Questions about the GPL
Richard Stallman
carefully and get feedback from friends before posting it.]
The purpose of the GPL is to make sure that changes and add-ons to GNU
software are free--by not allowing non-free changes or add-ons.
There are three questions to ask about any particular case of this:
* What requirements are ethically allowable?
* What requirements are advantageous for us to make?
* What requirements are we able to make?
The first question is, in essence, whether people sometimes have
a basic right to write non-free software, so that it would be
wrong to stop them.
For the GNU project, the answer is simple: making software non-free is
wrong in general, whether it incorporates GNU software or not. So any
requirement that "You can't make a certain program non-free" cannot be
ethically objectionable.
(I know that most of society doesn't share these principles. But
these are the principles that the GNU project is based on, and always
has been; the project is not going to abandon its principles, nor
adopt the other principles merely because they have many adherents.)
(The GPL doesn't try to say anything about development of non-free
software in general. It only addresses the question how GNU software
can be distributed and incorporated into new programs. The reason for
this is partly that we want to cooperate with everyone who wants to
work on the specific practical work of the project--building the GNU
system--including people who don't share the motivation on which the
GNU project was founded.)
The question of what requirements are advantageous is a complex one.
Sometimes we might gain more free software development by permitting a
certain kind of use of GNU software in proprietary software.
Some cases are very clear. For instance, we would never try to say,
"You can't run any proprietary program on any GPL-covered kernel"
(regardless of whether this were legally possible), because it is
clear that this would discourage the use of all such kernels, and
would yield next to no benefit (benefit meaning more free software).
To facilitate/prepare for running proprietary programs on a GNU
kernel, we put the system call stubs into GNU libc, under the Library
GPL.
Likewise, it would be disadvantageous to try to stop people from using
a GNU utility such as awk or grep from a proprietary shell script.
Sometimes it isn't clear what choice will work out best for
encouraging more free software. We originally distributed libg++
under the ordinary GPL, but moved it to the Library GPL to see if that
would encourage more development of libg++ and other GNU software.
(So far this particular change does not seem to have had much effect
of any kind; at least, when we asked people to tell us about its
effects, we heard about hardly any instances. If you know of any such
instances, please send e-mail about them to
lgpl-...@prep.ai.mit.edu.)
As to what requirements we can make, copyright lets us restrict
anything that is done by combining GNU code with some other software
to make one larger combined work. What precisely this means is a
difficult question: when do we have two separate programs, and when
do we have a single program made up of two parts?
It is impossible to be sure what the answer is. Different courts
might rule differently. What the FSF can say is when it will try to
claim two parts make one combined program.
I believe that the proper question to ask is, "Is it reasonable to say
that these two parts have been combined into one program, or is it
reasonable to say they are separate and independent programs." This
depends on what the parts are and how they relate to each other, not
on how they are packaged.
Some people have asked the FSF to state a simple, mechanical
criterion, based on what sort of commands are used in building the
program or programs involved. It's clear why such a rule would be
convenient in some ways. But a mechanical rule has to be
superficial--it closes its eyes to what is really important. The fact
that such rules tend to be easy to sneak around is an indication that
they aren't good rules.
Some people would like to see a line drawn which is clearly correct
and not at all arbitrary. Unfortunately, that is an unrealistic
demand; it can't be satisfied, not in this question, and not in many
(perhaps most) legal questions. Gray areas always arise. They are
much worse in some other instances than it is here; consider the gray
area between drunk and sober, and the arbitrary numerical criterion
that was set up to separate them. The only way to avoid this gray
area is to cut the guts out of the GPL, and that would not be an
improvement in terms of the GNU project's goals.
While it's impossible to state a general rule, I can address some
cases that I think will take care of almost all practical situations.
* Normally, when two different source files contain calls to each
other, combined by linking, we say they are part of a single program.
So when people make a collection of files intended to be linked
together, and some of these are GNU software, we say this means the
collection is one program and is covered by the GPL.
This is true just as much for libraries, even for libc, as it is for
tools such as the C compiler--whether a given set of object files are
packaged up into an archive is not a significant factor. The reason
that you can link any program with GNU libc, and even distribute a
linked executable if you wish, is that the copying conditions for GNU
libc explicitly permit this (with certain conditions).
* Use of a shared library is intermediate in its significance between
distributing an executable and letting the user do the link.
* A program written in a language is normally separate from an
interpreter for that language or a compiler for that language.
* A separate program can run a GNU utility and communicate data with
it through the interface we implemented. (If you make extensions that
are at all reasonable to call clean and general-purpose, the same
would be true for the extended utility. On the other hand, if you
extend it in an arcane way that makes sense only in terms of the
internals of some specific other program, we might claim that makes
one combined program.)
Normally, people speak of separate programs that interact by fork and
exec, and by exchanging data in a common format. For example, uucp
consists of many separate programs that interact in this way, but
there's general agreement that these are separate programs.
* An application program running on the GNU kernel we release will be
a separate program from the GNU kernel. (Likewise, if you make kernel
extensions that are at all reasonable to call clean and
general-purpose.)
* A compatible replacement for a GNU program is separate from the
program it replaces. (In fact, "separate" is an understatement; these
two programs are less likely to be combined than any two programs
picked at random, because either one makes the other unnecessary.)
The claim that a compatible program infringes the copyright on the
original program is what's generally known as "interface copyright".
The FSF does not do this; we do not legally object to making a
compatible replacement for a GNU program (though we might well think
it's a shame or a mistake).
* If your work is not a combined work including GNU software, but
somebody else goes ahead and combines them, that is not your
responsibility. For example, if you make a program that expects to be
linked with termcap--any termcap implementation--then there's no way
to claim you have incorporated GNU termcap in particular. (There are
non-GNU termcap implementations that are clearly serious.) If someone
else decides to link the program with GNU termcap, that does produce a
combined work, but it isn't your responsibility.
These positions are not new; the FSF has not changed its position on
these questions for several years. The FSF may change its position to
permit additional modes of use whenever we see an advantage for the
free software community in doing so. But we will not make a change in
the other direction unless loopholes appear and we change the GPL to
close them. (If a new version of the GPL has additional requirements,
they will naturally apply only to new software versions released
subsequently; we can't make them retroactive.)
However, there are some areas that are gray, where we won't take a
position until we have to. If you are actually planning a project and
you are not sure what the GPL says about it, please contact the FSF
via g...@prep.ai.mit.edu and ask.
We can't undertake to answer all hypothetical questions. Thinking
about these questions is often a lot of work, sometimes too much work
to do just for the sake of curiosity. Besides, the answer to a
hypothetical question often must be "It depends on other details," or
"We have to ask our lawyer." (And that costs money, which we might
not decide to spend for hypothetical questions.)
If you simply try to keep free and non-free software at arms length,
not only in terms of how you package them but also in terms of how
they interact, then you will probably not have a problem.
Wayne Hayes
with RSA and GNU-MP:
- you can write a translator from whatever other multiple precision library
to GNU-MP or vice-versa, no problem. If you have another GNU-MP compatible
library that's not GPL'd, then you can link it to you conversion routines
and even make it non-free if you want.
But if you actually link it to _THE_ GNU-MP library, then you have created
a "single program" <=> a derivative work, and you must either not distribute
it, or distribute it under the GPL.
I would now agree with RMS that the major problem is not with GNU, or FSF,
or the GPL: it is with the boneheads who decided to issue a software patent
for a mathematical theorem to a US company and stamp WARNING: MUNITIONS on
it, when in fact the mathematical theorem is already known world-wide and
it's a joke that someone in the US beauracracy thinks they're keeping
secrets by stamping MUNITIONS on it.
If the patent was revoked, it would seem to me that RMS would withdraw
his complaints about this particular case. And I'd agree with him now,
and then.
--
If the Earth is the size of a pea in New York, then the Sun is a beachball 50m
away, Pluto is 2km away, and the next nearest star is in Tokyo. Now shrink
Pluto's orbit into a coffee cup; then our Milky Way Galaxy fills North America.
Wayne Hayes INTERNET: wa...@csri.utoronto.ca CompuServe: 72401,3525
Jason Robbins
>[This message did not appear sooner because I wanted to think
>carefully and get feedback from friends before posting it.]
Thank you, this is the first reasonable post you have made. I would
encourage you to think carefully more often.
>Likewise, it would be disadvantageous to try to stop people from using
>a GNU utility such as awk or grep from a proprietary shell script.
compare this with:
>* Normally, when two different source files contain calls to each
>other, combined by linking, we say they are part of a single program.
I think that you are putting entirely too much emphasis on the calling
technology involved. There is a continuumof calling technologies from
inlining to jump-to-subroutine to message sending to rpc to pipes to
writing a file and popping up a dialog box asking the user to type
"emacs filename" in a shell window.
>However, there are some areas that are gray, where we won't take a
>position until we have to. If you are actually planning a project and
>you are not sure what the GPL says about it, please contact the FSF
>via g...@prep.ai.mit.edu and ask.
You are taking a position. The position that you are taking is that
"If you are a bad guy, you are probably violating the GPL, and you
will have to deal with us in order to resolve this gray area our way
or risk going to court over it."
Gray areas are tools for organizations with legal muscle. That is the
policy which FSF has been so much against when large companies
accumulate software patents, and it is exactly the policy which FSF
will soon find itself acting out. Exactly what technique was it that
you used to make markh remove the gmp linking instruction file from
his distribution? How is that different from Apple's implicit threat
to implementers of Mac clones? FSF may be smaller than Apple, but it
seems large and powerful enough to bully independent software
developers.
I don't mind the fact that you protect your intelectual property, and
I don't care if you charge cash up front or ask for the first male
child of your customers. What I dislike is your supposed ethical
system which divides the software development community into good guys
and bad guys when really no such distinction exists.
--
"See them try to bring the hammer down.
No damn chains can hold me to the ground." --Metalica
Sean Casey
them as "grey" in order to frighten people with the implied threat of
a lawsuit.
Nintendo unsuccessfully tried to block game cartridge makers from
selling cartridges that were compatible with the Nintendo
Entertainment System. These cartridges were utterly useless without
the NES, and were designed solely for the purpose of interfacing only
with the NES.
This was an important precedent setting case. It said, in effect: "You
cannot stop people from selling something compatible with your system,
and you cannot stop people from selling something that only works with
your system." Most people in the software and hardware industry
cheered this decision, as it affirmed their fundamental freedoms.
The GPL issue fits this precedent like a glove, and no judge in the US
is going to be bamboozled into missing that fact. And if it ever looks
like that'll be the case, I'll be happy to pay for my lawyer to file
an amicus brief pointing out relevant case history.
It can be argued that all legal issues are grey, but some issues that
have substantial precedent as this one are not very grey at all. If
Stallman wants to sue anyone over this one, please insist that he use
his own money because he will be throwing it away.
I think he's missing the forest for the trees. More important than the
GPL are fundamental programmer's freedoms, such as those being
threatened by software patents. Among these are the freedom to write
compatible software and the freedom to write software that makes use
of--but does not copy--other tools, even if the makers of those tools
don't agree with your philosophies. And that's why I am fighting this:
because I feel those freedoms are very important.
I think Stallman is caught in a conflict of interest. He can't legally
enforce his wishes for the GPL. To make that possible would be to
seriously damage programmer freedoms, something he is adamant about
protecting.
Fortunately, there are things even the GPL can't do. He shouldn't be
in the middle and trying to fuzz the issue so it looks like he can
have it both ways. He can't.
Sean
--
``Wind, waves, etc. are breakdowns in the face of the commitment to
getting from here to there. But they are conditions for sailing -- not
something to be gotten rid of, but something to be danced with.''
Bill Richter
Nintendo unsuccessfully tried to block game cartridge makers from
selling cartridges that were compatible with the Nintendo
Entertainment System. These cartridges were utterly useless without
the NES, and were designed solely for the purpose of interfacing only
with the NES.
This was an important precedent setting case. It said, in effect: "You
cannot stop people from selling something compatible with your system,
and you cannot stop people from selling something that only works with
your system." Most people in the software and hardware industry
cheered this decision, as it affirmed their fundamental freedoms.
The GPL issue fits this precedent like a glove, and no judge in the US
is going to be bamboozled into missing that fact.
That's an antitrust decision the court handed down. When a company
like Nintendo enjoys a near-monopoly, the courts will act against
them, limiting freedoms they would otherwise enjoy. If GM tried to
block NAPA auto parts from selling GM-compatible parts, the court
would probably rule against them.
What's this got to do with the GPL? Putting a copyright on software
doesn't mean anything if you can't put restrictions on how your
program can be used. Maybe you're entirely opposed to the idea of
copyrighting software? Probably Stallman is too! But in this world,
that's the tool he's using to keep free software free.
More important than the
GPL are fundamental programmer's freedoms, such as those being
threatened by software patents. Among these are the freedom to write
compatible software and the freedom to write software that makes use
of--but does not copy--other tools, even if the makers of those tools
don't agree with your philosophies.
Your freedom to "use other tools" would mean that I can sell my own
proprietary versions of emacs and gcc. I'll write a 2-line program
which then "uses" emacs.
Sean Casey
|What's this got to do with the GPL? Putting a copyright on software
|doesn't mean anything if you can't put restrictions on how your
|program can be used. Maybe you're entirely opposed to the idea of
|copyrighting software? Probably Stallman is too! But in this world,
|that's the tool he's using to keep free software free.
You're confusing patent law and copyright law. Copyright law allows an
author to restrict copying, but not use. If Stallman indeed wants to
control use, he can't use copyright law to do it. I consider this a
Good Thing. Otherwise, anyone that sold you a book or anything
copyrighted would be able to tell you what you could and couldn't do
with it.
The only way to control use in copyrighted software is to pre-arrange
a license with the user, and only distribute the software to the user
if he signs the license. Many software firms have used this
successfully in the past.
| More important than the
| GPL are fundamental programmer's freedoms, such as those being
| threatened by software patents. Among these are the freedom to write
| compatible software and the freedom to write software that makes use
| of--but does not copy--other tools, even if the makers of those tools
| don't agree with your philosophies.
|Your freedom to "use other tools" would mean that I can sell my own
|proprietary versions of emacs and gcc. I'll write a 2-line program
|which then "uses" emacs.
And you'd be free to distribute it under any terms you wish. If you
want to distribute emacs with it, you'd be bound to the terms of the
GPL. But your two liner is yours, and that's a very important thing.
Scott E. Preece
| In article <Jul.13.19.25....@pilot.njin.net> c...@pilot.njin.net (Sean Casey) writes:
|
| Nintendo unsuccessfully tried to block game cartridge makers from
| selling cartridges that were compatible with the Nintendo ...
|
| The GPL issue fits this precedent like a glove, and no judge in the US
| is going to be bamboozled into missing that fact.
|
| That's an antitrust decision the court handed down. When a company
| like Nintendo enjoys a near-monopoly, the courts will act against
| them, limiting freedoms they would otherwise enjoy.
---
No, it was not an antitrust decision.
---
| ... If GM tried to
| block NAPA auto parts from selling GM-compatible parts, the court
| would probably rule against them.
---
There are people currently working to get "design patents" reworked so
that they can have exactly that effect. Fighting that effort would be a
lot better use of FSF's money than trying to enforce the GPL.
---
|
| What's this got to do with the GPL? Putting a copyright on software
| doesn't mean anything if you can't put restrictions on how your
| program can be used. Maybe you're entirely opposed to the idea of
| copyrighting software? Probably Stallman is too! But in this world,
| that's the tool he's using to keep free software free.
---
You have a really whacked idea of what copyright is for. It has nothing
to do with how you *use* the software; it has everything to do with
whether or not you can *copy* the software (there is a statutory
exception for copying required to use a product, as in loading an
executable into memory or copying data from a CD into memory in order to
make music from it).
---
| More important than the
| GPL are fundamental programmer's freedoms, such as those being
| threatened by software patents. Among these are the freedom to write
| compatible software and the freedom to write software that makes use
| of--but does not copy--other tools, even if the makers of those tools
| don't agree with your philosophies.
|
| Your freedom to "use other tools" would mean that I can sell my own
| proprietary versions of emacs and gcc. I'll write a 2-line program
| which then "uses" emacs.
---
Well of course you can, if your customer has a valid copy of emacs or
gcc, obtained in accordance with the copyright owners terms. The
discussion is not about that, it's about what kind of interaction
between your 2-line program and the GNU software is permitted. The FSF
claims that while inter-process communication (e.g., through a pipe or
invocation via the system() call) is OK, but that intra-process
communication (such as linking your executable with the emacs
executable) implies that your executable is a derivative work and is
covered by their copyright; others (including me) believe the
distinction does not exist and that the FSF is trying to assert rights
they do not have to control how other people use their legally obtained
copies of FSF software.
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center 1101 e. university, urbana, il 61801
phone: 217-384-8589 fax: 217-384-8550
internet mail: pre...@urbana.mcd.mot.com
Bill Richter
(pre...@urbana.mcd.mot.com) responds to me responding to Sean Casey:
| That's an antitrust decision the court handed down. When a company
| like Nintendo enjoys a near-monopoly, the courts will act against
| them, limiting freedoms they would otherwise enjoy.
No, it was not an antitrust decision. [...]
You have a really whacked idea of what copyright is for.
Mea culpa! I admit don't know anything about video games, except how
to use xmodmap to cheat (by using both hands) at Tetris. I should
have said "license" rather than "copyright."
In article <Jul.14.14.11....@pilot.njin.net> c...@pilot.njin.net (Sean Casey) respondes to ric...@kepler.math.nwu.edu (Bill Richter):
You're confusing patent law and copyright law.
Right, the GPL is a license. I think many people, including Stallman,
would say that software licences are an intolerable abrogation of our
first Ammendment freedoms of expression and association. Stallman is
fighting fire with fire. People disagree and we have these flame wars!
Many posts here argue that "free" software should be willing to
compete with proprietary software in the "free" market. I think
Sean's original post was an example of this. Here's my answer.
The strength of the GNU project owes a lot to Stallman dynamic
leadership and programming wizardry. But as he points out, the real
strength comes from us, the users who send in our bug reports and bug
fixes and contribute our software. Let's call
WTP, for "We the People," the GNU contribution to the software
market, measured on some imaginary numerical scale, and let's call
MS the contribution of, let's say, the Microsoft Corp. Then I claim:
1) WTP > MS.
There's lots of us and we're excited and sharing information freely.
2) WTP < MS + WTP!
This is certainly true unless MS is a negative number, which I don't
believe. For one thing, I see lots of MicroSoft people posting on GNU
newsgroups. They seem like they know what they're talking about. My
old office-mate works there and I think he's a pretty smart guy.
Now suppose that GNU C is released into the PD, so that Microsoft can
sell it's proprietary version. Which version will the users use?
I think that after a period of time almost everyone will buy the
Microsoft version, under the usual constricting software license of
"you can't give it away, and we won't tell you the source code."
Here's why: since WTP < MS + WTP, the Microsoft version will be at
least as good as the GNU version. Microsoft will have access to all
of the GNU C bug reports and bug fixes. Since they're smart men and
women, they will fix some bugs & invent features by themselves as
well, which they won't share with us. If they obtain confidential
info about the Hardware, they can really whup us. So everyone except
the hard-core GNU hackers (not me!) buys the Microsoft version.
But the Microsoft version will be, in time, *worse* that the GNU
version would have been! Because WTP > MS, we can do a better job
than Microsoft can do by itself. The GNU C consortium (I don't know
much about the details) seems to bear out this theory.
To me a software company is like a Math Dept, where I work. They
don't have a high overhead that would justify the nondisclosure
agreements they force their programmers to sign. I'd be hopping mad if
the Dept Chairman said I couldn't talk to someone from another
University about what I was doing. BTW I feel that there are actually
lots of such restraints in my business, and that's a lot of the
attraction that I feel for the GNU project. I want it to survive.
Expanding on this, in theory there is full disclosure in the Math
business, because you have to publish papers and give talks in order
to advance. But in practice there's a lot of "antitrust" activity,
IMO. Mathematicians "encrypt" their papers to get credit for theorems
which other people can't turn around and use. Furthermore
mathematicians form into research groups that outsiders would find it
hard to break into. I belong to such a group myself!
I think the objectionable "software hoarding" is pretty much an
unavoidable consequence of the fact salaries in the Math biz are based
on the number of theorems you recieve credit for. Since I can't
really forsee a better way, I'll stop my hand-biting for now.
But last summer I heard about epoch, an advance version of emacs 19,
so I got a hold of it and tried to add some mouse functions. I could
do it! Even though I'm not an "insider." Their elisp code was pretty
readable, and I learned what I needed from the elisp info files by
using the "s" command on unfamiliar words. I think my experience is
typical. When emacs 19 came around I was able to reprogram my mouse
commands, and I submitted them to Stallman who took the bugs out and
improved the functionality (by a lot), and I recommend it to everyone,
to try out the Meta-mouse functions in emacs 19.
This is just one academic's experience, but I was thrilled! I don't
know if anyone's ever read any of my papers, and I can hardly ever
read anyone else's. I'm still young and I expect things to improve,
but this is the kind of shared thinking experience I was looking for.
Tim Smith
>Now suppose that GNU C is released into the PD, so that Microsoft can
>sell it's proprietary version. Which version will the users use?
>
>I think that after a period of time almost everyone will buy the
>Microsoft version, under the usual constricting software license of
>"you can't give it away, and we won't tell you the source code."
>Here's why: since WTP < MS + WTP, the Microsoft version will be at
>least as good as the GNU version. Microsoft will have access to all
>of the GNU C bug reports and bug fixes. Since they're smart men and
>women, they will fix some bugs & invent features by themselves as
>well, which they won't share with us. If they obtain confidential
>info about the Hardware, they can really whup us. So everyone except
>the hard-core GNU hackers (not me!) buys the Microsoft version.
>
>But the Microsoft version will be, in time, *worse* that the GNU
>version would have been! Because WTP > MS, we can do a better job
>than Microsoft can do by itself. The GNU C consortium (I don't know
>much about the details) seems to bear out this theory.
There's no reason WTP could not continue to improve the compiler. The
GNU version would end up with the same features as it would have had
anyway. The only difference is that the proprietary MS version will
have some of them earlier. Those who want those features sooner
end up paying for them, much the same way that someone now who wants
a feature not in GNU software can pay someone to develop it.
--
"Pope moved that we strike from the State's brief and appendix a selection from
the Year Book of 1484 written in Medieval Latin and references thereto. The
State provided no translation and conceded a total lack of knowledge of what it
meant. The motion is granted" 396 A.2d 1054 --Tim Smith
Michael Golan
>ric...@kepler.math.nwu.edu (Bill Richter) writes:
>|What's this got to do with the GPL? Putting a copyright on software
>|doesn't mean anything if you can't put restrictions on how your
>|program can be used. Maybe you're entirely opposed to the idea of
>|copyrighting software? Probably Stallman is too! But in this world,
>|that's the tool he's using to keep free software free.
>You're confusing patent law and copyright law. Copyright law allows an
>author to restrict copying, but not use. If Stallman indeed wants to
>control use, he can't use copyright law to do it. I consider this a
>Good Thing. Otherwise, anyone that sold you a book or anything
>copyrighted would be able to tell you what you could and couldn't do
>with it.
Sean hits it right on the head.
This is the basic problem with the FSF/GPL.
Stallman doesn't want to control copying or modifications, nor to make
any money off the FSF code. He wants to control the use of his code and
to use it as a political instrument to change society.
Copyright law was not designed for that. It was designed for the
specific purpose of authors making a profit of their intellectual
work and any work derived from it.
This is why I'm claiming the GPL, in general, could well be invalidated
by the court, should the defense prove that the whole concept of the GPL
is an attempt to abuse the copyright lawmaker intent. I'm not inventing
this, I heard that from lawyers. (I have no idea how likely this to happen,
full invalidation might not occur, but the code could end up being as PD
as X or BSD.)
I can only again call for people to stop releasing free code under the GPL
and to release it instead as PD (or nearly PD, like BSD X etc.).
--
Michael Golan | Duel, PD add-on to gdb, allows "x[..100] >? 0" to
m...@cs.princeton.edu | show the positive elements of x in the debugger, etc.
| annon ftp ftp.cs.princeton.edu:/duel or send me mail!
Michael Golan
>Gray areas are tools for organizations with legal muscle. That is the
>policy which FSF has been so much against when large companies
>accumulate software patents, and it is exactly the policy which FSF
>will soon find itself acting out. Exactly what technique was it that
>you used to make markh remove the gmp linking instruction file from
>his distribution? How is that different from Apple's implicit threat
>to implementers of Mac clones? FSF may be smaller than Apple, but it
>seems large and powerful enough to bully independent software
>developers.
I second that, and I have seen more than one post to claim this.
Doesn't someone from the FSF care to comment on these allegations?
How many people have *you* heard of who wrote *FREE* software and released
it, then had to delete their work because of legal threats?
Keep in mind that the FSF legal tactics as explained above were used
against private people who spent their own time to write a piece of
free code that later had to be removed from publication. And that piece
of code wasn't a copyright violation in any usual way. They didn't copy
anyone's code. What do *you* call a company using such tactics, ignoring
whether they are legally right or not? What does rms usually call companies
who threat private developers of free software?
Michael Golan
>As to what requirements we can make, copyright lets us restrict
>anything that is done by combining GNU code with some other software
>to make one larger combined work. What precisely this means is a
>difficult question: when do we have two separate programs, and when
>do we have a single program made up of two parts?
you seems to be deliberately ignoring recent court decisions which
seems to indicate that your copyright claims on "anything combined
with gnu code" are *quite limited*.
you also seems to ignore the fair use clause. i never heard
anyone raising this issue regarding a library he purchased, but then
no library seller ever claimed copyright on code using it (which
isnt the same as the executable.) common sense suggests that
code I wrote that uses a library I acquired is *my* own and any possible
copyright violation of the library is covered by fair use. Why
would i acquire the library otherwise? The idea that packaging the
code as a library doesn't make a difference doesn't hold water -
packaging and intended use have a lot to do with copyright law!
(The fact that GPLed libraries cost $0 doesn't make any difference.)
>* normally, when two different source files contain calls to each
>other, combined by linking, we say they are part of a single program.
>so when people make a collection of files intended to be linked
>together, and some of these are gnu software, we say this means the
>collection is one program and is covered by the gpl.
how did you make the quantum leap here from "when files are combined
together" to "people intending to link files together"?
can you site any copyright case were "intent to combine"
implied infringement?
when two different source files contain calls to each other, "we"
normally say that they interface each other. "we" don't say one
is derived from the other. can you site any legal case to
substantiate your claim that two independently copyrighted files
are considered "part of a single program" merely because they could
be linked together?
many people have asked to clarify the FSF *legal* claims which we
find outrageous by making references to common practices and various
copyright cases. Many people have cited such common practices and
cases that seem to be in complete contrast to your claims. you have
decided to avoid legal claims and reference to legal cases completely,
can you tell us why? Is the FSF incapable of explaining current
practices and recent court rulings, or is that simply "disadvantageous"
to the FSF causes at this point?
>if you simply try to keep free and non-free software at arms length,
>not only in terms of how you package them but also in terms of how
>they interact, then you will probably not have a problem.
i'd suggest everyone do that. just don't confuse "free" and gpled code,
they are two different creatures. avoid the use of gpled program that you
can do without, and avoid interfacing to gpled code unless you release
gpled code. of ocurse, it might be wise to avoid releasing any gpled code.
otherwise, you are taking the risk of being sued/threatened by the fsf
now or sometimes in the future, because you didn't keep the "wall" between
gpled and normal software well enough.
i'd like to thank rms for taking the time to explain to me and others
the official fsf position, absured as it might be. at the very least,
it should eliminate boring legal questions from g.m.d, for the answer
to all of them is now clear: "it all depends if you farther the fsf
cause or not and what rms might think when you actually release it."
--
michael golan | duel, pd add-on to gdb, allows "x[..100] >? 0" to
Joe Buck
>Copyright law was not designed for that. It was designed for the
>specific purpose of authors making a profit of their intellectual
>work and any work derived from it.
Wrong, Michael. Read the US Constitution; it says explicitly what
the justification for patent and copyright is, and it uses the same
language for both. The justification is "In order to promote progress
in science and useful arts". Period. Nothing about authors making a
profit. RTFM, in a sense. Stallman believes that his GPL language is a
way to accomplish just that.
>This is why I'm claiming the GPL, in general, could well be invalidated
>by the court, should the defense prove that the whole concept of the GPL
>is an attempt to abuse the copyright lawmaker intent.
Since you misunderstand the intent, your argument fails.
>I'm not inventing this, I heard that from lawyers.
I have heard many lawyers talking as if "intellectual property" were the
same as any other kind of property, but this is not supported by the
language and history of the Constitution.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Joe Buck
>Stallman doesn't want to control copying or modifications, nor to make
>any money off the FSF code. He wants to control the use of his code and
>to use it as a political instrument to change society.
>
>specific purpose of authors making a profit of their intellectual
>work and any work derived from it.
This is nonsense, at least in the US, as one can determine by reading the
US Constitution, which clearly states what the purpose of patents and
copyrights is. Clue: it has nothing to do with authors being entitled to
profits.
From Article 1, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for
limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective
Writings and Discoveries;
>This is why I'm claiming the GPL, in general, could well be invalidated
>by the court, should the defense prove that the whole concept of the GPL
>is an attempt to abuse the copyright lawmaker intent.
This argument would be laughed out of court immediately. Stallman would
have no trouble making a case that the GPL has served to promote the
progress of the useful art of compiler writing, and the Constitution
stands above all other law in the US. If, indeed, the copyright lawmakers
had different intent, they violated the Constitution.
> I'm not inventing this, I heard that from lawyers.
I've heard a number of lawyers talk as if there were no distinction
between intellectual property and physical property. That doesn't make it
the truth.
> (I have no idea how likely this to happen,
>full invalidation might not occur, but the code could end up being as PD
>as X or BSD.)
Well, who knows what a court would say. X and BSD are not PD, by the way;
they are both copyrighted.
>I can only again call for people to stop releasing free code under the GPL
>and to release it instead as PD (or nearly PD, like BSD X etc.).
So, Michael: quite a few universities are releasing software "for research
purposes only", claiming that those that use the software for other
purposes must negotiate a license with the university. For example, Brown
University does this, and so have some departments at Yale. By your
argument, this is also illegal and that code should be PD as well, since
they are attempting to impose a use restriction. Right? Why are you
singling out the GPL?
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Bill Richter
There's no reason WTP could not continue to improve the compiler. The
GNU version would end up with the same features as it would have had
anyway. The only difference is that the proprietary MS version will
have some of them earlier. Those who want those features sooner
end up paying for them, much the same way that someone now who wants
a feature not in GNU software can pay someone to develop it.
Once WTP start using the hypothetical Microsoft proprietary version of
gcc, then WE are not also sending in our bug reports & patches to keep
the GNU C compiler flourishing. But the hypothetical Microsoft
compiler does not continue to improve, because it's organized on less
efficient, more hierarchical, less democratic principles.
Scott Michel
Some people have asked the FSF to state a simple, mechanical
criterion, based on what sort of commands are used in building the
program or programs involved. It's clear why such a rule would be
convenient in some ways. But a mechanical rule has to be
superficial--it closes its eyes to what is really important. The fact
that such rules tend to be easy to sneak around is an indication that
they aren't good rules.
If a copyright is a form of contract, then "mechanizing" it would make
the contract unambiguous. Then it would be clear how the agents involved
in the contract perform. An ambigious contract allows both you and myself
to claim that certain clauses in the contract are true, and we are both
right. Currently, the main topic of the debate thread is interpreting
what is an abiguous contract (ideological issues aside.)
Some people would like to see a line drawn which is clearly correct
and not at all arbitrary. Unfortunately, that is an unrealistic
demand; it can't be satisfied, not in this question, and not in many
(perhaps most) legal questions. Gray areas always arise. They are
much worse in some other instances than it is here; consider the gray
area between drunk and sober, and the arbitrary numerical criterion
that was set up to separate them. The only way to avoid this gray
area is to cut the guts out of the GPL, and that would not be an
improvement in terms of the GNU project's goals.
By having an unambiguous copyright, you would avoid many of the
aforementioned problems. Sure, gray areas arise, but then it is clear
from the copyright itself who is at fault. As to the drunk/sober
issue, the "arbitrary" numbers were set in place so as to give the law
an unambiguous criterion. Whether or not you agree with the particular
numbers is a seperate and unrelated issue.
While it's impossible to state a general rule, I can address some
cases that I think will take care of almost all practical situations.
That's the major problem with taking a relativistic approach to what
is and what isn't covered by a "gut instinct in order to further FSF's
goals". It seems pretty clear what FSF wants to accomplish, why not
express it clearly? It'd save a hell of a lot of bandwidth.
[much deleted as to what a program is and isnt]
First point: Let's get definitions straight. "program" is used in this
post to describe just about anything that involves written code,
regardless as to its operability. And rms wonders why he's oft
misinterpreted whilst pontificating from on high. It doesn't really
matter how the application is eventually executed and where it's
unresolved external bindings come from since a library and a shared
library function similarly (resolve external bindings).
From what I read, basically, if I take bison, and I enhance bison
(ebison), then ebison is covered under the GPL. However, if I use
bison to create a parser and that parser is incorporated into an
application that I'm building, then the parser is GPL'd as is the
application. That still doesn't disambiguate things. What if I decide
to use obstacks? Because they exist inside and outside libraries,
what version do I use? Am I nuked because I use one and not the other?
If you simply try to keep free and non-free software at arms length,
not only in terms of how you package them but also in terms of how
they interact, then you will probably not have a problem.
I.e. keep what you write that doesn't include code that the GPL (or
rms) blesses the *hell* away from everything else?
-scottm
Michael Golan
>This is nonsense, at least in the US, as one can determine by reading the
>US Constitution, which clearly states what the purpose of patents and
>copyrights is. Clue: it has nothing to do with authors being entitled to
>profits.
nonsense yourself. The constitution does not discuss the reasons beyond
the copyright law; it gives a basic reason why it provides a general
authority to the congress to enact such laws. The specific provisions
of copyright law (including various modifications over the years) and
their intent have *nothing* to do with the constitution.
But I wish you were right ... then, if we could prove that patent law
does not advance science (at least for software patents), we could claim
the law is unconstitutional .... unfortunately, I was told this won't work.
>This argument would be laughed out of court immediately. Stallman would
>have no trouble making a case that the GPL has served to promote the
>progress of the useful art of compiler writing, and the Constitution
>stands above all other law in the US. If, indeed, the copyright lawmakers
>had different intent, they violated the Constitution.
Oh? how would stallman show "with no trouble" that the *GPL*, not the gcc
code, served anything? As for copyright lawmakers violating the constitution,
I suggest you check with your lawyers, your reading of that clause (which
was my original reading too, I admit), is just wrong.
>So, Michael: quite a few universities are releasing software "for research
>purposes only", claiming that those that use the software for other
>purposes must negotiate a license with the university. For example, Brown
>University does this, and so have some departments at Yale. By your
>argument, this is also illegal and that code should be PD as well, since
>they are attempting to impose a use restriction. Right? Why are you
>singling out the GPL?
Not illegal, invalid.
the GPL is hardly the only license that seems to assert copyright claims
that don't wash, or so I am repeatedly told. I dunno if "research use only"
is very defined copyright issue (it certainly is for patents.) But hey, why
don't you give a copyright *case* were such a copyright was upheld by the
court, rather than example of "others" doing it?
Why I'm singling out the GPL? (a) I dont and (b) it is esp. aggressive in
both its claims and in its giving up of copyr protection (copy, derive,
distribute, make money, etc.)
Oh, and I never said X was PD, I said "as PD as X is" meaning copyrighted
but in practice similar to real PD code in usefulness. "PD" is often used
to describe such code for lack of a better term.
Michael Kenney
[ Nintendo example deleted ]
>That's an antitrust decision the court handed down. When a company
>like Nintendo enjoys a near-monopoly, the courts will act against
>them, limiting freedoms they would otherwise enjoy. If GM tried to
>block NAPA auto parts from selling GM-compatible parts, the court
>would probably rule against them.
>
>What's this got to do with the GPL? Putting a copyright on software
>doesn't mean anything if you can't put restrictions on how your
>program can be used. Maybe you're entirely opposed to the idea of
>copyrighting software? Probably Stallman is too! But in this world,
>that's the tool he's using to keep free software free.
>
Hmmm. So the end justifies the means (or does that only apply to rms).
What about a small software company that is forced to use patents because
it's necessary if they want to do business in the real world??.
Let me make it clear, I do not like software patents and wish they could
be eliminated. But I can't blame anyone for using them ... you have to
be a realist.
----
Mike Kenney
UW Applied Physics Lab
mi...@apl.washington.edu
Russell Nelson
This is why I'm claiming the GPL, in general, could well be invalidated
by the court, should the defense prove that the whole concept of the GPL
is an attempt to abuse the copyright lawmaker intent. I'm not inventing
this, I heard that from lawyers. (I have no idea how likely this to happen,
full invalidation might not occur, but the code could end up being as PD
as X or BSD.)
I can only again call for people to stop releasing free code under the GPL
and to release it instead as PD (or nearly PD, like BSD X etc.).
And you accuse the FSF of using FUD???? Shame on you!
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> What canst *thou* say?
Crynwr Software Crynwr Software sells packet driver support.
11 Grant St. 315-268-1925 Voice | LPF member - ask me about
Potsdam, NY 13676 315-268-9201 FAX | the harm software patents do.
Russell Nelson
How many people have *you* heard of who wrote *FREE* software and released
it, then had to delete their work because of legal threats?
How many times have *you* heard about poor Craig Shergold, who's
dying of cancer and needs postcards to break the world's record for
stupidity before he dies?
Marc VanHeyningen
>I would now agree with RMS that the major problem is not with GNU, or FSF,
>or the GPL: it is with the boneheads who decided to issue a software patent
>for a mathematical theorem to a US company and stamp WARNING: MUNITIONS on
>it, when in fact the mathematical theorem is already known world-wide and
>it's a joke that someone in the US beauracracy thinks they're keeping
>secrets by stamping MUNITIONS on it.
>
>If the patent was revoked, it would seem to me that RMS would withdraw
>his complaints about this particular case. And I'd agree with him now,
>and then.
If the patents (note plural) pertaining to public-key were revoked or
struck down or whatever, it would have no effect of any kind on this
particular case. It would still be a matter of copyrighted code with
non-GPL conditions allegedly being combined with GPLed code to form a
single program.
--
Marc VanHeyningen mvan...@cs.indiana.edu MIME, RIPEM & HTTP spoken here
Michael I Bushnell
In article <1993Jul15.1...@Princeton.EDU> m...@elan.Princeton.EDU writes:
How many people have *you* heard of who wrote *FREE* software
and released it, then had to delete their work because of legal
threats?
How many times have *you* heard about poor Craig Shergold, who's
dying of cancer and needs postcards to break the world's record for
stupidity before he dies?
Wow! How can I help him out? Do you have the address?
--
+1 617 623 3248 (H) | May the meadows cover themselves with flocks,
+1 617 253 8568 (W) -+- and the valleys cloak themselves with grain;
1105 Broadway | let them shout for joy and sing.
Somerville, MA 02144 |
Michael Golan
> In article <1993Jul15.1...@Princeton.EDU> m...@Princeton.EDU writes:
> How many people have *you* heard of who wrote *FREE* software
> and released it, then had to delete their work because of legal
> threats?
> How many times have *you* heard about poor Craig Shergold, who's
> dying of cancer and needs postcards to break the world's record for
> stupidity before he dies?
>Wow! How can I help him out? Do you have the address?
Why would you help him and not help programmers of free software?
Your senseless joke aside, the fact is that the programmers of RIPEM
have been legal threatened and were forced to delete an already
released, free, work. In that case, the damage done (amout of time
and code wasted) seemigly wasn't much, but the FSF tactics and the
possibility for something similar (with more damage) happening soon
hasn't changed.
My point stands: programmers of free, non-GPLed code are best
protected from threats and lawsuits by avoiding interaction with
any GPLed code; the risk of threats/lawsuits as a result of using
GPLed code seems larger and more serious than that
resulting from interaction with commercial libraries.
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Golan <m...@hart.Princeton.EDU> writes:
Michael> My point stands: programmers of free, non-GPLed code are best
Michael> protected from threats and lawsuits by avoiding interaction with
Michael> any GPLed code; the risk of threats/lawsuits as a result of using
Michael> GPLed code seems larger and more serious than that
Michael> resulting from interaction with commercial libraries.
And add to that FSF's use of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to pursue
their goals! Better listen to the friendly advice from Michael Golan.
Jason Robbins
>And add to that FSF's use of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to pursue
>their goals!
I assume that you meant this as a joke.
But don't _YOU_ laugh: FSF _is_ using FUD.
_I_, on the other hand, can laugh: FSF _is_ using FUD.
-jason
--
This message is copyrighted by Jason Robbins, 1993.
Anyone using this message or any part of it for any purpose other than
reading its contents must send me an email message with the characters
"$5" in the subject line. Prices good through 8/31/93.
Per Abrahamsen
>>>>> "Jason" == Jason Robbins <jrob...@kingston.cs.ucla.edu> writes:
Jason> I assume that you meant this as a joke.
Jason> But don't _YOU_ laugh: FSF _is_ using FUD.
Jason> _I_, on the other hand, can laugh: FSF _is_ using FUD.
Thanks for your valuable contribution to the debate.