From: garrett@garnet.berkeley.edu (Garrett D'Amore) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Date: 18 Apr 1993 06:38:49 GMT
In article <9292@blue.cis.pitt.edu> venger+@pitt.edu (The Knight in Silicon Armor.) writes:
>In article <1993Apr17.231000.103368@zeus.calpoly.edu> jemenake@trumpet.calpoly.edu (Joe Emenaker) writes:
>
[a whole BUNCH of stuff deleted]
>
>I think what's griping Nate is that if someone contributes code to
>a LIBRARY under GPL and someone else creates software and uses that
>library to compile said software of their own creation, they are not permitted
>under the GPL to sell it. It's kind of like Borland coming along and saying
>that because you used TurboC to compile software, they are entitled to
>a share in any profits since you used their libraries. While I agree that
>it would be totally reprehensable for anyone to sell the libraries, I do
>not think it is right to tell someone that wrote 10,000 lines of code
>that may have 1 or 2 calls to libraries that are under the GPL that
>they are not allowed to try to get recompense for their efforts. IMHO, if
>I release something into the public domain, my concern as to the use
>made of it has ended.
>
I believe that if you write LIBRARY code using the GLPL (or whatever)
you impart the ability to developers using your libraries the ability
to sell or freely distribute "derived works". This is different from
the standard GPL, which is intended to protect applications. This
can be considered analagous to Borland allowing to freely restribute
code containing calls to the Turbo C libraries, but prohibiting you
from distributing code derived from reverse engineering Paradox. The
assumption is that Library code *should* be freely redistributable, at
least insofar as part of an executable. But, I think it's fair to expect
developers of applications to protect their apps.
As far as Linux goes, I'm not sure. Some of the stuff is "library" code, but
other stuff should be considered "application" code.
In any case, the idea is to protect not just the author, but the general
public (i.e. users) from getting ripped off by someone who'd steal code, change
a line or two, and charge exorbitant rates for it. If say DEC were to "borrow"
the Linux or BSD kernel, change a few lines (like maybe the copyright...)
and market it, the people who developed it would feel *very* cheated. GPL
protects against that sort of thing.
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
====================================================================
Garrett D'Amore | garrett@haas.berkeley.edu
Software Co-Ordinator | 68 Barrows Hall, UC Berkeley
Haas Computing Services | Ph: 510-643-5923 Fax: 642-4769
====================================================================