From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Chris Morgan Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/08/12 Message-ID: <33F13EBC.373@ix.netcom.com> X-Deja-AN: 264118262 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu> <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu> <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <33D6FA2B.9B7@ix.netcom.com> <33E00855.2BA7@ix.netcom.com> <33E974F3.1AAC@ix.netcom.com> Organization: Linux Hackers Unlimited X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Aug 12 8:56:55 PM CDT 1997 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-08-12T20:56:55-05:00 List-Id: Ronald Cole wrote: > You can read Dewar's own words on the subject because they are archived > at DejaNews and several other sites. It's ok, I read them, all of them, at the time. > Like Dewar, you appear to mistake a bug report with a request for free > support. Any conclusions you make based on your incorrect assumptions > are quite suspect. Well it seems to me you wanted more than the ability to send an email to report@gnat.com, for example an acknowledgement and possibly advice on what had gone wrong in your build. If not why did you engage in noisy public debate on the matter. > Please provide an alternate interpretation of Stallman's words, then. > I am unable to come up with a coherent one, but that doesn't mean > there isn't one. Care to give it a shot? No, I don't care to try this at all. The reason is that to me you are simply not rewarding to argue with. For example I think you twist other peoples words constantly, you are gratuitously rude and insulting, you lack any kind of respect for or knowledge of the people you are publically defaming and yet you expect some kind of response from them when you call them hypocrites and liars. > > > Again, my view is that the Golden Rule is the big picture, the gpl is > > the details, so the golden rule does not need to be brought up to spec. > > It's like wanting a University to update its motto because you're > > unhappy with its exam marking. > > Classic example of "constipation of the brain, diarrhea of the mouth". Good point, well argued, you're doing well. > Sorry, Charlie. When I speak of "Linux", I am speaking of the kernel. > I am quite content to call the rest of the software on my Slackware CD > "The GNU System". Ok. > > > Is this the tragedy of the commons thing you mention in another posting? > > I am already aware of that, however I think rms's key insight is the > > essential difference between physical things and software. A difference > > hidden and denied by standard commercial practice. When I use the GNU > > software to the fullest extent possible, I don't remove any benefit you > > might get from it, so it's not really plundered at all. > > It's plundered if you monopolize enhancements to it (since the goal of > the software "commons" is to advance the state of the art sans > licensing restrictions). If Dewar really needs to monopolize GNAT to > stay competitive, I believe that he shouldn't be using gcc to get him > there. Fine, but that's just a matter of opinion. You have acknowledged that ACT are not infringing the GPL, so now you're down to loudly saying "I don't like what you are doing". Mr Cole, I don't like what _you_ are doing. > More later than sooner. Locate and read Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral > and the Bazaar". It's quite a good read. I'm sure it is. I have read a good deal of the discussions on various newsgroups regarding FSF vs. Cygnus, Linux vs. RMS etc. There are a lot of differences of opinion on the matter across all parts of the free software spectrum so no book you refer me to can possibly prove something conclusively. I have my opinion on the matter. > The GPL says that you cannot impose any further restrictions on the > recipients' exercise of the rights granted by it. Isn't making the > threat of not doing business with a client who exercises those rights > an imposition of further restrictions? Especially so if you own a > monopoly on the current product releases? Irrelevant. No such threat has ever been made. > You haven't actually read the Manifesto, have you? One of the beneficial > goals of GNU was that "much wasteful duplication of system programming > effort will be avoided ... [in order to advance] the state of the art". > Why would you suggest that I do something to slow that advancement? You are wrong, I have read the manifesto. I am suggesting that this supposed unfair advantage ACT have by "hoarding" GNAT 3.10 would be wafer-thin if it were really only the differences between 3.9 and 3.10, so for the sake of a little wasted effort you the heroic idealist could remove their advantage once and for all. A little like RMS destroying the commercial Lisp machine market for months and months by reverse engineering every new feature. I was trying to use irony to highlight this completely and utterly ludicrous idea. You missed it. Here it is again. The "unfair advantage" ACT have is they are all compiler wizards who know GNAT inside out and backwards and have endless years of experience at this work. They make money by offering excellent support, not by hoarding. You dislike their policy on GNAT releases but it is allowed by the GPL and approved by Stallman. That's good enough for me and nearly every other serious GNAT user. > > > > He wrote that he was "required to consider it wrong" and yet > > > now he appears to tolerate it. > > > > Only under your interpretation of events. > > I've tried to get Stallman to clarify. He hasn't yet. I agree that a clarification might be helpful. However why should he do anything to clarify things for you? > > > Some monopoly. > > You are incorrectly generalizing what I've been saying. Well I'm glad to hear that you don't like incorrect generalising. I have repeatedly said that I find your characterisation of what I and others say to be incorrect so perhaps you should examine what you write more carefully. ACT's monopoly > is in the "current product release", which Dewar admitted they sell to > their customers and then release at some indefinite time in the future. No, he did not admit any such thing. > > Aladdin Enterprises does the same thing, but since ghostscript is > entirely Aladdin's I don't have a problem with that. GNAT is > based on the GPL'd technology in gcc. ACT do not sell GNAT. How many times do you plan to make false statements about this? I told you that any ACT customer could legally and ethically give you a wavefront. But nobody is required to. My view is that in many ways you are the perfect example of why keeping work-in-progress software private is a good idea. Nevertheless, I also said I wish I or someone else could give it to you (but I certainly can't as I don't have it). > It doesn't appear that you've read the GPL either ("Also, for each > author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone > understands that there is no warranty for this free software.") Wrong again. I have read the GPL. It is quite tedious and I don't care about it enough to argue trivia with you. I care about what it is protecting, and it seems to be working. If nobody but you thinks it has been infringed then I don't really care about any statements you make to the contrary. ACT don't claim to provide a warrantee anyway, they just fix anything that breaks for a paying customer. > > > The combined package is the product, one piece of it on its own is > > simply beta software. And it's not mere word games as you yourself have > > discovered, as you were tipped up by the wake of a placidly cruising > > public release for HP-UX, so imagine how wet you could get with an > > unsupported wavefront! > > Please stop making up "facts". I reported an hppa optimizer bug in > the 3.09 release, It was the public release right? And you tried to build it with non-standard gcc settings right? If the preceding is true then which facts do you accuse me of making up? which Dewar admitted to not reading, and yet Dewar > (incorrectly) interpreted it as a request for "free support". If you didn't want support then you should have just sent a message to report@gnat.com and then got back to work. I also interpreted your actual course of action as a request (more like demand) for support. If you are not asking for support then the situation is quite simple. You received some software licensed under the GPL. It has some problems. You are not happy about them. That's it. There is nothing more to say, suggestions of lies, hypocrisy, selling out or suchlike are just a load of hot air. He then > "suggested" that I become a customer because "most of [ACT's HPUX > customers] have by now switched to 3.10 which is the current product > release". This is an unfortunate choice of words. If you take Prof Dewars repeated statements about GNAT and ACT as a whole, the more correct form of words might be (using my interpretation adding words like _this_, and I'm sure he will correct me if I am wrong) "most of [ACT's HPUX customers] have by now switched to 3.10 _wavefront_ which _with our support_ is the current product release". He could have added that for some customers the 3.09 release plus their support is the current product release as I know of at least one company that does not use wavefronts when the most recent public release will do the job instead. > > After I sent email to Stallman asking for clarification, Dewar did > some serious back-pedaling and offered up his company "policies" which > didn't appear to stand up to close scrutiny when compared to the > public 3.09 release. As I said, I agree with you that there is an unfortunate implication in the choice of words he made. However, some back-pedalling is allowable, after all I seem to remember you accusing ACT of GPL infringement at one point which you have learnt is not true. Anyway, irrespective of who said what when, ACTs actions speak for themselves, they are another magnificent example of the truly great Free Software movement, and you only further alienate all the people who share your interest in GNU software, Ada etc with almost every posting you make on this subject. Chris -- Chris Morgan "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,"