Path: gmd.de!Germany.EU.net!mcsun!uunet!noc.near.net!
howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!
cis.ohio-state.edu!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rms
From: r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Effects of the GPL
Date: 5 Jul 1993 01:33:42 -0400
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 36
Sender: dae...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Message-ID: <9307050533.AA20948@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

The Objective C part of GCC was written by NeXT and donated to the
FSF.  Based on discussions at an earlier date, I believe that NeXT
donated this code because of the fact that the GPL did not permit
making it proprietary.

There's no way to be certain what NeXT would have done in another
world.  But I have seen numerous occasions where other companies have
donated improvements to GNU software, and only one occasion where a
company refused when asked.

By contrast, there are many proprietary versions of X windows, BSD,
and other non-copylefted free programs.  It is quite common for
companies to make improvements that never become available to the free
software world.

I am therefore convinced by my experience that the GPL is one of the
crucial factors that made GNU software as good as it is.

Using the GPL also helps remind people of the ethical issues about
sharing and changing software, and about the practice of trying to
stop other people from sharing and changing software.  Making people
think about cooperation, and about right and wrong, is important in 
its own right.

Every society functions only to the extent its members are willing to
cooperate voluntarily much of the time.  We have seen that forced,
planned cooperation is a failure (look at Russia).  We have seen that
selfishness and the "invisible hand" are a failure (the US is full of
examples, ranging from RSA Inc. to the homeless people on the
streets).  To have a happy, prosperous society, we need to encourage
the will to cooperate.

The GPL is my way of doing this.  Making software public domain does
not address the problem, because it lets selfish people do their
selfish thing without ever a moment when they have to think about
right and wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: gmd.de!xlink.net!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rms
From: r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: GPL ramifications and purpose
Date: 6 Jul 1993 02:12:29 -0400
Organization: GNUs Not Usenet
Lines: 54
Sender: dae...@cis.ohio-state.edu
Distribution: gnu
Message-ID: <9307060611.AA24791@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

Several years ago, I met with Steve Jobs, who was looking for some
alternative to making the Objective C front end free software.  (This
may have been due to worries about being hassled by Stepstone, rather
than a desire to be uncooperative.)  He asked me if it it would be
legal to ship proprietary .o files to the user and have the user link
them with the GNU compiler.

At that time, I envisaged the legal ramifications like some others who
have recently posted on this list, so I did not see a basis for saying
they could not do this.

But at the same time, I realized that it would not bode well for the
GNU project if such a thing were permitted.  So I responded, "I will
have to check with our lawyer."

It's a good thing I did, because when I checked, I found that there
was a basis for objecting to this plan.  Such .o files would have
implied the presence of the GNU compiler, linked with them.  They
would be, in effect, a way of distributing a larger program which
implicitly includes the GNU compiler; as such, it must follow the
terms on the GNU compiler.

I told NeXT this, and NeXT decided there was no alternative to making
the Objective C front end free software.  So now it is available to
all of us as a part of GCC.

Note that this is not a matter of copyrighting an interface.  The .o
files that NeXT planned to release would have used one of the
(internal) interfaces of the GNU compiler, but that was *not* what the
FSF objected to.  Our objection was because the use of these .o files
implied linking them with the GNU compiler--the program, not just an
interface.

If it were possible for a company to get around the GPL simply by
dressing up changes or extensions as "separate programs that the user
might link in", then the GPL would be a paper tiger.  (True, we often
print it on paper, but...)  So it is vital for the FSF to object.

If we made this a request rather than a legal demand, some people
would comply as a matter of conscience.  But many others who would
not.  If I had told Jobs, "It is legal, but please don't," I doubt he
would have heeded the request.

Many improvements to GNU software are contributed by, or funded by,
companies.  If they could make these improvements proprietary, many of
them would.  I consider these companies unethical (because making
proprietary software is unethical in general), but they don't share my
ethical views, and they don't feel they should forego profit for a
mere request from the FSF.

The only way to make sure these improvements are free software is to
make it hard to make them proprietary.  That's what the GPL is for,
and to make it work right, we must not permit getting around it by
"having the user do the link."