Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!news.indiana.edu!chi-news.cic.net!news.synet.net!imdave From: imdave@synet.net (Dave Bodenstab) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.networking,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy Subject: Re: Linux vs whatever Date: 30 Jan 1997 04:02:28 GMT Organization: Dave Bodenstab's home machine Lines: 106 Message-ID: <5cp6gk$84n@garuda.synet.net> References: <32DFFEAB.7704@usa.net> <5clcjd$l34@cynic.portal.ca> <5cmiv4$iuf@garuda.synet.net> <5cnskq$qhm@omega.gmd.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dial33.synet.net Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.misc:152896 comp.os.linux.networking:65321 comp.os.linux.setup:92730 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1937 comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy:50353 comp.os.os2.advocacy:262235 In article <5cnskq$qhm@omega.gmd.de>, Holger Veit <veit@borneo.gmd.de> wrote: >In article <5cmiv4$iuf@garuda.synet.net>, imdave@synet.net (Dave Bodenstab) writes: >|> In article <5clcjd$l34@cynic.portal.ca>, >|> Curt Sampson <cjs@cynic.portal.ca> wrote: >|> >In article <32EE3C3C.5534B736@indiana.edu>, >|> >Lars Hofhansl <lhofhans@indiana.edu> wrote: >|> > >|> >>But when you >|> >>distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based >|> >>on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of >|> >>this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the >|> >>entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote >|> >>it." >|> > >|> >Right. In other words, if I have a 10,000 line program and add 500 >|> >lines of GPL'd code, I must put all of my 10,000 lines under the >|> >GPL. If some of that 10,000 lines is under a licence that conflicts >|> >with the GPL, I simply cannot combine the code and distribute it, >|> >period. I exult in such freedom! :-/ >|> > >|> Then why did you add the 500 lines of GPL'ed code? It was your >|> choice, was it not? If you use 500 lines of another person's code, >|> then you need their permission. If you don't like their terms, then >|> don't use it. I don't understand why people feel that they have a >|> right to use other's work, and are offended when the original author >|> puts conditions on its use. >|> >|> In the case that the GPL conflicts with another license... you're >|> correct -- you can't use it. So what's the problem? There are >|> many things that we "can't do" because of legal requirements. > >See in comparison the BSD copyright: What it says in principle, is the >following: "We have written something nice here, and you get the source >to have a look at it and/or modify it. You can then give out your >modified code as source or binary, and make money if you like, but you >must tell everyone that this is based on our code. And you are responsible >for everything you give out, not we, so you get sued if the code is buggy >and you have uncritically given it to someone." > >This is much more acceptable to me from the viewpoint of a programmer, as it >does not take away any freedom from me (but nor does it free me from >any responsibility). I can look at professional code (which is debatable in >some corners of the BSD code, of course), and base my own work on it. Whether >this is 500 lines out of 10000, or a single foreign line and 10000 own lines >(the GPL will taint my own 10000 lines then) is no real difference. I can >try to sell this code and distribute as a binary without restriction and >save my investment. Of course, I could try to rip-off people by, say, taking >the BSD "ftp" source code, compile it without change, and sell it. People >will then ask about the novelty or a copyright infringement (of course I >have replaced the nasty "Copyright by the Regents..." with "Copyright by me"). Sigh. This just goes round and round. You don't like the GPL, the person who wrote the 500 lines (or one line) does, and you want to use their code. The solution is to either adhere to their terms, convince them to provide you with specific terms that you can live with, or don't use their code. Now, the chances that a court would find that one line of code is a creative work is extremely unlikely. 500 lines... well, there's a much better chance that the author would prevail. What no one ever seems to propose is to contact the author. They set the terms. If you tell me that you can make $$$ with my GPL'ed code, and you're willing to cut me a piece, then I'm likely to consider your offer and make special terms for you. [ Unless I'm RMS ;-) ] >However, the same will undoubtedly happen with GPL software. Fact is, for >instance, that some companies already make an awful lot of money by offering >a modified version of gcc for special single-chip-processors. How do they do >this? "You don't have to pay for our gcc source, as GPL demands, but we think >that using it is so complicated that you need our support contract for $3000, >and without that, you won't get the (special) gcc code." No joke, reality. >Now do you want to pay for the artwork to write a compiler backend based on >some public compiler, or for some artificial "support contract" made to >undermine the GPL restriction? If the code falls under the terms of the GPL, then there is nothing to prevent the company that paid the $3000 to offer to resell the same code for $2000. Well, you say, they'll get sued! The fact is that if you come and visit me I can sue you for looking at me cross-eyed. Sure it'll get thrown out -- but you still had to hire a lawyer to represent you. In the case of enforcement of any licence, contract, whatever... it comes down to who has the money and who is willing to spend it. The law can be, and is, used as a weapon regardless of the ultimate outcome. These companies are getting away with this simply because no one is sufficiently motivated to spend the money in a lawsuit -- even if the likely outcome is a ``win''. >Billions of $$$ are used for reinventing the wheels due to tainted GPL software; >billions of $$$ are likewise made with products based on BSD and the similarly >copyrighted X11. Now ask about the real impact of GPL: did the intended effect >of getting a pool of free (and staying free) and reusable software actually >happen? Infact, you have a large set of Unixtools from GNU, and quite a number >of substandard free software hacks written by students or hobbyists >which could barely be sold for money at all. And besides there is no public >high-quality software (BSD and X11 with their different policy don't count). >Would say: receive the F rating and sit down. The only thing that GPL'ed software is ``tainted'' with is the expressed terms of its authors. They have every right to whatever terms they wish, just as my opinion of the amount of quality software available is different from your's. The world's big enough for all our opinions. Will the GPL have an impact? I guess we'll see. Regards, Dave Bodenstab