* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? @ 1997-09-01 0:00 Richard Stallman 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Stallman @ 1997-09-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) The GNU GPL was designed to achieve certain specific goals. One goal of the GPL was to ensure that if you have a copy of a GPL-covered program, you have the freedom to redistribute it. Another goal is that if you get a modified version of a GPL-covered program, you get the source code, or have a way of getting the source code. Occasionally someone disobeys the GNU GPL. If they do this with a program whose copyright belongs to the FSF, the FSF can take action to make them comply. But in order to even consider doing this, we need a precise description of the facts of what is occurring. We need this in order to determine whether the GPL is being violated, and also as the basis for taking action if it is being violated. When you encounter a bug in a program, if you want it to be fixed, the way to get it fixed is by sending a precise bug report to the maintainers. If you complain to the public about the problem, without reporting it properly to the maintainers, you should complain about yourself, because you are the one failing to take constructive action. It is the same with violations of the GPL. In order for the author or copyright holder to take action, you have to make a precise report of the facts of what is happening. I recently heard from an employee of Wind River Systems who wanted to know how they could assign all their changes to the FSF. This suggests that they want their changes to be included in a subsequent GDB release. This doesn't necessarily mean we WANT to install their changes; that depends on how much extra work this would make for GDB maintenance in the future. For the GNU project, supporting embedded systems is a side issue. But if it is not unduly burdensome to include the changes, we surely would. Whatever their future plans may be, Wind River Systems is obliged to obey the GNU GPL when distributing GDB. If you received a binary of a modified version of GDB (or any GNU program) from Wind River (or from anyone else), you should have also received either the complete source code of the modified program, or a written offer to supply you with that complete source code subsequently by mail order, valid for at least three years, for a limited price as required by section 3 of the GNU GPL. If you did not get the source or a proper written offer to send the source, please report the facts clearly and dispassionately to gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* gnat-3.10 @ 1997-05-28 0:00 Ronald Cole 1997-05-29 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-05-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert, Are we going to see a 3.10 release which can bootstrap itself on HPUX (3.09 can't) anytime soon? -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgecrest.ca.us> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-05-28 0:00 gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole @ 1997-05-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-05-30 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole <<Robert, Are we going to see a 3.10 release which can bootstrap itself on HPUX (3.09 can't) anytime soon?>> If you see a public release of GNAT from us, then you know it has been bootstrapped, i.e. we succeeded in bootstrapping the HPUX 3.09 version. It's not too surprising that Ronald might not be able to do so without help from us, there can be tricky points involved in any of these GNAT bootstraps, which is why most people work with the binary releases. As for 3.10, we never give any prognosis on schedules for public releases. A number of our customers are working with prereleases of 3.10 very successfully, and all we will say is that, as for all GNAT releases, it will be releases publicly some time in the future. Of course we cannot guarantee that when it is realeased, Ronald Cole will be able to bootstrap it on HPUX! (but we will have bootstrapped it!) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-05-29 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar @ 1997-05-30 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-07 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-05-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > If you see a public release of GNAT from us, then you know it has been > bootstrapped, i.e. we succeeded in bootstrapping the HPUX 3.09 version. > It's not too surprising that Ronald might not be able to do so without > help from us, there can be tricky points involved in any of these GNAT > bootstraps, which is why most people work with the binary releases. Obviously you personally haven't tried to build gnat-3.09-src.tar.gz with gnat-3.09-hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.10-bin.tar.gz while following the directions exactly as given in src/README.UNIX. Please! Try it for yourself and be sure to post your results. Even with the following patch provided by your team, the gnat1 component bootstrapped itself, but it couldn't finish building the Run Time Library: --- function.c~ Tue Feb 11 13:33:53 1997 +++ function.c Tue Feb 18 12:32:05 1997 @@ -2963,5 +2963,5 @@ 0)) || (GET_CODE (XEXP (x, 0)) == REG - && instantiate_virtual_regs_1 (&XEXP (x, 0), 0, 0))) + && instantiate_virtual_regs_1 (&XEXP (x, 0), object, 0))) return 1; > As for 3.10, we never give any prognosis on schedules for public releases. > A number of our customers are working with prereleases of 3.10 very > successfully, and all we will say is that, as for all GNAT releases, it > will be releases publicly some time in the future. > > Of course we cannot guarantee that when it is realeased, Ronald Cole > will be able to bootstrap it on HPUX! > (but we will have bootstrapped it!) I hope you'll understand that I'll still question the validity of a binary release that can't even compile itself without asserting a fatal compiler error. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgecrest.ca.us> 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-05-30 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <m2vi3kpuay.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole says <<I hope you'll understand that I'll still question the validity of a binary release that can't even compile itself without asserting a fatal compiler error. >> It is perfectly possible to bootstrap this version of GNAT, if you have the right versions of everything. So the issue here is not whether this version can compile itself, of course it can, it is whether Ronald Cole without help from us can do it? Apparently the answer is no. We provide our binary releases on an as-is basis, and they have always been bootstrapped. We do NOT particularly spend a lot of effort ensuring that they can easily be built without our help from sources, though many people do in fact succeed in this effort. Certainly if you are specifically concerned with the "validity" of a binary release, we would advise you to get it from us. We take no responsibility for public versions that are around on the net. We try to make sure that they are in good shape, and correspond to what we distributed originally, but we cannot guarantee this, and we certainly do NOT guarantee that everyone will be able to build them from sources. Ada Core Technologies Robert B. K. Dewar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <m2vi3kpuay.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>]
* Re: gnat-3.10 [not found] ` <m2vi3kpuay.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-12 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole said <<Bootstrapped according to the directions you so thoughtfully provide in your source distribution? Doubtful, see below. >> Well some people manage with these directions alone, by fiddling around, other people succeed with advice that we give. We do not provide any help in building from sources for unsupported users of GNAT. Nevertheless, many such people succeed in building from sources. And, as I have said before, any binary version you see from us has been built from sources and bootstrapped. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-06-12 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-13 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Ronald Cole said > <<Bootstrapped according to the directions you so thoughtfully provide > in your source distribution? Doubtful, see below. > >> > > Well some people manage with these directions alone, by fiddling around, > other people succeed with advice that we give. We do not provide any help > in building from sources for unsupported users of GNAT. Nevertheless, many > such people succeed in building from sources. And, as I have said before, > any binary version you see from us has been built from sources and > bootstrapped. Why do your excuses keep changing, Bob? And why didn't you answer my question at the end of my post? I think we all know why... I've clearly demonstrated that the gnat1 binary in the hpux distribution is broken... for both your supported *and* unsupported users. Plain and simple. Of course, you're too proud to fix it or to document the actual "fiddling around" required to bootstrap on this platform in the src/README.UNIX file because that would be tantamount to admitting that you might actually have been wrong. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-06-12 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-13 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-16 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole said <<Why do your excuses keep changing, Bob? And why didn't you answer my question at the end of my post? I think we all know why... I've clearly demonstrated that the gnat1 binary in the hpux distribution is broken... for both your supported *and* unsupported users. Plain and simple. Of course, you're too proud to fix it or to document the actual "fiddling around" required to bootstrap on this platform in the src/README.UNIX file because that would be tantamount to admitting that you might actually have been wrong.>> First, I am Robert, not Bob :-) Second, we do our best to give accurate directions for building from sources. Generally we are quite successful, since many knowledgable people can indeed build successfully, even if they are not our customers. Of course if they are our customers, then we provide whatever help they need. Your difficulties might be incompetence, or something you have overlooked, or a glitch in the instructions, or a wrong patch somewhere, or a wrong version of something, but the point is that we are not the slightest bit interested in spending time to investigate which on a volunteer basis. I do not know quite what you want me to admit as wrong. All I have every claimed is that a lot of people have managed to build from sources, and that we do not care to spend any time helping people build from sources unless they are our customers, and finally, that all binary versions of GNAT have been bootstrapped by us (it is actually impossible for us to prepare a binary version without bootstrapping, since the process of preparing a binary version is part of the run that does a bootstrap). The fact that you cannot build from sources would be a concern to us if you were a customer, but since you are not, it is not. As i said before, we do our best to make the instructions for building from sources complete and accurate, but we make absolutely NO guarantees that these instructions are complete or accurate. You seen to continue to expect me or us to spend time looking through your build attempts. Sorry, won't happen if you are not a customer! We are a commercial company, not a help-Ronald-with-his-problems-at-no-cost organization! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-06-13 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-16 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-17 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > First, I am Robert, not Bob :-) Sorry, you are correct. You have no slack. > Second, we do our best to give accurate directions for building from > sources. Generally we are quite successful, since many knowledgable > people can indeed build successfully, even if they are not our customers. > Of course if they are our customers, then we provide whatever help they > need. That was your best? Ok. I'll take your word for it. > Your difficulties might be incompetence, or something you have overlooked, > or a glitch in the instructions, or a wrong patch somewhere, or a wrong > version of something, but the point is that we are not the slightest bit > interested in spending time to investigate which on a volunteer basis. Might be? I could have sworn you said it was without doubt. Please check your ego at the door, Robert. > I do not know quite what you want me to admit as wrong. All I have every > claimed is that a lot of people have managed to build from sources, and that > we do not care to spend any time helping people build from sources unless > they are our customers, and finally, that all binary versions of GNAT have > been bootstrapped by us (it is actually impossible for us to prepare a binary > version without bootstrapping, since the process of preparing a binary version > is part of the run that does a bootstrap). I have successfully built from sources up to 3.07. After 3.07, some patches were introduced that apparently broke -O optimization for the pa-risc platform (-O2 optimization has been broken, and documented as such, since at least 2.04). I should probably tell you that compiling from sources with -g only won't bootstrap either. In 3.09, the binary release end-user is forced to examine the object code to see whether one gets correctly compiled code with -O or with -g. You are apparently very proud of this result. > The fact that you cannot build from sources would be a concern to us if you > were a customer, but since you are not, it is not. As i said before, we do > our best to make the instructions for building from sources complete and > accurate, but we make absolutely NO guarantees that these instructions are > complete or accurate. I see. Apparently, you have no customers on the hpux platform as of the 3.09 binary release. > You seen to continue to expect me or us to spend time looking through your > build attempts. Sorry, won't happen if you are not a customer! We are a > commercial company, not a help-Ronald-with-his-problems-at-no-cost > organization! My post was a bug report, and a suggestion that perhaps you not distribute binaries with broken optimizers for the 3.10 release as you did with the 3.09 release. Apparently (being money-grubbers), ACT cannot assure quality, but only ensure the lack thereof in some of it's binary releases. I accept your plea of ignorance in this regard. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-06-16 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-17 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-20 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole saysw <<I see. Apparently, you have no customers on the hpux platform as of the 3.09 binary release. > You seen to continue to expect me or us to spend time looking through your > build attempts. Sorry, won't happen if you are not a customer! We are a > commercial company, not a help-Ronald-with-his-problems-at-no-cost > organization! My post was a bug report, and a suggestion that perhaps you not distribute binaries with broken optimizers for the 3.10 release as you did with the 3.09 release. Apparently (being money-grubbers), ACT cannot assure quality, but only ensure the lack thereof in some of it's binary releases. I accept your plea of ignorance in this regard. >> We have a number of large customers on HPUX. They were using 3.09 when it was the current release, most of them have by now switched to 3.10 which is the current product release. As usual, this will be released publicly in the future. I must say that the logic that says "I, Ronald Cole, have failed in attempting to build from sources, therefore no other customers are using this successfully", entirely elludes me. If your definition of money-grubber is someone who refuses to provide you free help and assistance, yes, I am afraid that we fall into this category. I imagine your local supermarket also is guilty. As for ignorance. Yes, I am ignorant of your specific problem, because we have not looked at it. I simply deleted your long post. If indeed you think of it as a bug report, then bug reports get submitted to report@gnat.com. Posting them to CLA will not help get them fixed! Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-06-17 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-22 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > We have a number of large customers on HPUX. They were using 3.09 when it > was the current release, most of them have by now switched to 3.10 which is > the current product release. As usual, this will be released publicly in > the future. I must say that the logic that says "I, Ronald Cole, have failed > in attempting to build from sources, therefore no other customers are using > this successfully", entirely elludes me. That's not what I said at all, Robert. > As for ignorance. Yes, I am ignorant of your specific problem, because we > have not looked at it. I simply deleted your long post. If indeed you think > of it as a bug report, then bug reports get submitted to report@gnat.com. > Posting them to CLA will not help get them fixed! You can save yourself a lot of grief here, Robert, by reading what I wrote and by not putting words into my mouth. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-06-20 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-22 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-23 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > We have a number of large customers on HPUX. They were using 3.09 when it > was the current release, most of them have by now switched to 3.10 which is > the current product release. As usual, this will be released publicly in > the future. GNAT is based on GCC, right? What section of the GPL are you relying on to justify making binary releases of modified GPL software to your paying clients and refusing to make the source code available to the public at the same time? Under Section 3 of the GPL, it seems clear that once you distribute an object code work based on a GPL'd program, you must release the source code concurrently. And why hasn't the text of the GPL been included in your previous source distributions? -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: gnat-3.10 1997-06-22 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-24 0:00 ` what DOES the GPL really say? Spam Hater 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole said <<dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > We have a number of large customers on HPUX. They were using 3.09 when it > was the current release, most of them have by now switched to 3.10 which is > the current product release. As usual, this will be released publicly in > the future. GNAT is based on GCC, right? What section of the GPL are you relying on to justify making binary releases of modified GPL software to your paying clients and refusing to make the source code available to the public at the same time? Under Section 3 of the GPL, it seems clear that once you distribute an object code work based on a GPL'd program, you must release the source code concurrently. And why hasn't the text of the GPL been included in your previous source distributions? -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 >> Some confusions here. First there is no requirement that we release anything at all to the public. Ronald you may want to look up the GPL yourself, it has no such requirment at all. The requirement is that we make available sources on request to anyone to whom we make objects available. Also there is no requirement to "release" the source code, just to make it available at a reasonable copying charge. (as I say, Ronald, you should carefully read the GPL, since you seem to have some misconceptions about it). However, we do in fact release binary versions, though we are not required to do so, and in accordance with the GPL, we do indeed release sources for these binary versions. As to file COPYING being missing, I will investigate, for convenience it should be in the release, although you can always get a copy as noted in the headers. We are strong supporters of the GPL, and carefully follow it, and insist that all users of GNAT also follow it (this in practice only restricts people making modificatoins to the compiler, since the runtime is released under a modified GPL that places almost no restrictins in practice on its use). We often find that people have strange misconceptions about the GPL, in particular they think that you are required to distribute stuff, you are not! and that you are required to distribute sources free, you are not. The distinction is important, we like people to know that we take the extra effort to make versions of GNAT public not because we have to, but because we choose to, since we think it is valuable to the Ada community. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-23 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-24 0:00 ` Spam Hater 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Spam Hater @ 1997-06-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > Robert Dewar wrote: > We often find that people have strange misconceptions > about the GPL, ... First, I am NOT trying to defend R. Cole's continuing hogwash. ACT is, IMHO, fully compliant with the GPL, and the "special exception" in the headers of all their RTS files is very reasonable. 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. If this were true, there would be no need for GNAT's "special exception." Note that I am NOT talking about the GNU "Library" License. Here is the relevant paragraph of the GPL: 2.b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. 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. (If you play with my ball, you play by my rules.) David Weller's "Ada Community License" and GNAT's "special exception" are very welcome relief from the above restriction. 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-24 0:00 ` what DOES the GPL really say? Spam Hater @ 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-06-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [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 <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> Spam Hater <no.such.user@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Paul D. Smith ` (3 more replies) 1997-06-26 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 2 siblings, 4 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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.] > > In article <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> Wes Groleau <no.such.user@no.such.com> wrote (slightly re-worded for clarity): > >HOWEVER, several people have said on Usenet or in direct e-mail > >that I can re-use GPL'd source code as part of my program and > >still retain full rights (actually my employer's rights) on the > >rest of the code. > > ..... 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 > [must] continue to view [the] 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. 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Paul D. Smith 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Paul D. Smith @ 1997-06-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) %% Wes Groleau <no.such.user@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 <psmith@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Paul D. Smith @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 3 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1 sibling, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [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. Sam Mize -- -- Samuel Mize (817) 619-8622 smize@link.com "Team Ada" -- Hughes Training Inc. PO Box 6171 m/s 400, Arlington TX 76005 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Mize <smize@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <sz0iuz184ar.fsf@sugar-bombs.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <thomas@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote: > >> 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. 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 les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-27 0:00 ` kdp0101 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 2 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > I believe that he's saying that people on the net have reprimanded > him (carped at him) for saying the GPL 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." 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-27 0:00 ` kdp0101 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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. 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). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar wrote: > > > 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. ... > 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` kdp0101 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: kdp0101 @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wes Groleau <no.such.user@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-27 0:00 ` kdp0101 @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kdp0101@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, 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 2 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Mize <smize@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > 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 !!!! -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Kai Henningsen 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Kai Henningsen 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: user @ 1997-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user @ 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: user @ 1997-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. > 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. Isaac ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user @ 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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!) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user @ 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Kai Henningsen 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Kai Henningsen @ 1997-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@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 ... Kai -- Internet: kai@khms.westfalen.de Bang: major_backbone!khms.westfalen.de!kai http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Kai Henningsen @ 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Kai said <<> 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. >> I see no reason for a "compromise" here, because there is nothing in need of a compromise agreement! My formulation above is by far the clearest way of stating things. It is true that the GPL does not allow you to use the code in this particular context. It is also true that the declaration of independence does not allow you to use it, and even more relevant that the Berne convention does not allow you to use it. The point of stating things the way I did is to emphasize that the situation in this case (wanting to use the code in your proprietary program) is no different than it would be with any other copyrighted code. Sure, i understand that people somehow think that because the code is copylefted (a confusing and unofficial term) they should be able to use it, but that is just confusion. Saying the GPL does not allow you to use it sounds like the GPL is somehow stopping you from using it. Which gives *entirely( the wrong impression. Perhaps you could say The GPL does not give me permission to use this code. But the trouble with any of these formalations is that it tends to result in a situation where people regard GPL'ed code as somehow particularly unusable (note the tone of Wes Groleau's comments -- his management says: you can't use GPL'ed code -- what his management SHOULD be saying is simply that he cannot use any copyrighted code without permission of the copyright holder -- there is nothing special about GPL'ed code in this regard. And yes, people do risk their jobs if they improperly use copyrighted code, and reasonably so, copyright is the law of the land whether you like it or not! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Stephen Leake @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wes Groleau wrote: > > > > 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. 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG wrote: > > Samuel Mize <smize@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. 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > > 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, 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Samuel Mize <smize@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1997-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG wrote: > > Samuel Mize <smize@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > <<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 .... > 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. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Paul D. Smith 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 3 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<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). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > 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. .... 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, 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Samuel Mize @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. > >> > > I am not sure what you mean by Dave Weller's approach. 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 smize@link.com "Team Ada" -- Hughes Training Inc. PO Box 6171 m/s 400, Arlington TX 76005 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 3 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <33B13BF6.79C7@no.such.com> Wes Groleau <no.such.user@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-26 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 2 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-06-26 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2249 bytes --] kenner@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 <33B014E3.3343@no.such.com> Spam Hater <no.such.user@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: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 2 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@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: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) To: dewar@gnat.com, ronald@ridgecrest.ca.us Cc: rms@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. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert ` (2 more replies) 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1 sibling, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert [not found] ` <dewar.867554739@merv> 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Watts 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Olivier Galibert @ 1997-06-28 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.867497844@merv>, Robert Dewar wrote: >[...] >There are three kinds of versions of GNAT > >[version 1 and 2 are distributed under option (a)] > >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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <dewar.867554739@merv>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <dewar.867554739@merv> @ 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.867557676@merv> dewar@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert @ 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Watts 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@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. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Watts 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Watts @ 1997-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.867497844@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Watts @ 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pb8gf$j4m@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> rrw1000@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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Steve Peltz @ 1997-07-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pbd6q$8si$1@news.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >You are perhaps correct that a formal policy of not giving future >releases to people who've redistributed in the past might violate at >least the spirit of the GPL, but nobody has proposed doing that. The I'm not sure what you're saying. Restricting the rights of your customers to pass on source code to someone else is certainly against both the spirit and letter of the GPL. Threatening to drop them as a customer if they do so is well within the meaning of "restrict". That you'd even suggest that they shouldn't, much less threaten them with retaliation, is disturbing. Of course, your customers are certainly within their rights to refuse to pass it on. However, that should be for their own reasons, not because they are being coerced by you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Steve Peltz @ 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: >In article <5pbd6q$8si$1@news.nyu.edu>, >Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >>You are perhaps correct that a formal policy of not giving future >>releases to people who've redistributed in the past might violate at >>least the spirit of the GPL, but nobody has proposed doing that. The > >I'm not sure what you're saying. Restricting the rights of your customers >to pass on source code to someone else is certainly against both the >spirit and letter of the GPL. Threatening to drop them as a customer >if they do so is well within the meaning of "restrict". You seem to have missed the "nobody has proposed doing that" above. >That you'd even suggest that they shouldn't, There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that it's harmful to the GNAT community for pre-releases to be widely distributed. The FSF itself (and Richard Stallman personally) has an extremely strong similar view about pre-releases of GCC. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner [not found] ` <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Olivier Galibert @ 1997-07-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert @ 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Bill Gribble 1997-07-09 0:00 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn5rpshu.fcf.Olivier.Galibert@iria.mines.u-nancy.fr> Olivier.Galibert@mines.u-nancy.fr (Olivier Galibert) writes: >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. This isn't a prudent course of action, since most bugs on a mature program such as GCC tend to be ones that have *not* already been discovered. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Bill Gribble 1997-07-09 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Bill Gribble @ 1997-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > This isn't a prudent course of action, since most bugs on a mature > program such as GCC tend to be ones that have *not* already been > discovered. gcc isn't a good example for your argument... IMO most of the bugs in gcc are well-known ones in the immature parts of the program (the c++ parts, in gcc's case) rather than undiscovered ones (of which I'm sure there are still plenty) in the more-mature parts. Bill Gribble ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Bill Gribble @ 1997-07-09 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-07-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2301 bytes --] kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > In article <slrn5rpshu.fcf.Olivier.Galibert@iria.mines.u-nancy.fr> Olivier.Galibert@mines.u-nancy.fr (Olivier Galibert) writes: > >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. > > This isn't a prudent course of action, since most bugs on a mature > program such as GCC tend to be ones that have *not* already been > discovered. With all due respect, please look at the bug report data base. More than half of the bugs I reported since gcc 2.5.something are still pending correction. It might well be that they have been fixed for years now, but the last major release of gcc (2.7.0) was made more than two years ago. Actually, for a few of them I got a message, I believe some time last year, "this will be fixed in 2.8.0". Considering the amount of bug reports piled up for gcc-2.7 already, when gcc-2.8.0 is supposed to be vastly overhauled in quite a few areas, I don't think it actually very useful anymore to write bug reports for a software which has undergone major changes in the last few years. Note that this applies largely to the g++ frontend which has been under the heaviest changes in the last few years. The backend, fortunately, is somewhat more stable. I got it to produce illegal code in some of my bug reports as well, but it might have got fed bad information from the C++ frontend. So if you manage to get bad code or error messages or so from compiling ANSI C, or perhaps Ada, a bug report might not be as hopeless as for g++. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-09 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David says << Note that this applies largely to the g++ frontend which has been under the heaviest changes in the last few years. The backend, fortunately, is somewhat more stable. I got it to produce illegal code in some of my bug reports as well, but it might have got fed bad information from the C++ frontend.>> And indeed, Richard's comment was specifically about the backend, he should have said so, but he tends to assume that gcc means the part he takes care of :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.868481375@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: >And indeed, Richard's comment was specifically about the backend, he should >have said so, but he tends to assume that gcc means the part he takes >care of :-) Actually, the term "gcc" does indeed refer to just the language-independent backend, plus the C (and perhaps Objective-C) front ends. The C++ front end is referred to as "g++" and has a separate bug reporting address and maintainers. It's no more a part of GCC than GNAT or the Fortran front ends. It's likely that g++ will be distributed as a separate package in GCC 2.8.0. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-09 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2vi2kjsu9.fsf@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: >With all due respect, please look at the bug report data base. More >than half of the bugs I reported since gcc 2.5.something are still >pending correction. It might well be that they have been fixed for >years now, but the last major release of gcc (2.7.0) was made more >than two years ago. No, under two years ago, but there presently is a major gap. But I'm not sure I see what your comment above has to do with your original claim, which was that many bugs are reported by different people. >Note that this applies largely to the g++ frontend which has been >under the heaviest changes in the last few years. The backend, >fortunately, is somewhat more stable. But that's what I was talking about. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> @ 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-05 0:00 ` user 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Les said <<Hmmm, so if it is in your best interest you can ignore the GPL mandate to allow unlimited redistribution if you distribute at all? Why doesn't this philosophy apply to everyone else? >> The GPL is not a mandate, or a piece of philosophy, it is a legal contract in the form of a license, that allows people to do certain things with the code. You certainly cannot ignore this contract, and if you are dealing with the GPL, you must follow the letter of this contract exactly. No one has suggested otherwise. You certainly cannot prevent unlimited redistribution of anything you distribute that is subject to the GPL. No one has suggested that you can. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-05 0:00 ` user 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: user @ 1997-07-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell wrote: >Hmmm, so if it is in your best interest you can ignore the GPL mandate >to allow unlimited redistribution if you distribute at all? Why doesn't >this philosophy apply to everyone else? > The GPL "mandates" unlimited redistribution in the sense that anyone who gets GPL'd code can redistribute it. But it does not require anyone to make sure that everyone on earth and beyond has a copy. (Well unless you use one of those goofy options to making the source immediately available). This issue has been hashed out many times in this thread. You couldn't possibly have missed it. Isaac ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-05 0:00 ` user @ 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Paul Eggert ` (3 more replies) 0 siblings, 4 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-07-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pmiuv$2f1@camel4.mindspring.com>, <user@yellow.submarine.pla> wrote: >In article <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell wrote: >>Hmmm, so if it is in your best interest you can ignore the GPL mandate >>to allow unlimited redistribution if you distribute at all? Why doesn't >>this philosophy apply to everyone else? >> > >The GPL "mandates" unlimited redistribution in the sense that anyone who >gets GPL'd code can redistribute it. But it does not require anyone to >make sure that everyone on earth and beyond has a copy. (Well unless >you use one of those goofy options to making the source immediately >available). > >This issue has been hashed out many times in this thread. You couldn't >possibly have missed it. No, but usually the discussion is in the context of whether you have to distribute changes at all, which of course is not required. However this time the issue seems to be about distributing among a small circle of friends with at least an implicit agreement that none will distribute additional copies. I fail to see any philosophical difference between this and selling copies with a contractual requirement not to redistribute. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Paul Eggert 1997-07-07 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-06 0:00 ` user ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Paul Eggert @ 1997-07-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > this time the issue seems to be about distributing among a small > circle of friends with at least an implicit agreement that none will > distribute additional copies. I fail to see any philosophical difference > between this and selling copies with a contractual requirement not > to redistribute. Your philosophy doesn't distinguish between friendship and contracts? Wow. No wonder you're confused! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Paul Eggert @ 1997-07-07 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-07-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pndb9$4mi$1@shade.twinsun.com>, Paul Eggert <eggert@twinsun.com> wrote: >les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > >> this time the issue seems to be about distributing among a small >> circle of friends with at least an implicit agreement that none will >> distribute additional copies. I fail to see any philosophical difference >> between this and selling copies with a contractual requirement not >> to redistribute. > >Your philosophy doesn't distinguish between friendship and contracts? >Wow. No wonder you're confused! Time passes, management changes, the friends you thought you were dealing with aren't there any more.... You may be confused someday too. Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Paul Eggert @ 1997-07-06 0:00 ` user 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 3 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: user @ 1997-07-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pn2h2$sjg$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell wrote: >No, but usually the discussion is in the context of whether you have >to distribute changes at all, which of course is not required. However >this time the issue seems to be about distributing among a small >circle of friends with at least an implicit agreement that none will >distribute additional copies. I fail to see any philosophical difference >between this and selling copies with a contractual requirement not >to redistribute. > The philosophical difference is in whether the circle of friends are electing not to redistribute, or whether they have been coerced. It may be impossible for an outsider to know until we see the consequences of breaking the agreement. It is easy to imagine situations where those with the code in their hands see a benefit to not redistributing the code without any collusion or coercion from the original distributor. 'Course none of this gets an outside the code he wants. In this sense there is no difference. I wouldn't call this philosophical though... Isaac ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-06 0:00 ` user @ 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Isaac says <<'Course none of this gets an outside the code he wants. In this sense there is no difference. I wouldn't call this philosophical though... >> I would say "thinks he wants" rather than "he wants". What people really want is two things: 1. The absolutely latest and greatest version with all the latest fixes 2. They want this version to work reliably And that's the rub. I well remember a small group of firebrands screaming at IBM for "delaying" the release of OS/2 version 3.0. When it was finally released, guess what, it was the same group that was screaming at IBM for all the bugs that they found in the 3.0 release when it finally appeared :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Paul Eggert 1997-07-06 0:00 ` user @ 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 3 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Les says <<No, but usually the discussion is in the context of whether you have to distribute changes at all, which of course is not required. However this time the issue seems to be about distributing among a small circle of friends with at least an implicit agreement that none will distribute additional copies. I fail to see any philosophical difference between this and selling copies with a contractual requirement not to redistribute. >> Effective software development requires that the scope of use and testing of a piece of software be commensurate with the stage of maturity of the project. When a fix is first developed, it remains in the domain of the fixer until he or she is reasonably confident that it is a correct fix. Then it is propagated to the development team and other people try it out in the context of other things that are going on. When the team collectively thinks that a set of fixes is ready, then it needs to go outside the team to a small selected group of users to see if things work (a process usually called alpha or beta testing depending on the perceived maturity of the release, really I am talking about what I would call external alpha testing here). Then when a release seems to be in a potentially releasable state, it needs to be more widely tested (this is a typical beta test situation). A product can then be initially released to a wider circle of customers, and eventually a full release can be made. If the requirements of the GPL made it impossible to follow this procedure, then the GPL would in practice make it very difficult to develop reliable software. But the GPL in practice does NOT make it impossible to follow this procedure. Although further distribution is always permitted, during the early stages, those involved understand that it is not helpful to widely distribute that which is not ready to be widely distributed. In the case of GCC, the snapshots are available to a number of people, but the Free Software Foundation notes that wide distribution of these snapshopts is not helpful to the GNU project, which seems an exactly accurate assessment, and since people perceive that it is an appropriate assessment, they generally agree. There are some glitches, at one point a CD ROM of the Linux distribution included the snapshots, which was potentially highly disruptive, and some loud yellling at the people involved went on to try to avoid this happening in the future. Note that people's willingness to abide by the informal "do not distribute" rules is based on their perception that the request is reasonable, and is indeed based on a concern to avoid premature distribution. If they felt that the request was based on a desire to hoard software that was in fact ready for wide distribution, they would not concur, and the redistribution would occur. There is a huge philosophical difference between seeing distribution restricted because a group of people agree that it is not a good idea for the good of the project involved to distribute software prematurely, and a situation in which distributable software is being hoarded. Richard Stallman is adamant about the importance of free and wide distribution of software as I think everyone knows, but he is equally adamant that it is a bad idea for insuffiently tested snapshots to be prematurely distributed widely, and will yell loudly at anyone who "misbehaves" in this manner. I know that, I have been yelled at! In the case of GNAT, our position is quite simple, our beta testing works by having very small sets of customers get wavefront releases. They are willing to test these out, because these beta versions fix problems they need to get around, and they are willing to risk the instability of a new version to get around their problem. In my previous message, I outlined the internal QA testing we do to try to minimize the possibilities of such instabilities. When we have something that we feel is potentially ready for release, we distribute it more widely to our supported customers. And more of them pick it up. That actually is a relatively new procedure for us, and resulted recently in the internal prerelease designated 4.10a. Well what's the result? In fact 4.10a is looking good, BUT there are a couple of glitches that have not proved a problem for our customers except in one or two cases, but which absolutely MUST be fixed before a full public release of the 3.10 (oops I mean 3.10 when I mention 4.10 anywhere above). We are now working towards a 3.10b. We will make this available to our customers again, and if it is glitch free, then release it publicly. As I noted in a previous post, releasing free software is actually more difficult than releasing proprietary software. In the latter case, the user community is self limiting to those who are willingf to shell out the money, you have a chance to track the users, and most importantly, you provide at least some kind of support. In the case of free software releases of GNAT made by ACT, the new software is immediately used by tens of thousands of users, we have no idea who is using it, and we cannot provide support to those who are using it. That means that we have to be SUPER sure, to the best of our abilities, that the release is glitch free. We are determined to work carefully towards this goal, and will not release 3.10 before we think it is ready, no matter how loud Ronald and others may yell. Looking back, if we have made release mistakes it has been on the side of releasing too early (in particular the annoying Constraint Error on syntax mistakes in 3.04, and the loader problems in the 3.09 NT come to mind -- the latter is actually instructive, we slightly rushed the 3.09 NT, to get out a CD ROM for STC. Unfortunately, there is now way to cut the CD ROM via the PAL without making the version public, so we were pushed into releasing this a little earlier than we wanted. Now 3.09NT has proved useful to many many people, but it has also caused some unnecessary frustration). It is our goal to avoid such problems in the future. If this annoys some enthusiasts who are panting for the latest version, I am sorry, but I think it is more important to get solid releases, than to get less solid stuff earlier. Robert Dewar ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 3 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pn2h2$sjg$1@Venus.mcs.net> les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >No, but usually the discussion is in the context of whether you have >to distribute changes at all, which of course is not required. However >this time the issue seems to be about distributing among a small >circle of friends with at least an implicit agreement that none will >distribute additional copies. I fail to see any philosophical difference >between this and selling copies with a contractual requirement not >to redistribute. The difference is that the redistribution is being forgone *voluntarily*, not by some requirement. That's a very big difference. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-05 0:00 ` user @ 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes: >>There's absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out that it's harmful >>to the GNAT community for pre-releases to be widely distributed. The >>FSF itself (and Richard Stallman personally) has an extremely strong >>similar view about pre-releases of GCC. > >Hmmm, so if it is in your best interest you can ignore the GPL mandate >to allow unlimited redistribution if you distribute at all? Why doesn't >this philosophy apply to everyone else? Pointing out that something is harmful is not the same as disallowing it! The difference is quite fundmanental and is similar to the distinction between something being illegal or merely rude. As an example of this distinction, I believe that people should not use vulgarities as part of discussions because most people consider that rude. But I certainly don't feel that doing so should be illegal. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert [not found] ` <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> @ 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Steve Peltz @ 1997-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >In article <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: >>In article <5pbd6q$8si$1@news.nyu.edu>, >>Richard Kenner <kenner@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. Nobody has proposed a FORMAL policy. There's a strong implication in several earlier responses indicating that there is an informal policy of doing just that: "we don't have to do business with people who distribute it ... wink wink". I don't object to ASKING people to not distribute it, but threatening them with retaliation if they do seems to be violating the letter and the spirit of the GPL. I'm surprised to hear that the FSF appears to be doing the same thing! I'd always thought that if I looked for it, I could get the absolutely latest, untested, broken version of GCC, and that if I used it it would probably not work. I don't see why that's any worse than having a bug that I try to fix, distribute patches to other people having the problem, and then find out that I fixed it the wrong way, or in a way that is going to cause problems with later "official" patches or updates. In fact, isn't that one of the major arguments the FSF is always defending against ("but if we distribute sources to our product, people will make changes to it and may break it or add incompatibilities")? I don't understand why one argument is valid and the other is not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Steve Peltz @ 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: >Nobody has proposed a FORMAL policy. There's a strong implication in >several earlier responses indicating that there is an informal policy of >doing just that: "we don't have to do business with people who distribute >it ... wink wink". I don't object to ASKING people to not distribute it, >but threatening them with retaliation if they do seems to be violating >the letter and the spirit of the GPL. Why do you consider not distributing things to them in the future to be "retaliation"? That's a biased view of the situation. The people who receive GCC snapshots are those who are helping in the development process. They are not receiving the snapshots as some sort of "reward" or "prize", but instead to assist in the development effort. If their actions, be they technical or non-technical, indicate they no longer want to be part of that effort, they will no longer be. >I'd always thought that if I looked for it, I could get the absolutely >latest, untested, broken version of GCC, and that if I used it it would >probably not work. I don't see why that's any worse than having a bug >that I try to fix, distribute patches to other people having the problem, >and then find out that I fixed it the wrong way, or in a way that is >going to cause problems with later "official" patches or updates. It is very close to the same. That's why both are activities that are discouraged. It's very important for there to be a clear set of "official" and tested sources. That way, there's never a confusion in the user community over what to use. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Steve Peltz @ 1997-07-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >Why do you consider not distributing things to them in the future to >be "retaliation"? That's a biased view of the situation. The people >who receive GCC snapshots are those who are helping in the development >process. They are not receiving the snapshots as some sort of >"reward" or "prize", but instead to assist in the development effort. > >If their actions, be they technical or non-technical, indicate they no >longer want to be part of that effort, they will no longer be. So, although you can't legally restrict someone from distributing a modified version of a GPLed program, you can still take any other action against them that you can get away with if they do distribute it? Can you write a maintenance contract that automatically terminates (without refund of any money) if they redistribute it, or can you only choose to not renew the contract in the future? Perhaps when you sell an object copy, you "offer" the source to your client, but with the understanding that if they actually take it, you'll immediately terminate all support for it. Then, since they don't have the source, they can't redistribute the binary. Now, I realize that in this particular case, you will eventually distribute the program in all its GPLed glory, and I even sympathize and agree with your reasons for delaying release; in the case of the FSF and GCC, I even agree that they have the legal right, since they hold the copyright on everything in that package, and can thus distribute it under whatever terms they wish, as well as releasing it under the GPL at such time as they wish to. However, it doesn't seem to fit with the ideals of the GPL and FSF. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Steve Peltz @ 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 2 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: >So, although you can't legally restrict someone from distributing a modified >version of a GPLed program, you can still take any other action against them >that you can get away with if they do distribute it? Can you write a >maintenance contract that automatically terminates (without refund of any >money) if they redistribute it, or can you only choose to not renew the >contract in the future? The only way question at the edge, like that one, can be answered, is by actually litigating it in court. However, from a practical perspective, what most matters is what the copyright holder feels is appropriate, since if they feel it appropriate, they won't sue. Since the cases we are talking about of asking people not to redistribute are based on the desire to prevent buggy code from getting out there, it is consistent with the best interests of the FSF and thus they would not sue. If this were done in some other context (i.e., where the issue was not to delay distibution until a release was ready but to use this sort of external arrangement to prevent redistribution at all), I wouldn't want to try to predict which way it would go; it would strongly depend on what the "other action" would be. I doubt that merely refusing to renew a maintenance contract would be sufficient since that's something you do not need a reason to do. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 2 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-14 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Steve Peltz says <<Now, I realize that in this particular case, you will eventually distribute the program in all its GPLed glory, and I even sympathize and agree with your reasons for delaying release; in the case of the FSF and GCC, I even agree that they have the legal right, since they hold the copyright on everything in that package, and can thus distribute it under whatever terms they wish, as well as releasing it under the GPL at such time as they wish to. However, it doesn't seem to fit with the ideals of the GPL and FSF. >> The GPL is a legal contract. One cannot easily enforce ideals with a contract, and ultimately the GPL does not guarantee anyones ideals or morals. It does make a very definite guarantee that if you get a given object you can get the corresponding source. You worry a lot about future versions, but notice there is nothing in the GPL that obliges the author to stick with the GPL in future versions. It is quite in accord with the terms of this license for the author to offer version 1 of the system under the GPL, and then make vesion 2 entirely propriatery -- the author does not surrender this right by using the GPL. Whether that correspondes with your perception of ideals, who knows? In practice, the GPL can be used in a wide variety of manners, subject to the basic guarantee of not ending up with a program where you cannot redistribute or cannot obtain sources. As I often have pointed out, there is no requirement whatsoever that we do "eventually distribute the program .... [publicly]". The GPL in no way suggests that we should, it is something we choose to do for reasons other than GPL requirements. P.S. It is interesting that in the case of GNAT, the option of taking future versions private rests with the original copyright holder, NYU, and the current copyright holder, FSF. Neither is likely to excercise this right, and it would not mean much if they did, since we would continue to develop the current version, and continue to make it publicly available! P.P.S. 3.10 is coming along quite nicely, and we are working towards an early general release (for one thing, we have major improvements planned for post 3.10, and we want to get 3.10 out before we introduce any more earthquakes :-) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu ` (4 more replies) 2 siblings, 5 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: > However, it doesn't seem to fit with the ideals of the > GPL and FSF. You may actually be surprised at what Stallman's ideals actually are! I thought as you did, and pressed Richard about the altruism he describes in his GNU Manifesto. He told me that "[I was] interpreting what [he] wrote in a way that is not [his] interpretation." I then asked him to explain just exactly how he got from "if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it" to "each person should be free to decide who not to give a copy to". He never bothered to reply. In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on his principles. Don't trust anybody over thirty... ;) -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner ` (3 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Samuel Tardieu @ 1997-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) >>>>> "Ronald" == Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: Ronald> In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to Ronald> be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving Ronald> the world in general of all or part of that creativity," I Ronald> think he sold out on his principles. I've been reading your non-technical posts since a long time now, and I couldn't answer these two questions: what is *your* ideal, and what is your contribution to the community? Sam -- Samuel Tardieu -- sam@ada.eu.org ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu @ 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 subsequent siblings) 4 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2en8ttgpr.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: >You may actually be surprised at what Stallman's ideals actually are! >I thought as you did, and pressed Richard about the altruism he >describes in his GNU Manifesto. He told me that "[I was] interpreting >what [he] wrote in a way that is not [his] interpretation." I then >asked him to explain just exactly how he got from "if I like a program >I must share it with other people who like it" to "each person should >be free to decide who not to give a copy to". I don't speak for Stallman, but these two are both types of freedoms. If I receive (or develop) a program, I must be free to be able to give it to anybody I want, but I must also be free to not have to spend my resources giving it to people to whom I do not wish to distribute it to. The latter freedom is as important as the first, and perhaps more so. If the act of developing (or simply receiving a copy of) a program creates a burden on me to spend my resources making that available to anybody who requests it, I cannot, as a practical matter, either develop or receive such a program since doing so would obligate me to a burden I could not afford. The point is that if I distribute GPL'ed software to somebody, I cannot *forbid* them from redistributing it. I also cannot *require* them to redistribute it. I can *suggest* to them that they either not redistribute it or, alternatively, that they widely redistribute it. If my reasons are convincing and do not impose an unreasonable burden, they can choose to follow my suggestions (this is especiallyt true where there is a friendly relationship between me and that person). Or can they can choose not to follow them. If they choose the latter, I am perfectly free not to give them a copy of some program in the future. All of these choices are different types of freedoms. The one and only requirement to distribute something imposed by the GPL is that if I choose to give the program only in binary form to some person, I am then *required* to make the sources available to that person or to any person to whom they redistributed the binaries (but to no other people). ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 4 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole says <<Ronald Cole said <<You may actually be surprised at what Stallman's ideals actually are! I thought as you did, and pressed Richard about the altruism he describes in his GNU Manifesto. He told me that "[I was] interpreting what [he] wrote in a way that is not [his] interpretation." I then asked him to explain just exactly how he got from "if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it" to "each person should be free to decide who not to give a copy to". He never bothered to reply. In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on his principles. >> Nope, I just think you don't understand things very well, even after all this discussion. You apparently think that people should be forced (by threat of fines? jail? ...?) to give you their software. Sorry, the world is not like that, and the GPL *definitely* does not have this in mind. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-27 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Nope, I just think you don't understand things very well, even after > all this discussion. You apparently think that people should be forced > (by threat of fines? jail? ...?) to give you their software. Sorry, > the world is not like that, and the GPL *definitely* does not have this > in mind. This just shows that you still don't understand my argument. I'll spell it out for you yet again... According to the Manifesto, Stallman had to write GNU so that he could share it with other people who liked it *and* so that everyone would be able to obtain good system software free. Stallman also said that he is required to consider it wrong for one to hoard information. I believe the GPL should embody these principles because no one is forced to use GNU software. If you received and modified GNU software, you shouldn't be required to share it, *unless* you have engaged in the act of "distribution". Once you have distributed, being selective about further distributions is indistinguishable from "hoarding", and I believe Stallman is morally bound to consider it wrong (assuming he actually meant what he wrote in the Manifesto). I've stated that I don't believe making snapshots available for testing to be "distributing". However, you've previously posted that 3.10 is the latest "production release" of GNAT and that ACT's customers have been enjoying it for quite a while. *That*, in my opinion, is the act of "distributing". You are free to believe that being selective in distributing is not tantamount to hoarding, but you have yet to provide an argument to support that belief. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell ` (3 more replies) 1997-07-27 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 4 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Isaac @ 1997-07-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2u3hof1w3.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>, Ronald Cole wrote: >3.10 is the latest "production release" of GNAT and that ACT's >customers have been enjoying it for quite a while. *That*, in my >opinion, is the act of "distributing". > I think everyone understands your position, but I think it has unpalatable consequences. You're position leads to the conclusion that if I give GPL'd code to someone, I have to be personally responsible for making sure that everyone on earth who wants it gets it. This is an unreasonable burden in my opinion. This would be enough to make sure no one in their right mind distributed. Even if I were to accept your definition of hoarding (and it does sound reasonable), I think any position that requires me to develop the above distribution system is unreasonable. Therefore either the Manifesto is unreasonable, or it does not intend what you say. If the 3.10 is a production release, and ACT's customers are in any way obligated not to re-distribute it, I agree that that is a violation of the GPL. Isaac ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac @ 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-07-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5r3dfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com>, Isaac <Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla> wrote: >I think everyone understands your position, but I think it has unpalatable >consequences. You're position leads to the conclusion that if I give GPL'd >code to someone, I have to be personally responsible for making sure >that everyone on earth who wants it gets it. Nobody said that. You are required to allow unrestricted redistribution, not to promote it. However, I don't see how distributing only to people who agree not to redistribute can be reconciled with that requirement. >This is an unreasonable >burden in my opinion. This would be enough to make sure no one in their >right mind distributed. Has anyone accused the GPL of being reasonable? >Even if I were to accept your definition of hoarding (and it does sound >reasonable), I think any position that requires me to develop the >above distribution system is unreasonable. Does that matter? >If the 3.10 is a production release, and ACT's customers are in any way >obligated not to re-distribute it, I agree that that is a violation of the >GPL. Perhaps I missed something. Could you point out the portion of the GPL that distinguishes between production releases and other code? Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-23 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Isaac @ 1997-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5r40u6$qun$1@Venus.mcs.net>, Leslie Mikesell wrote: >In article <5r3madfk$891@camel4.mindspring.com>, >Isaac <Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla> wrote: > >>This is an unreasonable >>burden in my opinion. This would be enough to make sure no one in their >>right mind distributed. > >Has anyone accused the GPL of being reasonable? > The GPL is reasonable with respect to not forcing people to become full time distributors just because they give their buds some code. You of course are using the word 'reasonable' in another context. >>Even if I were to accept your definition of hoarding (and it does sound >>reasonable), I think any position that requires me to develop the >>above distribution system is unreasonable. > >Does that matter? > Maybe not, but the GPL and I agree on this point. >Perhaps I missed something. Could you point out the portion of the >GPL that distinguishes between production releases and other code? > Sigh. The GPL of course makes no such distinction. The difference is strictly in the motivation of the people who get the non production code. It is easy to postulate a non selfish, non hoarding reason for people not to re-distribute possibly buggy code in either binary or source fashion. These people might simply agree that limited distribution beta testing is a good thing. I myself feel this way. The poster I was responding to appeared to believe this as well. Obviously this motivation would not apply to production code. If none of the current holders want to re-distribute the code, the only possible point of contention with respect to the GPL is whether they are being coerced. There are other means of motivating people other than coercing or restricting them. Can you think of any? Isaac (who just hates rhetorical questions) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Isaac @ 1997-07-23 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: W. Wesley Groleau x4923 @ 1997-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Isaac wrote: > The difference is strictly in the motivation of the people who get the > non production code. It is easy to postulate a non selfish, non > hoarding reason for people not to re-distribute possibly buggy code > in either binary or source fashion. These people might simply agree > that limited distribution beta testing is a good thing. I myself feel > this way. The poster I was responding to appeared to believe this as > well. The poster you were responding thinks that he is entitled either to free hand-holding in trying to duplicate the build process of the software authors, or to get on demand the latest beta version that the authors provide to their customers (who actually pay for the privilege of being beta testers for the rest of us). When ACT legitimately declined these demands, he went on a one-man flame war against them. Last I heard, 3.10 is still considered such a beta version and will be public as soon as ACT thinks it has been proven stable. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wes Groleau, Hughes Defense Communications, Fort Wayne, IN USA Senior Software Engineer - AFATDS Tool-smith Wanna-be 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-23 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 @ 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) "W. Wesley Groleau x4923" <wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com> writes: > The poster you were responding thinks that he is entitled either to > free hand-holding in trying to duplicate the build process of the > software authors, or to get on demand the latest beta version that > the authors provide to their customers (who actually pay for the > privilege of being beta testers for the rest of us). When ACT > legitimately declined these demands, he went on a one-man flame war > against them. Last I heard, 3.10 is still considered such a beta > version and will be public as soon as ACT thinks it has been > proven stable. Please learn to follow a thread. Everything necessary to debunk your presentation of "facts" is archived at DejaNews. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1071 bytes --] Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) writes: > Even if I were to accept your definition of hoarding (and it does sound > reasonable), I think any position that requires me to develop the > above distribution system is unreasonable. Therefore either the > Manifesto is unreasonable, or it does not intend what you say. The manifesto talks about goals and ideals. It does not talk about the ideal means to achieve these goals. Having GPL being a contract demanding that you hand over software, heart and soul to the FSF is probably not going to help much. The way it is, GPL causes several freedoms to persist upon redistribution of the same and derived works, without forcing consequences for the author. This is a very reasonable expedient, IMHO, for helping people to further the goals of the FSF as expressed in the manifest. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-24 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-24 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) writes: > You're position leads to the conclusion that if I give GPL'd > code to someone, I have to be personally responsible for making sure > that everyone on earth who wants it gets it. Not at all! Yes, everyone on earth who wants it should be able to get it, but that doesn't necessarily mean from you... Unless of course you are hoarding, in which case they can only get it from you. I can't think of a better way to make such persons reevaluate their behavior with respect to the GNU Manifesto. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-24 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-24 0:00 ` Isaac 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2084 bytes --] Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: > Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) writes: > > You're position leads to the conclusion that if I give GPL'd > > code to someone, I have to be personally responsible for making sure > > that everyone on earth who wants it gets it. > > Not at all! Yes, everyone on earth who wants it should be able to get > it, but that doesn't necessarily mean from you... That's what "responsible" means. Responsibility for something does not mean that I have to personally do it. > Unless of course > you are hoarding, in which case they can only get it from you. I > can't think of a better way to make such persons reevaluate their > behavior with respect to the GNU Manifesto. I can't think of anything offhand that would at once ascertain the "availability" of GPLed code better than the current version, be legally binding, *and* encourage people to put things under the GPL. Don't misunderstand the GPL: it is a user licence. It just defines the rights and conditions for somebody *getting* that piece of software. The legal *owner* of the software can do anything with it, including releasing the same or derived versions of the software only commercially and refusing to further distribute it. Even if the GPL wanted to regulate the owner of the software, it hardly could. The best you can do is sue for unfair advertising (or what it's called) if somebody announces GPL software for getting popular or harming competition and does not provide it. But this is not a matter regulated by the GPL, and cannot be. Actually, you have to show this is intentional, and this is pretty hard. Which is why few bother to persecute the hosts of ghost announcements for products never coming up, or at vastly later times, some big players with big legal departments issue in order to harm their competetion. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-24 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-07-24 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-25 0:00 ` B.Stephens 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Isaac @ 1997-07-24 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2lo2xwasi.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>, Ronald Cole wrote: >Not at all! Yes, everyone on earth who wants it should be able to get >it, but that doesn't necessarily mean from you... Unless of course >you are hoarding, in which case they can only get it from you. I >can't think of a better way to make such persons reevaluate their >behavior with respect to the GNU Manifesto. > So any individual person who is asked can say no correct? So if I only distribute the code to a few persons who also don't feel like re-distributing, you still might not be able to get the code. I think your litmus test is not very accurate. It turns red even in some neutral solutions. Isaac ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-24 0:00 ` Isaac @ 1997-07-25 0:00 ` B.Stephens 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: B.Stephens @ 1997-07-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5r6kbt$8g6@camel4.mindspring.com>, Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) wrote: > So any individual person who is asked can say no correct? So if I only > distribute the code to a few persons who also don't feel like > re-distributing, you still might not be able to get the code. That's the situation, yes. I have lots of GPLed software, about 10 CDs of the stuff, in fact. I am under no obligation to make any of it available to you (although, as it happens, all of it is readily available from other sources). Is there any reason I should be obliged to do any more than the GPL requires? -------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====----------------------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-24 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-25 0:00 ` B.Stephens @ 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) writes: > In article <m2lo2xwasi.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>, Ronald Cole wrote: > >Not at all! Yes, everyone on earth who wants it should be able to get > >it, but that doesn't necessarily mean from you... Unless of course > >you are hoarding, in which case they can only get it from you. I > >can't think of a better way to make such persons reevaluate their > >behavior with respect to the GNU Manifesto. > > So any individual person who is asked can say no correct? So if I only > distribute the code to a few persons who also don't feel like > re-distributing, you still might not be able to get the code. If said individual is not the author, he should at least be required to tell you where he got it. It is the author who should not be allowed to say no once he has engaged in the act of "distributing" GPL'd software. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 3 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Isaac said <<If the 3.10 is a production release, and ACT's customers are in any way obligated not to re-distribute it, I agree that that is a violation of the GPL. >> Please note, that despite the possible implication of the above statement, it is absolutely the case that ACT never violates either the spirit or the letter of the GPL. As Ronald's posts have made clear, he thought the GPL made guarantees about required distribution that simply (a) are not present, (b) are definitely not intended to be present and (c) which would be undesirable if they were present, since, as Isaac notes, they would discourage distribution of free software. Now Ronald has decided that he doesn't like the whole GPL approach. Fine, he is free to (a) define some alternative approach and (b) distribute his software using that approach. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-30 0:00 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Please note, that despite the possible implication of the above statement, > it is absolutely the case that ACT never violates either the spirit or > the letter of the GPL. I can always count on you, Robert, to misstate my position... > As Ronald's posts have made clear, he thought the GPL made guarantees about > required distribution that simply (a) are not present, (b) are definitely > not intended to be present and (c) which would be undesirable if they > were present, since, as Isaac notes, they would discourage distribution > of free software. Close, but no cigar. I thought the Manifesto said that there would be a license that embodied it's spirit. I further assumed that the GPL was that license. Upon reading the GPL and comparing it to the sentiments expressed in the Manifesto, I have been enlightened as to their incongruity (i.e., the GNU system is easily obtainable, but not because of anything contained in the GPL; rather, because Stallman chose to make it freely available). > Now Ronald has decided that he doesn't like the whole GPL approach. Fine, > he is free to (a) define some alternative approach and (b) distribute > his software using that approach. I like the license approach as stated in the Manifesto. I would like to see the GPL's corrected to remove the incongruity with the Manifesto. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-30 0:00 ` Joe Buck 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Joe Buck @ 1997-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: >I like the license approach as stated in the Manifesto. I would like to >see the GPL's corrected to remove the incongruity with the Manifesto. It appears that your wish is that the sentence from the Manifesto "I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it." be made a mandatory requirement, that anyone in possession of a GPLed program be forced to share the program with anyone who asks for it, no matter what the expense. Even if RMS agreed with your interpretation of the Manifesto, this is not possible. The GPL, since it is not signed by the recipient, does not have to be accepted by the recipient. Hence the GPL says: > You are not required to accept this License, since you have not > signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or > distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are > prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. That is, the GPL cannot force a user to do anything, except in exchange for the right to do something s/he would otherwise not have the right to do (modify or distribute GPLed code). Forcing people at their own expense to incur unbounded distribution expenses simply is not a condition that the FSF can legally impose. Copyright law is designed to *restrict* the making of copies: the GPL has the power to relax this condition. It does not have the power to force people to do anything. (Some shrink-wrap licenses try to do this, mandating all kinds of silly things; as a rule they aren't enforceable). -- -- Joe Buck http://www.synopsys.com/pubs/research/people/jbuck.html Help stamp out Internet spam: see http://spam.abuse.net/spam/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac @ 1997-07-27 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2u3hof1w3.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: >According to the Manifesto, Stallman had to write GNU so that he could >share it with other people who liked it *and* so that everyone would >be able to obtain good system software free. Stallman also said that >he is required to consider it wrong for one to hoard information. Both of these are correct summaries, to my understanding. >If you received and modified GNU software, you shouldn't be required to >share it, *unless* you have engaged in the act of "distribution". The first problem is what is meant by "distribution" and what is meant by "being required to share it". >Once you have distributed, being selective about further distributions >is indistinguishable from "hoarding", Not at all, and this ties in to my previous comment. Suppose I write some software and make it available on a public FTP site. That would, by nearly anybody's definition, consitute making a "distribution". Now somebody comes to me and says they'd like a copy of my program, but they don't have network access. Not only that, but the only media they can read is a CD-ROM recorded using a nonstandard encoding. Do you feel I have a moral obligation to create such a CD-ROM for that person? Yes, this is an extreme example, but if you truely believe in the obligation to share software, it would apply here as well. If you don't think it would apply there as well, tell us precisely what criteria you would use to determine whether there was a moral obligation to satisfy any particular request. >I've stated that I don't believe making snapshots available for >testing to be "distributing". However, you've previously posted that >3.10 is the latest "production release" of GNAT and that ACT's >customers have been enjoying it for quite a while. No, Robert has not said that. I'll let him speak for himself but I will say there's never been *any* version of GNAT either inside or outside of ACT that identified itself as "3.10". >*That*, in my opinion, is the act of "distributing". You need to define "distributing" more precisely before one can judge whether they agree with your opinion or not. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-27 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > In article <m2u3hof1w3.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: > >According to the Manifesto, Stallman had to write GNU so that he could > >share it with other people who liked it *and* so that everyone would > >be able to obtain good system software free. Stallman also said that > >he is required to consider it wrong for one to hoard information. > > Both of these are correct summaries, to my understanding. Thank you. > >If you received and modified GNU software, you shouldn't be required to > >share it, *unless* you have engaged in the act of "distribution". > > The first problem is what is meant by "distribution" and what is meant > by "being required to share it". > > >Once you have distributed, being selective about further distributions > >is indistinguishable from "hoarding", > > Not at all, and this ties in to my previous comment. Suppose I write > some software and make it available on a public FTP site. That would, > by nearly anybody's definition, consitute making a "distribution". Yes. > Now somebody comes to me and says they'd like a copy of my program, > but they don't have network access. Not only that, but the only media > they can read is a CD-ROM recorded using a nonstandard encoding. Do > you feel I have a moral obligation to create such a CD-ROM for that > person? No, because you've made it available. Telling them to get network access so that they can acquire it themselves is sufficient. > Yes, this is an extreme example, but if you truely believe in the > obligation to share software, it would apply here as well. By putting it up for anon-ftp, you have fulfilled your obligation. > If you don't think it would apply there as well, tell us precisely > what criteria you would use to determine whether there was a moral > obligation to satisfy any particular request. If an individual is solely in receipt of GNU software, his obligation is only to tell you how he got it, so that you can do as he did to acquire it. If an individual has made enhancements to GNU software and has engaged in the act of "distributing" (a voluntary act, mind you), then he is obligated to share. > >I've stated that I don't believe making snapshots available for > >testing to be "distributing". However, you've previously posted that > >3.10 is the latest "production release" of GNAT and that ACT's > >customers have been enjoying it for quite a while. > > No, Robert has not said that. I'll let him speak for himself but I > will say there's never been *any* version of GNAT either inside or > outside of ACT that identified itself as "3.10". He has already spoken for himself... and then back-pedaled. Check out: <http://xp5.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?recnum=14813401&server=db97p2&CONTEXT=870210292.337379588&hitnum=5> > >*That*, in my opinion, is the act of "distributing". > > You need to define "distributing" more precisely before one can judge > whether they agree with your opinion or not. "the process of supplying something". -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 4 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1963 bytes --] Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: > peltz@jaka.ece.uiuc.edu (Steve Peltz) writes: > > However, it doesn't seem to fit with the ideals of the > > GPL and FSF. > > You may actually be surprised at what Stallman's ideals actually are! > I thought as you did, and pressed Richard about the altruism he > describes in his GNU Manifesto. He told me that "[I was] interpreting > what [he] wrote in a way that is not [his] interpretation." I then > asked him to explain just exactly how he got from "if I like a program > I must share it with other people who like it" to "each person should > be free to decide who not to give a copy to". He never bothered to > reply. In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to > be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world > in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on > his principles. You are confusing things. Wishing that people would behave in a cooperative way is not equivalent to forcing them to do so. The GPL is there to prevent the use of software contrary to the intentions of the author of it. The act of making a piece of software GPL is a voluntary act of the software author. It does not make sense to attach strings to this which will not help distribution significantly, but scare away authors needlessly. A licence like that should *help* the author in making his software available in a useful way, not burden him or place responsibilities on him. The responsibilities rest with distributors. As long as they comply with the reasonable restrictions, they are free making as much money from it as they want. Which might not be so very much, as competition could chime in legally anytime. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole ` (3 preceding siblings ...) 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 4 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 1997-07-23 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole wrote: > You may actually be surprised at what Stallman's ideals actually are! No, I don't think so, I think it is you who has the misunderstanding. > I thought as you did, and pressed Richard about the altruism he > describes in his GNU Manifesto. He told me that "[I was] interpreting > what [he] wrote in a way that is not [his] interpretation." You have to understand that when it comes to high-minded principles, Richard has already "been there, done that". For the GNU project to succeed, there has to be some pragmatism. If that includes some actions that don't square with your interpretation of the manifesto, well so be it. At MIT he tried the "free software for all, no restrictions, let's just all get along" idea. It just doesn't work, so now this is something different. The best explanation of this is given in Hackers by Steven Levy - in fact RMS sometimes just refers to the book rather than try to explain _again_. I then > asked him to explain just exactly how he got from "if I like a program > I must share it with other people who like it" to "each person should > be free to decide who not to give a copy to". He never bothered to > reply. Have you considered the possibility that he doesn't owe an explanation to anyone, especially not to people who after all this time question his motives. He makes mistakes just like all of us, and the GPL is necessarily imperfect, but your particular pronouncements are hardly conducive to constructive debate on the matter. In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to > be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world > in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on > his principles. Well you're just flat out wrong. > > Don't trust anybody over thirty... ;) > > -- > Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 > Ronald Cole <ronald@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 Ok, I can play that game. Never trust anyone who has to put their status in their sigs. Oh yeah, ;^), that fixes everything. Chris -- Chris Morgan <mihalis @ ix.netcom.com> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-30 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes: > No, I don't think so, I think it is you who has the misunderstanding. Please, cite me to the relevant parts of the Manifesto that directly refute my "interpretation"! > You have to understand that when it comes to high-minded principles, > Richard has already "been there, done that". For the GNU project to > succeed, there has to be some pragmatism. If that includes some actions > that don't square with your interpretation of the manifesto, well so be > it. At MIT he tried the "free software for all, no restrictions, let's > just all get along" idea. It just doesn't work, so now this is something > different. The best explanation of this is given in Hackers by Steven > Levy - in fact RMS sometimes just refers to the book rather than try to > explain _again_. Sorry, I won't accept your conclusion that "[f]or the GNU project to succeed, there has to be some pragmatism" without supporting argument. And, yes, I've read "Hackers". Have you read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat? > Have you considered the possibility that he doesn't owe an explanation > to anyone, especially not to people who after all this time question his > motives. He makes mistakes just like all of us, and the GPL is > necessarily imperfect, but your particular pronouncements are hardly > conducive to constructive debate on the matter. I'm not questioning his motives at all. If his Manifesto is still open to interpretation (albeit incorrect), then it probably needs yet-another clarification. > > In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to > > be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world > > in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on > > his principles. > > Well you're just flat out wrong. Well, which is it? You say he acquired a new set of "pragmatic" principles which rejects the idealistic principles layed out in the Manifesto in a previous paragraph and then take issue with me pointing it out? -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-07-30 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-08-04 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 1997-07-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole wrote: > > Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes: > > No, I don't think so, I think it is you who has the misunderstanding. > > Please, cite me to the relevant parts of the Manifesto that directly > refute my "interpretation"! I don't have to, the person who wrote it has already told you that he doesn't share your interpretation. It's not a legal document. You have not received anything which claims to be a perfectly conformant product of that document. You have received things licensed under the GPL which is not the same thing. The manifesto is a broad statement of intent and not intended to be subjected to minute scrutiny, unlike the GPL. > Sorry, I won't accept your conclusion that "[f]or the GNU project to > succeed, there has to be some pragmatism" without supporting argument. That's your right, however how many projects which insist on pure idealism in all cases have succeeded? Do you think the GNU project could be one? > And, yes, I've read "Hackers". Have you read "The Law" by Frederic > Bastiat? No, I'm interested though, what is it about? > I'm not questioning his motives at all. I thought you were! If his Manifesto is still open > to interpretation (albeit incorrect), then it probably needs yet-another > clarification. Perhaps it would helpful to have such a clarification. However I submit you haven't encouraged RMS to contribute to this debate, quite the opposite. > > > > In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to > > > be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world > > > in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on > > > his principles. > > > > Well you're just flat out wrong. > > Well, which is it? You say he acquired a new set of "pragmatic" > principles which rejects the idealistic principles layed out in the > Manifesto in a previous paragraph and then take issue with me pointing > it out? I think you're deliberately twisting my words. That is not what I said. The Manifesto in not written as a promise of precise adherence to set of rules, it's a call to arms, a challenge to thoughtful software users throughout the industry. RMS has never deviated from the path he set out to take when he wrote the manifesto. If you think that he has then I submit you are in a very small minority. When he decided to get more specific he wrote the GPL. My view is this is an attempt to preserve as close to 100% of the aims of the manifesto as possible whilst surrounding them with some protections against exploitation and disclaiming some unreasonable responsibilities that might naively be deduced from the manifesto. Other people in this thread, much more knowledgable than me have told you repeatedly that the GPL is not being infringed. Although I don't think you even acknowledge this, you haven't proved your point. Let's assume for the sake of argument this was proved to you, e.g. in a court. Then that should be the end of the matter, you would not be able to say "But I have other rights given to me by the manifesto" as there are no such rights. Of course if the GPL were being infringed then you would have a valid complaint. But instead of sticking to discussing the license under which you received the software you attempt to broaden the argument into the meaning of the manifesto and whether RMS has sold out or not. I guess you sought "extra leverage" in the more idealistic wording of the Manifesto, but to this reader you went from wrong on a technicality to, as I said, flat out wrong. Chris -- Chris Morgan <mihalis @ ix.netcom.com> "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary," ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-30 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 1997-08-04 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-05 0:00 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-04 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes: > I don't have to, the person who wrote it has already told you that he > doesn't share your interpretation. It's not a legal document. You have > not received anything which claims to be a perfectly conformant product > of that document. You have received things licensed under the GPL which > is not the same thing. The manifesto is a broad statement of intent and > not intended to be subjected to minute scrutiny, unlike the GPL. I asked Stallman to clarify exactly what I was misunderstanding. I'm apparently not the only one confused. To quote from the emacs faq: "NOTE: The word "free" in the title of the Free Software Foundation refers to "freedom," not "zero dollars." Anyone can charge any price for GPL-covered software that they want to. However, in practice, the freedom enforced by the GPL leads to low prices, because you can always get the software for less money from someone else, because everyone has the right to resell or give away GPL-covered software." Apparently, with GNAT one cannot always get "the software" (e.g., the "current product release" of GNAT) for less money from someone else, because of policies like Cygnus' or ACT's whereby they'll threaten to quit doing business with you if you exercise your "right". And then there's this tidbit from Stallman from the same faq: "The legal meaning of the GNU copyleft is less important than the spirit, which is that Emacs is a free software project and that work pertaining to Emacs should also be free software. "Free" means that all users have the freedom to study, share, change and improve Emacs. To make sure everyone has this freedom, pass along source code when you distribute any version of Emacs or a related program, and give the recipients the same freedom that you enjoyed." Here Stallman seems to freely admits that the GNU system is free, not because of any legal requirements in the GPL, but because the author (the FSF) practices the Golden Rule. And he seems to command that everyone else who receives the GNU system practice it, too. If "all users" was not meant to be synonymous with the "everyone" (all computer users) referred to in the Manifesto; rather, to be strictly limited to those who are actually able to use the GNU system (e.g., those who are actually in possession of it), then I want to know why the Manifesto hasn't been brought "up to spec"... > That's your right, however how many projects which insist on pure > idealism in all cases have succeeded? I'm inclined to say "one" because I only know of one: Linux. However, such insistance isn't formalized in any writing that I know of. > Do you think the GNU project could be one? Yes, I do. Such would be voluntary socialism, which I can support as a Libertarian. > > Have you read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat? > No, I'm interested though, what is it about? <http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~ronald/patriot/the_law.html> Note the arguments about man's natural tendency to plunder. I believe that allowing ACT and Cygnus to leverage GCC to create new versions of GNU software to order to sell binaries to clients before releasing the source to the public is tantamount to encouraging the plundering of free software. The GPL is not much better than public domain in this regard. ACT has obtained a monopoly on developing and servicing GNAT and has used what I consider a fatal flaw in the GPL to bolster their position. If GNU's goal is really that "[o]nce GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like air", then I'd like to see Stallman answer this "easily rebutted objection to GNU's goals": "My company needs a monopoly on developing and servicing modifications to free software in order to get a competitive edge." > Perhaps it would helpful to have such a clarification. However I submit > you haven't encouraged RMS to contribute to this debate, quite the > opposite. I could interpret his reticence to clarify as possibly intending the "sophistry" in the Manifesto to trick idealists into contributing code to the FSF. I, for one, wouldn't want to allow people like Robert Dewar to monopolize enhancements to software I had created for the betterment of the world! > I think you're deliberately twisting my words. That is not what I said. > > The Manifesto in not written as a promise of precise adherence to set of > rules, it's a call to arms, a challenge to thoughtful software users > throughout the industry. RMS has never deviated from the path he set out > to take when he wrote the manifesto. If you think that he has then I > submit you are in a very small minority. I don't believe that RMS, himself, has deviated, in practice, from what he wrote in the Manifesto. However, I believe he has deviated, in principle, by allowing others to leverage monopolies off of his work. He wrote that he was "required to consider it wrong" and yet now he appears to tolerate it. > When he decided to get more specific he wrote the GPL. My view is this > is an attempt to preserve as close to 100% of the aims of the manifesto > as possible whilst surrounding them with some protections against > exploitation and disclaiming some unreasonable responsibilities that > might naively be deduced from the manifesto. If it was such an attempt, I'm sure he would want to clarify his position. A monopoly is hoarding, plain and simple, and Stallman's feelings are very clear in this regard: "Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity." > Other people in this > thread, much more knowledgable than me have told you repeatedly that the > GPL is not being infringed. I know it's not. That's why I asked Richard to entertain changing the GPL in this regard for the release of gcc-2.8. I believe that the Manifesto clearly denounces hoarding in all its incarnations, and that Dewar's monopoly on GNAT is tantamount to hoarding. Dewar seems to tacitly agree with me on this: before I raised my objection, he claimed that gnat-3.10 was the "current product release" and that most of his "large customers on HPUX" had switched to it; but, afterwards he backpedaled and instead claimed that gnat-3.10 was still very much a "beta release" and unstable and that Stallman was strongly against the practice of distributing beta software past the beta-testers. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-04 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-05 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-08-09 0:00 ` David Masterson [not found] ` <dewar.870872644@merv> [not found] ` <33E974F3.1AAC@ix.netcom.com> 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-08-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2097 bytes --] Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: > And then there's this tidbit from Stallman from the same faq: > > "The legal meaning of the GNU copyleft is less important than the > spirit, which is that Emacs is a free software project and that work > pertaining to Emacs should also be free software. "Free" means that > all users have the freedom to study, share, change and improve Emacs. > To make sure everyone has this freedom, pass along source code when you > distribute any version of Emacs or a related program, and give the > recipients the same freedom that you enjoyed." > > Here Stallman seems to freely admits that the GNU system is free, not > because of any legal requirements in the GPL, but because the author > (the FSF) practices the Golden Rule. And he seems to command that > everyone else who receives the GNU system practice it, too. Look, Stallman is not GOD, and does not pass commandment over mortals. He is a man with vision and ethics, but I doubt that he aims to force everybody to behave like him, unwilling how he might be. The software he manages is handed out under the GPL, and this means that you can only use or distribute it if you comply to the licence conditions. As you have not signed a contract, you can feel free to disagree with the licence conditions and not feel bound by it. In which case the copyright holder will not relax his rights to the software in a way making you legally use it. You adhere to the letter of the GPL, you can use the software, according to the licence. Simple as that. Nobody "commands" you to practice some ominous Golden Rule, or obey a secret hidden code, or burn Microsoft Office packages at new moon. Of course, GNU people will be more than glad if you do those things (they help wth strange programs, see man pom for an example), but they are not mandatory. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-05 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-08-09 0:00 ` David Masterson 1997-08-11 0:00 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: David Masterson @ 1997-08-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: > Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: > > > And then there's this tidbit from Stallman from the same faq: > > > > "The legal meaning of the GNU copyleft is less important than the > > spirit, which is that Emacs is a free software project and that work > > pertaining to Emacs should also be free software. "Free" means that > > all users have the freedom to study, share, change and improve Emacs. > > To make sure everyone has this freedom, pass along source code when you > > distribute any version of Emacs or a related program, and give the > > recipients the same freedom that you enjoyed." > > > > Here Stallman seems to freely admits that the GNU system is free, > > not because of any legal requirements in the GPL, but because the > > author (the FSF) practices the Golden Rule. And he seems to > > command that everyone else who receives the GNU system practice > > it, too. > > Look, Stallman is not GOD, and does not pass commandment over > mortals. He is a man with vision and ethics, but I doubt that he > aims to force everybody to behave like him, unwilling how he might > be. The software he manages is handed out under the GPL, and this > means that you can only use or distribute it if you comply to the > licence conditions. As you have not signed a contract, you can feel > free to disagree with the licence conditions and not feel bound by > it. In which case the copyright holder will not relax his rights to > the software in a way making you legally use it. Wait a minute, there's something wrong with this paragraph: 1. Stallman is not GOD -- granted. 2. He can't force everyone to behave like him -- granted. 3. He can try to force everyone to behave like him when using his (or other's like his) software -- definition of the GPL. 4. By using GPL'ed software, you have signed a license that should be every bit as binding as the Microsoft (et.al.) copyright licenses that you accept by opening their package -- license definition. 5. If the GPL is a lawyers construct to represent the "Golden Rule" and, yet, has flaws in it that allow subversion of the Rule, then maybe it should be modified -- as done in GPL v2. 6. Disagreeing with the Golden Rule means that you shouldn't be able to use GPL'ed software, not that you should be able to use it and ignore the GPL -- ignorance of the law is no defense. BTW, these are logical conclusions based upon past discussions, not a statement of my beliefs. -- David Masterson david@batcave.bungi.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-09 0:00 ` David Masterson @ 1997-08-11 0:00 ` David Kastrup 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-08-11 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3317 bytes --] David Masterson <david@batcave.bungi.com> writes: > 4. By using GPL'ed software, you have signed a license that should be > every bit as binding as the Microsoft (et.al.) copyright licenses > that you accept by opening their package -- license definition. Wrong. You have *not* signed such a licence "by using GPLed" software, and consequently cannot be held to it, or sued for breach of contract. There is no such thing as "silent agreement" when using software or opening a package. What you can be sued for if you disregard the "licence" is breach of copyright, as the copyright holder has agreed to relax his rights for the sake of your using his software only under certain constraints. This is an important difference: a) The penalties and procedures for breach of contract and breach of copyright are somewhat different. b) The only person allowed to sue for breach of copyright with relation to some GPLed software is the copyright holder of some piece of it. Other than that, it is not enforceable. > 5. If the GPL is a lawyers construct to represent the "Golden Rule" > and, yet, has flaws in it that allow subversion of the Rule, then > maybe it should be modified -- as done in GPL v2. You are confusing things here. The GPL is a user licence. It neither gives or takes any rights to his own software to the author, nor can it in fact legally restrict the author's right to do what he wants to do with his own software. He can quite legally stop distributing the source of it, although not the redistribution of existing GPLed copies because he has already granted a usage licence including copying. The GPL is *not* some declaration of compellation of niceness by the author. Nor is it useful for the spread of free software to demand from prospective authors to go in chain and fetters. It gives some guarantees of legal safety for the user, but none of of overall availability (only of source availability if you got just binaries from a redistributor). In fact, some original software might be GPLed without making any source available by the author, only binaries. The most you could do in that case is sue for misleading claims (unfair competition or something like that). Of course, he cannot do so if his work is a derivative of some software for which he does not hold the copyright. The GPL is a licence for the user, not the author. It only enforces something related to a vision of the "Golden Rule" on the user and possible redistributor of the software, not the author. It could not do so even if it wanted to: the author keeps the copyright to his software and can do with it what he wants. The alternative would be to require the author to waive his copyright and assign it to some third party, such as the FSF, before he was allowed to use the GPL for it. The FSF is presumably neither willing nor able to manage the copyright business of all authors of free software all over the world. Don't go whining about how the GPL does not strike you as useful before you understand the implications of it and alternatives. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <dewar.870872644@merv>]
[parent not found: <dewar.870873584@merv>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <dewar.870873584@merv> @ 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup ` (2 more replies) 0 siblings, 3 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > <<Apparently, with GNAT one cannot always get "the software" (e.g., the > "current product release" of GNAT) for less money from someone else, > because of policies like Cygnus' or ACT's whereby they'll threaten to > quit doing business with you if you exercise your "right". > >> > > This is pure fantasy, ACT has at no time threatened to quit doing > business with anyone for any reason. So, if one of your "wavefront" customers started giving me copies and I proceeded to make them available for anonymous ftp, you wouldn't retaliate? Are there any wavefront clients that would like to test this bold assertion out? -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-08-13 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-15 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-08-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1143 bytes --] Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> writes: > dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > > <<Apparently, with GNAT one cannot always get "the software" (e.g., the > > "current product release" of GNAT) for less money from someone else, > > because of policies like Cygnus' or ACT's whereby they'll threaten to > > quit doing business with you if you exercise your "right". > > >> > > > > This is pure fantasy, ACT has at no time threatened to quit doing > > business with anyone for any reason. > > So, if one of your "wavefront" customers started giving me copies and > I proceeded to make them available for anonymous ftp, you wouldn't > retaliate? > > Are there any wavefront clients that would like to test this bold > assertion out? Well, if you can't find any, it might just be that they don't feel compelled to invest labour in order to actively encourage and support an obvious troublemaker. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-08-13 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) David Kastrup <dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> writes: > Well, if you can't find any, it might just be that they don't feel > compelled to invest labour in order to actively encourage and support > an obvious troublemaker. In what way am I making trouble? And if I am, whom am I making trouble for? -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup @ 1997-08-15 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Isaac @ 1997-08-15 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m24t8vw0c9.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>, Ronald Cole wrote: > >So, if one of your "wavefront" customers started giving me copies and >I proceeded to make them available for anonymous ftp, you wouldn't >retaliate? > >Are there any wavefront clients that would like to test this bold >assertion out? I suspect you are the one person on earth least likely to get this code. My understanding is that the GPL assures me that if I get a binary from GPL'd code that I like, no one can keep me from sharing it with my friends or getting the source and modifying it to my liking. These is the freedom the manifesto talks about and the GPL tries to assure. How many friends have you made in the GNAT community? Isaac ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-15 0:00 ` Isaac @ 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) writes: > In article <m24t8vw0c9.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net>, Ronald Cole wrote: > >So, if one of your "wavefront" customers started giving me copies and > >I proceeded to make them available for anonymous ftp, you wouldn't > >retaliate? > >Are there any wavefront clients that would like to test this bold > >assertion out? > > I suspect you are the one person on earth least likely to get this > code. My understanding is that the GPL assures me that if I get a > binary from GPL'd code that I like, no one can keep me from sharing it > with my friends or getting the source and modifying it to my liking. > These is the freedom the manifesto talks about and the GPL tries to assure. > How many friends have you made in the GNAT community? I suspect I'll make quite a few once I find someone to feed me wavefront releases so that I can redistribute them publicly like the Linux development kernel. If not to me, then perhaps someone will feed them to the egcs project <http://www.cygnus.com/egcs/>. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-08-15 0:00 ` Isaac @ 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig ` (3 more replies) 2 siblings, 4 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole says <<So, if one of your "wavefront" customers started giving me copies and I proceeded to make them available for anonymous ftp, you wouldn't retaliate?>> As has been explained before, and as I think most people except Ronald Cole perfectly well understand, the situation is as follows. We ask people receiving wavefront versions to refrain from distributing them, because it is actively unhelpful to the GNAT project and to the development and use of GNAT (both by customers and by unsupported users) to have versions floating around that have not gone through the kind of field testing that we insist on for public release. A wavefront version is a temporary release that is made for the purpose of solving a particular customers problem. We do not promise at any point to make such wavefront versions available -- indeed both from our point of view and from the point of view of most of our customers, it is better to figure out workarounds rather than be constantly using new versions of the compiler that have not been field tested -- by their nature wavefront versions cannot be thoroughly tested (or they would become real releases suitable for general release). If people started distributing wavefront versions freely, then w would probably reluctantly decide to stop making them available, since it would be clear that their distribution was harmful. That would be too bad for the cases where they really solve a problem. But as I said, this is a very small part of our support activity anyway (sending out wavefront releases). So if we did decide to curtail the distribution of wavefront release because of problems with uncontrolled releases, then this would be nothing like "refusing to do business with people" or anything like that. it would just be a matter of balancing the needs of customers in certain situations with other needs, something we have to do all the time. One important point here to realize is that sometimes we will send out wavefronts that we know have a flaw, that will not affect the current use. For example, we may know that a recent change has broken the COBOL interface, but if we know a given customer is not using the COBOL interface, then the wavefornt may still be useful. But of course general distribution of that wavefront would most definitely be harmful. The situation with GNAT is very much like that with the GCC snapshots. The GNU project strongly discourages people from distributing the snapshots for exactly the same reasons I give above, and generally we don't see the snapshots being widely distributed, and that is definitely a good thing. The point here is to aim at effective quality-controlled release management for GNAT. The fact that GNAT is free software means that some restrictions that could be achieved with contractual instruments for propietary software cannot be achieved this way for GNAT. But in practice that is not a problem. The GNAT user community in general understands I think quite well what our goals are here, and cooperates not because there is some lawyer threatening them with dire penalties, but because they want to help the GNAT project. That we do not have dozens of wavefront versions of GNAT in various unknown states floating around the net, causing mass confusion, testifies to this. There is, as Richard Kenner, points out a huge difference between illegal and impolite or uncooperative. This distinction seems to be lost on Ronald, but I think the rest of the community understands it. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig 1997-08-17 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell ` (2 subsequent siblings) 3 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Koenig @ 1997-08-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In gnu.misc.discuss, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: >The situation with GNAT is very much like that with the GCC snapshots. >The GNU project strongly discourages people from distributing the >snapshots for exactly the same reasons I give above, and generally >we don't see the snapshots being widely distributed, and that is >definitely a good thing. Some very capable people have now started developing a gcc version in the open, including frequent snapshots (see http://www.cygnus.com/egcs). They don't appear to have anyobdy for the Ada frontend yet, though, probably because not very many people outside of ACT have hacked on GNAT, and not very many people in the free software community seem to use Ada, compared to C and C++. [Actually, this is quite a pity. I'd like to rewrite a small piece of Unix standard software I've contributed to the free systems in Ada, but I'm more or less forced to continue to use C because the state of UNIX bindings for GNAT is less than happy. Certainly anybody who reads bugtraq has to agree that using C in security-relevant code has its dangers :-] -- Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet. The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig @ 1997-08-17 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 3 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-08-17 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.871738278@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >As has been explained before, and as I think most people except Ronald >Cole perfectly well understand, the situation is as follows. > >We ask people receiving wavefront versions to refrain from distributing >them, because it is actively unhelpful to the GNAT project and to the >development and use of GNAT (both by customers and by unsupported users) >to have versions floating around that have not gone through the kind of >field testing that we insist on for public release. Do you imagine the popularity of Linux to have been damaged by the simultaneous releases of 2.0.x (stable-track) and 2.1.x (development) kernels? I'd say the opposite is true even though a few newbies are confused. Why worry about the people who don't bother to read the disclaimers? Les Mikesell les@mcs.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-17 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) les@MCS.COM (Leslie Mikesell) writes: > In article <dewar.871738278@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: > >As has been explained before, and as I think most people except Ronald > >Cole perfectly well understand, the situation is as follows. > >We ask people receiving wavefront versions to refrain from distributing > >them, because it is actively unhelpful to the GNAT project and to the > >development and use of GNAT (both by customers and by unsupported users) > >to have versions floating around that have not gone through the kind of > >field testing that we insist on for public release. > > Do you imagine the popularity of Linux to have been damaged by the > simultaneous releases of 2.0.x (stable-track) and 2.1.x (development) > kernels? I'd say the opposite is true even though a few newbies > are confused. Why worry about the people who don't bother to read > the disclaimers? Amen! Also note that the public release of 3.09 appears to be a public release that has "not gone through the kind of field testing that we insist on for public release." The gcc-272.dif released with the source distribution contains a patch that introduces an optimizer bug that was apparently made just one day before being released. Of course, one might interpret this fact to demonstrate just exactly what kind of field testing ACT insists on for public releases. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig 1997-08-17 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell @ 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 3 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Mike Stump @ 1997-08-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.871738278@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >The situation with GNAT is very much like that with the GCC snapshots. >The GNU project strongly discourages people from distributing the >snapshots for exactly the same reasons I give above, and generally >we don't see the snapshots being widely distributed, This is now false. See the egcs project at Cygnus at: http://www.cygnus.com/egcs >and that is definitely a good thing. This is questionable, and many disagree with you. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Paul Lyon 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<This is now false. See the egcs project at Cygnus at: http://www.cygnus.com/egcs>> We will have to see how this develops. At best it will be an interesting experimental environment for trying out new ideas in a situation where stability is not the first order of business. At worst, it will just be a further divergence in gcc versions. Hopefully it will succeed in being the first of these rather than the second. Actually it would be very nice if there was more experimental activity with GNAT in terms of interesting new experimental ideas, but so far we haven't seen much of this -- hopefully we will see more in the future, this is after all why the sources are available (and why the DoD insisted on the sources being distributed under the GPL!) For example, it would be nice if someone would have a crack at trying out Tuck's "with type" idea for resolving mutual dependencies in library units -- probably this would not be too hard. Note incidentally that one of the improvements in 3.10 is that we have rewritten all the former spitbol utilities in Ada -- which removes one obstacle to modifying GNAT, particularly when it comes to adding new syntax etc. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Paul Lyon 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Koenig @ 1997-08-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In gnu.misc.discuss, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: ><<This is now false. See the egcs project at Cygnus at: > > http://www.cygnus.com/egcs>> > >We will have to see how this develops. At best it will be an interesting >experimental environment for trying out new ideas in a situation where >stability is not the first order of business. I think you underestimate the people on that project. At best, this will become a quite stable release which will provide the free user community with a stable, working gcc which can do RISC scheduling and which has useful C++ templates. The FSF, to whom all changes are assigned, can then integrate them into 2.8 in whatever way they please. >At worst, it will just be >a further divergence in gcc versions. It is already resulting in reducing these versions. Quite a number of groups which have brought out diverging gcc versions in the past (pgcc, the Linux people, ...) are now working together under a single umbrella. This is definitely a Good Thing. >Actually it would be very nice if there was more experimental activity >with GNAT in terms of interesting new experimental ideas, Why doesn't somebody from ACT take part in the egcs project? So far, egcs doesn't have anybody working on the Ada frontend to gcc. -- Thomas Koenig, Thomas.Koenig@ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de, ig25@dkauni2.bitnet. The joy of engineering is to find a straight line on a double logarithmic diagram. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig @ 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<I think you underestimate the people on that project. At best, this will become a quite stable release which will provide the free user community with a stable, working gcc which can do RISC scheduling and which has useful C++ templates. The FSF, to whom all changes are assigned, can then integrate them into 2.8 in whatever way they please.>> Stability can only be achieved by being very careful and selective about what changes are made. If that is the intention of the egcs project, then that's too bad, since it seems to me the goals of a very free development environment are better met by letting people experiment freely. If someone has a neat bit of code that is 90% operational, and not very well documented, then you certainly can't let it in to a building process that is aiming at stablity, but the feature might still be very interesting to incorporate and let people play with. For example, during the recent round of development of exception handling stuff for GCC, the developers on more than one occasion sent messages to the effect of "well it is 90% working now, so why not go ahead and put it in?" Quite approipriately, this was not considered to be in sufficiently good shape to put into the mainline gcc development sources, but I would hope that it WOULD be considered appropriate to put it into the egcs project development, even if it were incomplete, not fully documented etc. I don't think this has anything to do with the quality of people on the project, it has to do with the fundamental goals. Perhaps I have misunderstood them, or perhaps they are not exactly clear yet. Robert ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <EFIyr0.Erq@kithrup.com> 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<Why doesn't somebody from ACT take part in the egcs project? So far, egcs doesn't have anybody working on the Ada frontend to gcc.>> We do not see any advantage to our customer base in doing so at the current time. On the contrary, we would regard it as confusing to our customer base to have two threads of development, especially if the egcs one is rather uncontrolled, which seems to be the general idea. If it were the case that various people were contributing useful experimental stuff to GNAT, then that would be nice, and the egcs project would be a reasonable home for such developments, but right now that does not seem to be happening on any significant scale. Our primary concern is to make sure that the continued development of GNAT is very carefully controlled, with an emphasis on stability, reliability, and robustness. This requires careful configuration control, and careful testing. Note that one very significant missing element in any work on GNAT in conjunction with egcs would be that there would be no access to our test suite (the test suite cannot be made public, since it is primarily made up of customer code, which has to be very carefully protected). We just don't see that the egcs project has much to offer in helping the development of GNAT. Sure, we understand that people would like to get their hands on changes early if their primary interest is in fiddling with the latest stuff, but we don't see that as the market that we are addressing! P.S. GNAT 3.10p is now cut for at least one target, and we are doing some pre-release testing right now, so far it looks pretty good, so we are hoping for a 3.10p release pretty soon. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <EFIyr0.Erq@kithrup.com>]
[parent not found: <34032CE9.77E@link.com>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <34032CE9.77E@link.com> @ 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <5u11n0$emm@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Sam Mize says <<Robert has been consistently saying that, based on what HE'S heard, the egcs is supposed to be a looser, more exploratory project ("experimental"). This doesn't match ACT's business interests, so they aren't joining in. As an uninvolved observer, I think Robert has not been trying to slam egcs.>> Right, I think if egcs keeps its eye firmly on the experimental aspects of the enterprise, it can be a valuable addition. As for ACT joining in? Joining in what? I see no general community activity revolving around experimental additions to GNAT. So there is nothing to join. It has nothing to do with business interests. We are certainly not interested in experimental activity of this type it is true, but what is more of a concern is that not many other people seem to be either when it comes to Ada, and that is, as I have pointed out before, too bad! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5u11n0$emm@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5u11n0$emm@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> @ 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Simon Wright 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Simon Wright @ 1997-08-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) ig25@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de (Thomas Koenig) writes: > In gnu.misc.discuss, dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote: > > [egcs] > > >As for ACT joining in? Joining in what? > > Faster code on RISC machines, for one thing. The egcs project uses a new > scheduler which is a big win for certain architectures, such as Pentium, > RS/6000 and HP/PA. > > Don't your customers want that? As someone who is about to become a customer, I think that (so long as the generated code is fast enough) I would rather not have to worry about its reliability. In fact our projects would probably much rather stick with a known release and work round problems than try to keep up with the hunt. I realise that that may not be possible (it always has been so far). -- Simon Wright Work Email: simon.j.wright@gecm.com GEC-Marconi Radar & Defence Systems Voice: +44(0)1705-701778 Command & Information Systems Divsion FAX: +44(0)1705-701800 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5u11n0$emm@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Simon Wright @ 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Thomas said <<>As for ACT joining in? Joining in what? Faster code on RISC machines, for one thing. The egcs project uses a new scheduler which is a big win for certain architectures, such as Pentium, RS/6000 and HP/PA.>> Also, it was my understanding that although the new scheduler is indeed technically attractive, it is not yet stable or reliable, and the egcs project is working hard to iron out the bugs, so the present tense is not quite appropriate here -- though of course the work to smooth out the wrinkles in this new scheduler may well be very worth while in the long run. I had also heard there were some assignment problems, is that still the case .... if not great! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig @ 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Paul Lyon 1997-08-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Paul Lyon @ 1997-08-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar (dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu) wrote: : Actually it would be very nice if there was more experimental activity : with GNAT in terms of interesting new experimental ideas, but so far : we haven't seen much of this -- hopefully we will see more in the future, : this is after all why the sources are available (and why the DoD insisted : on the sources being distributed under the GPL!) I'm curious. What say had the DoD in GNAT? Was the possibility of experimental activity with the compiler the only reason the DoD insisted on having the sources distributed under the GPL? There is a certain economic sense to goverment support of free software as has been argued in gnu.misc.discuss recently; in this connection, it would be useful to know what the DoD's take on the GPL was. Ciao, Paul -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Paul Lyon | "Without true justice Liberal Arts Computer Lab | there can be no peace." University of Texas at Austin | Lucretia Coffin Mott email: pdl@la.utexas.edu | 'phone: 512-471-5121 *** fax: 512-471-1061 | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Paul Lyon @ 1997-08-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-22 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<I'm curious. What say had the DoD in GNAT? Was the possibility of experimental activity with the compiler the only reason the DoD insisted on having the sources distributed under the GPL? There is a certain economic sense to goverment support of free software as has been argued in gnu.misc.discuss recently; in this connection, it would be useful to know what the DoD's take on the GPL was.>> The DoD funded GNAT to provide a research vehicle for academic use, and it was clear for this purpose that free availability of sources was important, so the NYU contract with the DoD insisted on a. The use of the GPL for all sources b. The assignment of the copyright to the FSF The second part is important, because it ensures that GNAT remains under the GPL. Note that the copyright holder of GPL'ed software can always change their mind, and not use the GPL on a subsequent release. This for instance could have happened if NYU had held the copyright, and had decided to try to commercialize GNAT after the contract ended. But the assignment to the FSF involves a commitment for continued availability under the GPL. The narrow focus of the DoD interest in GNAT partly resulted from dealing with rather fierce opposition to the entire project from some, but by no means all, vendors of proprietary Ada products. Indeed the contract with the DoD was for a subset of Ada 95, excluding some key feaures (including fixed-point and subunits, that were perceived to be required in the market place, but not critical for academic research -- validation was also excluded). In fact the missing features were included anyway, but not on government time. Both Ed and I took sabbaticals during the project, so we could work on it on our own time, not being paid by government sources, so we used (part of) this time to implement the missing features. We always recognized the potential of GNAT in two other areas 1. Teaching. The DoD did not have the view of GNAT as useful for this purpose, and indeed Mike Feldman's proposal to use GNAT for the academic Ada compiler to be supported by the DoD, was turned down, despite its advantageous price, on the grounds that ACT was not a credible organization for carrying out the validation (a bit ironic in retrospect, given that ACT is still the only company to have done 100% validations with all the annexes, but it's easy to be wiser after the fact -- of course it is a bit of a puzzle why validation was required at all in this project). Nevertheless, we have always regarded this as a major opportunity for GNAT, and have put a lot of work, e.g. particularly in the generation of good error messages) to facilitate this use. We are certainly pleased to see it succeed in this area, and in particular the fact that it is being used at the Air Force Academy for teaching Ada, having been chosen by them as the best product for the task, is pleasing. However, there is fierce competition from Object Ada, and my view is that having two low cost options for teaching is a good thing. Two is a magic number when it comes to competition, and the competition to provide the best possible environment for students learning Ada will definitely benefit those students. I should say in this area that we are planning to distribute the next version of the NT version of GNAT with AdaGIDE, the IDE written by Martin Carlisle at the Air Force Academy. This is GPL'ed code written in Ada that provides a very nice environment for student use (and may well be found useful by advanced users as well). 2. Commercial production use. This was of course very definitely NOT part of the reason for DoD's support. Although the DoD had poured a lot of money early on in Ada 83 days into the support of production compilers (look up how much was spent on ALS and ALSN for example), it was clearly not viable for the DoD to support the GNAT project on these grounds. However, the open nature of the development, and the use of the free software approach, meant that there was no way to restrict this possibility. Indeed, we have always taken the view that the needs of the academic community are not so different from the commercial production community. Both need high quality, full language compilers. Both can benefit from the availability of sources, and free redistribution. We always intended to produce a compiler that would compete effectively with proprietary compilers, because we saw this as the mechanism for continued support and development of GNAT. At first, we assumed that Cygnus would take on this task. However, Cygnus had no interest in Ada, and we later realized that we would have to form our own company to follow this idea. Actually I think that works out well. Having ACT be 100% dedicated to Ada and Ada related products is more effective for the Ada community. So, I hope that give a clear background on the history of the GNAT funding and project. Certainly the GNAT contract was one of the more remarkable contracts signed by the government (it includes the full text of the GPL, and, as I mentioned, explicitly requires the copyright to be assigned to the FSF). The credit for making this happen belongs to Chris Anderson, and her imaginative and flexible support staff at Eglin Air Force base. A lot of tricky mazes had to be threaded to get GNAT to happen, and Chris managed to find her way through them where I am sure many others would have failed. Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar ` (2 preceding siblings ...) 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Mike Stump @ 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 3 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > <<Apparently, with GNAT one cannot always get "the software" (e.g., the > "current product release" of GNAT) for less money from someone else, > because of policies like Cygnus' or ACT's whereby they'll threaten to > quit doing business with you if you exercise your "right". > >> > > This is pure fantasy, ACT has at no time threatened to quit doing > business with anyone for any reason. If "doing business" includes getting "wavefront releases", then you openly admit that this isn't a "pure fantasy"? dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > <<So, if one of your "wavefront" customers started giving me copies and > I proceeded to make them available for anonymous ftp, you wouldn't > retaliate?>> > > If people started distributing wavefront versions freely, then w would > probably reluctantly decide to stop making them available, since it would > be clear that their distribution was harmful. That would be too bad for > the cases where they really solve a problem. It would appear that the answer is a resounding "yes"! Oh, and I openly challenge your fictitious notion that free distribution of your "wavefronts" would be harmful. If the very existance of freely available GPL'd (unwarrantied) software were harmful in some way, I'm quite sure that Stallman would have written the GPL in such a way as to allow for its nullification in those circumstances. But, since it's so clear to you, perhaps you'd care to elucidate? And please, feel free to compare/contrast with the "harmful" Linux kernel development releases... -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-25 0:00 ` Ronald Cole [not found] ` <hjb-3008970231180001@chaos.dial.idiom.com> 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-20 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole says <<Oh, and I openly challenge your fictitious notion that free distribution of your "wavefronts" would be harmful. If the very existance of freely available GPL'd (unwarrantied) software were harmful in some way, I'm quite sure that Stallman would have written the GPL in such a way as to allow for its nullification in those circumstances.>> There is a very important difference between unwarrantied sotware and unreliable software, in fact the two concepts are pretty much unrelated, and I think this is probably clear to most CLA readers. There is warrantied software that is unreliable, and there is unwarrantied software that is reliable. ACT works hard to make sure that the publicly available vesions of GNAT fall into the second category. Occasionally, in the context of a specific customer with support, the use of a non-fully tested wavefront version to solve a specific problem is justifiable, however in our view, it would most definitely be harmful to have such versions wandering around. It would cause a lot of confusion, and result in a negative impression of GNAT that would in our view be harmful to the GNAT project. Some potential users of free software are definitely concerned, because they assume that the free software scene is as Ronald would like to paint it, with all sorts of people making changes to the software in an uncontrolled manner. The best way to think of ACT is to think of it like any other software vendor who is aiming at reliable releases. We test carefully, and release only when we think the time is right. We are no more about to distribute our modifications without full testing than any other company. The one difference, which as I have said many times before we are committed to continuing, is that GNAT releases will continue to be made publicly available. Yes, these public releases will lag a little behind the most super duper version available at ACT in some cases -- something that you could say about any releases of any software, but we think that even with this small lag, you will see GNAT technology that is significantly ahead of the proprietary competition. Yes, we understand that the enthusiasts around (like Ronald, but it would be a mistake to assume that all enthusisasts share all Ronald's opinions) would like to be able to fiddle with the latest versions of everything all the time, and do not care about reliability. However, this is not the market place we are addressing. The market place we *are* addressing is serious large projects needing support, and at the same time, consistent with this primary goal, we want to support the use of GNAT in teaching and casual use, since we think that it plays an important part in the continuing spread of Ada 95. We do in fact put in quite a bit of effort in making GNAT suitable for such purposes, and are delighted to see it being used widely for teaching at many universities, and also at the Air Force Academy. ACT has established a set of policies for handling GNAT releases that concentrate first and foremost on providing high reliability. The continued availability of sources will satisfy many other needs, though we certainly do not expect to be able to satisfy everyone's needs, and in particular, no matter how often and loudly Ronald (or others) yell, we do not intend to adopt a policy of freely releasing insuffiently tested software. I think that from our point of view, enough has been said in this thread which has not been a particularly productive one, and this will act as our final statement in the matter. If anyone is interested in asking specific questions about GNAT or the associated release policies, they are welcome to follow up with email questions to me, or to sales@gna.com as appropriate (oops that should be sales@gnat.com -- that's one word that should be spelled correctly, even if my T key is sticking!) Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies P.S. we froze the 3.10b sources a few days ago, and they are now undergoing final testing. The 3.10p public release will be based on 3.10b, and will follow very shortly if no significant problems appear. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-25 0:00 ` Ronald Cole [not found] ` <hjb-3008970231180001@chaos.dial.idiom.com> 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Excellent filibuster, Robert! Not only, didn't you answer my challenge, but you aptly demonstrated that you still couldn't be bothered to actually read what I've been writing!! Still, you post some directly verifiable "policies" of ACT. Let's see how they fair, eh? dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > There is warrantied > software that is unreliable, and there is unwarrantied software that is > reliable. ACT works hard to make sure that the publicly available vesions > of GNAT fall into the second category. "Publicly available versions of GNAT are reliable". Please define "reliable", Robert. I've already demonstrated that by following your own meticulous instructions, that public version 3.09 was unable to bootstrap itself with the binary release due to a bad bug fix you chose to include just a day before you made the release. > Yes, we understand that the enthusiasts around (like Ronald...) > do not care about reliability. On the contrary, Robert! Concern about the "reliability" of your public releases is what prompted my first post on the subject! > ACT has established a set of policies for handling GNAT releases that > concentrate first and foremost on providing high reliability. Which policy was it that allowed you to place a bug fix in a public release that was clearly untested by your myriad of customers on the HPUX platform, and which clearly had to come to the attention of the ACT employee that performed the HPUX port? > I think that from our point of view, enough has been said in this thread > which has not been a particularly productive one, and this will act as > our final statement in the matter. If your 3.10 HPUX binary release can compile every file in the 3.10 source distribution with at least -O optimization to create a byte-identical copy of gnat1, then I would have to say that part of this thread was *very* productive. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <hjb-3008970231180001@chaos.dial.idiom.com>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <hjb-3008970231180001@chaos.dial.idiom.com> @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ted Goldblatt @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <hjb-3008970231180001@chaos.dial.idiom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@pso.com> wrote: >In practice, the whole GPL issue seems to be pointless. >For example, Wind River Systems, a maker of VxWorks >ships modified versions of GDB as part of their >Tornado products. Does anyone outside Wind River Systems >have source code for this special version of GDB? Nope. >Do they make it avaialble as part of normal GDB release? >Nope. Does Cygnus (who did the work under contract to >Wind River) make an issue of this fact? nope. I question the "Does anyone outside Wind River Systems have source code for this special version of GDB?" statement. We use Tornado, (with no special source license) and _we_ have the source to all of the modified GNU tools (it was included on the release CDROM). The top level source dir includes the normal COPYING file. An example of one of the VxWorks specific source files starts off: /* MIPS-dependent portions of the RPC protocol used with a VxWorks target Contributed by Wind River Systems. This file is part of GDB. This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version. and so on. It is certainly likely that WRS wouldn't go out of their way to ship all this to you without you being a customer, but there is no indication that I see that they would attempt to prevent a customer from passing it on. (It's also likely that the changes aren't of much use to anyone not running Tornado, and since the "current" gdb is 4.16 (I believe) and the latest Tornado ships with a 4.12 variant, I'm not sure who would want it, but...). Certainly, they don't seem to ship source for Crosswind, which is their graphical gdb front-end, but I wouldn't really expect that (much as I might like it). I don't want to be a WRS apologist (there's much they do that I don't like), but this particular brush seems an odd one to tar them with. ted -- Ted Goldblatt Ted.Goldblatt@telematics.com (954) 351-4367 Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Hwa-Jin Bae @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) ted@telematics.com (Ted Goldblatt) writes: > We use Tornado, >(with no special source license) and _we_ have the source to all of >the modified GNU tools (it was included on the release CDROM). This is contrary to my experience, and contents of CD-ROMs that I have access to. However, the ones I have are perhaps one of the earlier copies sold. I no reason to disbelieve you, and you sound like you know for sure. Therefore, I would like to apologize to all that I have unjustly accused of wrongdoings. I make this public apology on the basis that given your experience and mine, you have a different experience with Tornado than me. And I am willing to consider that I might have been wrong biased by circumstances that indicated otherwise. I am very glad that the GNU tools are accompanied with source code. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae @ 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ted Goldblatt @ 1997-09-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5uhjr4$i2o@idiom.com>, Hwa-Jin Bae <chaos@idiom.com> wrote: >ted@telematics.com (Ted Goldblatt) writes: > >> We use Tornado, >>(with no special source license) and _we_ have the source to all of >>the modified GNU tools (it was included on the release CDROM). > >This is contrary to my experience, and contents of CD-ROMs that I >have access to. However, the ones I have are perhaps one of the >earlier copies sold. I no reason to disbelieve you, and you >sound like you know for sure. The GNU source is not installed by default, and I'll admit that it isn't obvious how to find it (I had to call WRS customer support to get the instructions). I don't know about earlier versions, but Tornado 1.0.1 at least uses a Windoze-ish install tool that lets you select which of the items you are licensed for you wish to install. Part of this selector menu includes a "details" button (which is intended to allow you to "fine-tune" a selection). If you select Tornado and details, you are given a list that includes the Tornado pieces and the GNU source (and perhaps some other pieces, I don't remember off hand). The Tornado pieces are selected by default, the GNU source is not. One could easily argue that they made this harder to find than it should be (I did to the customer support person), but it is definitely there. ted -- Ted Goldblatt Ted.Goldblatt@telematics.com (954) 351-4367 Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt @ 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae 1997-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Hwa-Jin Bae @ 1997-09-03 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) ted@telematics.com (Ted Goldblatt) writes: >The GNU source is not installed by default, and I'll admit that it >isn't obvious how to find it (I had to call WRS customer support to >get the instructions). I don't know about earlier versions, but >Tornado 1.0.1 at least uses a Windoze-ish install tool that lets you >select which of the items you are licensed for you wish to install. I think this was the source of confusion. I have an earlier release (1.0) and it did not have code on CD-ROM, nor did it have optional boxes to click on to install the code. I suppose many people have made noise about this issue and now we have a newer release that has source code on the CD-ROM that can optionally be installed. (1.0.1) In any case, I'm glad that WRS is shipping the source code now. I have no more complaints. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae @ 1997-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hwa-Jin Bae said <<I think this was the source of confusion. I have an earlier release (1.0) and it did not have code on CD-ROM, nor did it have optional boxes to click on to install the code. I suppose many people have made noise about this issue and now we have a newer release that has source code on the CD-ROM that can optionally be installed. (1.0.1) In any case, I'm glad that WRS is shipping the source code now.>> It sounds like you were under the misconception that the souce code must be shipped together with the object code for GPL'ed software. This is not the case. If you receive GPL'ed software, then source must be available, but not necessarily with the object distribution. Whoever gives you the program has the responsibility of letting you know how to get the sources. If you pass on GPL'ed software you need to take responsibility for making sure that the recipient knows where the sources are. For instance, when I make GNAT available to my students in a special distribution for them that is conveniently set up, I do not include the sources, but I tell them where the sources can be found. The original manufacturer is responsible only for providing this information to those to whom they distribute the original program. The GPL comes with rights and responsibilities. The right is to further distribute the program, the responsibility is to distribute it in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the GPL. If you find this onerous, then no one is forcing you to further distribute the program, so don't do it! In this case, I don't know if you got the code from the manufacturer or not. If so, you should have contacted the manufacturer, and you would have found that indeed you could obtain the sources (I do not know if they were charging for this service or not at the time, as I have mentioned before, it is fine to charge for distribution of souces, providing the charge is reasonable). <<I have no more complaints>> It sounds like you never did have a legitimate complaint, and certainly your conclusion that no manufacturers take the GPL seriously was entirely unwarranted. You should be careful about accusing people of violating contracts without a little more research on your part! ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Mark Wooding 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ted said <<The GNU source is not installed by default, and I'll admit that it isn't obvious how to find it (I had to call WRS customer support to get the instructions). I don't know about earlier versions, but Tornado 1.0.1 at least uses a Windoze-ish install tool that lets you select which of the items you are licensed for you wish to install. Part of this selector menu includes a "details" button (which is intended to allow you to "fine-tune" a selection). If you select Tornado and details, you are given a list that includes the Tornado pieces and the GNU source (and perhaps some other pieces, I don't remember off hand). The Tornado pieces are selected by default, the GNU source is not. One could easily argue that they made this harder to find than it should be (I did to the customer support person), but it is definitely there.>> "harder to find than it should be" By what standards, the GPL does not say that it has to be super easy to get the sources, the only restriction it places is that you cannot charge more than a copying fee for them, but it would certainly be in bounds to say that the sources are available on request on CD ROM for a payment of $X with a delivery time of Y weeks (as long as X and Y were reasonable, where the only person who gets to complain about reasonable is the copyright holder -- that's important to realize, as with any copyrighted work, it is the copyright holder who has the sole course of action here. If you find something you don't like about the way someone is handling some GPL'ed software, you should complain to the copyright holder, who may or may not agree that there is a problem, and may or may not do something about it. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Mark Wooding 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Ted Goldblatt @ 1997-09-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <dewar.873499941@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: >Ted said > ><<The GNU source is not installed by default, and I'll admit that it >isn't obvious how to find it (I had to call WRS customer support to >get the instructions). [snip] >One could easily argue that they made this harder >to find than it should be (I did to the customer support person), but >it is definitely there.>> >"harder to find than it should be" > >By what standards, the GPL does not say that it has to be super easy to >get the sources, the only restriction it places is that you cannot charge >more than a copying fee for them, but it would certainly be in bounds to >say that the sources are available on request on CD ROM for a payment of >$X with a delivery time of Y weeks (as long as X and Y were reasonable, >where the only person who gets to complain about reasonable is the >copyright holder -- that's important to realize, as with any copyrighted >work, it is the copyright holder who has the sole course of action here. >If you find something you don't like about the way someone is handling >some GPL'ed software, you should complain to the copyright holder, who >may or may not agree that there is a problem, and may or may not do >something about it. You may have missed an earlier article in this thread. Wind River doesn't say that "the sources are available on request on CD ROM for a payment of $X", they _include_ the sources on the normal Tornado release CDROM. By "harder than it should be", I meant that they neglected to say this, or to say how you install them from the CDROM, in any of the release notes or installation documentation. This may actually be an accidental violation of the GPL, but that's irrelevant. I was not accusing WRS of violating the GPL - if anything, I was defending them from such a charge. However, their oversight (I'll assume it was such) actually was a problem _for WRS_, since I (and I assume others) were forced to call their customer service line to get the info, and such calls cost them money. So it is really in their (WRS's) best interest to make this "easy". ted -- Ted Goldblatt Ted.Goldblatt@telematics.com (954) 351-4367 Telematics Intl., Inc. Ft. Lauderdale, FL ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt @ 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Mark Wooding 1997-09-09 0:00 ` Isaac 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Mark Wooding @ 1997-09-08 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu> wrote: > By what standards, the GPL does not say that it has to be super easy to > get the sources, the only restriction it places is that you cannot charge > more than a copying fee for them, but it would certainly be in bounds to > say that the sources are available on request on CD ROM for a payment of > $X with a delivery time of Y weeks (as long as X and Y were reasonable, > where the only person who gets to complain about reasonable is the > copyright holder Which GPL did you read? The one I've got here says: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: ... 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, ... The `cost of physically performing source distribution' sounds a good deal less than `reasonable, where the only person who gets to complain about reasonable is the copyright holder' to me. Perhaps this is just me getting things wrong, but charging much more than media and postage costs for a source distribution looks like a violation of the licence to me. I suspect that the intent behind the words of this particular section is to ensure that once you've got a distribution of GPL-ed-program `foo' of any kind, you shouldn't have to pay any more for the /right/ to have the sources for `foo', but only for the physical process of getting hold of the appropriate data. (This is dangerous territory, and I know it: trying to read between the lines of a document as carefully worded as the GPL is tricky.) -- [mdw] `It can't rain all the time.' -- Eric Draven ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Mark Wooding @ 1997-09-09 0:00 ` Isaac 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Isaac @ 1997-09-09 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <slrn4618ep8.uvl.mdw@venus.ebi.ac.uk>, Mark Wooding wrote: >The `cost of physically performing source distribution' sounds a good >deal less than `reasonable, where the only person who gets to complain >about reasonable is the copyright holder' to me. Perhaps this is just >me getting things wrong, but charging much more than media and postage >costs for a source distribution looks like a violation of the licence to >me. > I would think that they could charge for all of their costs in providing you the source including packaging, 'handling' etc. I don't think they are obligated to lose money getting you the source, they just can't make money. You might not be able to tell whether they are turning a profit getting you the source. To try to head off out of context replies, I'll reiterate that this discussion is about a distributor of gpl'd binaries who elects to ship source on request rather than with the product. Someone who ships binary with the product can charge as much as they can get. Isaac ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hwa-Jin Bae says <<This is contrary to my experience, and contents of CD-ROMs that I have access to. However, the ones I have are perhaps one of the earlier copies sold. I no reason to disbelieve you, and you sound like you know for sure. Therefore, I would like to apologize to all that I have unjustly accused of wrongdoings. I make this public apology on the basis that given your experience and mine, you have a different experience with Tornado than me. And I am willing to consider that I might have been wrong biased by circumstances that indicated otherwise. I am very glad that the GNU tools are accompanied with source code.>> Once again, there is no requirement that GNU tools be "accompanied" by source code. The rule is (see GPL for full text), that either you must distribute the sources along with the objects, or make them available on request (and the distribution should give details of how to make such a request). You may or may not have to pay a copying charge for such a request. That is up to the person distributing the program. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Hwa-Jin Bae <hjb@pso.com> wrote: >In practice, the whole GPL issue seems to be pointless. >For example, Wind River Systems, a maker of VxWorks >ships modified versions of GDB as part of their >Tornado products. Does anyone outside Wind River Systems >have source code for this special version of GDB? Nope. >Do they make it avaialble as part of normal GDB release? >Nope. Does Cygnus (who did the work under contract to >Wind River) make an issue of this fact? nope. This is complete nonsense as far as I can determine. Certainly everyone I know in the free software business takes the GPL very seriously, and any allegations to the contrary need substantiation rather than vague claims like the above. The Free Software Foundation, which holds the copyright in this case (rather than Cygnus) would certainly pursue any such violations of the GPL. But in this case, the sources are most definitely available according to the requirements of the GPL, so there is no problem. Please note that the GPL does NOT require that the sources be made available for free downloading or anything like that. It is quite OK for example to make sources available only on diskettes, and to charge a copying fee for them. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <33E974F3.1AAC@ix.netcom.com>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <33E974F3.1AAC@ix.netcom.com> @ 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes: > Is this true or is it just your assumption? You can read Dewar's own words on the subject because they are archived at DejaNews and several other sites. > Now consider this : if you then > had problems with it what would you do? Would you send bug reports in to > ACT? How might this work? I'll use my imagination, and I have decided to > let it be as creative as yours in characterising other people's > positions (perhaps this will raise a smile with the lurkers) : 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. > Just because rms works to his interpretation of the Golden Rule, doesn't > mean you have the right to hold him to your (differing) interpretation : > "I don't agree with your interpretation of your own words, and I accuse > you of being a hypocrite since you aren't following my version" - is > this right? 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? > 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". > This is a very tricky issue here. Depending on ones prejudices (and I > have a full complement) one might feel that the Linux "project" has only > succeeded so astonishingly well because of the advanced state of the GNU > software it incorporates (but this is highy inflammatory to some). gcc > is certainly crucial to the kernel, but of course all those device > drivers, the networking code, the X-Window System were important as > well. Let's say it is the case, then in that case Linux can't really be > used as a counter-example to my "some pragmatism needed" view. Also, I'm > not sure if Linux can be such a good example in any case since large > chunks of it are also gpled. 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". > 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. > I believe that > > allowing ACT and Cygnus to leverage GCC to create new versions of GNU > > software to order to sell binaries to clients before releasing the > > source to the public is tantamount to encouraging the plundering of > > free software. The GPL is not much better than public domain in this > > regard. > > I don't agree. The fact that ACT and Cygnus earn money from the software > means that _much_ more work on the software gets done. Sonner or later > you get all the benefit. More later than sooner. Locate and read Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar". It's quite a good read. > We know what your objection is but you > constantly conflate the delaying of releases of the latest versions with > a desire to hoard it indefinitely. I notice you use the word tantamount. > To me this suggests you wouldn't actually accuse them of "grand larceny > GNU", you just accuse them of doing something a bit like it and then say > how bad the thing they aren't doing would be. "You looked at my > doughnut, that is tantamount to cruelly depriving me of food, how does > that square with your statement many years ago that we should fight > hunger?" 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? > They have obtained whatever their supposed advantage is by producing the > software in the first place, they will always be better placed > practically speaking to develop GNAT. The development that was funded by > the government is fully available. Development funded by ACTs paying > customers is also fully available up until some cut-off point earlier > this year where 3.9 was deemed stable enough for public release. At this > stage then, this supposed unfair advantage consists solely of the > changes and additions they have made in about 6 months of work. So, get > going now and in about a year or two you could eradicate this advantage > and free gnat from their cruel imprisonment. Go to it! 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? > > 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. > Some monopoly. You are incorrectly generalizing what I've been saying. 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. 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. > If you take away the support component (which is what ACT really sells) > then this "product" is worth less, possibly much less - it may have some > better features but there is much less evidence that it is stable. Now > Prof. Dewar is clearly under no obligation (implied or otherwise) to > provide you with the aforementioned level of support (unless you buy a > support contract) so all you are left with is the unproven wavefront. 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.") > 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, which Dewar admitted to not reading, and yet Dewar (incorrectly) interpreted it as a request for "free support". 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". 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. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Chris Morgan @ 1997-08-12 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 <mihalis @ ix.netcom.com> "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary," ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Chris Morgan @ 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-16 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) <<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.>> Everyone sending email to report@gnat.com should most certainly get an acknowledgement, sent by a person, not a program. If you do not receive a response, probably some email has gone astray (sometimes we get bounces on reply attempts due to faulty headers, use of anti-spam addresses etc. For customers we can sort these ou from our customer records, but sometimes for non-supported users we just can't figure out how to reply successfully). Don't expect an immediate acknowledgement if you are an unsupported user, it can sometimes take a few days. And also, that's about all we can do for unsupported user reports (thank you for submitting them, note that we will eventually look at them, and point you to our support department if you need priority support, or to chat@gnat.com if you do not). Robert Dewar Ada Core Technologies P.S. we really do eventually look at all reports. 3.10 for example contains many examples of fixes for reported problems from unsupported users, and also new features suggested by unsupported users of GNAT. We appreciate the help that we get from these reports and suggestions. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-19 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes: > 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. If you read them, then you saw that I began the thread by asking Dewar if the public release of 3.10 for HPUX is going to be as bad as the 3.09 release was, and that Dewar claimed that the public release of 3.09 had no problems whatsoever on the HPUX platform: a statement which is not only a lie, but provably incorrect. The "noisy public debate" was my proof. > 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. Yes, if you can't attack my arguments then attack me. I called Dewar a liar because that is what he did, and I posted the references to his conflicting statements to prove it... > 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. The GNU philosophy is not defined by the GPL. What I've been loudly saying is that "by making enhancements to GCC and distributing the results strictly to paying customers *months* before even thinking of making a public release is *hoarding*". And I quoted Stallman from the Manifesto as an authority on the GNU philosophy. You just haven't been listening. > 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. And no cites to any authority to back up that opinion? Sounds like your opinions are less supportable than mine. > Irrelevant. No such threat has ever been made. Dewar wrote the following to Stallman (cc'd to me) on 6/25/97: "basically this is a case in which we want, within the bounds of the GPL, to discourage free distribution of wavefront sources" and on 7/1/97, he posted this: "To clarify here, we tell customers that we think it is in the best interests of GNAT if prereleases and wavefronts are not released generally (for all the reasons I have previously stated), but that is absolutely right, we cannot require it." A strange statement to make for a man who claims to strictly follow the GPL both in letter *and in spirit*. Can you tell me how one can "discourage free distribution" without restricting free distribution in some manner? > 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. That's not what Dewar has said. He clearly said that I couldn't get 3.10 without being a customer. Furthermore, he also says, under "Support Services" on his web page <http://www.gnat.com/maintain.html>, that "Binary ports for the supported versions are immediately available from ACT in electronic form that can be retrieved from ACT's private repository." So, clearly, ACT makes money by selling the "current product release". If they only sold support, why wouldn't they want to distribute the "current product release" publicly (like the Linux development kernels)? After all, the GPL states that "we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software". > 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. Dewar didn't tell Stallman exactly what he told me. Not surprising, since Stallman's coming down on ACT could put a serious financial hurt on his company. > > 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. I thought you said you followed the thread... You can't miss it. He started posting on 6/17/97 in comp.lang.ada and in several other posts afterwards. > ACT do not sell GNAT. How many times do you plan to make false > statements about this? It's not a false statement. The GPL allows ACT to sell GNAT "wavefronts" and Dewar has said as much in email: "FOr customer releases, there are two cases. We make point releases (with versions like 3.10a in binary form, and these are always accompanied with source releases as for the public releases). For wavefront releases, we hae previously made sources available at no charge on request, but are now switching to a system of providing these on CD ROM and the release will include a written offer giving the price of this service (basically this is a case in which we want, within the bounds of the GPL, to discourage free distribution of wavefront sources. The charge for the CD ROM of course reflects our costs in making the copy, no more." You will note that 3.10 hasn't even seen a public release, let alone 3.10a. > I told you that any ACT customer could legally > and ethically give you a wavefront. But nobody is required to. It's my hope that someone will do so. I would make the wavefront releases available in the same fashion that Linux development kernels are. > 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). I have a really hard time considering software that is at least stable enough to support customers on in a "binary-only" distribution as a "work-in-progress" (Of course, any actively developed software is always a "work-in-progress", I am assuming you mean software of an "alpha" nature.) > 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. What I meant was that you didn't appear to have "engrossed" the Manifesto or the GPL, which I would consider a requirement before someone could offer any type of "informed" opinion. > It was the public release right? Yes > And you tried to build it with non-standard gcc settings right? Not at all! I strictly adhered to the procedure documented in the public release. If you had ever built a GNAT release or read Dewar's posts in which he flames posters for not reading and following the careful instructions he wrote and placed in the source release, you would have observed this to be the case just from reading the thread. Yet another example of your unwillingness to actually put statements to the test. > If the preceding is true then which facts do you accuse me of making up? That my original post was a request for free support. It would appear that you are willing to just take Dewar's word for it; even long after he openly admitted that he didn't even bother to read my posts! > 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 did, back in February. Didn't you read my post to that effect early on in the thread? > I also interpreted your > actual course of action as a request (more like demand) for support. Trying to "Read between the lines", eh? That interpretation is quite a stretch. > 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. The GNU System was born of a philosophy. My beef is two fold: 1. the GPL doesn't embody the GNU philosophy (which negates the effect of having one in the first place), and 2. that Stallman appears willing to only force people to follow certain parts of his philosophy if they want to distribute the GNU System. > 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. I don't believe that Dewar is a man who is careless with his words. I think he meant exactly what he said at the time he said it. Merging truth with lies gets you some strange results (like the notion that a GNAT release can't be "current product" without ACT's support, clearly in opposition to the warranty sentiments in the GPL). > 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. Yes, I'm honorable enough to admit when I am wrong. Dewar's back-pedaling was an exercise in revisionist history, however. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-08-25 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-08-21 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2sow5eng6.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> Ronald Cole <ronald@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> writes: >> Irrelevant. No such threat has ever been made. > >and on 7/1/97, he posted this: > > "To clarify here, we tell customers that we think it is in the best > interests of GNAT if prereleases and wavefronts are not released > generally (for all the reasons I have previously stated), but that is > absolutely right, we cannot require it." > >A strange statement to make for a man who claims to strictly follow >the GPL both in letter *and in spirit*. Can you tell me how one can >"discourage free distribution" without restricting free distribution >in some manner? Discouraging something is not *restricting* it, at least in the sense to which a legal document (like the GPL) means. I've said this before, but the analogy is the difference between things that are considered rude by society and those that are considered illegal. The first set is always a significant superset of the latter. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-08-25 0:00 ` Ronald Cole [not found] ` <5tujkj$qr9$1@news.nyu.edu> 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-25 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > Discouraging something is not *restricting* it, at least in the sense > to which a legal document (like the GPL) means. > I've said this before, but the analogy is the difference between > things that are considered rude by society and those that are > considered illegal. The first set is always a significant superset of > the latter. Oh, bullshit, Richard... The GPL plainly says "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights." It seems clear that "discouraging free distribution" is equivalent in effect to asking you to surrender the right to distribute. It seems clear because, if ACT's "wavefront" customers did exercise their right to distribute, Dewar has posted that "[ACT] would probably reluctantly decide to stop making them available". Is this not punishing a "wavefront" customer for exercising their right? Any further objection from you, it would seem, would necessitate your demonstrating that punishing individuals for exercising a right is not the same as taking away that right away from individuals. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net> Phone: (760) 499-9142 President, CEO Fax: (760) 499-9152 My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43 56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5tujkj$qr9$1@news.nyu.edu>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5tujkj$qr9$1@news.nyu.edu> @ 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-29 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > In article <m2afi6t3xq.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> Ronald Cole <ronald@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> writes: > >Oh, bullshit, Richard... The GPL plainly says "To protect your > >rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you > >these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights." > > > >It seems clear that "discouraging free distribution" is equivalent > >in effect to asking you to surrender the right to distribute. > > That's correct, though I'd use the word "waive" rather than > "surrender". Dewar posted that he feels that he is within the "letter *and the spirit*" of the GPL when he *asks* his "wavefront" customers not to redistribute that which he distributes. I, however, feel that by doing so, he has violated the "spirit" of the GPL (since the quoted clause is found in the preamble and doesn't appear to be present in the enumerated sections). > But the key point that this is *asking*, not *requiring*. Still, the GPL says "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to ... *ask* you to surrender the rights" and then fails to actually enumerate such a restriction (a loophole which apparently both Stallman and Dewar use to discourage "runaway snapshots"). Are we in agreement then (that the GPL needs to be made more consistent; if not with the Manifesto, then at least with itself)? On another subject, Dewar once stated that he had asked Stallman about basing a public release of GNAT on one of the gcc snapshots, and the resulting reaction was what swore him off of allowing wide distribution of "wavefront" releases. Now that the egcs project has reared it's (ugly? we'll wait and see) head, should Dewar consider basing the next public release of GNAT upon an egcs snapshot? (It really would be nice to be able to build gcc, g++, f77, and GNAT from a unified source tree without having to apply two differing patch files and hoping for the best...) -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Toon Moene 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-08-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2zpq0h7uc.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> Ronald Cole <ronald@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> writes: >should Dewar consider basing the next public release of GNAT upon an egcs >snapshot? I think you seriously misunderstand the purpose of the EGCS project, which is to provide a framework within which highly experimental (and known to be broken) patches to GCC can be developed and perfected. Those patches are then fed into the normal GCC development process for further testing and then become parts of GCC releases. Nobody would want to build a public release of anything based on software that, by its very design, has serious problems. That's not the purpose of this work. >(It really would be nice to be able to build gcc, g++, f77, and GNAT from >a unified source tree without having to apply two differing patch >files and hoping for the best...) As of the last (or next, I'm not sure of the precise schedule here) g77 release, the g77 patch set includes all of the GNAT patches. There is some question about whether the g77 patch set contains patches that will break GNAT, but none of these patches are actually required to build a correctly-functioning g77; they are to add optimizations that are deemed important for Fortran users. Some of these optimizations are currently also being experimented with in the EGCS project. As far as we know, GCC 2.7.2 plus the patches supplied by GNAT, will build a functioning g77, g++, and GNAT, with one exception, which relates to a change in the front-end interface and is what either just has or soon wil be addressed in the g77 release. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Toon Moene [not found] ` <5ubkbp$e69$1@news.nyu.edu> 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Toon Moene @ 1997-08-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote: > As far as we know, GCC 2.7.2 plus the patches supplied by GNAT, will > build a functioning g77, g++, and GNAT, with one exception, which relates > to a change in the front-end interface and is what either just has or > soon wil be addressed in the g77 release. That depends. The next official release of g77, g77-0.5.21, on which we will continue to work as soon as the GNU machines at MIT come on the net again, will be against gcc-2.7.2.3. I don't know if that release contains the new build_complex routines. If not, it will remain hard (i.e. require g77 front-end changes) to build g77 with GNAT, *even if you disregard all performance patches from the g77 supplied backend patch* -- Toon Moene (mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl) Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286 g77 Support: mailto:fortran@gnu.ai.mit.edu; NWP: http://www.knmi.nl/hirlam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <5ubkbp$e69$1@news.nyu.edu>]
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5ubkbp$e69$1@news.nyu.edu> @ 1997-08-31 0:00 ` Toon Moene 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Craig Burley 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Craig Burley 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Toon Moene @ 1997-08-31 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote: > In article <5u9rdf$r5t$2@news.utrecht.NL.net> Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes: > >That depends. The next official release of g77, g77-0.5.21, on which we will > >continue to work as soon as the GNU machines at MIT come on the net again, > >will be against gcc-2.7.2.3. I don't know if that release contains the new > >build_complex routines. > My understanding is that it will. That's what I meant. In any event, the > "fix" is trivial, though a person trying to build it would have to know > about it. If that's the case, the best thing to do for someone building g77 + GNAT together is to disregard the g77 backend patch alltogether (note: from g77-0.5.21 onwards !). That will give you a Fortran compiler that produces suboptimal objects, but they will be as correct as can be, and the Ada compiler isn't compromised (which is the whole point of using Ada). You are right that the "fix" to the g77 frontend is trivial if you know what you're doing, but we have already one bug report from a g77 user who tried to do it on his own (just in because of the gnu.ai.mit.edu unreachability) and it shows it's hard if you don't know what you're doing ;-) Sorry to be so vague about 2.7.2.3 - I simply haven't got the time yet to look at it (nor the disk space) .... -- Toon Moene (mailto:toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl) Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands Phone: +31 346 214290; Fax: +31 346 214286 g77 Support: mailto:fortran@gnu.ai.mit.edu; NWP: http://www.knmi.nl/hirlam ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-31 0:00 ` Toon Moene @ 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Craig Burley 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Craig Burley @ 1997-09-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes: > kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) wrote: > > > In article <5u9rdf$r5t$2@news.utrecht.NL.net> Toon Moene > <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes: > > >That depends. The next official release of g77, g77-0.5.21, on which we > will > > >continue to work as soon as the GNU machines at MIT come on the net again, > > >will be against gcc-2.7.2.3. I don't know if that release contains the > new > > >build_complex routines. > > > My understanding is that it will. That's what I meant. In any event, the > > "fix" is trivial, though a person trying to build it would have to know > > about it. > > If that's the case, the best thing to do for someone building g77 + GNAT > together is to disregard the g77 backend patch alltogether (note: from > g77-0.5.21 onwards !). That will give you a Fortran compiler that produces > suboptimal objects, but they will be as correct as can be, and the Ada > compiler isn't compromised (which is the whole point of using Ada). [...] > Sorry to be so vague about 2.7.2.3 - I simply haven't got the time yet to > look at it (nor the disk space) .... Actually, right now it looks like g77 0.5.21 will be based on gcc 2.7.2.3, and anyone wanting to combine it with GNAT should ignore the *GNAT* patches, which g77 includes. If they want to do the opposite -- ignore g77's patches and use GNAT's instead -- they'll have to change a few things in g77. I thought about changing those anyway for 0.5.21, but have been convinced otherwise for this release at least. 0.5.22 might well be another story, whenever that appears. The work needed to make g77 build and work okay with only the GNAT patch set, or no patches to gcc at all, is probably only slightly more difficult than that to make 0.5.20 and previous g77 versions work with GNAT's patch set (the incompatible build_complex() change to the back end). BTW, 2.7.2.3 as a base seems to be just fine for g77, at least according to my g77 test suite and the c-torture-1.45 tests. That is, no worse than 2.7.2.2 in any way I can see. Aside from the screwups between the .tar.gz and .diff.gz distributions that afflicted 2.7.2.2 and, therefore, 2.7.2.3, that is; g77 will assume the user somehow got the "correct" 2.7.2.3 ChangeLog file, though maybe I'll figure out a way to make the g77 patches appear to apply cleanly regardless, e.g. by deleting the context lines. (gcc-2.7.2.1-2.7.2.2.diff.gz is "broken" in that it doesn't patch gcc/ChangeLog; unfortunately both gcc-2.7.2.3.tar.gz and gcc-2.7.2.2-2.7.2.3.diff.gz are based on the resulting broken gcc/ChangeLog, which is basically the 2.7.2.1 one.) -- "Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful." James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <5ubkbp$e69$1@news.nyu.edu> 1997-08-31 0:00 ` Toon Moene @ 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Craig Burley 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Craig Burley @ 1997-09-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > In article <5u9rdf$r5t$2@news.utrecht.NL.net> Toon Moene <toon@moene.indiv.nluug.nl> writes: > >That depends. The next official release of g77, g77-0.5.21, on which we will > >continue to work as soon as the GNU machines at MIT come on the net again, > >will be against gcc-2.7.2.3. I don't know if that release contains the new > >build_complex routines. > > My understanding is that it will. That's what I meant. In any event, the > "fix" is trivial, though a person trying to build it would have to know > about it. You're right, it will, assuming 0.5.21 ever *does* come out. (Complete lack of access to the FSF's machines since Thursday noon or so has pushed the 0.5.21 release off to September 8, or later; I had counted on being able to alpha-test the final version during the last several days!) So, g77-0.5.21 should incorporate the GNAT patch set as of whatever GNAT version, the one for which you sent me recent patches. ;-) (Of course, GNAT users will have to know to *not* apply the patch set from GNAT to combine it with g77; and g77 makes other patches that might destabilize GNAT. In the future, this problem should go away, but probably not for 0.5.21.) -- "Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful." James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Toon Moene @ 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Ronald Cole @ 1997-09-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu (Richard Kenner) writes: > I think you seriously misunderstand the purpose of the EGCS project, > which is to provide a framework within which highly experimental (and > known to be broken) patches to GCC can be developed and perfected. > Those patches are then fed into the normal GCC development process for > further testing and then become parts of GCC releases. I thought the main thrust was to get a g++ out to the public that had working templates... Even so, the egcs faq says that the egcs project will "result in a more useful compiler, a more stable compiler, a central compiler that works for more people, a compiler that generates better code." Better than what? The FSF gcc? I will definately use the better product, which ever that one happens to be at the time. > Nobody would want to build a public release of anything based on > software that, by its very design, has serious problems. That's not > the purpose of this work. Have you actually read the egcs home pages, Richard? Again I quote from the egcs faq: A compiler is a complicated piece of software, there will still be strong central maintainers who will reject patches, who will demand documentation of implementations, and who will keep the level of quality as high as it is today. Code that could use wider testing may be intergrated--code that is simply ill-conceived won't be. So, perhaps it is you who "seriously misunderstands" the purpose of the egcs project... > As of the last (or next, I'm not sure of the precise schedule here) > g77 release, the g77 patch set includes all of the GNAT patches. > There is some question about whether the g77 patch set contains > patches that will break GNAT, but none of these patches are actually > required to build a correctly-functioning g77; they are to add > optimizations that are deemed important for Fortran users. Some of > these optimizations are currently also being experimented with in the > EGCS project. > > As far as we know, GCC 2.7.2 plus the patches supplied by GNAT, will > build a functioning g77, g++, and GNAT, with one exception, which relates > to a change in the front-end interface and is what either just has or > soon wil be addressed in the g77 release. It will be nice to have all the public releases sync back up again... -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-09-06 0:00 ` Remy Card 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-09-05 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <m2hgc31m93.fsf@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> Ronald Cole <ronald@devo.ridgecrest.ca.us> writes: >I thought the main thrust was to get a g++ out to the public that had >working templates... No, certainly not! EGCS is not meant to directly produce anything for "the public", but to debug/improve experimental changes and pass them into the GCC development stream. I don't follow g++ development, so I don't understand the reference to "working templates", but the same folks who set up egcs have total control over the g++ part of the released GCC, so they don't need to set up any separate project to get anything "to the public". >Even so, the egcs faq says that the egcs project >will "result in a more useful compiler, a more stable compiler, a >central compiler that works for more people, a compiler that generates >better code." Better than what? Better than what's available now. The idea is that having such a framework will allow the time to adequately debug/improve complex changes that can't fit into the normally rapid pace of the FSF's GCC development. This is a very worthwhile goal. For example, if it had been in place two years ago, the exception handling changes would have been debugging in that framework, rather than holding up the mainline GCC release and lots of other useful things. We'd now be at GCC 2.10 or so instead of just coming up on 2.8. That's why I strongly support this project. The basic idea is that if a proposed change is in good enough shape that it can be gotten ready in, at most, a month or two, it goes directly into the GCC development tree and will appear in the next release within a few months. If the change need more testing or other work, it gets shunted over to egcs for that work. When it's ready, it can go into the development GCC. This process will allow these changes, which previously were hard to handle, to be handled without upsetting the normally rapid pace of GCC development and will allow for a much better compiler in a couple of years. >Have you actually read the egcs home pages, Richard? No, but I have heard there are some thing that were hastily written and that may be what's confusing you. Also, if you're thinking about the recent past, you may thing of the GCC development effort as producing a low rate of releases. Quite the opposite is true historically and I think you'll better understand the role of egcs in that context. > A compiler is a complicated piece of software, there will still be > strong central maintainers who will reject patches, who will demand > documentation of implementations, and who will keep the level of > quality as high as it is today. Code that could use wider testing > may be intergrated--code that is simply ill-conceived won't be. Right. That's exacly the point. egcs will be a place to test code that doesn't yet meet reliabilty/documentation standards and to bring the code up to those standards. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-09-06 0:00 ` Remy Card 1997-09-07 0:00 ` rosalia 1997-09-10 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Remy Card @ 1997-09-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [Please do not send me any copy when replying in mailing lists or in newsgroups!] In article <5uoso1$cj5$1@news.nyu.edu>, Richard Kenner <kenner@lab.ultra.nyu.edu> wrote: >EGCS is not meant to directly produce anything for "the public", but to >debug/improve experimental changes and pass them into the GCC >development stream. Well, I find quite interesting that a project that is not supposed to "directly produce anything for the public" allows us to get snapshots (and maybe releases) of their compiler. I know that I take risks by getting and using these snapshots, but I certainly appreciate to be able to use them. I'd like to see such an open development scheme for gcc. >I don't follow g++ development, so I don't understand the reference to >"working templates", but the same folks who set up egcs have total >control over the g++ part of the released GCC, so they don't need to >set up any separate project to get anything "to the public". Hmmm, when I read the "Tired of waiting..." thread, I got the impression that people working on the g++ part were quite frustrated that a new release of gcc/g++ did not happen, because they had much a better c++ compiler and they had to wait for the FSF gcc maintainers to say "Ok, it's time to release a new version of gcc/g++", even if they got reports for bugs that they had fixed one year ago... > [snip, snip, ...] >The basic idea is that if a proposed change is in good enough shape that it >can be gotten ready in, at most, a month or two, it goes directly into the >GCC development tree and will appear in the next release within a few ^^^^^^^^^^^^ >months. ^^^^^^ Are you kidding? Can you seriously say "a few months" when the last release of GCC is 2 years old? :-) I don't know anything about compilers, but I like how egcs is developped and made available to testers on a regular basis. If the egcs developpers happen to have a version that is stable enough to be available as a release, I will certainly use it and not use the FSF gcc anymore. Remy P.S: Remember Emacs/Xemacs? ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-06 0:00 ` Remy Card @ 1997-09-07 0:00 ` rosalia 1997-09-10 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: rosalia @ 1997-09-07 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) card@bbj.freenix.fr (Remy Card) writes: > I don't know anything about compilers, but I like how egcs is > developped and made available to testers on a regular basis. If the egcs > developpers happen to have a version that is stable enough to be available > as a release, I will certainly use it and not use the FSF gcc anymore. Dude, don't be divisive. If you need the egcs features, use them! Nobody will be unhappy about that. > P.S: Remember Emacs/Xemacs? Very different. All egcs modifications will have ownership assigned to the FSF. -- Mark Galassi --- astrophysicist and free software hacker Cygnus Solutions and Los Alamos National Laboratory rosalia@cygnus.com or rosalia@nis.lanl.gov http://nis-www.lanl.gov/~rosalia/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-09-06 0:00 ` Remy Card 1997-09-07 0:00 ` rosalia @ 1997-09-10 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Richard Kenner @ 1997-09-10 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <5uqh3g$1to$1@bbj.freenix.fr> card@bbj.freenix.fr (Remy Card) writes: >Well, I find quite interesting that a project that is not supposed >to "directly produce anything for the public" allows us to get snapshots >(and maybe releases) of their compiler. That's indeed one of the experimental aspects of the project: to see the effects of making experimental compilers generally available. Among the possible results are the bad result of people getting confused between the stable and experimental versions and the good result of people who get the versions contributing to fixing the problems in them. >Hmmm, when I read the "Tired of waiting..." thread, I got the >impression that people working on the g++ part were quite frustrated >that a new release of gcc/g++ did not happen, because they had much a better >c++ compiler and they had to wait for the FSF gcc maintainers to say "Ok, >it's time to release a new version of gcc/g++", even if they got reports >for bugs that they had fixed one year ago... That doesn't make much sense for two reasons: (1) The startup of the EGCS project is far more likely to slow down the final testing of GCC 2.8.0 (and hence release) than speed it up since the people who would otherwise be working on that task are now splitting their efforts between that and EGCS. (2) The EGCS project is just starting up and the 2.8 cycle is coming to an end. The goals of the EGCS project are to things *after* the 2.8 cycle, not of that cycle itself. >Are you kidding? Can you seriously say "a few months" when the >last release of GCC is 2 years old? :-) Yes. The point is that had EGCS been around two years ago, the work that we held up GCC 2.8 for would have been shunted off to it and we would have been at 2.10 by now. >I don't know anything about compilers, but I like how egcs is >developped and made available to testers on a regular basis. If the egcs >developpers happen to have a version that is stable enough to be available >as a release, I will certainly use it and not use the FSF gcc anymore. There's some confusion here. Once a change has been shown stable enough within the EGCS framework, it gets put into the mainstream and EGCS goes on to test *other* unstable changes. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? [not found] ` <33E974F3.1AAC@ix.netcom.com> 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole @ 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Kastrup @ 1997-08-13 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) [-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --] [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2730 bytes --] Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes: > This is a very tricky issue here. Depending on ones prejudices (and > I have a full complement) one might feel that the Linux "project" > has only succeeded so astonishingly well because of the advanced > state of the GNU software it incorporates (but this is highy > inflammatory to some). Not at all. It is a plain fact that the Linux project has succeeded the way it did *because* of the advanced state of the incorporated GNU software. As reverence to the vast contribution the GNU project has posed, and in recognition of the spirit and the working connotations involved, Linus Torvalds has put the Linux kernel under the GPL as well and has acknowledged and stressed the large influence and importance of the GNU project for the Linux endeavour. What *has* been inflammatory is that some people from the GNU project felt it necessary to consider the work of the Linux community invested in developing a Posix kernel and cleanly integrating the whole lot of utilities from the GNU project as well as other system components as just stealing the idea of a GNU system, and have consequently chosen to unilaterally call the system different names, expressing their implicit intellectual ownership of the whole Linux movement. This has raised quite a lot of stink and a lot of overbearing and partly silly reactions (such as trying to make a "truly" free system not containing any GPLed components). Still, some continuing annoyance remains between people claiming "What you call Linux is just our GNU system and a bit of kernel" and people wanting to forget the seminal influence of the whole GNU project altogether if possible (not that it is) because they get offended by that stance. Of course, it would be much much more important if both parties kept their peace and instead focused their ire on things like the upcoming "I2O" standard which explicitly aims to prohibit development of free software and particular operating systems for use on standard hardware. The recent investment of MS into Apple might be seen as paving the road for getting this scheme work on a distributed hardware base. If the same I/O systems prohibiting use of Linux, the Hurd, FreeBSD and others are spread to PowerPC bases as well, perhaps they will even migrate by marketing pressure to Alphas. Soon no hardware at all will be able to work with free operating systems, and the whole Hurd/GNU/Linux animosities will rage on without any significance. -- David Kastrup Phone: +49-234-700-5570 Email: dak@neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de Fax: +49-234-709-4209 Institut f�r Neuroinformatik, Universit�tsstr. 150, 44780 Bochum, Germany ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Scott Michel 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Ronald Cole <ronald@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Scott Michel 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Scott Michel @ 1997-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In gnu.misc.discuss Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG <thomas@gnu.ai.mit.edu> alleges: : Ronald Cole <ronald@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!" :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Scott Michel @ 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-07-02 0:00 ` David Weller 0 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-07-01 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Scott Michel <scottm@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` David Weller 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 0 siblings, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: David Weller @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) In article <sz0afk6ejlk.fsf@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-02 0:00 ` David Weller @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) 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 :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-02 0:00 ` David Weller 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Mark Atwood 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 2 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) dweller@news.imagin.net (David Weller) writes: > In article <sz0afk6ejlk.fsf@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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Mark Atwood 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Mark Atwood @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) thomas@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 zot@ampersand.com | expect from years of government training. -- MIB Zed ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Mark Atwood @ 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Matthew S. Whiting @ 1997-07-02 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Mark Atwood wrote: > > thomas@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 ... > ... and Deeper. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Mark Atwood @ 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Stefan Monnier 1 sibling, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Stefan Monnier @ 1997-07-06 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) thomas@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? I thought it was "phahrenheit" ! Stephan ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-24 0:00 ` what DOES the GPL really say? Spam Hater 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 1 reply; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) Wes said <<David Weller's "Ada Community License" and GNAT's "special exception" are very welcome relief from the above restriction. >> What exactly is the concern here. For things like the Booch components the modified GPL would give you as much freedom as the ACL. The only thing the ACL allows that the GPL definitely does not (and quite deliberately so) is for some company to make a proprietary version of the components with some improvements, and this proprietary version could have arbitrary restrictions., Wes, I can't tell if there is some reason concern here, or whether this is typical misinformed GPL FUD :-) Is there some reason you perceive that using, e.g. runtime units from GNAT or GLADE with the modified GPL is somehow problematic for you. Of course, if what you are interested in is actually *being* the company that takes Dave Weller's work and makes a proprietary copy of it, then I would understand why you preferred the ACL, but if all you are thinking of doing is using the components, either in original or modified form, in your software, then I don't see the issue. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 0 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Wes Groleau @ 1997-06-30 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) > What exactly is the concern here. For things like the Booch components > the modified GPL would give you as much freedom as the ACL. My concern is not the restrictions of the UNmodified GPL, it is the people who recommend GPL'd code, and then tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when I say I can't use it. > or whether this is typical misinformed GPL FUD :-) I have no Fear on the issue. I did have some uncertainty and doubt until I re-read the GPL and found that it does indeed say exactly what I thought it said. :-) > Is there some reason you perceive that using, e.g. runtime units from > GNAT or GLADE with the modified GPL is somehow problematic for you. No, like I said, I think the ACL and the GNAT "modified GPL" are excellent. And I don't begrudge the FSF their right to restrict their stuff as they see fit. My concern again is first, false information about the GPL, and second the suspicion that it is so restrictive as to be counter-productive. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
* Re: what DOES the GPL really say? 1997-06-24 0:00 ` what DOES the GPL really say? Spam Hater 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 2 siblings, 0 replies; 165+ messages in thread From: Robert Dewar @ 1997-06-27 0:00 UTC (permalink / raw) OOPS, it was Wes who talked about anonymous email of things people said to him, not Dave Weller (sorry for misattribution, Wes's messages are sometimes easy to misattribute because of his deliberately uninformative header :-) ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 165+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~1997-09-10 0:00 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 165+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 1997-09-01 0:00 what DOES the GPL really say? Richard Stallman -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below -- 1997-05-28 0:00 gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 1997-05-29 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 1997-05-30 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 1997-06-07 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar [not found] ` <m2vi3kpuay.fsf@devo.ridgenet.net> 1997-06-12 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 1997-06-12 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 1997-06-13 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 1997-06-16 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 1997-06-17 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 1997-06-20 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 1997-06-22 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Ronald Cole 1997-06-23 0:00 ` gnat-3.10 Robert Dewar 1997-06-24 0:00 ` what DOES the GPL really say? Spam Hater 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-25 0:00 ` Paul D. Smith 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-27 0:00 ` kdp0101 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` user 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Kai Henningsen 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Stephen Leake 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Samuel Mize 1997-06-26 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-06-26 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-28 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert [not found] ` <dewar.867554739@merv> 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Watts 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-03 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-04 0:00 ` Olivier Galibert 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Bill Gribble 1997-07-09 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-09 0:00 ` Richard Kenner [not found] ` <5pmg6e$nai$1@Venus.mcs.net> 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-05 0:00 ` user 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-05 0:00 ` Paul Eggert 1997-07-07 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-06 0:00 ` user 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-08 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Steve Peltz 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-14 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Samuel Tardieu 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-21 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-22 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-23 0:00 ` W. Wesley Groleau x4923 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-24 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-24 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-07-25 0:00 ` B.Stephens 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-30 0:00 ` Joe Buck 1997-07-27 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-23 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-07-23 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-07-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-07-30 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-08-04 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-05 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-08-09 0:00 ` David Masterson 1997-08-11 0:00 ` David Kastrup [not found] ` <dewar.870872644@merv> [not found] ` <dewar.870873584@merv> 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-08-13 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-15 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig 1997-08-17 0:00 ` Leslie Mikesell 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Mike Stump 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Thomas Koenig 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <EFIyr0.Erq@kithrup.com> [not found] ` <34032CE9.77E@link.com> 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <5u11n0$emm@fg70.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de> 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Simon Wright 1997-08-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Paul Lyon 1997-08-22 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-20 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-25 0:00 ` Ronald Cole [not found] ` <hjb-3008970231180001@chaos.dial.idiom.com> 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-03 0:00 ` Hwa-Jin Bae 1997-09-07 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Ted Goldblatt 1997-09-08 0:00 ` Mark Wooding 1997-09-09 0:00 ` Isaac 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Robert Dewar [not found] ` <33E974F3.1AAC@ix.netcom.com> 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-12 0:00 ` Chris Morgan 1997-08-16 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-08-19 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-21 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-08-25 0:00 ` Ronald Cole [not found] ` <5tujkj$qr9$1@news.nyu.edu> 1997-08-29 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-08-30 0:00 ` Toon Moene [not found] ` <5ubkbp$e69$1@news.nyu.edu> 1997-08-31 0:00 ` Toon Moene 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Craig Burley 1997-09-01 0:00 ` Craig Burley 1997-09-02 0:00 ` Ronald Cole 1997-09-05 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-09-06 0:00 ` Remy Card 1997-09-07 0:00 ` rosalia 1997-09-10 0:00 ` Richard Kenner 1997-08-13 0:00 ` David Kastrup 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Scott Michel 1997-07-01 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-07-02 0:00 ` David Weller 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Thomas Bushnell, n/BSG 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Mark Atwood 1997-07-02 0:00 ` Matthew S. Whiting 1997-07-06 0:00 ` Stefan Monnier 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar 1997-06-30 0:00 ` Wes Groleau 1997-06-27 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox