NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/4172

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 4.4 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4172 talk.philosophy.misc:3137 alt.usage.english:10228 alt.society.anarchy:996
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!udel!news.udel.edu!me.udel.edu!johnston
From: [e-mail] (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: me.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 01:36:26 GMT
Lines: 77

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Bill Johnston) writes:
>
>>In article <[e-mail]>
>>[e-mail] (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>MZ:
>>>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
>>>the FSF [...]
>
>BJ:
>>What legal obligation is placed upon the USER of GNU software?
>>Be specific;  I use GNU software every day.  I have yet to pay
>>any money for it;  it works better than the commercial software
>>it replaced, but I don't want to expose myself to unnecessary
>>legal hassles.  What am I missing?  Am I a victim of brain-washing?
>
>You are a victim of something, but I shan't speculate on its causes.
>The obligation is not to use any part of GNU in a proprietary manner.
>Chew on that; it might allow you to shut up for a while.

You could have saved time by making it clear that what you meant
in repeated assertions about the "use" of GNU software is really
"proprietary use of the source code".  Most computer folk employ
the term "use" in the same sense as "user", namely, someone who
"uses" the software tools.  Similarly, a driver is more apt to be
thought of as the "user" of a car than is the mechanic.

If you are complaining that the GPL does not grant you the right
to "proprietary use of the source code", well, that's tough.

The only sense of the word "proprietary" that is applicable here
would be "made and marketed by by one having the exclusive right
to manufacture and sell" (Webster's 7th Collegiate).

So how can you complain that you cannot assert an exclusive right to
manufacture and sell copyrighted work that has been "made" by others?

Who grants such rights to their own intellectual property?  Not those
who publish public domain software;  one cannot claim an "exclusive"
rights to sell PD software.  It is true that one can incorporate
PD source code in a proprietary work and claim an exclusive right
to distribute a particular executable, or the portions of its source
that you have written.  Still, you cannot prevent others from doing
the same thing with the public domain source code, therefore the use
of the PD code is not "exclusive".

The only way to assert a truly proprietary interest in someone
else's work is to buy the rights to it from a copyright owner, ie,
someone who has not given up his/her intellectual property rights
by placing the source into the public domain.  I doubt that FSF
would consider selling the rights to an entire package, but at
least it is possible to call FSF or other author/copyright holder
of a GPL'ed product and request permission to "use" an algorithm
or two without giving up your proprietary interest in a larger work.
They own it;  therefore they have the right to refuse your request.

It is also possible to structure a proprietary work such
that it can invoke user-written sub-programs, much as emacs can
be extended with ".el" files.      In this case the GNU code can
be used directly;  the only "obligation" placed on the author
of the proprietary work is to release the source code that
implements call-backs to the proprietary application, along
with the source for any "sub-program" based on GNU code.

Finally, if what you are asking for is permission to take
emacs (for free, naturally), make minor changes, and then
assert an exclusive right to sell your version under your
own non-GPL licensing terms -- well, good luck finding
someone else who is willing to do it your way.

This from the person who complained that FSF volunteers
had unwittingly sold themselves into slavery ... sheesh!
--
-- Bill Johnston ([e-mail])
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; [phone]