"Open" Software Foundation: GNU

[Steve Simmons]

In article <5910003 at hplsla.HP.COM> jima at hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock) writes:
>[[Various good and true things about using binaries from libraries 
>  in products, which can be summarized as saying "If your licence does
>  not say you can do it, you can't." and "If your compiler licence does
>  not say you can sell the output of the compiler, you can't."  --
>  this is my summary of his remarks. scs ]]

You're likely to take some flamage over this, but you're absolutely
correct.  Corporate lawyers I've spoken with at Bell Northern Research,
ADP, and Schlumberger all agree.  Those who want to stand up and yell
"but that's stupid/insane/unenforcable" should take their flames to
the vendors who wrote the licences.

In AT&Ts defense, let me point out that last year they lifted the
restriction on their libraries and compilers, explicitly allowing you
to build the libraries into commercial products and use the output
of their compilers in commercial products without restrictions.   This
was a good move on their part, and one which other vendors should
follow.

>I do not pretend to know what common industry practice is in these
>regards.

Actual real-world usage is for developers to include the libraries
and compiler output in products; the vendors have turned a blind eye.
I remember hearing several years ago someone tried to get royalties
from products developed by other folks using their compiler, but don't
know the result.  Sorry, can't remember names but I think the language
was a Pascal.

>In general, I believe the FSF license is about as restrictive as other
>commercial software [note -- I consider FSF software to be commercial
>software]

I don't consider FSF to be commercial S/W, but it is as restrictive
as most commercial licences I've seen.  Stallman has said in an
interview in Byte that he does not like the output from GCC used 
in commercial software, but was not planning on formally restricting
it.  Bear in mind, tho, that "not planning" does not mean he couldn't
do it some time in the future.  If I were developing S/W using GCC, I'd
get this point cleared up in writing first.

>I do know that on the commercial projects I have worked on, 
>my managers have consistently worked VERY carefully and diligently
>to make sure we always clear, clean, legal title to ALL, every
>last bit of binary code that goes into our software products.
>To do so is frankly a royal pain in the b*tt, and keeps us from
>using many otherwise good products.

Living proof that there are development companies and compiler vendors
both which understand the licencing restrictions.  Thanks for the
example.

>PS: I HATE LAWYERS TOO. [except when they save my *ss]

Even sharks have a place in the food chain.

-- 
+- Steve Simmons            UNIX Systems Mgr.         Schlumberger CAD/CAM -+
+  simmons at applga.uucp                              ...umix!applga!simmons  +
+- "Opinions expressed are all my own, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc." -+