Date:	Mon, 17 Apr 1995 07:29:49 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Ken Bowen <ken AT jarrett DOT als DOT com>
Subject:	G(L)GPL & Redistribution
To:	DJGPP AT SUN DOT SOE DOT CLARKSON DOT EDU
Cc:	babcock AT cfa DOT harvard DOT edu, turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp,
	UCKO AT VAX1 DOT ROCKHURST DOT EDU, Ken Bowen <ken AT jarrett DOT als DOT com>

> You wouldn't happen to be a lawyer, would you? :-)
> Seriously, though, the clarification _is_ appreciated.
>        [ Aaron Ucko <UCKO AT VAX1 DOT ROCKHURST DOT EDU>]

No, I'm a programmer who runs a small company.  I do hire lawyers 
and I've learned from them some things about reading and interpreting
documents (which, of course, I don't always apply, but I'm trying to here.)

> Hard disk space, even in GCC source quantities, is a lot cheaper than
> a court appearance....
>    [Stephen Turnbull <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>]

Something much worse is to have developed a product, perhaps central
to your organization's work and/or survival (need I say your own too?),
and then find that someone has rendered proprietary the very tools and 
libraries which you used to build your product.  Even universities are 
not immune to such situations: According to something I read, this was
Richard Stallman's original motivation in starting GNU.

> > I believe that the FSF specifically disallows the offline strategy
> > (store sources on tape).
>
> I asked this question a while back because I had djgpp sources on my BBS
> computer which has a 20MB hard disk.  Clearly, I couldn't put everything
> online at once, so I asked whether making the sources mountable on request
> would be sufficient.  The reply from gnu AT ai DOT mit DOT edu was "as long as you say
> so and how to contact you in a file with the binaries, yes."
>    [Bob Babcock <peprbv AT cfa0 DOT harvard DOT edu>]

The space problem is one of my concerns, since we use GNU on a variety
of platforms (Intel & Unix boxes), so space could mount up.  My 
guess is that 0.00001% of our users will want sources to the libraries,
much less the compilers or other tools.  [We haven't downloaded any of
them ourselves -- we use the binaries & documentation.]  In fact,
we plan to keep on-line what is of immediate use to our users,
whether binaries or sources, and have pointers (especially HTML)
to a variety of sources, both of the binaries and sources, as
well as the newsgroups, etc.  We will keep everything else we
need on tape, and provide the mount-on-demand service.

However, our situation is complicated by the fact that we produce
compilers (Prolog), and so our users will use our tools to produce
executables which will involve linking with the library (even 
if they don't know it has been done, since our "application
packaging tool" doesn't tell you what it is doing).  In order to
ship their application, they will have to utilize the GNU LIBRARY
GPL also.  [In fact, it will be important for us to not only include
the license, but to instruct them on how to use the GLGPL for their
products!]

> supporting freeware means taking other people's licenses on their
> interpretation, creating a body of practice that makes the
> interpretation more compelling.  Yes, it could still be challenged,
> but courts do often look at community standards.
>    [Stephen Turnbull <turnbull AT shako DOT sk DOT tsukuba DOT ac DOT jp>]

Agreed, generally.  But: 1) You must be sure of what "their interpretation"
really is, and 2) It may well be that "their (original) interpretation"
is worth evolving into something perhaps even better/stronger/....
WRT #1),  I plan to pull together the correspondence on this issue, and
try to isolate the issues and alternatives, and then run it by gnu AT ai DOT mit DOT edu.

WRT #2), one of the most powerful aspects of community is the ability to
evolve and adapt, and to even take over a concept or idea which originated
with one person or group of persons, and to add much more to it, since
many new fine minds work on the idea/concept/.... [That's a joint group
self-pat on the back.... :-)]  As a possible example of such evolution
of the idea: the community convinces itself that a given  network of
servers is so extensive and reliable, that it can relax the re-distribution
of sources terms of the licenses.  {I'm not sure I believe that any
such network yet exists.}

Here is a list of (three of) the issues I think are being addressed by
the freeware/Gnu/... community:
i)  Software freedom in the stricly legal sense: no one can claim ownership
    and render it proprietary; i.e., no one can interfere with anyone
    else's right to use/modify/.... the software.
ii) Software freedom in the economic sense.  This is a concern for
    many people, but it is definitely murky.
iii)Joint support: it is easier to have a world-wide online community
    helping one another out if one has access to sources, as need be.

Undoubtedly there are more imporant points that elude me at the moment.

|| Ken Bowen      Applied Logic Systems, Inc.         PO Box 180,     
||====            Voice:  +1 (617)965-9191            Newton Centre,
||                FAX:    +1 (617)965-1636            MA  02159  USA
                  Email:  ken AT als DOT com        WWW: http://www.als.com

- Raw text -