what DOES the GPL really say?
Richard Kenner
[I've changed the newsgroup from gnu.gcc, which doesn't exist, to
gnu.misc.discuss, which is the proper newsgroup to discuss the GPL.]
In article <33B014...@no.such.com> Spam Hater <no.suc...@no.such.com> writes:
>HOWEVER, several people have said on Usenet or in direct e-mail
>that I can use GPL'd source code in my project and still retain
>full rights (actually my employer's rights) on the rest of the code.
Since you are getting into what is probably the trickiest part of
the GPL, we need to be very precise here.
Here I'm assuming "use GPL'd source code" means to create a single
work that contains both your code and GPL code, not something like
using a GPL'd tool such as emacs or gcc to compile you program.
In that case, you can indeed do as the people suggested: there is no
problem in *creating* such a work, to which both the GPL applies and
to which you retain full rights to your own code.
>So, if any part of my program contains any part (or derivation of)
>their program, I have two choices:
>1. Distribute my program "as a whole" under the terms of the GPL
>2. Don't distribute my program.
That's correct and exactly the status of the resulting work. If you
want to continue to view your code as proprietary, then you have two
different copyright terms for pieces of the code and the only way to
satisfy both is not to distribute the work at all.
>(If you play with my ball, you play by my rules.)
>
>I am sympathetic to the goals of the Free Software Foundation, but I
>think that--by trying too hard to coerce other people to make
>software "free"--the above paragraph is counter-productive to those
>goals. It forces me to re-invent things just so my employers can
>say they own them.
That may be, but the whole point is that people have spent
considerable amount of time, usually without any compensation, to
create the GPL'd code in question. They are doing this because they
want to help the public in general and don't want their work to be
used to help somebody else do something that is against their
philosophy. This does not seem particularly unreasonable to me.
Wes Groleau
Richard Kenner wrote:
>
> [I've changed the newsgroup from gnu.gcc, which doesn't exist, to
> gnu.misc.discuss, which is the proper newsgroup to discuss the GPL.]
>
> >HOWEVER, several people have said on Usenet or in direct e-mail
> >rest of the code.
>
> problem in *creating* such a work, to which both the GPL applies and
> to which you retain full rights to your own code.
>
> >So, if any part of my program contains any part (or derivation of)
> >their program, I have two choices:
> >1. Distribute my program "as a whole" under the terms of the GPL
> >2. Don't distribute my program.
>
> That's correct and exactly the status of the resulting work. If you
> different copyright terms for pieces of the code and the only way to
> satisfy both is not to distribute the work at all.
However, that is not what people have been telling me. Several times
I have been reprimanded for saying I cannot incorporate a particular
bit of code due to the GPL.
> >I am sympathetic to the goals of the Free Software Foundation, but I
> >think that--by trying too hard to coerce other people to make
> >software "free"--the above paragraph is counter-productive to those
> >goals. It forces me to re-invent things just so my employers can
> >say they own them.
>
> That may be, but the whole point is that people have spent
> considerable amount of time, usually without any compensation, to
> create the GPL'd code in question. They are doing this because they
> want to help the public in general and don't want their work to be
> used to help somebody else do something that is against their
> philosophy. This does not seem particularly unreasonable to me.
It does not seem unreasonable to me either. But David Weller's
approach, and the GNAT approach are far more helpful in that they
allow me to actually use the code, not just look at it. Call me
(adjective) if you want for cooperating with software hoarders,
but I tilt at bigger windmills.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be
wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com
Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or
the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith
%% Wes Groleau <no.suc...@no.such.com> writes:
>> >So, if any part of my program contains any part (or derivation of)
>> >their program, I have two choices:
>> >1. Distribute my program "as a whole" under the terms of the GPL
>> >2. Don't distribute my program.
>> That's correct and exactly the status of the resulting work.
wg> However, that is not what people have been telling me. Several times
wg> I have been reprimanded for saying I cannot incorporate a particular
wg> bit of code due to the GPL.
Without knowing the details of what you said and the replies you
received it's impossible to comment directly.
However, we all know that there are plenty of not-so-knowledgeable
people using the 'Net who think (or at least like to pretend) that they
are otherwise :).
That being said, there are a few things which could change the basic
status outlined above. For example, if the code was under the LGPL
instead of the GPL, there're whole new avenues opened to you.
Also, if you weren't careful in describing exactly how you wanted to
utilize the GPL'd code, or what you meant by "contains", above, some
might have misinterpreted it.
Although the fundamental case is stated pretty clearly in this thread, I
think, if you still aren't sure exactly how the GPL applies to your
situation you can post explicit details of what you want to do, or you
could email RMS directly and ask him what he thinks.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psm...@baynetworks.com> Network Management Development
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions--Bay Networks takes no responsibility for them.
Don Bashford
Wes Groleau writes:
> I am sympathetic to the goals of the Free Software Foundation, but I
> think that--by trying too hard to coerce other people to make
> software "free"--the above paragraph is counter-productive to those
> goals. It forces me to re-invent things just so my employers can
> say they own them.
Why do you think that helping you to create things in such a way that
your "employers can say they own them" is productive toward the goals
of the Free Software Foundation?
Don Bashford
bash...@scripps.edu
David Kastrup
ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
@> [I've changed the newsgroup from gnu.gcc, which doesn't exist, to
@> gnu.misc.discuss, which is the proper newsgroup to discuss the GPL.]
@>
@> In article <33B014...@no.such.com> Spam Hater <no.suc...@no.such.com> writes:
@> >So, if any part of my program contains any part (or derivation of)
@> >their program, I have two choices:
@> >1. Distribute my program "as a whole" under the terms of the GPL
@> >2. Don't distribute my program.
@>
@> That's correct and exactly the status of the resulting work. If you
@> want to continue to view your code as proprietary, then you have two
@> different copyright terms for pieces of the code and the only way to
@> satisfy both is not to distribute the work at all.
@>
@> >(If you play with my ball, you play by my rules.)
@> >
@> >I am sympathetic to the goals of the Free Software Foundation, but I
@> >think that--by trying too hard to coerce other people to make
@> >software "free"--the above paragraph is counter-productive to those
@> >goals. It forces me to re-invent things just so my employers can
@> >say they own them.
@>
@> That may be, but the whole point is that people have spent
@> considerable amount of time, usually without any compensation, to
@> create the GPL'd code in question. They are doing this because they
@> want to help the public in general and don't want their work to be
@> used to help somebody else do something that is against their
@> philosophy. This does not seem particularly unreasonable to me.
Much more important: it avoids that some firm creates an own version
of, say, the GNU C compiler with just a few bugs fixed and sells that
without source. Another does the same, only fixes other bugs. There
is no chance to have all bugs fixed, and if you use the free version,
you'll get an inferior version (no bugs fixed) of the same software.
In short, you get the same mess as with commercial software, even
though things started with a GPL program.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
David Kastrup
Don Bashford <bash...@gage.scripps.edu> writes:
> Wes Groleau writes:
>
> > I am sympathetic to the goals of the Free Software Foundation, but I
> > think that--by trying too hard to coerce other people to make
> > software "free"--the above paragraph is counter-productive to those
> > goals. It forces me to re-invent things just so my employers can
> > say they own them.
>
> Why do you think that helping you to create things in such a way that
> your "employers can say they own them" is productive toward the goals
> of the Free Software Foundation?
I guess he thinks that the Free Software Foundation strives to have
its software *used* on as many platforms as possible, instead of
having as much software as possible freely *available*. In short,
that the FSF is an ego-pleasing corporation instead of one with
ideals.
Robert Dewar
Wes says
<<However, that is not what people have been telling me. Several times
I have been reprimanded for saying I cannot incorporate a particular
bit of code due to the GPL.
>>
Huh? This is like saying you have been reprimanded for refusing to make
an illicit copy of proprietary software. Whoever is doing the reprimanding
here is either incompetent, or does not mind if their company violates
copyrights. What possible misconception would lead this reprimander to
be so free in assuming you should violate copyright restrictions. Pretty odd!
<<It does not seem unreasonable to me either. But David Weller's
approach, and the GNAT approach are far more helpful in that they
allow me to actually use the code, not just look at it. Call me
(adjective) if you want for cooperating with software hoarders,
but I tilt at bigger windmills.
>>
GNAT is not special here, other gcc compilers take the same viewpoint, and
for example the g++ library has a similar statement (not quite identical,
since we added language to specifically allow generic instantiations --
probably templates give rise to the same issue in the C case, but we wanted
things to be quite clear in the GNAT case).
Note however that this *only* applies to the runtime of GNAT, it does NOT
apply to GNAT units in the compiler. The example I gave was a tool that
needed to use the GNAT scanner, it would be a violation of copyright to
build and distribute such a tool (incorporating scn.adb) without following
the GPL rules.
So if you are simply using GNAT to generate programs, everything is fine, a
and the GPL does not stand in your way.
If you want to build and distribute tools that make use of parts of the
GNAT compiler itself that are covered by the normal GPL, you must abide
by the restrictions.
Robert Dewar
<<It does not seem unreasonable to me either. But David Weller's
approach, and the GNAT approach are far more helpful in that they
allow me to actually use the code, not just look at it. Call me
(adjective) if you want for cooperating with software hoarders,
but I tilt at bigger windmills.
>>
I am not sure what you mean by Dave Weller's approach. If this
"approach" is consistent with the legal requirements of the GPL
fine. Otherwise, it is definitely NOT fine. In particular, the
viewpoint of Dave's anonymous emailers is definitely suspect.
The issue is one of distribution, it is OK to do anything internally
with GPL'ed stuff (which is analogous to the right to make your
own censored copy of a Hollywood movie). It is NOT OK to distribute
something without following the GPL rules (analogous to not being
able to distribute or sell your censored version of the movie).
Wes Groleau
> I am not sure what you mean by Dave Weller's approach. If this
> "approach" is consistent with the legal requirements of the GPL
Perhaps I am confusing David Weller and David Wheeler. I am referring
to the Ada Community License--much shorter than the GPL, just as clear
if not clearer, and which does not impose its terms on other code by
association. It is completely independent of the GPL--unless of course
you try to mix GPL code with ACL code. :-)
Wes Groleau
> <<However, that is not what people have been telling me. Several
> times I have been reprimanded for saying I cannot incorporate a
> particular bit of code due to the GPL.
>
> Huh? This is like saying you have been reprimanded for refusing to
> make an illicit copy of proprietary software. Whoever is doing the
> reprimanding here is either incompetent, or does not mind if their
> Pretty odd!
I was referring to the many times people (via Usenet or e-mail) have
told me I know nothing about the GPL after I put GPL's paragraph 2.b
into my own words.
A recent example (this was PRIOR to the c.l.a thread on stack traces)
was the suggestion that I use code from gdb to get a stack trace when
detecting an error.
Samuel Mize
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> <<It does not seem unreasonable to me either. But David Weller's
> approach, and the GNAT approach are far more helpful in that they
> allow me to actually use the code, not just look at it. Call me
> (adjective) if you want for cooperating with software hoarders,
> but I tilt at bigger windmills.
> >>
>
It is the "Ada Community License," entirely separate from the GPL.
He is NOT attempting to apply it to GPL'd code, but is using it
for items built and released by him (notably the Booch components).
It is based on the Perl "artistic license," and provides more
copying/modification freedom.
It is described under:
http://www.rivatech.com/booch/index.html
Sam Mize
--
-- Samuel Mize (817) 619-8622 sm...@link.com "Team Ada"
-- Hughes Training Inc. PO Box 6171 m/s 400, Arlington TX 76005
Samuel Mize
[quotations reformatted for line length]
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> Wes says
>
> <<However, that is not what people have been telling me.
> Several times I have been reprimanded for saying I cannot
> incorporate a particular bit of code due to the GPL.
> >>
>
> Huh? This is like saying you have been reprimanded for refusing to
> make an illicit copy of proprietary software. Whoever is doing the
> reprimanding here is either incompetent, or does not mind if their
> company violates copyrights.
I believe that he's saying that people on the net have reprimanded
him (carped at him) for saying the GLP doesn't allow him to
incorporate GPL'd source code. "Of course you can incorporate it,"
they say, "you just have to follow the rules about distributing it."
However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
product. So, since he can't distribute it appropriately, he says
he can't incorporate it.
But some people go into a religious frenzy if you say you "can't"
incorporate GPL'd code into your product. You CAN, they say, but
your company CHOOSES not to because of the distribution requirement.
However, company decisions are constraints on what we engineers
can do. I can't change the brand of computer we use; I can't
write Lisp or Forth code for our systems; I can't incorporate
GPL'd code. At least, I can't do so and still be doing the job
they're paying me to do.
For that matter, you CAN make an illicit copy of proprietary
software, too, and some people claim to be striking a blow for
intellectual freedom by using a stolen copy of Excel. I disagree.
Wes Groleau
> I believe that he's saying that people on the net have reprimanded
> incorporate GPL'd source code. "Of course you can incorporate it,"
> they say, "you just have to follow the rules about distributing it."
That's what they should have said. Instead it's more like, "Of
course you can use it. You should actually read the GPL before
deciding what it says."
> However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
> product. So, since he can't distribute it appropriately, he says
> he can't incorporate it.
Almost. It's not so much trying to "hide" the source; it's more
preserving the right to hide it in the future :-)
I suspect they'd even be willing to tell the customer (they get
a copy of the source) "The files ..., ..., and ... are covered
by the GPL. The file ... is used by permission of UCB under the
terms in file .... All others are copyright by us as stated in
file headers." But GPL 2.b does not allow that, at least not if
"contain" means what I think it means.
RMS, FSF, GNU, whover, can restrict their code any way they want.
I don't fault them for promoting their goals. But as Samuel says:
> However, company decisions are constraints on what we engineers
> can do. ..... I can't incorporate
> GPL'd code. At least, I can't do so and still be doing the job
> they're paying me to do.
--
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG
Samuel Mize <sm...@link.com> writes:
> However, company decisions are constraints on what we engineers
> can do. I can't change the brand of computer we use; I can't
> write Lisp or Forth code for our systems; I can't incorporate
> GPL'd code. At least, I can't do so and still be doing the job
> they're paying me to do.
What you mean is "I choose not to incorporate GPL'd code into my work
so that I can make more money". This might be a rational choice; but
it is a choice, not anything forced upon you.
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG
Samuel Mize <sm...@link.com> writes:
> However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
> product. So, since he can't distribute it appropriately, he says
> he can't incorporate it.
> But some people go into a religious frenzy if you say you "can't"
> incorporate GPL'd code into your product. You CAN, they say, but
> your company CHOOSES not to because of the distribution requirement.
That's the absolutely correct response.
People tend to box themselves in, and then say "I can't do X" or "I
must do X". But when the restriction is only there because of a prior
choice to box themselves in, they should not say "can't" or "must" in
these contexts. They should say "I chose box A, and X, which comes
along with A."
People forget that, in general, they *chosse* who to work for--they
*choose* to have children--they *choose* to drive a car, etc.
Nearly every time I hear someone say "can't" or "must" they are
talking about something which they have actually chosen, and want to
avoid (internal or external) criticism about their choice.
Thomas
Roy T. Fielding
>Perhaps I am confusing David Weller and David Wheeler. I am referring
>to the Ada Community License--much shorter than the GPL, just as clear
>if not clearer, and which does not impose its terms on other code by
>association. It is completely independent of the GPL--unless of course
>you try to mix GPL code with ACL code. :-)
Which is exactly my problem. I am a free software developer without the
attitude problem (witness wwwstat, MOMspider, libwww-perl, Apache, etc.).
Traditionally, I have used either the UC (Berkeley) license or the
Artistic License to distribute my source code, because I actually *want*
to see commercial providers reuse it (with acknowledgement).
I am working on a project that needs an Ada95 binding to sockets, and I
happen to know that there is one enmeshed within the DSA code of Garlic
(the guts of GLADE, which is distributed under the GPL). I could very
easily extract that code and distribute it with my project's source,
but in doing so I'd infect my better-than-GPL free source code
with the GPL virus. Unless the GLADE folks can be convinced to use the
Ada Community License, which is just the Artistic License updated to
refer to Ada libraries instead of C and perl, then the best I could
do is create a separate Garlic-lite package with GPL terms,
distribute the two packages separately (which wastes my time), and
inform third-parties that they'll have to write their own sockets binding
if they want to use my library without distributing their own source.
The question for the GLADE developers is why are you distributing under
the GPL? Is it really your intention to prevent proprietary use of
the GNAT Distributed Systems Annex? If not, then LGPL is more appropriate,
though even the LGPL has some bone-headed provisions.
If you just want to receive credit for your work, and don't have the
attitude that all derivatives must be LGPL/GPL'd, then just use the
Ada Community License. Your project will be much more useful to others,
and more successful in the long run.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fiel...@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425 fax:+1(714)824-1715
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Richard Kenner
In article <33B13B...@no.such.com> Wes Groleau <no.suc...@no.such.com> writes:
>However, that is not what people have been telling me. Several times
>I have been reprimanded for saying I cannot incorporate a particular
>bit of code due to the GPL.
That may be correct. It depends what you plan *to do* with the work
in question. There's no restriction on actually creating derived work
(they're wrong about that), but the resulting work cannot be
distributed to anybody. Since that's likely what the intent was,
they are correct in that case.
Wes Groleau
> > However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
> > product. So, since he can't distribute it appropriately, he says
> > he can't incorporate it.
> Nearly every time I hear someone say "can't" or "must" they are
> talking about something which they have actually chosen, and want to
> avoid (internal or external) criticism about their choice.
It makes no difference whether I say "I choose not" or "I can't"
with the implication "not if I keep this job" The issues here are:
1. I was trying to meet a set of requirements. One of those
requirements was incompatible with the GPL. Saying "yes you can"
is the same as saying "no that's not a requirement." and doesn't
help me meet that requirement.
2. Saying "no the GPL doesn't say that" is even less helpful, because
it's not true.
3. Saying, "you're not really looking for advice, you're making
excuses for not getting the job done..." is the most peculiar
response of all. _If_ I make excuses, I make them to my boss,
not to comp.lang.ada !!!!
Russ Allbery
Tim Pierce <twpierc...@mail.bsd.uchicago.edu> writes:
> Roy T. Fielding <fiel...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu> wrote:
>> I am a free software developer without the attitude problem...
>> ... I'd infect my better-than-GPL free source code with the GPL virus.
>> ... though even the LGPL has some bone-headed provisions.
> I have to say that, although I know a lot of people who prefer the GPL
> to the exclusion of any other free software licensing terms, I have
> never known one to openly disparage other licensing philosophies,
> especially in such vitriolic terms.
RMS certainly doesn't sound *anything* like this, despite his problems
with some other licensing agreements. He's quite willing to work with
other licensing schemes, even if they aren't ideal, to promote the overall
cause of free software.
(I personally have released code under all three of the major free
software licenses, GPL, BSD, and Artistic. I tend to prefer the GPL
except for Perl code, which I release under the same terms as Perl itself
under the belief that Larry Wall has done so much for the Internet and
free software in general that he deserves the respect inherent in
releasing software written in his programming language under the terms of
his choice.)
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <URL:http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Robert Dewar
<<The question for the GLADE developers is why are you distributing under
the GPL? Is it really your intention to prevent proprietary use of
the GNAT Distributed Systems Annex? If not, then LGPL is more appropriate,
>>
Right now, the public releases of GLADE are for general exploratory use,
and are not intended for incorporation into proprietary code. The intention
is that in future there will be releases of GLADE which use the modified
GPL in appropriate contexts. No public release policy has been established
for GLADE yet (which is a quite separate product from GNAT).
Robert Dewar
Wes says
<<1. I was trying to meet a set of requirements. One of those
requirements was incompatible with the GPL. Saying "yes you can"
is the same as saying "no that's not a requirement." and doesn't
help me meet that requirement.
>>
This is still an odd way of saying things ("incompatible with the GPL")
The proper viewpoint is the following.
I am writing a program
I could simplify my job if I could use this code
However, this code is copyrighted
I do not have permission to copy the code
Therefore I cannot use it
The fact that the code is GPL'ed is entirely irrelevant to this scenario.
As with any copyrighted code, if you want to use it in a given context,
you have to ask permission of the copyright holder. If the copyright
holder is FSF or Microsoft, the answer may well be no, the copyright
holder is under no obligation to let you use their copyrighted code.
If the GPL allows you do do something with a particular copy of some
code, fine, but if it does not, then you are in the same boat as you
would be with any copyrighted code. You need to go to the copyright
holder and see if you can get their permission for your intended use.
Note that the holder of the copyright may always give you MORE permission
than the GPL allows, the GPL gives certain permissions to everyone other
than the copyright holder. But the holder can do anything they like.
Now it is true in practice that if the holder is FSF, they are pretty
unlikely to give you permission for a usage that is inconsistent with
the GPL, but who knows there could be some circumstances in which it
would seem appropriate (I think allowing Wes to use it in proprietary
software that his company intends to hoard is likely NOT one of these
circumstances :-)
Robert Dewar
Roy said
<<>... I'd infect my better-than-GPL free source code>>
Whether something is better or worse depends on the context.
The fundamental principle behind the GPL is to ensure that a technology
remains freely available as it is developed. These so called "better"
licenses allow the following scenario:
a) you develop a product and freely distribute it
b) company X improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
c) company Y improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
Now, not only is the product no longer freely available in its enhanced
form, but worse, NO ONE is in a position to combine the improvements that
have been made. Imagine in the GNAT case if we suddenly had multiple
versions of GNAT around, all proprietary with various improvements.
This is a totally unacceptable scenario to us. Any license scheme that
permits it is definitely not "better" in our view, it is severely and
fatally flawed. The licensing provisions you chose to use are up to you,
and depending on your goals and aims, it may well be that something oyther
than the GPL is better for you, but to make the claim that it is univerally
better indicates a significant misunderstanding of the fundamental
goals of the GPL.
Indeed, the GPL is designed to place the absolute minimum restrictions
that achieve a guarantee that the scenario above cannot occur.
Robert Dewar
> However, company decisions are constraints on what we engineers
> GPL'd code. At least, I can't do so and still be doing the job
> they're paying me to do.
Indeed you cannot incorporate *any* copyrighted code in your code without
permission of the copyright holder. The GPL acts as a general set of
permissions to do certain things, but you can no more incorporate GPL'ed
code into your code without meeting the GPL conditions than you can
incorporate copyrighted Microsoft code into your code without permission!
Both actions would be violations of copyright.
On the other hand, as I repeatedly note, it is definitely the case that
GNAT runtime code with the modified GPL that explicitly expands the
permissions of what you can do with this copyrighted code is another
issue entirely.
Just as a typical propietary compiler contains runtime code, but is delivered
to you with a license that allows you to use this copyrighted runtime code in
your own applications, the modified GPL provides exactly the same permission
to use GNAT runtime code in your applications.
Yes, you may want your lawyers to check out the modified GPL to make sure
that it meets your requirements, just as you may want to have your lawyer
check the runtime license for your proprietary compiler to make sure that
it meets your requirements. In practice, this checking out process is
typically easier with the modified GPL, since it goes out of its way
to confer maximum rights, and minimal restrictions, whereas many commercial
runtime licenses are very much more restrictive (e.g. they may forbid any
user of the product incorporating the runtime code from doing reverse
engineering on these components).
Leslie Mikesell
In article <sz0iuz1...@sugar-bombs.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <tho...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> However, company decisions are constraints on what we engineers
>> GPL'd code. At least, I can't do so and still be doing the job
>> they're paying me to do.
>
>so that I can make more money". This might be a rational choice; but
>it is a choice, not anything forced upon you.
The only choice is to do the work or not. If the work requires using
other code that is under incompatible copyright restrictions, then
incorporating GPL'd code is not one of the possible choices.
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Leslie Mikesell
In article <dewar.867380646@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Roy said
>
><<>... I'd infect my better-than-GPL free source code>>
>
>Whether something is better or worse depends on the context.
>
>The fundamental principle behind the GPL is to ensure that a technology
>remains freely available as it is developed. These so called "better"
>licenses allow the following scenario:
>
>a) you develop a product and freely distribute it
>
>b) company X improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
>
>c) company Y improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
>
>Now, not only is the product no longer freely available in its enhanced
>form, but worse, NO ONE is in a position to combine the improvements that
>have been made. Imagine in the GNAT case if we suddenly had multiple
>versions of GNAT around, all proprietary with various improvements.
>This is a totally unacceptable scenario to us.
Yes, having a choice of improved products would be almost as bad
as having a choice of colors when you buy a car. Can't let anything
like that happen...
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
kdp...@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de
Wes Groleau <no.suc...@does.not.exist.com> writes:
> > However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
> > product. So, since he can't distribute it appropriately, he says
> > he can't incorporate it.
>
> Almost. It's not so much trying to "hide" the source; it's more
> preserving the right to hide it in the future :-)
> I suspect they'd even be willing to tell the customer (they get
> a copy of the source) "The files ..., ..., and ... are covered
> by the GPL. The file ... is used by permission of UCB under the
> terms in file .... All others are copyright by us as stated in
> file headers." But GPL 2.b does not allow that, at least not if
> "contain" means what I think it means.
That's what the LGPL is for.
-Andi
David Kastrup
l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> In article <dewar.867380646@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
> >Roy said
> >
> ><<>... I'd infect my better-than-GPL free source code>>
> >
> >The fundamental principle behind the GPL is to ensure that a technology
> >remains freely available as it is developed. These so called "better"
> >licenses allow the following scenario:
> >
> >a) you develop a product and freely distribute it
> >
> >b) company X improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
> >
> >c) company Y improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
> >
> >Now, not only is the product no longer freely available in its enhanced
> >form, but worse, NO ONE is in a position to combine the improvements that
> >have been made. Imagine in the GNAT case if we suddenly had multiple
> >versions of GNAT around, all proprietary with various improvements.
>
> >This is a totally unacceptable scenario to us.
>
> Yes, having a choice of improved products would be almost as bad
> as having a choice of colors when you buy a car. Can't let anything
> like that happen...
What you demand is that if you want to have a Mercedes car in
slimy-pink, and Mercedes is not going to provide it to you, that
Mercedes should be compelled to deliver the construction plans of
their cars without any restrictions on their use to anybody willing to
build slimy-pink Mercedesses because you don't want two coats of
colour.
Get real. If you want a car of your own colour with just one
slimy-pink coat then go to Mercedes and try to get a square deal for
getting a car without paint on it instead of complaining that they
don't hand you the construction plans for free.
The GPL is the license that is on the distribution of the code you see
on the net. If this license does not suit you because it restricts
the possibilities of making money for you, apply at the copyright
holder for a copy under a different license. If you insist on wanting
to sell proprietary versions for the purpose of making money, you
should well be aware that you'll probably not get a license permitting
that for no price.
David Weller
In article <5ousck$6...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu>,
>attitude that all derivatives must be LGPL/GPL'd, then just use the
>Ada Community License. Your project will be much more useful to others,
>and more successful in the long run.
>
Well, I don't know about the "more successful" part -- that depends on
how good the software is anyway :-)
I've been following this thread for a little bit, and I'd like to toss
in my opinion (what th' heck, right?). The significant difference
between the GPL and the ACL is much like the difference between
capitalism and communism*. The GPL assumes all users are sinners, and
takes the approach of requiring the users to affirm, by usage of
GPL'ed code, that they will not unfairly exploit the free software
they are taking advantage of. There's all sorts of legal stuff in
there that basically prevents people from exploiting various
loopholes. The ACL is a more open approach, assuming that people will
not unfairly exploit the software under looser "guidelines" (well, not
really "guidelines", but certainly less onerous than the GPL's terms).
The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing
terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this
comparison) the GPL and the ACL.
Certainly one can say that the ACL muddies the waters, but, being a
Perl fanatic that I also am (sorry, Brian! :-), I've seen the Perl
Artistic License used quite successfully -- without all the "baggage"
of something like the GPL.
One final comment: I think the GPL and the LGPL have their place in
our profession. I also would like to think that you could use GPL'ed
code in _any_ situation, but in the "grey" areas, you need to write to
the author to get a statement on whether your intended usage falls
within what the perceive to be the licensing terms. Obviously, that's
more difficult with "multi-source" software like GCC. Just remember
that the GNU licenses are designed to prohibit unscrupulous profiting
of other people's work. If you don't think you are, and the GNU
licenses interfere, there's also no reason why you can't plead with
the author(s) to modify the terms of their license -- that's perfectly
legal.
*Of course, there's the "other" saying that says: In capitalism, man
exploits man. In communism, it's just the opposite :-)
Stephen Leake
Wes Groleau wrote:
>
> > > However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
> > > he can't incorporate it.
>
> > Nearly every time I hear someone say "can't" or "must" they are
> > talking about something which they have actually chosen, and want to
> > avoid (internal or external) criticism about their choice.
>
> It makes no difference whether I say "I choose not" or "I can't"
> with the implication "not if I keep this job" The issues here are:
>
> requirements was incompatible with the GPL. Saying "yes you can"
> is the same as saying "no that's not a requirement." and doesn't
> help me meet that requirement.
It is often useful to question whether the requirement that is giving
you a problem is real. I suspect you did question it, and the answer was
that it is real, but in many situations, it turns out it is not real.
--
- Stephe
Mark Atwood
l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> Yes, having a choice of improved products would be almost as bad
> as having a choice of colors when you buy a car. Can't let anything
> like that happen...
Especially when our desire is to have *all* the colors available with
all the other options.
In your apparently prefered way to do it, we could get Forest Green
*OR* Leather Interiors, but not both...
--
Mark Atwood | Against stupidity, the Gods themselves,
z...@ampersand.com | Contend in vain.
Robert Dewar
Roy Fielding asks
<<The question for the GLADE developers is why are you distributing under
the GPL? Is it really your intention to prevent proprietary use of
the GNAT Distributed Systems Annex? If not, then LGPL is more appropriate,
though even the LGPL has some bone-headed provisions.
>>
I just checked the most recent public release, and it is simply
misinformation to say that GLADE is distributed under the GPL. All
units of GLADE are distributed under the modified GPL that allows
free use (this modified GPL is far more permissive than the more
restrictive LGPL).
What exactly is your problem? Are you just assuming that the GLADE
components are under the GPL without checking?
Samuel Mize
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG wrote:
>
> Samuel Mize <sm...@link.com> writes:
>
> > However, his company refuses to distribute the sources for their
> > product. So, since he can't distribute it appropriately, he says
> > he can't incorporate it.
>
> > incorporate GPL'd code into your product. You CAN, they say, but
> > your company CHOOSES not to because of the distribution requirement.
>
> That's the absolutely correct response.
It's meaningless. He's doing a specific task assigned by a
company. The task is "build this program, in this language,
on this platform." He can't change the constraints on his own.
One of those constraints is to avoid GPL'd code.
And in the end, he *can't* incorporate GPL'd code into the
product because the company will fire him and strip it out
if he tries.
> People forget that, in general, they *chosse* who to work for--they
> *choose* to have children--they *choose* to drive a car, etc.
>
> Nearly every time I hear someone say "can't" or "must" they are
> talking about something which they have actually chosen, and want to
> avoid (internal or external) criticism about their choice.
All we're saying is that, having chosen to work for an employer
who won't release the product under the GPL, he can't use legally
use GPL'd code.
If you were to say that he's working for unprincipled people and
should quit, it would at least have meaning. Saying that he "can"
use GPL'd code does not.
> Thomas
Samuel Mize
Samuel Mize
Robert Dewar wrote:
>
> > However, company decisions are constraints on what we engineers
> > GPL'd code. At least, I can't do so and still be doing the job
> > they're paying me to do.
> On the other hand, as I repeatedly note, it is definitely the case that
> GNAT runtime code with the modified GPL that explicitly expands the
> permissions of what you can do with this copyrighted code is another
> issue entirely.
Yes. It is another issue entirely. I don't believe that Wes
ever mentioned the GNAT runtime or the modified GPL.
Samuel Mize
Robert Dewar
Dave says
<<I've been following this thread for a little bit, and I'd like to toss
in my opinion (what th' heck, right?). The significant difference
between the GPL and the ACL is much like the difference between
capitalism and communism*. The GPL assumes all users are sinners, and
takes the approach of requiring the users to affirm, by usage of
GPL'ed code, that they will not unfairly exploit the free software
they are taking advantage of. There's all sorts of legal stuff in
>>
This is complete nonsense, and frankly I am a little surprised at the
level of misunderstanding (I would have thought Dave understood the
philosophy behind the GPL better).
The business about the GPL assuming all users are sinners is fanciful
stuff, but bears no relation to reality.
The real point is a purely pragmatic one. Most people think of public
domain software as being software that anyone can do anything with.
Yes, indeed they can, they can make a minor modification, or even just
reformat the code, and then copyright the result and make it proprietary.
Why does this bother us? Because of some philosophical concern about
what is right and wrong in the software world? Because we want to be
sure to get proper credit for our work? Becuase we do not want people
to unfairly profit from what we do?
NONE OF THE ABOVE!
The concern is purely pragmatic. We are writing software that we want
to be available to the general comunity and *stay available to the
general community*. It is the stay available that is the concern.
Suppose the government had not insisted on GNAT being under the GPL, and
instead the NYU team placed it under the less restrictive, supposedly
freer ACL.
Now, when the contract ended, sure enough the version of GNAT available
at that time (1.something???) would be available to everyone.
But Ada Core Technologies could have then taken that version, and
developed it as a purely proprietary product and charged whatever
they liked for it.
The big value of a product like GNAT is precisely that it remains open
to general use. Commercialization of this kind would have complete
undermined one of the important purposes of GNAT, which was to provide
a high quality Ada 95 compiler, available to the general academic
community with sources, and which would continue to be available.
Sure, in theory, someone else could take the 1.xx versoin and develop
it independently, but that is an unlikely scenario. We have over and over
again seen freely available academic products turn into proprietary
products that are no longer freely available.
We thought it was important to ensure that this could not happen with GNAT,
and so did the government, which is why it insisted on the use of the GPL.
Going back to the Booch components, Dave is of course free to choose any
approach he likes for his work, but in practice the only difference between
the ACL and the use of a broadened GPL such as is used by GNAT is that
it makes it possible for someone to produce a proprietary version of
these components based on Dave's work.
I personally think that having a freely available version of the Ada 95
form of the components is a tremendous advantage to tthe Ada community.
If some company takes this and commecializes it so that a few years from
now you have a situation where the only really usable version is a
proprietary version that you have to pay for and cannot get full source
access, then we have lost something valuable.
That's why I think it is unfortunate to use the ACL instead of the modified
GPL for such projects, it seems freer, but can very easily lead to much
less freedom.
Note another scenario which is even worse.
Suppose the GNU components which along with Linus' kernel make up the
GNU-based Linux system had been written under something analogous to
the ACL.
Today we have three companies competing in the support of Linux, but all
the changes an improvements they make are available to one another and
to the entire Linux community.
If the GPL had not been used, we might see three divergent versions of
Linux, all proprietary, with competing features. The tremendous value
of Linux and the original GNU vision would be essentially lost, and we
would have just a few more incomaptible miscellaneous Unix versions around.
THe whole point of the GPL is entirely pragmatic. The idea is to make
as much software as possible as freely available as possible, because this
free availability benefits users.
I gave a talk at the Ada Europe Conference on why free software was of
tremendous importance in building reliable systems. The key point here is
that you cannot afford to build reliable systems on top of black box
layers of operating systems, real time kernels, and Ada runtime systems
for which you have no access to the sources, or only limited access to
the sources. For high reliability code, you need total control.
Note that if it were really true that the only point behind the GPL were
the kind of philosophical issues that Dave refers to, then obviousoly there
would be no such thing as the modified GPL or the LGPL. The idea of allowing
this modification is precisely to make it possible to create proprietary
tools using GNU compilers.
Now, why would the FSF encourage that? Simple, the argument is pragmatic.
if we encourage everyone to use free software compilers and systems, then
more resources will be available to improve and support these compilers
and systems, and these improvements benefit all users.
Yes, obviously from the user community point of view, it would be desirable
if the software being produced were freely available rather than proprietary,
but it is important to understand that the issue here is a pragmatic one,
not purely a philosphical one.
The idea of free software is to promote an environment in which the
computing community can get its job done more effectively. The tremendous
success of Linux shows that this idea can be a powerful one. More and more
people are switching to using Linux, not because they want to join some
polictical movement, but because it is the best technical tool for the job!
Robert dewar
Ada Core Technologies
Barry Margolin
In article <dewar.867380646@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Now, not only is the product no longer freely available in its enhanced
>form, but worse, NO ONE is in a position to combine the improvements that
>have been made. Imagine in the GNAT case if we suddenly had multiple
>versions of GNAT around, all proprietary with various improvements.
>Indeed, the GPL is designed to place the absolute minimum restrictions
>that achieve a guarantee that the scenario above cannot occur.
Actually, I don't think proliferation of versions is the problem the GPL is
trying to prevent. What it's trying to do is maximize the number of users
who have access to the source code of the tools they use, because RMS
believes that source code availability is one of the best ways to ensure
that software is of high quality -- if something has a misfeature, someone
with the ability to fix it is likely to do so. The first reason given in
the "Why All Computer Users Will Benefit" section of the GNU Manifesto is:
Once gnu is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software
free, just like air.
One of the corollaries of this is that it's easy to combine improvements
(either the person who makes an improvement chooses to share it with the
originator, or the originator manages to get a copy and does the merge
himself), so incompatible versions are reduced as a side effect.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@bbnplanet.com
BBN Corporation, Cambridge, MA
Support the anti-spam movement; see <http://www.cauce.org/>
Robert Dewar
Richard said
<<First of all, the exception being referred to is an exception to the
LGPL, not the GPL. Secondly, it did not originate with ACT, but was
used in the small set of run-time functions used in GCC.
>>
That's not correct, it is an exception to the GPL (at least in the case
of GNAT), and in addition, the wording is NOT copied from the run-time
functions used in GCC, because it spefcifically handles generics. Here
once again is the wording of this exception (which is an exception to
the standard GPL paragraph. In fact here they both are together:
-- GNAT is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Soft- --
-- ware Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later ver- --
-- sion. GNAT is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITH- --
-- OUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY --
-- or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License --
-- for more details. You should have received a copy of the GNU General --
-- Public License distributed with GNAT; see file COPYING. If not, write --
-- to the Free Software Foundation, 59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, --
-- MA 02111-1307, USA. --
-- --
-- As a special exception, if other files instantiate generics from this --
-- unit, or you link this unit with other files to produce an executable, --
-- this unit does not by itself cause the resulting executable to be --
-- covered by the GNU General Public License. This exception does not --
-- however invalidate any other reasons why the executable file might be --
-- covered by the GNU Public License. --
Ronald Cole
David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> I guess he thinks that the Free Software Foundation strives to have
> its software *used* on as many platforms as possible, instead of
> having as much software as possible freely *available*. In short,
> that the FSF is an ego-pleasing corporation instead of one with
> ideals.
If the FSF really strives to have as much software as possible freely
*available*, then the GPL is not a vehicle that will get them there.
There is no obligation to make what you receive *available*. There
isn't even an obligation to make *available* to others that to which
you make available to some. There is only an obligation to make
source available to each individual you give a binary to.
The FSF may have ideals; but by using the GPL, they aren't exactly the
ideals embodied by Stallman's "Golden Rule".
--
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ron...@ridgenet.net> Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152
My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43 56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B
Ronald Cole
ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
> That may be, but the whole point is that people have spent
> considerable amount of time, usually without any compensation, to
> create the GPL'd code in question. They are doing this because they
> want to help the public in general and don't want their work to be
> used to help somebody else do something that is against their
> philosophy. This does not seem particularly unreasonable to me.
If that philosopy is the "Golden Rule" (Kantian) as espoused by
Stallman in his GNU Manifesto, then the GPL isn't for you. Stallman,
for some reason, has watered its spirit down considerably for the GPL.
I'd recommend that you find some other license agreement that would
prevent someone from enhancing your code and then engaging in the
following exercise of the "letter of the law":
From: de...@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
To: de...@gnat.com, ron...@ridgecrest.ca.us
Cc: r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: please set me straight...
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 97 18:02:23 EDT
<<By releasing 3.10 to your customers, you have "distributed" it within
the meaning of the GPL.
>>
Yes, anmd the people we have distributed it to have access to the sources
since they are distributed with the binaries. In fact the announcement
of availability to this group specifically notes that the sources are
available with the binaries.
But just because we distribute the binaries to person X does not mean we
havbe to distroibute them to person Y, that is your confusion. The only
requirement of the GPL is that when we distribute the system to person
X we do it right, which we are doing.
<<Robert, under Richard's above clarification of the GPL, I respectfully
submit my request for the 3.10 sources, which you described as "the
current product release", that most of your HPUX customers have
switched to.
>>
We have not distributed anythying to you (Ronald COle), therefore we
do not owe you anything under the GPL.
Richard Kenner
In article <5p0eum$1293$1...@prime.imagin.net> dwe...@news.imagin.net (David Weller) writes:
>The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing
>terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this
>comparison) the GPL and the ACL.
First of all, the exception being referred to is an exception to the
LGPL, not the GPL. Secondly, it did not originate with ACT, but was
used in the small set of run-time functions used in GCC.
>Obviously, that's more difficult with "multi-source" software like GCC.
GCC is not "multi-source". All code to be included in GCC must have
its copyright transferred to the FSF.
Now, it is indeed true that the person who assigns code to the FSF
retains some rights that nobody else does, but that raises a whole
different set of complex issues, which I think would just muddy the
waters yet further and has, so far as I know, never been invoked.
Richard Kenner
In article <5p1s2l$2a2$1...@news.nyu.edu> ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes:
>In article <5p0eum$1293$1...@prime.imagin.net> dwe...@news.imagin.net (David Weller) writes:
>>The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing
>>terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this
>>comparison) the GPL and the ACL.
>
>First of all, the exception being referred to is an exception to the
>LGPL, not the GPL.
Oops! As should have been obvious, since I was making a *correction*
to the original statement, I meant to say that it was an exception to
the GPL, not the LGPL, as was claimed.
Robert Dewar
Sam says, talking about Wes
<<It's meaningless. He's doing a specific task assigned by a
company. The task is "build this program, in this language,
on this platform." He can't change the constraints on his own.
One of those constraints is to avoid GPL'd code.
And in the end, he *can't* incorporate GPL'd code into the
product because the company will fire him and strip it out
if he tries.
>>
Notice that I think this entire discussion is academic, and can in practice
be left moot. Wes has not given any indication of a specific example where
the fact that code is under the GPL has in fact been a problem to him. It
would be interesting to see this example, if indeed one exists.
Robert Dewar
Ronald Cole said
<<I'd recommend that you find some other license agreement that would
prevent someone from enhancing your code and then engaging in the
following exercise of the "letter of the law":
>>
Ronald complains that Richard Stallman has watered down things in the GPL
and that it does not place sufficient restrictions on people (an uncommon
complaint, the opposite of the usual one). Like many people, Ronald
started this thread under the incorrect impression that the GPL forces
you to distribute code if you make modifications.
One can imagine such a license agreement, but I don't think it would be
workable in practice, how can you force someone to distribute something?
You could also have a license that said if you distributed it to anyone
you must distribute it to everyone, but that seems equally unworkable
in practice.
I am not sure that either of these would be an iomprovement from any point
of view, since they would remove too much personal freedom. if you pick
something up off the net with sources, the whole idea is that you can
fiddle freely with it for your own use. Saying that you had to distribute
it to the world if you modified it would place an intolerable burden and
for many people be equivalent to saying you cannot modify it.
Similarly, if you want to give your friend what you have done, the GPL
makes you give your friend the source on request, but certainly does NOT
mean you have to undertake the burden of general distribution.
Of course what Ronald COle wants is that we should be forced to give him
whatever we do as soon as we do it. Sorry, the GPL does not require this,
and it is not something that is going to happen. (By the way, if you are
a bit confused by his quoted text, it is from personal email that he is
reposting without the full context -- the full context was messages from
Richard Stallman confirming that Ronald's attempted interpretation of the
GPL was mistaken).
Anyway, here is how we do things at ACT, just so it is clear to people.
There are three kinds of versions of GNAT
First. The public versions. We only make versions public when they have been
in reasonably wide use for a while, so that any problems with installation,
or any other serious problems that have crept by our own procedures are
minimized. These public versions are always distributed *with* sources.
We package the objects and sources separately, since so many people want
to pick up only the objects, and the net does not have infinite bandwidth.
All mirror sites should always pick up both the objects and sources, so that
the sources are always available to anyone getting the objects.
Second. Interim releases for customers. These are fully tested internally
using the ACVC suite, our own regression suite, and also more recently the
DEC test suite (or rather selections from it that are relevant to
implementations other than the VMS one -- the VMS implementations of course
use the whole DEC test suite). They are clearly not widely used when we
first release them, but they are fully supported. Many of our customers move
to these releases pretty rapidly, since they contain new features and new
bug fixes that are perceived as being worth the possible disruption of moving
to a new release. It is these interim releases which eventually later on
become public releases. Like the public releases, we release these with
sources, so that any customer obtaining the objects can also obtain the
sources. These are distributed via the GNAT FTP site, and are not available
from us to other than our customers. It is one of these releases that
Ronald has been demanding that we send him, but he will have to wait until
it is publicly released to get it from us (or become a customer).
Third. Wavefront releases. We make these available to customers on a need
basis (the typical situation is that a new feature or bug fix is urgent
enough that some specific customer is willing to switch to the latest
development version that has the needed feature of fix). These versions
have also been run through the ACVC tests and regression tests, but do
not have the level of internal use or confidence that we have in interim
releases. Furthermore, we expect them to be replaced by the next interim
release, and do not guarantee long term support for the wavefront releases.
These wavefront releases are distributed using option (b) in the GPL. That
is we provide objects only, with an offer to provide the sources on CD ROM
for a copying charge.
I certainly understand that Ronald would like to get everything we do
free as soon as we do it, but it is not the way we work. In fact we do
not think it would be helpful for the Ada community if there were a new
public version of GNAT three times a week, it would end up causing huge
confusion and version chaos.
The current version situation with GNAT is as follows
Latest public release: 3.09 for most targets. A notable exception is DOS,
where the latest public release is 3.07. There currently is no working
3.09 for DOS. There was a problem with tasking (having to do with the
changes we made to separate out a non-tasking version of delay, which in
retrospect was a mistake). We are hoping to remedy this and create a
DOS 3.10, but we are not committing to this!
latest interim customer release: 3.10a. This is in use at many sites,
and has been verified as being in good shape by a number of critical
customers including SGI and OIS (who has the latest version of their
products working with 3.10a now). So it seems in pretty good shape.
We expect a 3.10b fairly soon which will have very extensive improvements
to the debugging capabilities of GDB.
A public release of 3.10 will probably be based on 3.10b. We do not
have a definite schedule for this release yet.
Robert Dewar
Richard said
<<Richard said
<<First of all, the exception being referred to is an exception to the
LGPL, not the GPL. Secondly, it did not originate with ACT, but was
used in the small set of run-time functions used in GCC.
>>
which confused me because it seemed exactly wrong. I just talked to him,
and he confirmed that he got LGPL and GPL the wrong way round in that
first sentence :-)
Also his point on the exception originating with GCC was that the *idea*
of such an exception does indeed originate there.
Olivier Galibert
In article <dewar.867497844@merv>, Robert Dewar wrote:
>[...]
>There are three kinds of versions of GNAT
>
>
>Third. Wavefront releases. [...]
>These wavefront releases are distributed using option (b) in the GPL. That
>is we provide objects only, with an offer to provide the sources on CD ROM
>for a copying charge.
Option (b) says :
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,
i.e., this says "any third party". This includes Richard Cole, doesn't it ?
OG.
Roy T. Fielding
In <dewar.867438815@merv> de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>I just checked the most recent public release, and it is simply
>misinformation to say that GLADE is distributed under the GPL. All
>units of GLADE are distributed under the modified GPL that allows
>free use (this modified GPL is far more permissive than the more
>restrictive LGPL).
Version 1.02 (the one that was "the most recent" last week -- I haven't
had a chance to see if there is a newer one) contains the GPL without
any modifications or exceptions. Can you point me to a release that
contains something different? If the license has changed since 1.02,
then life will be much easier.
>What exactly is your problem? Are you just assuming that the GLADE
>components are under the GPL without checking?
No. What is your problem, Robert? Personally, I find your attitude,
and the policies of ACT regarding hidden releases and non-public
patches, to be a considerable hindrance to the development of free
software for the Ada95 community. Compared to free software projects
like Apache and Linux, ACT's *paid* support is miserable. And I *am*
a paid customer. If you guys would just release the software and
provide a decent problem-report database, then the bugs would be
discovered and fixed faster, and people would have a lot more *fun*
being part of the community. As it is, you guys are just getting
in the way.
...Roy T. Fielding
Department of Information & Computer Science (fiel...@ics.uci.edu)
University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3425 fax:+1(714)824-1715
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/
Robert Dewar
I said
<<Also, note that actually the release that Ronald Cole wanted was 3.10a,
which is offered under scheme (a), i.e. the sources are distributed
with the binaries, not under scheme (b) which we only use for
wavefronts. Wavefronts are distributed on a very limited basis by us,
we do not even make them generally available to customers. We only
make them available selectively when it is absolutely necessary to fix
a particular customer problem.
>>
Actually 3.10a is a very good example of why we hold off on making public
releases. One of the new features in 3.10a is a more accurate treatment
of delay statements and other details of the tasking implemen
tation. This works fine, but has a side effect that the tasking runtime
is always loaded for almost all non-tasking programs.
Now this does not affect our customers in general, since nearly all of
them are using tasking in any case, or at any rate are building very large
programs where this is not a major factor.
However, we we know from many posts in this group, keeping student type
program executables small is pretty critical for a lot of the users of
the public version.
Consequently, we consider fixing this a prerequisite for the public release,
and indeed when 3.10 is released publicly, it will fix this problem. The fix
is not trivial, but we see it as important enough of an issue to hold the
public release for.
Robert Dewar
Ada Core Technologies
And now back to work, it so happens that I am busy working on precisely
this problem right now, as well as getting better debugging support in
place using gdb (we are very close to having gdb in Ada mode have 100%
knowledge about Ada data structures, including packed arrays, variant
records, variable length components depending on discriminants etc).
us...@yellow.submarine.pla
In article <dewar.867380006@merv>, Robert Dewar wrote:
>This is still an odd way of saying things ("incompatible with the GPL")
>
>The proper viewpoint is the following.
>
>I am writing a program
>I could simplify my job if I could use this code
>However, this code is copyrighted
>I do not have permission to copy the code
>Therefore I cannot use it
>
>
Seems pretty simple when expressed that way. I think an obstacle to
adopting this view point is that the GPL'd code seems to be right in
your face mocking you! Nobody seems to have the same problem with
say Windows95 source code that they'll never see anyway.
Isaac
David Kastrup
fiel...@kiwi.ics.uci.edu (Roy T. Fielding) writes:
> software for the Ada95 community. Compared to free software projects
> like Apache and Linux, ACT's *paid* support is miserable. And I *am*
> a paid customer.
Well, if you are actually *paid* as a customer, you should not
complain. Sounds like a pretty enviable position to me.
Robert Dewar
user@yellow says
<<Seems pretty simple when expressed that way. I think an obstacle to
adopting this view point is that the GPL'd code seems to be right in
your face mocking you! Nobody seems to have the same problem with
say Windows95 source code that they'll never see anyway.
>>
If the GPL code seems to "mock" you in this case, it can only be because
you do not understand the intention or the legal details of the GPL.
Whenever you contemplate making use of someone else's code in your own,
it is your responsibility to understand the legal requirements for doing
this without violating copyright.
It is certainly true that a lot of the perceived difficulties with the
GPL come from misunderstandings, which is why this thread is useful
in sorting out some of these misunderstandings.
us...@yellow.submarine.pla
In article <dewar.867587841@merv>, Robert Dewar wrote:
>If the GPL code seems to "mock" you in this case, it can only be because
>you do not understand the intention or the legal details of the GPL.
>Whenever you contemplate making use of someone else's code in your own,
>it is your responsibility to understand the legal requirements for doing
>this without violating copyright.
>
>It is certainly true that a lot of the perceived difficulties with the
>GPL come from misunderstandings, which is why this thread is useful
>in sorting out some of these misunderstandings.
>
the easy availability of the source code is what causes people to overlook
the normally obvious legal implications of using someone else's code.
Isaac
Stefan Monnier
Wow ! That sounds mighty interesting !
How did you manage to get into such a desirable situation ?
Stefan
Robert Dewar
Isaac says
<<I agree and my use of the word "mock" was merely meant to point out that
the easy availability of the source code is what causes people to overlook
the normally obvious legal implications of using someone else's code.
>>
That's probably true. it is interesting that the mainframe world is
very different from the PC or Unix worlds here. It is very common for
mainframe application code to be delivered with source code, allowing
customization -- but the users of such code are very aware that what
they can do with this source code is quite limited ....
In a way the term "copyleft" has tended to cloud the issue as well. I have
heard people say things like "Oh that code is not copyrighted, it is
copyleft code". Even people who should know better make mistakes. Recently
the European Space Agency issued a tender in which they listed GNAT and
other GNU tools as "public domain". (they have received a polite but firm
letter insisting that they correct this incorrect categorization!)
Robert Dewar
Roy Fielding says
<<Version 1.02 (the one that was "the most recent" last week -- I haven't
had a chance to see if there is a newer one) contains the GPL without
any modifications or exceptions. Can you point me to a release that
contains something different? If the license has changed since 1.02,
then life will be much easier.
>>
Since it is always worrisome when someone claims a slipup of this
magnitude, I double checked.
I chedcked the 1.02 release of GLADE which is the current public release.
If you have the actual sources that we initially distributed to the
net, and which corresponded to what I found at the site I looked at,
the Garlic sources are definitely using the modified GPL. The gnatdist
directory is using the regular GPL, as expected, and the ada directory has
some sources using modified GPL and some using GPL as appropriate.
If you do not see this in your version, then somehow it has been corrupted.
This is hard to believe, but always possible, we have no control over
versions of GNAT and GLADE outside ACT. The only way to be absolutely sure
that you have the version we distribute is to get it from us. But in
practice although discrepancies are possible in theory, we have never seen
them really occur.
Finally, if your problem is that you want a version of gnatdist that is
not covered by the GPL. It is a little surprising to me that anyone would
need this (unless they were planning on producing a proprietary version
of gnatdist, something we definitely want to prevent). It is double
surprising that someone at a university would need this.
If anyone *does* have a case in which the licensing seems to prevent doing
something that you think we would consider reasonable, then you should
contact us to discuss the matter. So far, the only case in which we have seen
the issue of the GPL come up is in the context of two other Ada compiler
vendors who were interested in using the GNAT front end with their proprietary
back ends.
The outcome in these two cases is that, told that they could not do that, one
vendor decided to use another front end, the other decided to use GNAT and
make their back end and tool chain all GPL'ed.
The former outcome does not bother us one bit. The latter outcome is very
pleasing, and means that there will be more free software available to the
Ada community.
Ronald Cole
de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
> complaint, the opposite of the usual one). Like many people, Ronald
> started this thread under the incorrect impression that the GPL forces
> you to distribute code if you make modifications.
Not exactly true. My complaint is that once you distribute to
person-A, the GPL permits you to say "no" to requests from persons-B,
-C, -D, ad nausium. Have you forgotten what it was Stallman wrote to
both of us? I'll repeat it, since it bears repeating:
Thus, there's no requirement to make a public announcement of a source
release to accompany the binary release, but you may have to provide
the sources to any number of people other than those who got the
binary directly from you, if they request it.
Clearly, if this is Stallman's intention, he failed to embody it
within the GPL. I hope I can convince Richard to remedy this.
Kai Henningsen
twpierc...@mail.bsd.uchicago.edu (Tim Pierce) wrote on 27.06.97 in <ECGIp...@midway.uchicago.edu>:
> I don't think this is a meaningless perspective at all.
> Profit-making companies can and do write, modify, and distribute
> software under a variety of free licenses, including the dreaded
> GPL. Just ask Walnut Creek or Cygnus. It's important to keep in
> mind that the decision to use GPL is just that, a *decision*, and
> not some sort of papal decree that isn't subject to discussion.
A papal decree is just that, a *decision*. Only natural laws aren't
subject to discussion, and papal decrees seem to be discussed heavily even
among catholics.
> You're right that it's not fair to blame one employee for a
> decision that's effectively out of his powers. But I think it's
> also important not to fall into the mindset that people, or
> companies, can't choose to write free software if they so desire.
Another important thing to keep in mind is that people can choose whatever
they want (no, companies can't - company decision makers can, but those
are people), but that doesn't say anything about consequences. Writing
free software may work out, or it may not. There's no natural law that
says it will. I hope to see the world change so it will work out more and
more often, but I can't say I'm very optimistic for the short term.
And since, for most people, the freedom to make decisions that lead to
personal disaster is not included in their definition of freedom, you get
them saying "I can't do that". It's just like saying "I can't go further"
when standing on top of the cliff - sure it's a decision, but would you
really say "I choose not to step over the edge" - or "I can't go further"?
Kai
--
Internet: k...@khms.westfalen.de
Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
Kai Henningsen
de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote on 26.06.97 in <dewar.867380006@merv>:
> Wes says
>
> <<1. I was trying to meet a set of requirements. One of those
> requirements was incompatible with the GPL. Saying "yes you can"
> is the same as saying "no that's not a requirement." and doesn't
> help me meet that requirement.
> >>
>
> This is still an odd way of saying things ("incompatible with the GPL")
>
> The proper viewpoint is the following.
>
> I am writing a program
> I could simplify my job if I could use this code
> However, this code is copyrighted
> I do not have permission to copy the code
> Therefore I cannot use it
How about a compromise solution?
"The GPL doesn't allow me to use the code in this specific context."
Because that's what the GPL does, allowing people to use the code in
specific contexts.
(The GPL does not forbid any use. The copyright laws forbid (most) use
unless the copyright owner allows them, and the GPL is what does the
allowing with GPL'd code. Without the GPL (or another license), nearly any
use would be illegal.) (Nearly? Yes, nearly. Some uses are allowed by law.
Read the law, or ask an intellectual property lawyer. IANAL, so I'll only
provide the pointer.)
Just to be clear: I assume that Robert understands this, but some other
people seem to have trouble with this concept.
> Note that the holder of the copyright may always give you MORE permission
> than the GPL allows, the GPL gives certain permissions to everyone other
> than the copyright holder. But the holder can do anything they like.
>
> Now it is true in practice that if the holder is FSF, they are pretty
> unlikely to give you permission for a usage that is inconsistent with
> the GPL, but who knows there could be some circumstances in which it
> would seem appropriate (I think allowing Wes to use it in proprietary
> software that his company intends to hoard is likely NOT one of these
> circumstances :-)
Another note, there are cases (like the Linux kernel) where there isn't
one single copyright holder, but instead several hundreds. You _might_ get
some additional license from these, but don't bet your house on it ...
Robert Dewar
Ronald said
<<Not exactly true. My complaint is that once you distribute to
person-A, the GPL permits you to say "no" to requests from persons-B,
-C, -D, ad nausium. Have you forgotten what it was Stallman wrote to
both of us? I'll repeat it, since it bears repeating:
Thus, there's no requirement to make a public announcement of a source
release to accompany the binary release, but you may have to provide
the sources to any number of people other than those who got the
binary directly from you, if they request it.
Clearly, if this is Stallman's intention, he failed to embody it
within the GPL. I hope I can convince Richard to remedy this.
<<
This refers to case b) where the sources are not distributed with the
biarnies, but instead a written offer is made to provide the sources.
Note the "directly" in Richard's paragraph. The idea is that if the
sources are provided by method b), then anyone receiving a copy of
the binaries should receive a copy of the written offer as well,
and may excercise it.
I don't think Richard forgot anything. I think the GPL does exactly
what he intends, and it makes perfect sense (and I have forgotten
nothing -- remember I understood this *before* this thread started :-)
pacman-will-proofread-your...@cqc.com
In article <5ovjaa$lg5$1...@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell <l...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>In article <dewar.867380646@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>c) company Y improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
>>
>>Now, not only is the product no longer freely available in its enhanced
>>form, but worse, NO ONE is in a position to combine the improvements that
>>have been made.
>>This is a totally unacceptable scenario to us.
>
>Yes, having a choice of improved products would be almost as bad
>as having a choice of colors when you buy a car. Can't let anything
>like that happen...
Ah, so when you buy your next car, what one feature are you going to get:
air bags, or anti-lock brakes? Or would you like to have a car with locks on
the doors? Those are nice, if you don't mind the fact that that model has no
windshield wipers.
Choices are nice, but conflicting proprietary extensions aren't the way to
get them.
--
Alan Curry
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS d? s++:-- a-- C++ UB+++L++++ P+ L+++>++++ E--- W-- N++ o K? w--- O? M--
V? PS+ PE+ Y+ PGP-(--) t* 5++ X+++ R- tv++ b-- DI- D++ G+++ !e h! r-->+++ y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
David Kastrup
Ronald Cole <ron...@ridgenet.net> writes:
> David Kastrup <d...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes:
> > I guess he thinks that the Free Software Foundation strives to have
> > its software *used* on as many platforms as possible, instead of
> > having as much software as possible freely *available*. In short,
> > that the FSF is an ego-pleasing corporation instead of one with
> > ideals.
>
> If the FSF really strives to have as much software as possible freely
> *available*, then the GPL is not a vehicle that will get them there.
> There is no obligation to make what you receive *available*. There
> isn't even an obligation to make *available* to others that to which
> you make available to some. There is only an obligation to make
> source available to each individual you give a binary to.
Right, and in my opinion that is the best one can manage. If you
force all authors of GPLed software to start a working distribution
office of their own or they'll be sued, how many people will use the
GPL? The GPL is about giving away *complete* software (including
source) or nothing. The "nothing" is still a valid choice, and if it
were not, then people would get persecutable as soon as they put a
comment "This software is under the GPL" in some private file of
theirs without giving it to everybody else on the world immediately.
This would be nonsense. The GPL is concerned with *how* software is
to be distributed, not *whether*.
Marinos J. Yannikos
In article <m2g1u0e...@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de>,
David Kastrup wrote:
>[...]The GPL is about giving away *complete* software (including
>source) or nothing. The "nothing" is still a valid choice, and if it
>were not, then people would get persecutable as soon as they put a
>comment "This software is under the GPL" in some private file of
>theirs without giving it to everybody else on the world immediately.
So, let's have a look at how this works in the real world (*). I have written
a program, which is distributed under the GPL, for several reasons - among
them the original goals of the GPL, which I understand to be, that software
should be free and derivative works should benefit everyone (by forcing
the authors to make them available with source). Now, parts of the program
in question have been used in at least 3 derivative works (as in derived
from *parts* of my program, I won't claim that it is a derivative of the
whole program, even if that isn't too unlikely - the difference is
hard to point out anyway), for which no source is available. A fourth
derivative work (an actual "port" to a different platform) has also
been distributed in a way which violates the GPL (I have found it without
the license and without a pointer to the source). So, this is the outcome.
Now, if I tried to enforce the GPL, I would have to try to persuade those
people into taking the necessary steps to comply with the GPL. However,
as far as I can tell, this would have absolutely no positive effect. The
said works are or will be Freeware as far as I know and the modifications
made would not benefit me (except for some small bug fixes in the original
code), since they are platform-specific for a different platform than my
original program (i.e. mine is for Unix, theirs are for DOS mostly).
What am I trying to point out? At a hindsight, the GPL has not benefited
anyone in this case more than any other "free" license would have, since
it is useless to try to enforce it. Perhaps the fact that it may have
scared some people away from trying to actually sell my original work
would constitute a benefit due to the GPL, but that's about it. I will
consider a different license now (either Larry Wall's Artistic License
or a BSD-compatible one) since it is obvious to me now, that the
idealistic goals of the GPL are not enforcable without a negative
effect (like I said, I would not benefit from it and it would only
be a major hassle, and also impolite of me to put anyone under pressure
because of this).
Perhaps the "real" intention of the GPL is to convey the message that
"free software is a good thing" to as many people as possible.
I would be interested in hearing other people's experiences in cases
such as this (i.e. where it is considered to act at violations of the
GPL with "no harm done").
-nino
(*) MY real world at least. YMMV.
David Weller
In article <dewar.867445762@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Dave says
><<I've been following this thread for a little bit, and I'd like to toss
>in my opinion (what th' heck, right?). The significant difference
>between the GPL and the ACL is much like the difference between
>capitalism and communism*. The GPL assumes all users are sinners, and
>takes the approach of requiring the users to affirm, by usage of
>GPL'ed code, that they will not unfairly exploit the free software
>they are taking advantage of. There's all sorts of legal stuff in
>>>
>
>This is complete nonsense, and frankly I am a little surprised at the
>level of misunderstanding (I would have thought Dave understood the
>philosophy behind the GPL better).
>
Not complete nonsense at all, your entire post captured exactly what I
meant. I understand the GPL quite well, and in fact once strongly
considered using the same modified GPL that ACT uses on some of their
sources. Unfortunately, I had _way_ too many people and companies say
they wouldn't touch my code if it was under GNU anything. Sure, I
could have taken the time and effort to convince them otherwise, but
the ACL basically removed the "heavy" parts at the expense of risking
proprietary digressions (although it's not as bad as RObert points out
-- the ACL commonly referes to a "standard distribution" -- if you buy
a proprietary version that isn't derived from the standard
distribution, or if you download a release that's not a "standard
distribution", _you_ assume the risk). All in all, I have enither the
time nor the energy to combat FUD. It's hard enough to get the
components done in a reasonable amount of time!
Robert's thoughts are correct though, I understand the GPL/LGPL _very_
well :-) My company frequently (and legally) uses GPL and LGPL
software on an almost daily basis without worries, fear, or paranoia.
>The business about the GPL assuming all users are sinners is fanciful
>stuff, but bears no relation to reality.
>
It wasn't meant to bear a relation to reality, it was a metaphoric
statement. I think anybody could have realized that.
>Going back to the Booch components, Dave is of course free to choose any
>approach he likes for his work, but in practice the only difference between
>the ACL and the use of a broadened GPL such as is used by GNAT is that
>it makes it possible for someone to produce a proprietary version of
>these components based on Dave's work.
>
True, but the ACL places limits on how you can make a "proprietary"
version. In particular, you must indicate it clearly enough such that
the obtainer cannot confuse what they are getting with the "standard
distribution". The "proprietary" sense also comes from the fact that
a compiler vendor may replace the implementation with a "tuned"
version, but ensuring that the library is still
"specification-compliant".
>proprietary version that you have to pay for and cannot get full source
>access, then we have lost something valuable.
>
>That's why I think it is unfortunate to use the ACL instead of the modified
>GPL for such projects, it seems freer, but can very easily lead to much
>less freedom.
>
Now who's speeading FUD? :-)
>Note another scenario which is even worse.
>
Scanario deleted: Incompatible with the ACL. Go back and reread
section 3.
>THe whole point of the GPL is entirely pragmatic. The idea is to make
>as much software as possible as freely available as possible, because this
>free availability benefits users.
>
The ACL supports those goals also. There certainly would be less of a
need for the ACL if people were less paranoid about the GNU licenses.
>The idea of free software is to promote an environment in which the
>computing community can get its job done more effectively. The tremendous
>success of Linux shows that this idea can be a powerful one. More and more
>people are switching to using Linux, not because they want to join some
>polictical movement, but because it is the best technical tool for the job!
>
Well, Perl is doing quite well under the Perl Artistic License, so it,
too, is a model for success. That's what the ACL is based on.
I think Robert and I have VERY similar philosophies overall.
Samuel Mize
Tim Pierce wrote:
>
> In article <33B42D...@link.com>, Samuel Mize <sm...@link.com> wrote:
> So it sounds like his company has made the decision not to
> incorporate GPL code because of the distribution requirements.
> Isn't that just what you said?
It's what Wes and I have been saying. Wes was complaining
>
> I don't think this is a meaningless perspective at all.
> Profit-making companies can and do write, modify, and distribute
> software under a variety of free licenses, including the dreaded
> GPL. Just ask Walnut Creek or Cygnus. It's important to keep in
> mind that the decision to use GPL is just that, a *decision*, and
> not some sort of papal decree that isn't subject to discussion.
>
> Look, software houses decide all the time whether to support
> Macintosh or PC platforms. You don't say in these cases that you
> *can't* write software for one of these systems; you say that your
> company has decided against deploying software for them. This
> doesn't seem much different from deciding to use one distribution
> license over another.
>
> You're right that it's not fair to blame one employee for a
> decision that's effectively out of his powers. But I think it's
> also important not to fall into the mindset that people, or
> companies, can't choose to write free software if they so desire.
>
> >> Nearly every time I hear someone say "can't" or "must" they are
> >> talking about something which they have actually chosen, and want to
> >> avoid (internal or external) criticism about their choice.
> >
> >If you were to say that he's working for unprincipled people and
> >should quit, it would at least have meaning.
>
> It sounds like that's very close to what he did say (though I
> haven't heard anyone say that no-such-user's employers are
> unprincipled people, or even that they're bad). Honestly, I think
> you're projecting more than you're listening.
>
> --
> Support the Marriage Project--Hawaii: call 1-900-97-MARRY ($5/call).
> See <URL:http://www.ftm.org/> for more information.
David Weller
In article <5p1s2l$2a2$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
Richard Kenner <ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>In article <5p0eum$1293$1...@prime.imagin.net> dwe...@news.imagin.net (David Weller) writes:
>>The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing
>>terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this
>>comparison) the GPL and the ACL.
>
>LGPL, not the GPL. Secondly, it did not originate with ACT, but was
>used in the small set of run-time functions used in GCC.
>
Oops! I thought I'd made an error in my original comments, because
the modification I was referring to was to the GPL.
Now Richard corrects me that it really was the LGPL. I'm so confused,
and _I_ started all the confusion. I apologize!
>>Obviously, that's more difficult with "multi-source" software like GCC.
>
>GCC is not "multi-source". All code to be included in GCC must have
>its copyright transferred to the FSF.
>
Ah, true. I forgot about that "tiny" condition :-)
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG
Samuel Mize <sm...@link.com> writes:
> It's meaningless. He's doing a specific task assigned by a
> company. The task is "build this program, in this language,
> on this platform." He can't change the constraints on his own.
> One of those constraints is to avoid GPL'd code.
But he chooses to do that task and to accept such assignments. Nobody
other than himself is responsible for his being in this situation.
> If you were to say that he's working for unprincipled people and
> should quit, it would at least have meaning. Saying that he "can"
> use GPL'd code does not.
That might be the best choice; I'm not trying to tell him what his
choices should be, however. I just want to point out that he DOES
have this choice.
He cannot place his decision about who to work for above all
criticism, and then place the onus on the FSF for "not helping him".
Thomas
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG
Ronald Cole <ron...@ridgenet.net> writes:
> If that philosopy is the "Golden Rule" (Kantian) ....
Kant did not advocate the Golden Rule. (He accepted it, but thought
it was of quite limited usefulness.) The Golden Rule says "do to
others what you would have them do to you." But there are several
logical problems in making this foundational for ethics.
Kant identified a single categorical imperative as foundational for
ethics and gave several formulations of it, which he believed were
logically equivalent. Three of the most popular formulations are:
* Act as if the maxim of your action were to be a universal law of
nature.
* Act as if the maxim of your action were to be a universal moral
law.
* Never treat a person as a means, unless in that action you treat
them simultaneously as an end.
Kant explicitly stated that he believed this principle to be superior
to and different from the Golden Rule.
Thomas
Wes Groleau
> Yes. It is another issue entirely. I don't believe that Wes
> ever mentioned the GNAT runtime or the modified GPL.
Actually, I did. I said that I feel that ACL and the GNAT
"special exception" are two very reasonable compromises between
the GPL extreme and the totally secret and proprietary extreme.
But I find it amusing how my complaint (that people have misstated
the GPL) has turned into such a free-for-all attacking the motives of
Robert Dewar, Richard Stallman, myself, and others .....
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA
Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be
wwgrol AT pseserv3.fw.hac.com
Don't send advertisements to this domain unless asked! All disk space
on fw.hac.com hosts belongs to either Hughes Defense Communications or
the United States government. Using email to store YOUR advertising
on them is trespassing!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Groleau
kdp...@hpmail.lrz-muenchen.de wrote:
> That's what the LGPL is for.
The LGPL is totally irrelevant to the restrictions on source code
covered by theoriginal GPL.
Wes Groleau
> > be left moot. Wes has not given any indication of a specific example where
> > the fact that code is under the GPL has in fact been a problem to him. It
>
> The most recent example was actually quite some time ago, when I was
> trying to get a stack trace on a Pentium.
Oops. I didn't finish. There were two suggestions of GPL'd code
related to the above: the first was "whatever is inside of GDB to
do that" and the other was "whatever gcc does for the
__builtin_frame_address"
Wes Groleau
> Notice that I think this entire discussion is academic, and can in practice
I think the entire discussion has gone beyond academic
and is approaching ridiculous (especially now that certain
malcontents have joined in).
> be left moot. Wes has not given any indication of a specific example where
> the fact that code is under the GPL has in fact been a problem to him. It
The most recent example was actually quite some time ago, when I was
trying to get a stack trace on a Pentium. But the post in which I
changed the subject line to the one above was more recent. The
reasonI posted it then, was that I promised someone I'd look up the
pertinent paragraph of the GPL and I had just gotten around to doing so.
Jon S Anthony
In article <dewar.867557676@merv> de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
<Various things about ACT release cycles and rationales that I pretty
much completely agree with>
And then the really interesting bit:
> as well as getting better debugging support in place using gdb (we
> are very close to having gdb in Ada mode have 100% knowledge about
> Ada data structures, including packed arrays, variant records,
> variable length components depending on discriminants etc).
This sounds great. One thing I've wondered about wrt gdb for Ada: is
it reasonable to think that binaries of this could be placed out with
those of GNAT? Or is this an unreasonable burden?
/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
OMI, Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
"Nightmares - Ha! The way my life's been going lately,
Who'd notice?" -- Londo Mollari
Wes Groleau
> He cannot place his decision about who to work for above all
> criticism, and then place the onus on the FSF for "not helping him".
Well, since you made the choice to engage in vain philosophy, ...
You are partly right. I cannot place my decision above criticism,
since the critic is the one who has the choice whether or not to
citicize. However, I do have the choice of placing the onus anywhere
I choose.
But it should be obvious to most that the only onus I've placed on
anyone is the one I placed on the people who misrepresent the GPL.
Roy T. Fielding
In <dewar.867556141@merv> de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>What exactly are you referrring to? gnatdist is of course under the GPL
>as are all gnat utilities. But the runtime routines that are bound to
>executable programs are indeed under the modified GPL. Please be explicit
>in what you are referring to.
Sorry, I now see where the confusion is coming from. The individual
source files do include the exception to the modified GPL, which is
something I hadn't checked. I was stopped short by the top-level README
and COPYING files, which are plain GPL v2, and the lack of any other
COPYING file in the Garlic subdirectory. The top-level README should
mention the different terms for what is in Garlic, since they currently
contradict each other (which is bad from any perspective).
On a related note, there is one problem with the modified GPL. As written,
it doesn't allow the recipient to redistribute the package (or, in my case,
a small component of the package) under the same modified GPL. I doubt
that is the intention. You could add that possibility to the list in
the first sentence, i.e.
-- GARLIC is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under --
-- terms of the GNU General Public License, with or without the single --
-- exception mentioned below, as published by the Free Software Foundation; --
-- either version 2, or (at your option) any later version. --
However, it would be more appropriate from a legal perspective to make the
modifications within the COPYING file, possibly renaming it GnatGPL, rather
than deal with the issue of having two contradictory terms. It would
probably be worth it just to avoid these types of discussions.
....Roy
Roy T. Fielding
>Well I understand that, particularly in the case of academic people
>fiddling around, it might be quite reasonable to have miscellaneous
>patches floating around, but for our mainstream customers, very
>careful configuration control is extremely important. I really don't
>think any of them would apreciate us releasing a new release of GNAT
>every day!
Have you talked to your customers about that? I am certainly aware that
many people prefer stable releases, but making unstable releases available
to those that need/want them doesn't affect those other customers at all.
The only thing you need to do is label them appropriately and make sure
that the labels are understood.
The problem that I run into is that I cannot distribute software that
doesn't compile or run correctly on one of your public releases, even if
I have a private version of the compiler with the corresponding bug fixed.
Also, because the changes between releases are large, it is much more
difficult for me to isolate new bugs introduced between releases.
>By the way, it is quite out of the question to make our problem report
>database public. Many of the problems involve customers proprietary
>code which we protect extremely carefully.
I wouldn't make the entire database public, just those entries that
are public. In fact, I'd probably use separate databases for the two.
What we need to see is a list of problems (open, in-progress, and closed)
which is kept up-to-date and searchable on-line. More importantly,
everyone should be encouraged to find and/or fix problems, not just
the contractees, and the only way to do that is to make them public.
>One thing to remember in this discussion is that the continued development
>and improvement of GNAT depends on support from our major customers. As a
>result, it is those customers who determine the requirements, and we find
>that they are much more interested in stablility than in haveing very
>frequent releases.
From my perspective, having founded several community-based software
development projects, I find that statement to be a bit bizarre. I guess
that is why Eric Raymond calls it ``the "cathedral" model of FSF''.
Continued development and improvement of GNAT doesn't depend on your
major customers -- that can be accomplished without having ACT as the
high priest. What your customers need ACT for is validated releases
and guaranteed hand-holding, neither of which benefit from infrequent
private releases vs frequent public releases.
In my opinion, you should be finding ways to let the community help
you support and improve GNAT (what we all want) rather than play one
customer over another as a business strategy.
>It really is hard for me to believe that you think it would be a good
>thing for us to post every patch to GNAT on CLA as soon as we develop it.
>Anyway, we strongly disagree, and are not about to do this under any
>circumstances.
I wouldn't post it to CLA. I wouldn't even read CLA if there was a
reasonable alternative. Use the Web. Remote CVS would be even better,
but that depends on your own development environment.
Anyway, I'll shut up now. I wouldn't have even raised the issue if
you hadn't claimed that ACT support was somehow inherently better than
free software support. Free software has the capacity to enable an open
development process in which any competent user can become an active
participant, rather than just a passive recipient. No closed development
group can compete with that.
.....Roy
Robert Dewar
Wes said
<<Oops. I didn't finish. There were two suggestions of GPL'd code
related to the above: the first was "whatever is inside of GDB to
do that" and the other was "whatever gcc does for the
__builtin_frame_address"
>>
Are you saying this from actually having looked at the code in question in
these two cases? Because if so, I am surprised. Yes, you could certainly
get useful ideas in both these cases (and no one is protecting the *ideas*
in this code, you are invited to borrow them), but I would be very surprised
if you could really copy code usefully in either of these cases.
Robert Dewar
Jon asks
<<This sounds great. One thing I've wondered about wrt gdb for Ada: is
it reasonable to think that binaries of this could be placed out with
those of GNAT? Or is this an unreasonable burden?
>>
This is a very reasonable suggestion! It would help a lot of peoplke to
be easily able to get binaries of gdb and the other tools. The first step
is for us to create a nicely packaged set of binaries for the tools for
our customers. Then when we complete that task, the general public will
be the eventual beneficiary :-)
Scott Michel
In gnu.misc.discuss Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <tho...@gnu.ai.mit.edu> alleges:
: Ronald Cole <ron...@ridgenet.net> writes:
: Kant identified a single categorical imperative as foundational for
: ethics and gave several formulations of it, which he believed were
: logically equivalent. Three of the most popular formulations are:
: * Act as if the maxim of your action were to be a universal law of
: nature.
: * Act as if the maxim of your action were to be a universal moral
: law.
: * Never treat a person as a means, unless in that action you treat
: them simultaneously as an end.
: Kant explicitly stated that he believed this principle to be superior
: to and different from the Golden Rule.
Quick! We need a Randian to jump in and set things straight "Why Kant
Is A Really Bad Thing"!
The problem with the above rules is that they are subjective. I doubt
if anyone can give me a concrete def'n what universal laws of nature
and morality are (appealling to my rational side, not my emotional
"But it's just good and the other is evil, dammit!")
The "Golden Rule" is well defined, even in the abstract. It causes one
to reflect as to what the consequences of action are.
The same can't be said of Kant, who couldn't anyway, even in smug
superiority.
Thomas and I have sparred on this in the past. And I doubt that there
will ever be any resolution to the Plato/Hegel/Kant vs.
Aristotle/Aquinas/Rand dichotomy, so long as the P/H/K types claim
that the A/A/R are unfeeling, overly rational, and just plain evil,
dammit!
-scottm
--
Scott Michel Graduate School:
UCLA Computer Science It's Not Just A Job.
PhD Student It's An Indenture.
"AND STOP CALLING ME Scooter!" :-)
Richard Kenner
In article <dewar.867464659@merv> de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:
>the wording is NOT copied from the run-time
>functions used in GCC, because it spefcifically handles generics.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was identical, just that the
general idea of such an exception is quite old.
Robert Dewar
<<Sorry, I now see where the confusion is coming from. The individual
source files do include the exception to the modified GPL, which is
something I hadn't checked. I was stopped short by the top-level README
and COPYING files, which are plain GPL v2, and the lack of any other
COPYING file in the Garlic subdirectory. The top-level README should
mention the different terms for what is in Garlic, since they currently
contradict each other (which is bad from any perspective).
>>
We certainly have to distribute COPYING as is, that is clear.
We can certainly clarify the readme file.
So far, everyone interested in reusing the sources for particular units
has at least looked at the sources for these units, and seen the
associated copyright (in general, you expect the copyright notice
to be part of the particular deocument, as is the case here), so no one
else has ever run into this confusion before.
Samuel Mize
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG wrote:
>
> Samuel Mize <sm...@link.com> writes:
>
> > It's meaningless. He's doing a specific task assigned by a
> > company. The task is "build this program, in this language,
> > on this platform." He can't change the constraints on his own.
> > One of those constraints is to avoid GPL'd code.
>
> But he chooses to do that task and to accept such assignments. Nobody
> other than himself is responsible for his being in this situation.
Who said otherwise? I didn't say he couldn't refuse to do the
task; I said he can't do that particular task with GPL'd code.
> He cannot place his decision about who to work for above all
> criticism, and then place the onus on the FSF for "not helping him".
I don't recall him doing either. Criticize away. Nor did he
call FSF anything bad, or claim that they were failing in some
imagined duty. He just said that he can't use GPL'd code
in building a source-proprietary product, which is true. It
is intended specifically to be not useful for such a project.
The GPL is not a result of the forces of nature, applied
to code without any choice on the part of the developer. The
constraint on using the code is due BOTH to his (company's)
choice AND the choice of the GPL'd-code developer. The
GPL developer *CHOOSES* to not allow him use of that code,
for that purpose.
- - -
By the way, this thread did not start with a complaint about
GPL'd code. It started when he complained that people say he
misrepresents the GPL when he says: he can't [legally]
use GPL'd code in a source-proprietary product.
But that's exactly the behavior that the GPL is designed to
prevent. The GPL specifically disallows it.
Sam Mize
Richard Watts
In article <dewar.867497844@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>Ronald Cole said
>
><<I'd recommend that you find some other license agreement that would
>prevent someone from enhancing your code and then engaging in the
>following exercise of the "letter of the law":
>>>
>
>
[snip]
>
>Anyway, here is how we do things at ACT, just so it is clear to people.
>
>
>There are three kinds of versions of GNAT
[snip]
Hmmm.. interesting. How would you cope with a customer who distributes
interim or wavefront releases to the world, possibly for a fee approaching
your own ? As I see it, if you tried to restrict service to customers
who didn't redistribute the code you shipped them, you might be open
to a suit for constructive licensing ? How does the FSF feel about
this ?
[snip]
Richard.
[ who will now undoubtedly be flamed by absolutely everyone ... :-( ]
--
SAY AGAIN STOP IS USENET DEAD OR DECEASED STOP
The University of Cambridge can't have these opinions even if it wants them.
Richard Kenner
In article <5pb8gf$j...@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> rrw...@cus.cam.ac.uk (Richard Watts) writes:
> Hmmm.. interesting. How would you cope with a customer who distributes
>interim or wavefront releases to the world, possibly for a fee approaching
> your own ? As I see it, if you tried to restrict service to customers
>who didn't redistribute the code you shipped them, you might be open
>to a suit for constructive licensing ? How does the FSF feel about
>this ?
This hasn't happened with GNAT and, for a number of reasons, isn't
very likely to. It *has* happened with GCC snapshots distributed
by the FSF and in those cases the person was no longer on the list
to obtain the snapshots. There is no obligation to distribute
to anybody.
You are perhaps correct that a formal policy of not giving future
releases to people who've redistributed in the past might violate at
least the spirit of the GPL, but nobody has proposed doing that. The
point is that FSF chooses to give GCC snapshots to the people whom it
believes will best help the GCC project and ACT has customers who they
believe have needs consistent with the support services offered. ACT
has no obligation to accept as a customer somebody who has a different
model of what support is than ACT and the FSF has no obligation to
distribute GCC snapshots to somebody who isn't helping the GCC project.
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG
Scott Michel <sco...@cs.ucla.edu> writes:
> Quick! We need a Randian to jump in and set things straight "Why Kant
> Is A Really Bad Thing"!
Ayn Rand was an idiot. Kant was wrong, but not an idiot. Plato,
Hegel, and Aristotly were also wrong, and also brilliant. Ayn Rand
was wrong, but not brilliant, not original, and certainly an idiot.
> The problem with the above rules is that they are subjective. I doubt
> if anyone can give me a concrete def'n what universal laws of nature
> and morality are (appealling to my rational side, not my emotional
> "But it's just good and the other is evil, dammit!")
A universal law of nature is one that does, in fact, always happen.
To wish "truth telling" to be a law of nature is to wish for the
impossibility of lying. Roughly, then, the "universal law of nature"
test of ethical principle says "act in manner X if you can
consistently wish that all rational beings always acted in manner X."
This seems perfectly objective to me, even if difficult in practice to
apply.
The "difficulty in practice" is in fact very severe, let me hasten to
point out. The problem is that morality applies in the first instance
to actions, not maxims, and there is no single way to figure out for
an action what the maxim was. Kant's principle only talks about
maxims, alas, and there's no way to make it talk about actions.
> The "Golden Rule" is well defined, even in the abstract. It causes one
> to reflect as to what the consequences of action are.
The Golden Rule is hopeless as an ethical test, if you use it
in even a slightly non-charitable fashion. It does not offer any
escape from subjectivity at all; leaving me to figure out "what I want
others to do for me" and then do that for others. Rand, who pretends
to say "nothing" to the former question, can thus bogusly claim to be
honoring ethical principle in doing nothing for others. This is not
the triumph of the Golden Rule, it's the desmonstration that it does
not really work in a critical environment.
> The same can't be said of Kant, who couldn't anyway, even in smug
> superiority.
If you read the _Metaphysics_of_Morals_ you will see that, in fact,
Kant talked about results of actions all the time. Constantly. His
every discussion focuses on the results of actions. I can only
suspect that you have never read the _Metaphysics_of_Morals_. (This
is hardly unique; most people who have read widely in philosophy have
never read it. The _Metaphysics_of_Morals_ is usually skipped in
favor of the _Grounding_of_the_Metaphysics_of_Morals_ and the
_Critique_of_Pracitical_Reason_.) _MM_ is all about the analysis of
particular proposed maxims; the analysis applies the categorical
imperative most frequently in its "ends/means" formulation ("Treat
other people as means only if in that action you simultaneously treat
them as an end") and in so doing, Kant discusses outcomes and
consequences exceedingly frequently.
> Thomas and I have sparred on this in the past. And I doubt that there
> will ever be any resolution to the Plato/Hegel/Kant vs.
> Aristotle/Aquinas/Rand dichotomy, so long as the P/H/K types claim
> that the A/A/R are unfeeling, overly rational, and just plain evil,
> dammit!
Plato and Hegel were much less rational that Kant or Aristotle. They
themselves gloried in this, with much about intuition and mystic
rapture and what not as so very important. Aristotle pooh poohed all
that (somewhat dismissively, alas--it would be nice to see a more
reasoned critique than he gives us) and insisted on a much more
down-to-earth nuts and bones philosophy.
Kant is really an odd bug in this mix. He's no friend of Hegel, and
fits much better in an Aristotelian mix. Applying the corrective of
the critique, Kant notices that reason isn't so good as Aristotle (or
Descartes) thought. But Kant doesn't propose to replace reason with
feeling or vague intuitions (a la Hegel), but rather to just remain
silent. He has the greatest respect for reason, in fact--and where
reason cannot tread, Kant basically thinks humans cannot go--so there
is no rival to reason for its preeminence (again, contra Hegel).
The real clue here is that you are to busy thinking that Ayn Rand is
not an idiot to actually read Kant. This I know, for you lump Kant in
with thinking that ethics has anything to do with feeling! The one
thing that Kant is most honored for in ethics is not the categorical
imperative, and certainly not the casuistic analysis of MM, but rather
the striking claim that ethics comes entirely (100%, with absolutely
nothing left over) from reason--with absolutely no admixture of
passion, inclination, or feeling of any kind.
Aristotle and Aquinas actually are my favorites to read, with Kant as
a close third. Ayn Rand, however, (which, sad to say, I have read) is
just an idiot.
Thomas
Robert Dewar
iDave Weller says
<<Not complete nonsense at all, your entire post captured exactly what I
meant. I understand the GPL quite well, and in fact once strongly
considered using the same modified GPL that ACT uses on some of their
sources. Unfortunately, I had _way_ too many people and companies say
they wouldn't touch my code if it was under GNU anything. Sure, I
>>
Well it is even harder to combat imaginary second hand FUD!
Actually, we have found that this kind of uninformed worry about GNU is
not a major impediment for us. We have occaionsally run into some concerns,
but have always been able to resolve the concerns. Sure there may be some
big companies that are put off GNAT by such FUD, but it's not a major
factor.
We have in fact had the experience of being told the same thing (my company,
xxxx, will never use GNU stuff by policy), and then a little while later
they order GNAT support and are using it on major projects -- so in some
cases, I think people do imagine there is a problem where there is none
(that is the imaginary in my first line up there).
Robert Dewar
Dave, I am quoting your original post here
<<I've been following this thread for a little bit, and I'd like to toss
in my opinion (what th' heck, right?). The significant difference
between the GPL and the ACL is much like the difference between
capitalism and communism*. The GPL assumes all users are sinners, and
takes the approach of requiring the users to affirm, by usage of
GPL'ed code, that they will not unfairly exploit the free software
they are taking advantage of. There's all sorts of legal stuff in
there that basically prevents people from exploiting various
loopholes. The ACL is a more open approach, assuming that people will
not unfairly exploit the software under looser "guidelines" (well, not
really "guidelines", but certainly less onerous than the GPL's terms).
The Library GPL and the "ACT exception" to the LGPL are two licensing
terms that fall between (if the GNU folks will permit me this
comparison) the GPL and the ACL.
>>
It is the above paragraph, which you seem to state as your opinion, that
I regard as highly inaccurate. It is one thing to complain about FUD that
other people are subject to when it comes to the GPL, but if you really
believe what you say above, then you are in the business of generating
this FUD.
There is a big difference between saying "well a lot of people are worried
that the GPL says xxx", and actually saying "xxx" yourself. If you know
the GPL well, then you should reread the above paragraph, and realize
that what it says is plain wrong in more than one respect.
If indeed you are now saying "sorry, this is not my opinion, but it is
what other people seem to think", then that's another matter, but in that
case your original post was, to say the least, confusing and misleading!
By all means argue objectively in favor of one licensing scheme or another,
but please let's not spread rumour and inaccurate inuendo here!
Leslie Mikesell
In article <5p7noo$6ig$1...@usenet76.supernews.com>,
<pacman-will-proofread-your...@cqc.com> wrote:
>In article <5ovjaa$lg5$1...@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell <l...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>In article <dewar.867380646@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>b) company X improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
>>>
>>>c) company Y improves it and makes a proprietary version with improvements
>>>
>>>Now, not only is the product no longer freely available in its enhanced
>>>form, but worse, NO ONE is in a position to combine the improvements that
>>>have been made.
>
>>>This is a totally unacceptable scenario to us.
>>
>>Yes, having a choice of improved products would be almost as bad
>>as having a choice of colors when you buy a car. Can't let anything
>>like that happen...
>
>Ah, so when you buy your next car, what one feature are you going to get:
>air bags, or anti-lock brakes? Or would you like to have a car with locks on
>the doors? Those are nice, if you don't mind the fact that that model has no
>windshield wipers.
If I had the misconception that the world worked that way perhaps I would
have an answer. In fact cars come with everything you need and are
just made more expensive by each vendor having to re-invent each new
component.
>Choices are nice, but conflicting proprietary extensions aren't the way to
>get them.
That is an opinion that I don't happen to share. I'd prefer cheap
excellent software (utilizing available free components plus
whatever proprietary extensions are needed) to free mediocre software.
Besides, why are you so sure that the authors of free software
can't compete with commercial versions without restrictive
copyrights?
Les Mikesell
l...@mcs.com
Richard Stallman
There's a discussion of whether the GPL is more than a vague
expression of wishes and feelings. As the author of the GNU GPL, I'd
like to explain what it means.
The GNU GPL says (among other things) that all modified versions of
the program must be free software. Using the GNU GPL on your program
gives you a legal basis to insist that anyone who copies your code
into another program must make that program free software; otherwise
it would be copyright infringement.
The GPL has been very beneficial when I've used it. Many companies
have written, or commissioned, improvements in GNU software (as they
do in many free programs). I know that some companies would have made
the improvements proprietary, except that the GPL did not allow it.
We would not have Objective C or C++ support, for example. Chances
are many other improvements now included in GNU releases would also be
unavailable to us (though I can't know which ones).
The GPL doesn't force you to object to misuse of your code, it only
gives you a way to object. If you want to let someone use your code,
you can. Making an exception for another free software project is
occasionally a good idea.
But in order to make the GPL work, you have to take advantage of it:
you have to object when people flout it. The C++ and Objective C
front ends are free because I made it clear that otherwise I WOULD
object.
The GPL says that you'll object to misuse--but words don't substitute
for action. If you never object, then you're not really using *using*
the GPL, and it becomes in effect no more than a statement of feelings
and wishes.
David Kastrup
l...@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
> That is an opinion that I don't happen to share. I'd prefer cheap
> excellent software (utilizing available free components plus
> whatever proprietary extensions are needed) to free mediocre
> software.
However, in my experience cheap excellent software seems to be found
much less common than free excellent software. The reason is probably
that the mere implications of the presence of a price tag lead to a
direct correlation between price of software and the number and
commitment of people involved in the development.
--
David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570
Email: d...@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209
Institut für Neuroinformatik, Universitätsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany
David Weller
In article <sz0afk6...@sugar-bombs.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
>a close third. Ayn Rand, however, (which, sad to say, I have read) is
>just an idiot.
>
I Kant believe this discussion has gotten soooo off-topic! :-)
--
Booch Components Homepage: www.rivatech.com ||Ada Homepage: www.adahome.com
David Weller
In article <dewar.867813323@merv>, Robert Dewar <de...@merv.cs.nyu.edu> scolds
Dave Weller:
>If indeed you are now saying "sorry, this is not my opinion, but it is
>what other people seem to think", then that's another matter, but in that
>case your original post was, to say the least, confusing and misleading!
>
Good point. Your analysis is correct, mostly :-)
>By all means argue objectively in favor of one licensing scheme or another,
>but please let's not spread rumour and inaccurate inuendo here!
>
From my own perspective, I don't care which licensing scheme somebody
chooses, as long as _anybody_ using _any_ of the licensing schemes
we're talking about takes the time to truly understand them.
Wes Groleau
> > The "Golden Rule" is well defined, even in the abstract. It causes
> > one to reflect as to what the consequences of action are.
>
> not really work in a critical environment.
This has nothing to do with Ada, and little to do with GNU, but...
The "Golden Rule" comes with its own interpretation. The original
formulation of "So in everything, do to others what you would have
them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."
was by Jesus Christ who also said that "all the law and the prophets"
depend on two commandments, of which the second is "Love your neighbor
as yourself." He went on to clarify "neighbor" and He and His
followers have gone into great detail on the nature of love (which,
by the way, differs considerably from the popular understanding in
that it has very little to do with "feeling").
(Just to head it off before it happens: the common response that
many of His alleged followers do not live that way is TOTALLY
IRRELEVANT to whether or not the advice is good.)
Robert Dewar
David Weller says
<<I Kant believe this discussion has gotten soooo off-topic! :-)>>
Well I think it is to be expected in a thread that is cross-posted
to gnu.misc.discuss. I don't know who first adjoined this cross post,
but they are the responsible party :-)
Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG
dwe...@news.imagin.net (David Weller) writes:
> In article <sz0afk6...@sugar-bombs.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
> >a close third. Ayn Rand, however, (which, sad to say, I have read) is
> >just an idiot.
>
> I Kant believe this discussion has gotten soooo off-topic! :-)
One of the joys of modern philosophy is the plethora of puns:
Putting Descartes before de horse. Berkeleyng up the wrong tree.
Hume-an nature. Locke and key. and on. and on.
But philosophy is always on topic! What do you think that little `Ph'
means in all those PhD degrees?
Thomas
Mark Atwood
tho...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
>
> But philosophy is always on topic! What do you think that little `Ph'
> means in all those PhD degrees?
>
Piled higher ...
--
Mark Atwood | Thank you gentlemen, you are everything we have come to
z...@ampersand.com | expect from years of government training. -- MIB Zed
Matthew S. Whiting
Mark Atwood wrote:
>
> tho...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG) writes:
> >
> > But philosophy is always on topic! What do you think that little `Ph'
> > means in all those PhD degrees?
> >
>
> Piled higher ...
>
Steve Peltz
In article <5p1s2l$2a2$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
Richard Kenner <ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>GCC is not "multi-source". All code to be included in GCC must have
>its copyright transferred to the FSF.
Someone must have illegally modified all the source versions of GCC
I've seen, then, because they all claim that the standard GPL applies
to them. The GPL does NOT require that copyright be transferred to the
FSF. There's a HUGE difference between something being licensed under
the GPL and something being owned by the FSF.
If I make a derivative work and distribute it (such distribution being under
the GPL), the code that I contributed is still copyright by me, and I may
use that portion of code that is wholly mine without restriction. If the
rest of GCC is copyright by the FSF, they can not give permission for MY
code to be used in any way that is not consistent with the GPL. Now, the FSF
may well refuse to distribute modifications to GCC that are not assigned to
them; that doesn't stop me from creating my own distribution of it.
Steve Peltz
In article <5pbd6q$8si$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
Richard Kenner <ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>You are perhaps correct that a formal policy of not giving future
>releases to people who've redistributed in the past might violate at
>least the spirit of the GPL, but nobody has proposed doing that. The
I'm not sure what you're saying. Restricting the rights of your customers
to pass on source code to someone else is certainly against both the
spirit and letter of the GPL. Threatening to drop them as a customer
if they do so is well within the meaning of "restrict". That you'd even
suggest that they shouldn't, much less threaten them with retaliation,
is disturbing.
Of course, your customers are certainly within their rights to refuse to
pass it on. However, that should be for their own reasons, not because
they are being coerced by you.
Richard Kenner
In article <5ph2sp$qdg$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> pe...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:
>In article <5p1s2l$2a2$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
>Richard Kenner <ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>GCC is not "multi-source". All code to be included in GCC must have
>>its copyright transferred to the FSF.
>
>Someone must have illegally modified all the source versions of GCC
>I've seen, then, because they all claim that the standard GPL applies
>to them. The GPL does NOT require that copyright be transferred to the
>FSF. There's a HUGE difference between something being licensed under
>the GPL and something being owned by the FSF.
Right.
>If I make a derivative work and distribute it (such distribution being under
>the GPL), the code that I contributed is still copyright by me, and I may
>use that portion of code that is wholly mine without restriction.
If that code can be usefull severed from GCC, which is not normally
the case when talking about modifications.
>Now, the FSF may well refuse to distribute modifications to GCC that are not
>assigned to them;
That's exactly what I meant.
The point is that "GCC", as distributed by the FSF, is not a
"multi-source" copyright situation: it's all copyrighted by one
entity: the FSF.
Richard Kenner
In article <5ph4g5$sbs$1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> pe...@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes:
>In article <5pbd6q$8si$1...@news.nyu.edu>,
>Richard Kenner <ken...@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote:
>>You are perhaps correct that a formal policy of not giving future
>>releases to people who've redistributed in the past might violate at
>>least the spirit of the GPL, but nobody has proposed doing that. The
>
>I'm not sure what you're saying. Restricting the rights of your customers
>to pass on source code to someone else is certainly against both the
>spirit and letter of the GPL. Threatening to drop them as a customer
>if they do so is well within the meaning of "restrict".
You seem to have missed the "nobody has proposed doing that" above.
>That you'd even suggest that they shouldn't,
There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that it's harmful
to the GNAT community for pre-releases to be widely distributed. The
FSF itself (and Richard Stallman personally) has an extremely strong
similar view about pre-releases of GCC.
Olivier Galibert
In article <5pim4l$5m3$1...@news.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner wrote:
>There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that it's harmful
>to the GNAT community for pre-releases to be widely distributed. The
>FSF itself (and Richard Stallman personally) has an extremely strong
>similar view about pre-releases of GCC.
With the immediate side effect that most people won't even try to fix
bugs which may already have been fixed. And most of the time don't even
bother to report them because of the "I'll try again in 6 months with
the new release and then I'll see" effect.
I know, I'm one of them.
OG.
David Kastrup
ni...@complang.tuwien.ac.at (Marinos J. Yannikos) writes:
[about GPL]
> So, let's have a look at how this works in the real world
> (*). I have written a program, which is distributed under the GPL,
> for several reasons - among them the original goals of the GPL,
> which I understand to be, that software should be free and
> derivative works should benefit everyone (by forcing the authors to
> make them available with source). Now, parts of the program in
> question have been used in at least 3 derivative works (as in
> derived from *parts* of my program, I won't claim that it is a
> derivative of the whole program, even if that isn't too unlikely -
> the difference is hard to point out anyway), for which no source is
> available.
Which is a persecutable breach of copyright, as they have no licence
permitting them to do so.
> A fourth
> derivative work (an actual "port" to a different platform) has also
> been distributed in a way which violates the GPL (I have found it
> without the license and without a pointer to the source). So, this
> is the outcome.
Same here. If you want a licence nobody will ever breach, you have to
put out your work as public domain. The licence prescribes what
people are legally permitted to do, not what they actually will do.
> Now, if I tried to enforce the GPL, I would have to try to persuade
> those people into taking the necessary steps to comply with the
> GPL. However, as far as I can tell, this would have absolutely no
> positive effect. The said works are or will be Freeware as far as I
> know
No "freeware" in the sense that the whole work in a state where others
can improve upon it is available.
> and the modifications made would not benefit me (except for
> some small bug fixes in the original code), since they are
> platform-specific for a different platform than my original program
> (i.e. mine is for Unix, theirs are for DOS mostly).
For one thing, they could benefit others which could continue work on
the DOS version. For another, if the features are really useful, some
people might backport them into the original version. This is not an
option if the source is withheld.
> What am I trying to point out? At a hindsight, the GPL has not
> benefited anyone in this case more than any other "free" license
> would have, since it is useless to try to enforce it.
If you think it useless to enforce a licence, then don't use it. Use
a licence you feel worth enforcing. As I pointed out above, I do
think the enforcement of the GPL licence (which most probably would
not need much more than some gentle coaxing as the persons involved
are not turning a profit at all, as you claim) *could* benefit people,
and perhaps even you. If you don't agree, choose a different licence.
> I will consider a different license now
> (either Larry Wall's Artistic License or a BSD-compatible one) since
> it is obvious to me now, that the idealistic goals of the GPL are
> not enforcable without a negative effect (like I said, I would not
> benefit from it and it would only be a major hassle, and also
> impolite of me to put anyone under pressure because of this).
"Impolite?" If your wishes about what people do with something you
give out for free are ignored explicitly (probably not with bad
intentions, but still quite unnecessarily), you would consider it
"impolite" to mention this?
I don't think that this necessarily a failure of the GPL.