From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Ronald Cole Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/08/19 Message-ID: X-Deja-AN: 265383813 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pim4l$5m3$1@news.nyu.edu> <5ptv7r$4e2$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5pu5va$64o$1@news.nyu.edu> <5qdof6$iav$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <33D6FA2B.9B7@ix.netcom.com> <33E00855.2BA7@ix.netcom.com> <33E974F3.1AAC@ix.netcom.com> <33F13EBC.373@ix.netcom.com> Organization: RidgeNet - SLIP/PPP Internet, Ridgecrest, CA. (760) 371-3501 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-08-19T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Chris Morgan 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 , 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 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