. (As far as biology is concerned,
Sakari> a less pleasant term than "cross-pollination" comes to mind.)
This is simply the fundamental property of public domain software. If
you want to protect your software from parasites (if that is the term
you thought of), you will have to use a more restrictive copyright.
Which is exactly what the GPL is all about.
Sakari> Heck, if he is freedom-minded, maybe he'll get a job at McDonald's for
Sakari> money (or bug his daddy for bucks), and write a *free* DTP system.
Or maybe someone who needs an Emacs based DTP system will pay him to
write one. This beats working for McDonald. However, it is unlikely
to happen if there already exists a `not free but affordable' Emacs
based DTP. In that case, it is back to McDonald.
Much - if not most - free software is written by people who directly
or indirectly get paid to write it. I prefer that to McDonald.
Craig Burley
>But keep in mind the opposing tactics of those who are against free
>(GPL-style) software, especially those who actually prefer totally
>proprietary software. Remember, to create proprietary executables,
>you can use PD code. Therefore, the availability of high-quality
>PD source code can decrease your R&D cost without having to pass _any_
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>savings on to your consumers
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You must have not heard of the free market.
I won't respond further to someone who posts something as plainly
stupid as the above. Suffice to say, I have heard of the free
market, I have some idea of how it works, and I happen to know
that it is neither 100% gaseous or liquid (or a solid for that
matter). Therefore I stand behind my statement ("quoted" by all
those up-arrows), and leave it to readers to decide whether history
has already shown that the statement is plainly true. (It is.
Oftentimes "your consumers" has, in the proprietary software market,
included captive customers.)
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]
Craig Burley
Craig Burley writes:
So, please contact the other people so obviously enthusiastic about
creating a RFSF, and get going on writing PD software that proves
PD is better than the GPL!
There is no need for RFSF. All one needs to to is to contribute to
efforts similar to BSD, X or whatever else that comes up that does
not create a false dichotomy such as "the bad hoarders vs us". The
results may not be absolutely PD, but close enough while remaining
free and without ideological baggage.
[I skipped this post the first time, but realize I should have
responded to it:]
PLEASE understand that I have no desire to create a "false dichotomy",
especially between PD and GPL _contributors_. I do believe a
major dichotomy exists between those who freely distribute source code
and those who don't, but it is hardly a false one that needs creating
(simply ask Bill Gates or almost anyone earning $$ selling proprietary
software why they don't ship executables and loosen their copying
restrictions, and see how far you get across this dichotomy).
But if someone wants to put his/her _own_ code into PD, _fine_ by me
I say, though they should realize it'll (hopefully, if it's good
enough) get turned into proprietary derived versions they can't
maintain. Similarly, if someone wants to put his/her _own_ code under
the GPL, _fine_ as well, though obviously they have to understand
the implications (countless accusations that their code is "not really
free", therefore they didn't really intend to do any "public good",
blah blah blah).
What I happen to know for myself is that, RIGHT NOW, THIS MINUTE, there
are many corporations spending _real_ $$ doing development (bug-fixing
and enhancing) of GPL software whereby the results of their development
will be directly usable by _all_ of us. I don't know that any such
equivalent thing is going on for PD source-available software. So,
since I value the contributions (whether volunteered or funded) by
anyone, corporate, private, or whatever, I choose the GPL for my
own software.
This does _not_ mean that I'm _against_ people releasing PD software --
in fact, I'm all for it! -- just that I have a problem with people
calling _me_ all kinds of names (implicitly) in their tirades against
those of us who write GPL'ed software.
For the most part: IF YOU CAN'T USE GPL SOFTWARE, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM,
NOT THE AUTHOR'S. Stop blaming us -- we aren't blaming the authors
of PD software for the fact that, for most copies of
originals+derivatives of that software, the source code is
completely unavailable (at least, I'm not, and we shouldn't be in
general).
Craig Burley
> [a really free software foundation would] make things better, not
> worse, since the cross-pollination that will result will be quite
> beneficial
Except that with GPL and PD it is one way if the unrestricted
software is to be kept that way. (As far as biology is concerned,
a less pleasant term than "cross-pollination" comes to mind.)
I was thinking of cross-pollination not as copying so much as learning
from and reimplementing, which is possible between source-available
worlds. For example, this has been happening between 386BSD and Linux,
from what I can tell.
In terms of copying, it is indeed easier for GPL software to directly
copy from PD than the other way around (well, the other way around
is essentially legally impossible).
Why should there be a foundation for free software? Free software
has existed a long time without one... (Though there are concortia
and such for individual pieces.)
Why should there be a government organization "for the people"? I think
part of the answer is that the FSF helps serve as a central point for
trafficking in free software -- identifying it, contributing to it,
buying it, and even selling it. The PD market has been generally less
focused. That is perhaps a big reason why PD sources haven't had
penetrated and fanned out to the extent that GPL sources have; though
of course direct comparisons are difficult, and people apparently
tend to choose the comparisons based on the outcomes they prefer.
> [VARs will be] making copyrighted proprietary
> executables out of it that you won't be able to maintain yourself.
Pardo my ignorance, why should I be maintaining someone else's code?
Well, they've distributed a derivative of your code, and you can't maintain
(or feasibly recreate) that code. That's what I'm referring to.
I'll maintain my code, occasionally other unrestricted code and code I
get paid for to maintain. If a "VAR" wants to write a competing, better
product it's up to him.
Not Afraid Of Competition. Freedom, source code availability and
low price (as low as $0) are good competitive arguments, some claim.
Indeed. And Even Less Afraid Of Competition is someone who locks
his customers into using proprietary file formats engineered by
sticking a small amount of proprietary code onto a largish PD
source package, and marketting it very aggressively. Of course, "let
the buyer beware" is a valid response to that (one with which I'm
very familiar and of which I'm quite fond), but one of the main
goals of the FSF is to educate the market to the fact that freely
(source-)available software _is_ worth looking into.
The fact is, you can't capture customers with proprietary data formats
and user interfaces implementing by GPL'ed software, whereas you
can do so with PD'ed software.
My point is not whether _you_ personally will do this, but that if
your PD sources are of sufficient quality, someone else _will_, and
not only take away a potentially large portion of the market for
your PD product, but lock them in as well. (I use this "lock-in"
stuff as an example, one of the more odious things proprietary
software developers can do to take advantage of PD software,
but not the only thing.)
> (But, they'll have the freedom to do that, which is clearly what
> you want
Yes! *Hell*, yes!! Not Afraid Of Competition.
If I write a great editor and someone turns it into an even greater
desk-top publishing system, all the power to him! He'll be able to
concentrate on *improving* the fine points of his product instead of
starting from scratch. ("Now what is a good data structure for
inserting characters into a text buffer?")
The GPL encourages that as well, unless "someone" is unwilling to
make it possible for you, the author of the great editor, and
any others (of whom you're "Not Afraid"), to maintain and
enhance the great editor in the context of the greater desk-top
publishing system, and make sure others using the great editor can
get improvements "someone" made to it to make it an appropriate
component of the desk-top publishing system.
Heck, if he is freedom-minded, maybe he'll get a job at McDonald's for
money (or bug his daddy for bucks), and write a *free* DTP system.
Or someone else will. Or a third person will write another commercial
version, competing with the first guy - lowering prices and causing
product improvement through competition.
Or maybe he'll invest his money, write the free DTP system, and expect
to earn an overall profit by selling his consulting skills maintaining
and enhancing said free DTP system.
Hmm, wonder how many people are doing _that_ for PD-source-available
systems? I sure wouldn't. But there are those doing it for GPL'ed
systems, because they at least know they'll always be able to offer
their skills to maintain their own code (derivatives of their
GPL'ed code will be source-available under the GPL).
> Remember, to create proprietary executables,
> you can use PD code. Therefore, the availability of high-quality
> PD source code can decrease your R&D cost without having to pass _any_
> savings on to your consumers
You are ignoring that with a sufficiently large unrestricted software
base, *competition* will give savings to consumers. Competition from
both free software and other similar commercial programs.
You are ignoring the fact that the market isn't sufficiently fluid
for that, and that companies have already proven the veracity of
my statement. Sure, competition is an important component of
the system -- else free software wouldn't fly in the first place --
but my points stand:
- It is trivially easy to choke competition by releasing software
under proprietary licenses
- It is trivially easy to make PD source-available software into
proprietary software
Neither of the above points stand when substituting GPL'ed software
for either proprietary _or_ PD software. I don't really need to
discuss this further, I guess, since history has already shown it is
true.
> (and you don't have to tell them about the PD origins of any of
> your products).
This would indeed be rather uninteresting information to most.
I disagree. I think a primary goal of the FSF, and certainly one of
my main goals, is to convince the market that free source-available
software is a primary consideration in evaluating any product
containing computer software, for a variety of reasons.
> I suggest you think long and hard about who will _really_ benefit
> _most_ from having your source code available in the public domain
On the long run, the public. Whether they get to use the PD code
as a solid, dependable, well-tested base of commercial software or
as actual PD software products.
It doesn't appear, at least to me, to be the case that PD code has
served as a more solid, dependable, well-tested base of commercial
software than GPL code, when realizing that GPL code started being
created only a few years ago.
In the meantime, it is certainly clear that PD code has existing far
longer than GPL code, and, despite this, the FSF and the GPL (and its
code base) has taken the industry by storm (and surprise), especially
compared to the forecasts made years ago by naysayers.
At the very least, it seems to be the case that there are people who,
like myself, are willing to contribute GPL code but not PD code, and
that by itself makes the GPL more attractive (if true) unless there
are, conversely, more people willing to contribute PD code than GPL
code (assuming we are all equal as programmers etc.).
It will offer more choice in products, make it easier to produce
high-quality commercial software since there are good building blocks
available and drive cost of production down.
The GPL has all those advantages as well.
Keep in mind that PD offers advantages over GPL _only_ to those whose
release mechanisms ultimately involve organizations or people who
don't believe in the economic viability of free software _at all_.
> (something that cannot be untaken, unlike placing
> it in the GPL and later making it PD, as long as you retain copyright).
Sure you can make PD copyrighted! In fact, *anyone* can do it
if they figure it is worth it somehow! Of course, you might have
trouble convincing people to use the B&D stuff since it is available
unrestricted as well.
I mean that if I release my GNU Fortran sources as PD, I cannot
revoke people's right to make totally proprietary, executable-only
derivatives that use proprietary file formats, run on a particular kind of
machine and operating system, that I cannot maintain or enhance.
Especially with GNU Fortran (which I'm doing as a volunteer, not as
a means to earn income), if you could convince me that the sources would
be _more_ widely available if they were released as PD than as the GPL,
and be subject to _more_ publically available (PD/GPL) bug-fixed and
enhancements, I'd be happy to release them (my portion of them) as PD.
But nobody has even come close to convincing me of this in any of the
endless arguments I've seen in g.m.d. My experience, and the experiences
of others I've known, has shown the opposite to be true -- that, for a
given useful set of sources, releasing via the GPL ultimately results in
more public availability of bug-fixed and enhanced versions of the
sources than releasing as PD.
Ozan S. Yigit
Interestingly enough, 386BSD and BSD/386 are loaded with GNU tools.
Interestingly enough, they only borrow the technology, not the ideology,
for the latter is evidently disposable. :-]
oz
Ozan S. Yigit
... just that I have a problem with people
calling _me_ all kinds of names (implicitly) in their tirades against
those of us who write GPL'ed software.
Likewise, I have a serious problem with people who claim that those
of us who support PD or quasi-PD software are "pacifists, who would
let rapists and murderers go free". (rms/1992)
For the most part: IF YOU CAN'T USE GPL SOFTWARE, IT'S YOUR PROBLEM,
NOT THE AUTHOR'S. ...
this response has nothing to with any postings I made in the past
or recent. I use GPLed software, I do not care for its source nor
its features, and just as often, I merely dispose of it, as I can
often find a replacement just as useful.
oz
Michael Golan
>>>>>> "Sakari" == Sakari Jalovaara <s...@snakemail.hut.fi> writes:
>Sakari> I don't mind competition (and I don't mind someone else making
>Sakari> money; I hope they'll buy something really nice for
>Sakari> themselves/their families.)
>I agree 100%, and this is the beauty of the GPL. Unlike proprietary
>programs, the competition does not need to clone your work first. On
>the other hand, unlike public domain software, you do not need to
>clone the competitions work either. This makes the GPL the best
>choice if you want a strongly competing market.
Your argument sounds nice until you get to the punch line. There is
no strong competing market for GPL-only software.
(before you give me some minor competition examples, check with
your local economist what a strong competing market usually means.
Show me sale prices, special deals, advertising, etc., for GPL code.)
While the GPL allows me to sell copies, it eliminates my ability
to protect my intellectual property by controlling copies. And
the existing competing market is based on such control, like it or not.
Maybe in the future GPL code could provide the best choice for
a stongly competing market. Right now it is clearly PD code that
does that.
-- Michael
>Sakari> This doesn't follow. If you assume that a PD program is enhanced and
>Sakari> redistributed (or redistributed unchanged) for financial compensation,
>Sakari> surely that doesn't affect the original free version?
>It does negatively effect the development of free variant. A customer
>who needs some feature only found in the proprietary variant can now
>just buy it, instead of paying someone to enhance the free version.
>I don't see any problems with redistributing it unchanged, in that
>case you are just selling support.