Software Licenses [djg35]

[David Garfield]

Dan Odom Said:
> David Garfield Said:
>
> > I believe Borland's policy is that you may transfer you software from
> > one machine to another, PROVIDED you remove all copies from the
> > original machine.  Thus, you may use it like you would use a book.
> > You may pass it around, but only one person can have it at any one
> > time.
>
> It may be installed on more than one machine at a time (e.g., your
> home and your office), but it can only be in use on one machine at a
> time.

Borland Says: [Exact quote, first two paragraphs]

    This software is protected by both United States copyright law and
    international copyright treaty provisions.  Therefore, you must
    treat this software just like a book, except that you may copy it
    onto a computer to be used and you may make archival copies of the
    software for the sole purpose of backing up our software and
    protecting your investment from loss.

    By saying, "just like a book," Borland means, for example, that
    this software may be used by any number of people, and may be
    freely moved from one computer location to another, so long as
    there is no possibility of it being used at one location while it
    is being used at another or on a computer network by more than one
    user at one location.  Just as a book can't be read by two
    different people in two different places at the same time, neither
    can the software be used by two different in two different places
    at the same time (unless, of course, Borland's copyright has been
    violated).

[Note: "no possibility" on paragraph 2 line 4 is bold]

I don't know about you, but I am not willing to risk violating the
license on my copy.  My copy stays on my computer alone.


> > The GNU policy is the so called "Copyleft", more formally the GNU
> > General Public License.  I believe it policy is basically, "If it
> > includes ANY GNU code, it is FREE SOFTWARE and you must give source
> > when you give an executable.  The particularly NASTY part about this
> > is that it applies to the C run time libraries.  I do not believe that
> > it applies to the output of the compiler if it did not apply to the
> > input.  This should make the GNU compilers/assemblers usable by us.
>
> <sigh>  One of GNU's chief complaints is that people often
> misinterpret the GPL this way.
>
> From Section 6, Paragraph 1 of the GNU Library General Public
> License, Version 2 of June 1991:
>
> ``A program that contains no derivative of any portion of the Library,
> but is designed to work with the Library by being compiled or liked
> with it, is called a ``work that uses the Library''.  Such a work, in
> isolation, is not a derivative work of the Library, and therefore
> falls outside the scope of this license.''
>
> From Section 7, Paragraph 1:
>
> ``As an exception to the Sections above, you may also compile or link
> a ``work that uses the Library'' with the Library to produce a work
> containing portions of the Library, and distribute that work under
> terms of your choice, provided that the terms permit modification and
> reverse engineering for debugging and such modifications.''
>
> So you see, Moose could be _commercial_ and legally make use of GNU
> libraries.  All we have to do is allow the `customer' to modify it...

Well, the copy of GCC that I have on my 486 is DJGPP 2.1.  This is
under Version 1 of GPL.  Version 1 was before they figured out this
CORRECT INTERPRETATION that I described, that apparently lasted for
many years.

> It's good that this license stuff is coming up now... I'd hate for
> Moose to be completed before we discover that we all want distribution
> on different terms.
>
> I have two requirements for the Moose license:  Moose must be free,
> and the source code to Moose must be freely available.  That's it.
> When I joined the project I got the impression that both of the above
> would apply, so I'm not too worried about it.

The only additional requirement that I would make is to lose, at least
given the right conditions, GNUs restrictions on derived works (that
you must give source).

> Before you jump down my throat about commercial software, let me say
> that I am NOT opposed to copyright on individual programs, and neither
> is the League for Programming Freedom.  Hell, I make my (meager)
> living off of software.  The reason that I want Moose
> to be free has to do with the kind of people who tend to use free
> software...  Think of all the gurus you've known, and of how many used
> SysV over the (free) Berkely UNIX.  On the PC, most (if not all) of
> the Truly Great people I've known used Linux/Minix rather than SCO or
> QNX.  I don't want some accountant running Lotus 1-2-3 on Moose; I'd
> rather have some student running his cryptanalysis software on it.

I would rather have both.  Then we can try to kill MS-DOS, MS-Windows,
Windows-NT, and finally Microsoft.

--David
-- 
David Garfield/2250 Clarendon Blvd/Arlington, VA 22201   (703)522-9416
Email: david%davgar@uunet.uu.net or garfield@verdi.sra.com