From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID, LOTS_OF_MONEY autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: f65d0,bd4d2fccdf730b16 X-Google-Attributes: gidf65d0,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,499ea588f6acabff X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public From: Ronald Cole Subject: Re: gnat-3.10 Date: 1997/06/29 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 253496946 Sender: ronald@devo.ridgenet.net References: <1997Jun23.102715.1@eisner> Organization: RidgeNet - SLIP/PPP Internet, Ridgecrest, CA. (760) 371-3501 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.gcc,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-06-29T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > Well I guess Ronald finally understands the GPL :-) Yes, Stallman left a hole in the GPL big enough for you to drive your truck through and set up a toll gate. > In practice this scenario is of limited likelihood, and that is why it > has not happened in practice. If one charged "big bucks" for the enhancements > you had made, and if companies were willing to pay the big bucks, then an > obvious thing happens: > > 1. If you charge say $1 million for your wonderfgul enhancements > > 2. And lots of companies are willing to pay $1 million > > 3. Then someone will buy it for $1 million > > 4. And undercut your business by selling it for the bargain price of > say $200,000 This assumes that the company that paid big bugs for a solution is willing to "burden" themselves with the GPL's redistribution requirements in order to recoup their costs. There are many other less-painful ways to recoup costs that do not benefit free software, and so I think it's likelihood isn't as limited as you appear to think it is. > But as I have said all along, there is nothing that requires you to > distribute something you do under the GPL. One of the freedoms it confers > is the freedom to distribute your work to whomever you please. The > ultimate hoarding that can occur is if someone makes wonderful software > and keeps it to themselves completely, but no one in the GNU world thinks > for a monment that this should be prevented. It's your choice to distribute your work under the GPL. Once one chooses to distribute their work to person-A under the GPL, one should not be allowed to say "no" if person-B asks for a copy. That is why Richard wrote the following: "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." This is just a reiteration of the Kantian philosophy that is supposed to be embodied in the GPL. All I would like is a provision in the GPL that prevents people from doing what you did. Perhaps I can convince Richard of the importance of including his statement in the GPL before gcc-2.8 is released. > Now if Ron would put his energy into providing free software, rather > than trying to get hold of 3.10 before we consider it ready for > public release, that would be more helpful. You yourself said that 3.10 is your "current production release". Do your customers know that you consider that it's not even ready for public release? And why would I want to provide free software to the world under a licensing agreement that makes it less-than-freely- available to everyone? > But I guess the communistic view always appeals more to those who > need what they do not have, as opposed to those who have what they > do not need :-) It sure does. That's why you are using the gcc backend instead of writing one yourself. The GPL loophole appeals to your sense of greed. If you really were to "walk the walk", you wouldn't say no to my request for a copy because you would be making your money just charging for support. I guess you're afraid of free market competition. Besides, Communism forbids the ownership of property, so I think you meant to say "socialistic view". Regardless, use of the GPL on one's work is voluntary and is thus libertarian. -- Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA 93556-1412 Ronald Cole 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