LGPL vs. GPL
JohnF
advantages/disadvantages/repercussions/anything else relevant
of re-licensing my GPL'ed code www.forkosh.com/mimetex.html
under the LGPL instead. I've received several (a handful, not
a ton) of requests to do this, and have so far always just
replied, "No." I understand the basic differences/distinctions
between the two licenses. And I'm in no hurry to donate free code
to commercial projects, that will then turn around and charge me
(and you) for their programs while keeping their own code hidden
from me (and you).
But is there some advantage to the open source community
for doing this? The most recent email (which prompted this post)
says, "I wish to do some major work on mimetex." And I suppose
work specifically on mimetex's code would become openly available.
Except, in mimetex's case, only very trivial work is needed to
do what this (and all previous) lgpl requests have wanted to do.
So I don't see any meaningful open source code being contributed.
Any other kind of advantage to the open source community that
I'm missing?
--
John Forkosh ( mailto: j...@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
Ciaran O'Riordan
Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL. The
writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
functionality in their application code (rather than in your library) and
will contribute as little as possible.
A permissive licence (such as the LGPL) can be good if you want your
application to define an open standard. For example, the Ogg Vorbis library
for playing that audio format is under a very permissive licence because the
goal is to make Ogg a widely used standard (so that free software developers
can work with an open, patent-free standard instead of the possibly patented
mp3 format).
The LGPL can also be good if you think that your field will naturally be
dominated by a single software package and you think you might loose a
head-to-head competition with some proprietary rival. This is the case for
the GNU standard C library (glibc). It makes technical sense for all
GNU/Linux operating systems to use the same libc, and if the developers of
proprietary software for GNU/Linux wanted to write their own libc, they
probably could. So to ensure that they don't feel a need to do that, glibc
was released under the LGPL.
So unless you find yourself in either of those rare situations, then it's
probably best to stay with the GPL.
You've probably read this, but just in case:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
Hope that helps.
P.S. This mailing list has lots of trolls. Please ignore inflammatory
emails.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan, +32 477 36 44 19, http://ciaran.compsoc.com/
Support free software, join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org
Recent blog entries:
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_latex_to_make_pdf_documents_with_japanese_characters
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_sean_daly_kde_swpat_chessboxing
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/links_india_pats_clipperz_freegis_rms_emacs
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/using_and_writing_emacs_22_input_methods
JohnF
> Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL. The
> writers of proprietary software will generally keep the most useful
> functionality in their application code (rather than in your library) and
> will contribute as little as possible.
>
> A permissive licence (such as the LGPL) can be good if you want your
> application to define an open standard. For example, the Ogg Vorbis library
> for playing that audio format is under a very permissive licence because the
> goal is to make Ogg a widely used standard (so that free software developers
> can work with an open, patent-free standard instead of the possibly patented
> mp3 format).
>
> The LGPL can also be good if you think that your field will naturally be
> dominated by a single software package and you think you might loose a
> head-to-head competition with some proprietary rival. This is the case for
> the GNU standard C library (glibc). It makes technical sense for all
> GNU/Linux operating systems to use the same libc, and if the developers of
> proprietary software for GNU/Linux wanted to write their own libc, they
> probably could. So to ensure that they don't feel a need to do that, glibc
> was released under the LGPL.
>
> So unless you find yourself in either of those rare situations, then it's
> probably best to stay with the GPL.
>
> You've probably read this, but just in case:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>
> Hope that helps.
Thanks, Ciaran, for the discussion and very useful information.
It indeed helps, and pretty much coincides with (and clarifies)
my original thinking -- not much reason (for me) to use the lgpl.
I hadn't seen why-not-lgpl.html before, but have read it now.
And I've replied to the email lgpl request, informing him
that mimetex will remain gpl'ed. Thanks again,
Alexander Terekhov
JohnF wrote:
[...]
> > You've probably read this, but just in case:
> > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
> >
> > Hope that helps.
>
> Thanks, Ciaran, for the discussion and very useful information.
Now read
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Ciaran O'Riordan
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> Now read
>
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
I just skimmed it.
I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I know that most of
your mails about the GPL are claims that it isn't enforceable or doesn't
work how FSF say it works. One simple piece of data that weakens your
position is the paper's date: April 2006.
If this paper gave any support to your anti-GPL arguments, don't you think
that after more than 2 years, someone with finances or connections and an
anti-GPL agenda like Microsoft, SCO, or an attention-seeking
journalist/controversialist/lawyer would have jumped on it? But no one did.
It's been ignored. So it's really, really unlikely this paper provides
credible support to your usual agenda.
From my skim, I saw various points suggesting that the method of linking
(dynamic vs. static), or the mixing of outputs, or hyperlinking have no
effect on whether or not something is a derived work. The author is
probably right, and this just supports what FSF has been saying for years.
FSF's position, IIRC, IANAL, is that being a derived work is something that
is decided based on the author's actions and intentions at the time of
writing the software - not at the later times of someone running or linking
the software.
If I've missed something meaningful in the paper, could you quote it here?
Thanks.
Alexander Terekhov
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> > Now read
> >
> > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
>
> I just skimmed it.
>
> I didn't find what the author is trying to prove, but I know that most of
> your mails about the GPL are claims that it isn't enforceable or doesn't
> work how FSF say it works. One simple piece of data that weakens your
> position is the paper's date: April 2006.
>
> If this paper gave any support to your anti-GPL arguments, don't you think
> that after more than 2 years, someone with finances or connections and an
> anti-GPL agenda like Microsoft, SCO, or an attention-seeking
> journalist/controversialist/lawyer would have jumped on it? But no one did.
> It's been ignored. So it's really, really unlikely this paper provides
> credible support to your usual agenda.
>
> From my skim, I saw various points suggesting that the method of linking
> (dynamic vs. static), or the mixing of outputs, or hyperlinking have no
> effect on whether or not something is a derived work. The author is
> probably right, and this just supports what FSF has been saying for years.
> FSF's position, IIRC, IANAL, is that being a derived work is something that
> is decided based on the author's actions and intentions at the time of
> writing the software - not at the later times of someone running or linking
> the software.
FSF's position is that "This is a legal question, which ultimately
judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on
the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within
a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication
(what kinds of information are interchanged)." It's up to the FSF/SFLC
to proof their belief. Thus far, all that we've seen is just a bunch of
moronic complaints warranting automatic dismissal AND which were
dismissed automatically by the SFLC.
>
> If I've missed something meaningful in the paper, could you quote it here?
The paper explains why FSF's belief regarding derivative works has no
basis in law.
Here's a message from another lawyer Larry Rosen as of Tue, 15 Jul 2008.
http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:15888:200807
------
> > [LR:] Why should anyone want to discourage linking with non-GPL code?
> > What does FSF's preference have to do with anything?
David Woolley responded:
> For a start the FSF's preference is relevant because they are an example
> of someone who wants to discourage the use of their code in programs
> which are not "free" by their definitions. Basically it's about not
> benefitting from the library unless you allow people to benefit from
> your program in the same way.
This is about "License Discuss", not "Wishes Discuss". And so perhaps
David's question could be something like this: "Does the license
accomplish
what the licensor wishes?"
John Cowan is correct in his earlier proposed answer to my first
question:
> Because some open-source contributors are generous sharers rather than
> generous givers, and are willing to let you make use of their source code
> only if you are willing to let them make use of yours.
John, I believe you are paraphrasing something I wrote years ago, so
obviously I agree. :-) But perhaps modern courts will interpret the law
and
the license a little differently so that they don't precisely reflect
the
same vision of shared generosity that seems to drive some GPL licensors.
For example, the GPL and similar licenses may be interpreted under
copyright
law so that they don't call something a derivative work simply because
it
links for functional purposes to non-GPL code. This interpretation might
make the licensor's wishes about linking incompatible with the law.
Depending perhaps upon the wording and contractual effect of the
licenses,
of course, but depending mostly upon copyright law, non-GPL code won't
have
to be "shared" just because it links to independent GPL-licensed works,
despite the wishes of the GPL licensor. Or so I am willing to argue
here.
/Larry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Woolley [mailto:for...@david-woolley.me.uk]
> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 11:53 PM
> To: License Discuss
> Subject: Re: distributing GPL libreries
>
> Lawrence Rosen wrote:
>
> > [LR:] Why should anyone want to discourage linking with non-GPL code?
> What
> > does FSF's preference have to do with anything?
> >
>
> For a start the FSF's preference is relevant because they are an example
> of someone who wants to discourage the use of their code in programs
> which are not "free" by their definitions. Basically it's about not
> benefitting from the library unless you allow people to benefit from
> your program in the same way.
>
> --
> David Woolley
> Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
> RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
> that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.
------
Hyman Rosen
> It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief. Thus far, all that
> we've seen is just a bunch of moronic complaints warranting automatic
> dismissal AND which were dismissed automatically by the SFLC.
The plaintiffs have to prove their beliefs only to the extent that
the defendants challenge them. Thus far, after the cases end, the
source code for the GPLed software has been made available.
Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief. Thus far, all that
> > we've seen is just a bunch of moronic complaints warranting automatic
> > dismissal AND which were dismissed automatically by the SFLC.
>
> The plaintiffs have to prove their beliefs only to the extent that
> the defendants challenge them. Thus far, after the cases end, the
Man oh man. According to Hyman if I sue him and shortly dismiss the
complaint prior to ANY response from him on court record (not to mention
lack of anything other than dismissal order from the judge) then I'm
surely has proven all allegations and his liability. What are you
smoking Hyman?
> source code for the GPLed software has been made available.
How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available "as
required" Hyman?
Note that Verizon makes GPLed binaries available on its own website.
http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner/2008/06/verizon-ceo-doesnt-know-about.html
Hyman Rosen
> It's up to the FSF/SFLC to proof their belief.
>
>> The plaintiffs have to prove their beliefs only to the extent that
>> the defendants challenge them.
>
No. You claim that the SFLC has to prove their claims. I said that
they just have to prove whatever they are challenged on. Anything
else is neither proved nor disproved. So far the SFLC has settled
its cases, so there has been no opportunity for the issues in their
cases to be decided by a court. The goal of the suits is to enforce
the source availability of programs distributed under the GPL, and
so far it is the case that after each lawsuit has ended, the source
code has become available from the distributors.
> How come that Verizon still doesn't make GPLed software available
> "as required" Hyman?
Even in the Verizon case, on the page to which you always point,
<http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp>, the actual
URL for the firmware download is
<http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt>.
Note the "actiontec gateway" part of the URL - it's quite possible
that this link is getting software directly from Actiontec without
Verizon doing the distribution itself. In any case, I expect that
given that the source is available from the manufacturer, it's not
a good idea to try to pick a fight with Verizon - that's too fine a
detail to have to prove. However, as I've shown before, Actiontec
itself was not in compliance for most of 2007, at least through late
August, so it's false to leave the impression as you often try to do
that the suit was only about Verizon while Actiontec was in compliance
the whole time.
Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> Even in the Verizon case, on the page to which you always point,
> <http://www2.verizon.net/micro/actiontec/actiontec.asp>, the actual
> URL for the firmware download is
> <http://download.verizon.net/webdownload/firmware/upgrades/actiontec%20gateway/4.0.16.1.56.0.10.7-MI424WR.rmt>.
> Note the "actiontec gateway" part of the URL - it's quite possible
> that this link is getting software directly from Actiontec without
> Verizon doing the distribution itself. In any case, I expect that
What are you talking about Hyman? There's no redirection involved with
that URL. It yield binary file directly from download.verizon.net host.
Hyman Rosen
> What are you talking about Hyman? There's no redirection involved with
> that URL. It yield binary file directly from download.verizon.net host.
It's a URL. You don't know what Verizon's web server does with it.
Tim Smith
> is decided based on the author's actions and intentions at the time of
> writing the software - not at the later times of someone running or linking
> the software.
If by "derived work" they really mean "derivative work", then the case
law is pretty much directly opposed to the FSF's opinions. And there is
a LOT of case law in this area, because in the world of commercial
software, this fact pattern arises any time some third party makes an
add-on for a closed system without permission of the vendor of the
closed system.
--
--Tim Smith
JohnF
> Ciaran O'Riordan <cia...@fsfe.org> wrote:
>> Encouraging contributions isn't usually a motivation to switch to LGPL.
>> functionality in their application code (rather than in your library)
>> and will contribute as little as possible.
>>
>> A permissive licence (such as the LGPL) can be good if you want your
>> The LGPL can also be good if you think that your field will naturally be
>> dominated by a single software package and you think you might loose a
>> So unless you find yourself in either of those rare situations, then it's
>> probably best to stay with the GPL.
>>
>> You've probably read this, but just in case:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html
>> Hope that helps.
>
> Thanks, Ciaran, for the discussion and very useful information.
> It indeed helps, and pretty much coincides with (and clarifies)
> my original thinking -- not much reason (for me) to use the lgpl.
> I hadn't seen why-not-lgpl.html before, but have read it now.
> And I've replied to the email lgpl request, informing him
> that mimetex will remain gpl'ed.
Thanks again, Ciaran, and everyone else. I'm now in a more
ambiguous situation where someone else (see email below) wants to
distribute a compiled/binary image of my program along with his
free-but-not-open-source program. My only concern is that he
not make a profit without also making some sort of commensurate
contribution to the open source community. Here's the email
I need to reply to (hoping the breach of netiquette is
mitigated by the public purpose)...
"I am developing PocketCAS, a free Computer Algebra System for Windows
Mobile devices. For this purpose, I have compiled MimeTeX for Windows
Mobile, using cegcc (http://cegcc.sf.net). PocketCAS uses the output
of xcas (http://www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~parisse/giac.html) and
then sends it to MimeTeX to get beautiful TeX graphics. I would like
to distribute the precompiled MimeTeX executable alongside PocketCAS
with a combined installer. PocketCAS will be free of charge for
non-commercial use, but I won't release my source code under the GPL.
"I hereby ask for your permission to distribute MimeTeX in the way
specified and I would like to ask you under which version of the GPL
MimeTeX is released, so that I can provide the correct version of the
GPL alongside MimeTeX. Best Regards
Daniel Alm <Danie...@ForumD.net>
I'm inclined to say, "Go ahead and distribute a binary image of mimetex
along with your PocketCAS." Is there any open-source-related reason
(or any other reason) I shouldn't say that? Should I maybe instead
say something like, "Permission is granted to distribute mimetex with
free versions of PocketCAS, but not with commercial versions."?
I couldn't google any info about pocketcas or about this daniel alm
(there's an artist with the same name). What kind of issues are
involved in these kinds of situations? Do people more often say "yes"
or "no", or is it too complicated for a standard reply? Thanks,
Ciaran O'Riordan
Hi John,
These cases are never black and white, and I don't know PocketCAS or
MimeTex, so I can't give any advice on this situation, but here are some
general ramblings anyway...
If PocketCAS is written to specifically work with MimeTex, then PocketCAS
might be a "derived work" which would mean he needs your permission to
distribute PocketCAS. Because your software is GPL'd, "needing your
permission" means he can either (a) distributing his software under the GPL
or a GPL compatible licence such as the LGPL or Revised BSD or (b) ask you
for an exception.
If PocketCAS only performs simple data exchange with MimeTex, such that
other applications could be substituted for MimeTex, then it's likely that
PocketCAS is not a derived work and so it does not need a GPL compatible
licence.
> I'm inclined to say, "Go ahead and distribute a binary image of mimetex
> along with your PocketCAS." Is there any open-source-related reason
> (or any other reason) I shouldn't say that?
One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute MimeTex's source
with the binary (or an offer to send people the source on request).
About his request for clarification of which version of GPL MimeTex is
under. It's a good idea to answer that request anyway. Version 3 is the
current version, and here's an explanation of the improvements in it:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
> Should I maybe instead
> say something like, "Permission is granted to distribute mimetex with
> free versions of PocketCAS, but not with commercial versions."?
That probably isn't a good idea.
You could only make such a demand *if* he does need your permission to
distribute PocketCAS (i.e. if PocketCAS is a derived work of MimeTex). And
if that was the case, it would be better to inform him that he has to
distribute his software under the GPL. Granting exceptions lessens the
incentive for any related project to release their software as free
software.
As for the general request, if this developer is not helping you in any way,
and since he's not helping society in anyway, I don't see the incentive to
give him the explicit permission he's asking for.
Getting a definitive answer would take time/work and might need a lawyer.
(And you would need a copy of PocketCAS so that you could see how it
interacts with MimeTex.) And since he's the benefactor, this work/cost
should be his.
So in general I'd recommend against granting such exceptions, but without
the details, I can't give real advice, and it's your decision anyway. At
the very least, I'd ask that every place that says "Copyright PocketCAS",
should also say "MimeTex is copyright John Forkosh can be redistributed as
free software under the GNU GPL v3" (assuming v3 is the version you're
using). This is to avoid the situation where users either don't know that
it's MimeTex (not PocketCAS) that is producing the high quality output, or
without knowing that they can get the source, modify, contribute, and
redistribute MimeTex.
Alexander Terekhov
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
[...]
> If PocketCAS is written to specifically work with MimeTex, then PocketCAS
In the GNU Republic (hilarious brain free zone with "system library"
exceptions, etc.) it surely "might be a derived work."
To JohnF:
Read
http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
Ciaran O'Riordan
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
...and still none of the trolls can say why this paper is ignored by
companies who could gain millions if they could invalidate the GPL.
Even being able to make a credible insinuation that GNU/Linux has copyright
problems is worth millions to some companies (as proven by the tens of
millions of dollars paid to SCO), and those companies still ignore this
paper after more than two years. It must be completely meritless.
Alexander Terekhov
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> > http://www.usfca.edu/law/determann/softwarecombinations060403.pdf
>
> ...and still none of the trolls can say why this paper is ignored by
> companies who could gain millions if they could invalidate the GPL.
What are you blabbering about GNUtian ciaran? Companies are ignoring the
GPL left and right altogether. This is straight from the mouth of the
GNU monk Harald Welte: "We currently have 185 open tickets (i.e.
reported GPL violations) at gpl-violations.org". See also
<http://busybox.net/shame.html>. LOL.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> Companies are ignoring the
> GPL left and right altogether.
None of them are using that paper to claim that their actions are ok, so
this new point doesn't prove your old point.
The current level of violations is only overwhelming the GPL enforcers only
because the number of GPL enforcers is, approximately, three. That was one
a few years ago, and it'll be ten in a few year's time. The problem's rate
of growth is under control.
If violators thought the GPL wasn't valid, they would violate it flagrantly.
But they don't. They violate it quietly, either because they don't know or
because they're hoping no one will see their violation. Again, a glance at
reality shows your theories can't be true. Back to the drawing board, Alex.
Hyman Rosen
> Companies are ignoring the GPL left and right altogether.
There is a qualitative difference between ignoring the GPL
out of laziness, stupidity, or error and actively deciding
that the GPL does not apply in some circumstance and then
distributing without obeying its constraints.
All the enforcement activities so far have targeted the
former sort, which is why the cases result in settlements
where they make the GPLed sources available without putting
up any resistance.
I'm not aware of any instances of the latter. Are you?
Alexander Terekhov
Hyman Rosen wrote:
[...]
> All the enforcement activities so far have targeted the
> former sort, which is why the cases result in settlements
> where they make the GPLed sources available without putting
> up any resistance.
>
> I'm not aware of any instances of the latter. Are you?
I'm aware of Bruce Perens' comical public threats against NVidia saying
that "given an opportunity" Eben Moglen would go after them and enforce
GNUtian theory of "derived work" (regarding closed source kernel
modules). I'm still awaiting such an enforcement. Stop shifting the
burden of proof you idiots.
http://www.fsf.org/photos/rms-sign.jpg
Alexander Terekhov
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> > Companies are ignoring the
> > GPL left and right altogether.
>
> None of them are using that paper to claim that their actions are ok, so
> this new point doesn't prove your old point.
Man oh man.
Read the paper, idiot.
Hyman Rosen
> (regarding closed source kernel modules)
> I'm still awaiting such an enforcement.
That's unlikely to happen with respect to Linux since
its main copyright holder doesn't object to them.
Alexander Terekhov
Linus Torvalds is playing on both sides of the fence.
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
Hyman Rosen
> Linus Torvalds is playing on both sides of the fence.
> http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/rgooch/linux/docs/licensing.txt
If I were to bet, I would say that works designed to
link with existing computer programs are not going to
be considered derivative works of those programs by a
court.
JohnF
> These cases are never black and white, and I don't know PocketCAS or
> MimeTex, so I can't give any advice on this situation, but here are some
> general ramblings anyway...
Hi Ciaran,
Sure. Some general ramblings are exactly what I was looking for.
And thanks again for your time and effort.
Fyi, as far as I can tell, what this guy (Daniel Alm) appears to
be thinking about is writing some glue code that ties together the
xcas/giac packages he cited with mimetex. And I think that should
be pretty trivial after he's figured out where to best place all the
hooks he'll need. But figuring that out might or might not be a pain
(just piping one program's output to another's input should be trivial).
I also can't tell whether Alm is serious about actually doing
something, or whether he's just talking. My (limited) experience
has been that serious people contact me after they've already written
at least something. But as far as I can tell, the only thing he's
done so far is email me.
> If PocketCAS is written to specifically work with MimeTex, then PocketCAS
> might be a "derived work" which would mean he needs your permission to
> distribute PocketCAS. Because your software is GPL'd, "needing your
> permission" means he can either (a) distributing his software under the GPL
> or a GPL compatible licence such as the LGPL or Revised BSD or (b) ask you
> for an exception.
>
> If PocketCAS only performs simple data exchange with MimeTex, such that
> other applications could be substituted for MimeTex, then it's likely that
> PocketCAS is not a derived work and so it does not need a GPL compatible
> licence.
I'm aware of these kinds of ambiguities (whether or not a specific
instance of using gpl'ed code remains compliant with the gpl), and
not at all competent to resolve them myself. My usual attitude
has been to answer such requests as though my specific permission
is actually needed (as though the intended use is not gpl compliant).
>> I'm inclined to say, "Go ahead and distribute a binary image of mimetex
>> along with your PocketCAS." Is there any open-source-related reason
>> (or any other reason) I shouldn't say that?
>
> One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute MimeTex's source
> with the binary (or an offer to send people the source on request).
I'd thought a link to its homepage (where the source can be downloaded)
satisfies that requirement.
> About his request for clarification of which version of GPL MimeTex is
> under. It's a good idea to answer that request anyway. Version 3 is the
> current version, and here's an explanation of the improvements in it:
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html
The earliest gpl'ed version was released in 2002 under gplv2.
The last significant change was in 2006, still under gplv2.
If a non-trivial opportunity presents itself, I'll release
it under gplv3.
>> Should I maybe instead
>> say something like, "Permission is granted to distribute mimetex with
>> free versions of PocketCAS, but not with commercial versions."?
>
> That probably isn't a good idea.
>
> You could only make such a demand *if* he does need your permission to
> distribute PocketCAS (i.e. if PocketCAS is a derived work of MimeTex). And
> if that was the case, it would be better to inform him that he has to
> distribute his software under the GPL. Granting exceptions lessens the
> incentive for any related project to release their software as free
> software.
>
> As for the general request, if this developer is not helping you in any way,
> and since he's not helping society in any way, I don't see the incentive to
> give him the explicit permission he's asking for.
The free-of-charge version of his program helps society (assuming it's
useful in the first place), though it doesn't help me (beyond just using
it for free if it's useful). At least, that's what I was thinking.
If that's wrong, then you're right that I have zero incentive.
Now, I'd guess his principal incentive is the not-free-of-charge,
commercial version, that I'm not granting permission for. So maybe
he now has zero incentive, too. On the other hand, he might just go
ahead with the free version, and maybe eventually even gpl it.
> Getting a definitive answer would take time/work and might need a lawyer.
> (And you would need a copy of PocketCAS so that you could see how it
> interacts with MimeTex.) And since he's the benefactor, this work/cost
> should be his.
Yeah, that's pretty much my major gpl gripe. People keep emailing me
whether such-and-such a use is permitted. My typical, and most recent
answer takes the form (excerpted from a recent email)...
The "not quite clear-cut" (your words) aspects of your plans,
which you describe below, are your responsibility to determine.
What you're asking me to do is to legally interpret the gpl for you.
But I'm not an expert on that. Perhaps you think it's strange
that someone (me) would release a program under a license they
don't completely understand. But that's not uncommon with the gpl,
where people have trusted the fsf to devise a license that
reflects the spirit of the open source community.
So, as noted above, I've cc'ed the gpl compliance experts for you.
I'll leave it to you and them, and any other gpl experts you care to
consult, what you must do to make your commercial programs gpl compliant.
If you choose to do that, then you're licensed to incorporate mimetex
(and, for that matter, any other gpl'ed code). If you choose not to do
that, then you're not legally licensed to incorporate any gpl'ed code.
That's one big pain. I wish the fsf would think about some effective
way for gpl authors to avoid these kinds of emails. As noted, I just
cc compl...@fsf.org, and hope the emailer will go away. It's not
an issue I want to deal with or am competent to deal with. But using
the gpl invites exactly these kinds of issues.
> So in general I'd recommend against granting such exceptions, but without
> the details, I can't give real advice, and it's your decision anyway. At
> the very least, I'd ask that every place that says "Copyright PocketCAS",
> should also say "MimeTex is copyright John Forkosh can be redistributed as
> free software under the GNU GPL v3" (assuming v3 is the version you're
> using). This is to avoid the situation where users either don't know that
> it's MimeTex (not PocketCAS) that is producing the high quality output, or
> without knowing that they can get the source, modify, contribute, and
> redistribute MimeTex.
Sounds good. And thanks yet again, Ciaran, for your time and effort,
Ciaran O'Riordan
Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> Read the paper, [...]
I did. It's drivel. Next.
[Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it deserved.]
Tim Smith
Ciaran O'Riordan <cia...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
> > Read the paper, [...]
>
> I did. It's drivel. Next.
>
> [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it
> deserved.]
Can you give any specific criticism?
--
--Tim Smith
Hyman Rosen
> I did. It's drivel. Next.
> [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that
> a skim is all it deserved.]
Mostly, it says that if someone wants to fight the restrictions
of the GPL while continuing to distribute software containing
code licensed by it, there are a number of ways to do so, and
it's going to take a court to sort it all out and it could go
either way. It mentions the first-sale workaround too.
I don't see why it would be considered "drivel". I expect that
the GPL would fare pretty well in court these days, because on
its side it has the enormous success of Linux and the various
vendors who are happily distributing GPLed code and making money,
but you never know.
Tim Smith
Hyman Rosen <hyr...@mail.com> wrote:
> Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> > I did. It's drivel. Next.
> > [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that
> > a skim is all it deserved.]
...
> I don't see why it would be considered "drivel". I expect that
O'Riordan says he skimmed it. The only way anyone can skim a paper of
this nature and get any meaningful understanding of it is if they are an
expert in copyright law. O'Riordan is not an expert in copyright law.
As is typical in legal writing, nearly everything important in the paper
is backed with cites. To determine that a paper is "drivel", you have
to chase down the cites.
> the GPL would fare pretty well in court these days, because on
> its side it has the enormous success of Linux and the various
> vendors who are happily distributing GPLed code and making money,
> but you never know.
What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different
pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the
derivative work preparation right?
--
--Tim Smith
JohnF
> JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
> > > One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
> > > MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
> > > the source on request).
> >
> > downloaded) satisfies that requirement.
>
>
> > The free-of-charge version of his program helps society
> > (assuming it's useful in the first place)
>
> against truly free applictions that are trying to do the same thing.
Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
"let the best program win." If the commercial application is
truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
inspire an open source "knock off." If that doesn't happen,
then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
(dollar price as well as closed source price).
> As I see it, zero-cost copies of MS Word can help with a technical job
> in the short term, but the lack of freedom eventually leads to software
> lock-in and a single vendor having control of your computing.
As above. And OpenOffice.org is slowly becoming a viable open source
"knock off" alternative. So, at least in this particular case, I'd
say my "glass half full" interpretation is warranted.
> The ideal is for people to have both functionality and freedom, but a
> non-free application is a dead-end when trying to reach that ideal. If
> computer users choose software with good freedom but low functionality,
> they can add the functionality themselves (or if many people want that
> functionality, they can wait and maybe someone else will add it). If they
> choose software which has functionality but lacks freedom, they're in a
> dead-end because it's unlikely the vendor will later make it free
> software, so they'll never get to the ideal of having both functionality
> and freedom.
As above, that "dead-end" might or might not happen, depending
on whether or not open source alternatives eventually appear.
In any case, I can't see condemning commercial applications
just because they're closed source and/or non-free.
That decision is legitimately made by the copyright holder.
Of course, I do condemn big companies, like, sometimes, MicroSoft,
when they try to dominate the market by choking competition rather
than by developing superior applications. That's a whole different
story.
> > Yeah, that's pretty much my major gpl gripe. People keep emailing me
> > whether such-and-such a use is permitted.
> [...]
> > That's one big pain. I wish the fsf would think about some effective
> > way for gpl authors to avoid these kinds of emails.
>
> Unfortunately, the GPL has to obey copyright law, and copyright law is a
> mess. Even if you got a definitive answer in one country, a judge in
> another country could decide the opposite.
>
> When a developer sees some nice GPL'd software, the two surest things the
> developer can do to avoid uncertainty are:
> 1. Ignore that software
> 2. GPL their software too
>
> Uncertainty only appears when a developer decides he wants to benefit from
> the GPL'd software without contributing back (or contributing as minimally
> as they can get away with).
Yeah, I don't suppose I really expected an easy solution.
For example, here's part of an email I got in April, 2007...
From: Bob Bilyk <bob....@lodeStarLearning.com>
I am the director of Cyber Village Academy (an elementary school)
and of a small educational software company called LodeStar
Learning. In support of the elementary school, which started off as
an online school that provided help to chronically and seriously ill
children, I co-founded a second company that produced software that
made it easier for teachers to develop eLearning activities.
The software is called lodeStar, and its presently used in quite a
number of schools. We do charge a fee for the software ($149) and we
are a for-profit company; however, all of our earnings have been
dedicated to building new templates for teachers and keeping up with
the rapid changes in standards (i.e. SCORM 2004, etc.).
As you know, formatting and rendering mathematical formulae in
eLearning activities that work across platforms and multiple learning
management systems to diverse student populations has always been a
challenge. I was happy to come across mimeTeX. I built an interface
module to the mimeTeX compiler and integrated it with our product
just to see if I could make the user interface easy enough for school
teachers to use. I think I've accomplished that.
The writer goes on to request permission to distribute mimetex outside
the gpl. What the heck am I supposed to do in a case like this?
After several emails, and some help from compl...@fsf.org,
I eventually told him, "okay." But it would be really nice to
have a more straightforward procedure for dealing with these kinds
of situations, especially a procedure that leaves me out of the loop.
> > My typical, and most recent
> > answer takes the form (excerpted from a recent email)...
>
> That's a good answer.
>
> Some optional advice you could add would be: "You could avoid these
> licence compatibility issues altogether by also using the GNU GPL."
>
> The person you email might not know why releasing software as free software
> is a good thing to do, so maybe it would also be a good idea to add a link
> to a good explanation. Here's one I like:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
>
> > Sounds good. And thanks yet again, Ciaran, for your time and effort,
>
> No problem. It's an interesting situation, and I'll probably generalise
> and reuse what I've written as a blog entry in the next few days.
David Kastrup
> On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Ciaran O'Riordan <cia...@fsfe.org> wrote:
>> JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>> > > One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
>> > > MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
>> > > the source on request).
>> >
>> > I'd thought a link to its homepage (where the source can be
>> > downloaded) satisfies that requirement.
>>
>> Yes, I think so too.
>>
>> > The free-of-charge version of his program helps society
>> > (assuming it's useful in the first place)
>>
>> In the short term, in technical ways, maybe, but it will also compete
>> against truly free applictions that are trying to do the same thing.
>
> Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
> "let the best program win." If the commercial application is
> truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
> inspire an open source "knock off." If that doesn't happen,
> then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
> to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
> (dollar price as well as closed source price).
If people thought like you, child labor and slavery would be the
dominant ways of producing goods even now. You not only mandate to let
the market decide about good or bad, but you also request that one
should not talk about morals or responsibility.
The market will always decide against morality when left to its own
devices. 90% of the buyers are apathetic to the origin of their goods.
You have to raise awareness to a level that regulation sets in,
regulation that actually overrides that what most people would do on
their own.
Changing perception is an important first step for change to happen. It
is not tantamount to changing behavior, but behavior does not change all
on its own.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Hyman Rosen
> What does the success of Linux have to do with whether using different
> pieces of software in combination in various ways involves the
> derivative work preparation right?
There's not much precedent for this question for software,
as far as I know, so if someone demonstrates to a court that
the straightforward meaning of the license has generally been
accepted by industry, the court might just go along and allow
it. Note that even organizations who might be considered as
being opposed to the principles of the GPL, such as Microsoft,
act as if its provisions are valid. They are careful to make
sure that the software they license does not fall under the
GPL, rather than arguing that the GPL does not work.
John Forkosh
> John Forkosh <jo...@forkosh.com> writes:
>>> One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
>>> MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
>>> the source on request).
>>
>> I'd thought a link to its homepage (where the source can be
>> downloaded) satisfies that requirement.
>
> Yes, I think so too.
>
>> The free-of-charge version of his program helps society
>> (assuming it's useful in the first place)
>
> In the short term, in technical ways, maybe, but it will also compete
> against truly free applictions that are trying to do the same thing.
Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
"let the best program win." If the commercial application is
truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
inspire an open source "knock off." If that doesn't happen,
then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
(dollar price as well as closed source price).
> As I see it, zero-cost copies of MS Word can help with a technical job in
But here's part of an email I got in April, 2007...
From: Bob Bilyk <bob....@lodeStarLearning.com>
I am the director of Cyber Village Academy (an elementary school)
and of a small educational software company called LodeStar
Learning. In support of the elementary school, which started off as
an online school that provided help to chronically and seriously ill
children, I co-founded a second company that produced software that
made it easier for teachers to develop eLearning activities.
The software is called lodeStar, and its presently used in quite a
number of schools. We do charge a fee for the software ($149) and we
are a for-profit company; however, all of our earnings have been
dedicated to building new templates for teachers and keeping up with
the rapid changes in standards (i.e. SCORM 2004, etc.).
As you know, formatting and rendering mathematical formulae in
eLearning activities that work across platforms and multiple learning
management systems to diverse student populations has always been a
challenge. I was happy to come across mimeTeX. I built an interface
module to the mimeTeX compiler and integrated it with our product
just to see if I could make the user interface easy enough for school
teachers to use. I think I've accomplished that.
He goes on to request permission to distribute mimetex outside
Tim Smith
Plaintiff sues Defendant. P alleges copyright violation, not GPL
violation. If D's defense was "yes, we did something that requires
permission of the copyright holder, but P gave us permission via the GPL
and we obeyed the GPL" then yes, maybe the success of Linux and other
GPL projects might influence the court in deciding what the GPL means,
so as to decide if D did indeed obey the GPL.
However, I believe the case we are talking about here is when D answers
the copyright violation allegation with "we aren't doing anything that
requires permission of the copyright holder".
For example, if I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do*
*not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not
have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that
requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners, and I do not believe
users of my plugin have to do anything when using the plugin with GIMP
that they require permission for (so I don't have to worry about
contributory infringement, since there cannot be contributory
infringement without direct infringement). I've not heard any good
argument from the FSF as to why the video game cases would not apply.
BTW, I would take exactly the same approach if making an unauthorized
plug-in or extension for a commercial proprietary program. I would
attempt as far as possible to write my code so as to not be a derivative
work of anything copyrightable I don't own or have *clear* permission to
use.
--
--Tim Smith
rjack
> For example, if I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do*
> *not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not
> have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that
> requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners, and I do not believe
> users of my plugin have to do anything when using the plugin with GIMP
> that they require permission for (so I don't have to worry about
> contributory infringement, since there cannot be contributory
> infringement without direct infringement). I've not heard any good
> argument from the FSF as to why the video game cases would not apply.
Uhhh...
Anyone who has consumed even a few ounces of Eben Moglen's famous Kool-Aid
knows that writing a plugin for a GPL'd program instantly gives the F.S.F. and
S.F.L.C. control over your wife, kids, estate, family dog *and* your source code.
Even the mention of "copyright infringement" by the S.F.L.C sends potential
defendants into paroxysms of incredulous cowardice and supplication.
Beware the GPL or it'll get you too!
Sincerely,
Rjack
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or
the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
-- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre
Trials,' December 1770
Ciaran O'Riordan
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>> [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it
>> deserved.]
>
> Can you give any specific criticism?
The meritlessness of that paper, at least insofar as it could create
problems for GPL enforcers, has been proven by the zero reaction of the rich
companies with big legal teams who stand to gain from creating such
problems. So since there's no useful application for an analyses of why it
is wrong, I won't spend time doing that.
Tim Smith
Ciaran O'Riordan <cia...@fsfe.org> wrote:
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> writes:
> >> [Well, I skimmed it, but it was quickly obvious that a skim is all it
> >> deserved.]
> >
> > Can you give any specific criticism?
>
> The meritlessness of that paper, at least insofar as it could create
> problems for GPL enforcers, has been proven by the zero reaction of the rich
> companies with big legal teams who stand to gain from creating such
> problems. So since there's no useful application for an analyses of why it
> is wrong, I won't spend time doing that.
Your skimming skills evidently suck, since you have completely failed to
grasp the situations the paper is analyzing.
--
--Tim Smith
Hyman Rosen
> I want to release a proprietary plug-in for GIMP, I *do*
> *not* *care* what GPL says about that, because I believe that I do not
> have to do anything in developing or distributing that plugin that
> requires permission of the GIMP copyright owners
I agree with you.
JohnF
> JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>> Ciaran O'Riordan <cia...@fsfe.org> wrote:
>>> JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>>> > > One thing that's for sure is that he'll have to distribute
>>> > > MimeTex's source with the binary (or an offer to send people
>>> > > the source on request).
>>> >
>>> > I'd thought a link to its homepage (where the source can be
>>> > downloaded) satisfies that requirement.
>>>
>>> Yes, I think so too.
>>>
>>> > The free-of-charge version of his program helps society
>>> > (assuming it's useful in the first place)
>>>
>>> In the short term, in technical ways, maybe, but it will also compete
>>> against truly free applictions that are trying to do the same thing.
>>
>> Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
>> "let the best program win." If the commercial application is
>> truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
>> inspire an open source "knock off." If that doesn't happen,
>> then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
>> to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
>> (dollar price as well as closed source price).
>
> If people thought like you, child labor and slavery would be the
> dominant ways of producing goods even now. You not only mandate to let
> the market decide about good or bad, but you also request that one
> should not talk about morals or responsibility.
You have GOT to be kidding me, right??? What kind of utterly
specious argument is that supposed to be? For one thing, child
labor typically manufactures the cheaper product to compete
with the more expensive one, so you're applying the analogy
backwards. More importantly, you seem willing to speciously
inject political correctness into the discussion, apparently
trying to appeal to emotions rather than reason. That'll almost
always backfire on you as follows...
There are four kinds of people: (a)those who already agree
with you, (b)those who already disagree with you, (c)those whose
minds are not made up, and (d)the vast majority of humanity that
couldn't care less. (d)-people aren't reading any of this.
(a)'s and (b)'s minds are already made up, so your argument
(specious or otherwise) won't affect them. That leaves (c),
who are the only people your words can affect. Now, they don't
share your one-track, polarized viewpoint, so most of them
will immediately see through the kind of thinly-veiled
political correctness indoctrination you're trying to pull over
on them. And they'll conclude that you have no rational argument,
because if you had one you'd use it. That is, since you're
trying to appeal to emotion rather than reason, you probably
have no reasonable argument to begin with. So, they'll just end up
inferring that your viewpoint is probably the wrong one. Thus, even
if you're right, a silly argument will convince undecided people
that you're wrong.
> The market will always decide against morality when left to its own
> devices. 90% of the buyers are apathetic to the origin of their goods.
> You have to raise awareness to a level that regulation sets in,
> regulation that actually overrides that what most people would do on
> their own.
>
> Changing perception is an important first step for change to happen. It
> is not tantamount to changing behavior, but behavior does not change all
> on its own.
Making money isn't immoral in itself. If you're implying that
it is (I can't tell for sure what, if anything, you're saying),
then that's just hypocritical. From your own words at
http://www.tug.org/interviews/interview-files/david-kastrup.html
we have
"...for the last few years I tried working on TeX-related tasks
self-employed, but this will have to change soon since it does
not pay the bills -- partly because of the expectation of people
that free software should be written for free..."
Right. Everyone has bills to pay, children to feed and put through
school, etc. If some people want to write software and then sell
it, that's their right to choose how to distribute their own
creations. If you don't like it, you can ignore those people.
But you've further taken it upon yourself to tell the rest
of the world to ignore those people, too. Perhaps the rest of the
world would prefer to make up their own minds for themselves.
In my experience, few people like morality preached at them,
especially with specious arguments, and especially by people
who (as quoted above) don't completely believe what they're saying.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>> JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Hadn't thought of that. But, on second thought now, I'd say,
>>> "let the best program win." If the commercial application is
>>> truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
>>> inspire an open source "knock off." If that doesn't happen,
>>> then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
>>> to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
>>> (dollar price as well as closed source price).
>>
>> If people thought like you, child labor and slavery would be the
>> dominant ways of producing goods even now. You not only mandate to
>> let the market decide about good or bad, but you also request that
>> one should not talk about morals or responsibility.
>
> You have GOT to be kidding me, right??? What kind of utterly
> specious argument is that supposed to be? For one thing, child
> labor typically manufactures the cheaper product to compete
> with the more expensive one, so you're applying the analogy
> backwards.
You are quite focused about price. Free software is not about price.
In fact, it is usually more expensive to contract free software since
the software author is restricting his opportunity of selling his
products more than once.
But free software never was about price. It was about freedom to use,
distribute, modify and study.
> More importantly, you seem willing to speciously inject political
> correctness into the discussion, apparently trying to appeal to
> emotions rather than reason.
I am willing to not to evade politics when talking about political
terms. The idea "may the best software win" puts the cart before the
horse. The GNU project started with the aim to produce a reasonable
free operating system sufficiently close to the UNIX specs describing
existing systems. By _necessity_, _every_ free software component
started out technically _inferior_ to the proprietary offerings.
So your "may the best win" attitude would never have lead to any
software freedoms being available to any person, since there would have
been no incentive to use and improve free software.
Now it is sort of an obvious consequence that freedom benefits people
indiscriminately whether or not they can be bothered about it. Whereas
unfreedom benefits some people at the cost of others.
You are claiming that when considering only one's own benefits, the
right decisions for everybody will fall out. But that works only in
political systems or societies or at least thought models where there
are measures against shortcircuiting the common good for the gain of
single persons.
With regard to software freedom, political systems and societies work
against it. So that leaves the thought models and philosophical
imperatives.
And you want to have them blocked as well. Why should anybody create
free software in your opinion?
You feel fine using it, but what possible incentive do you leave for
people creating it?
Yes, this is a political question and a moral one. You can't toss them
out of the window when dealing with free software and how it comes
about.
Sorry for that. But not all too much.
>> The market will always decide against morality when left to its own
>> devices. 90% of the buyers are apathetic to the origin of their
>> goods. You have to raise awareness to a level that regulation sets
>> in, regulation that actually overrides that what most people would do
>> on their own.
>>
>> Changing perception is an important first step for change to happen.
>> It is not tantamount to changing behavior, but behavior does not
>> change all on its own.
>
> Making money isn't immoral in itself.
But it is no substitute for morals either.
> If you're implying that it is (I can't tell for sure what, if
> anything, you're saying), then that's just hypocritical. From your
> own words at
> http://www.tug.org/interviews/interview-files/david-kastrup.html we
> have "...for the last few years I tried working on TeX-related tasks
> self-employed, but this will have to change soon since it does not pay
> the bills -- partly because of the expectation of people that free
> software should be written for free..." Right.
No, those expectations are not right. And I am taking the liberty of
telling that to people. Freedom is not defined by being cheapest, and
it tends not to come cheap. So one has to teach people to value it.
> In my experience, few people like morality preached at them,
> especially with specious arguments, and especially by people who (as
> quoted above) don't completely believe what they're saying.
Huh? What makes you believe I don't believe what I am saying? I never
claimed that working for freedom was supposed to be an easy way in all
respects. Words are one way for working on it (and you want me to shut
up), deeds are another (and I certainly have created and helped create
quite a lot of free software, even spent years of my life exclusively on
it and am still dedicating what I can).
Are you of the type who only accepts the message "respect other's life"
from people who commit suicide rather that eat anything that once was
alive? Is that not a bit _too_ cheap?
Ciaran O'Riordan
It is, but people approach the ethical questions of labour and software from
different starting points.
Most people have thought about and discussed the ethical aspects of child
labour, and try to some degree to avoid it. Probably because paid labour is
over a thousand years old and the free labour movement's ideas about workers
deserving certain rights is already a few hundred years old. Society has a
philosophy about labour.
On the other hand, most people don't think about the ethical aspects of
software. Software is new, and the idea that software users deserve certain
rights is barely 25 years old and is still relatively unknown to
society-at-large.
If someone thinks that software developers should have no obligations
(i.e. there are no rights that users of the software deserve), then it's
most likely that they haven't heard the arguments. When they hear the
arguments, the still might not agree, but I think it's best to present the
arguments rather than replying with what sounds like an accusation of
ignoring ethics.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> writes:
>> Yes, this is a political question and a moral one.
>
> It is, but people approach the ethical questions of labour and
> software from different starting points.
>
> Most people have thought about and discussed the ethical aspects of
> child labour, and try to some degree to avoid it. Probably because
> paid labour is over a thousand years old and the free labour
> movement's ideas about workers deserving certain rights is already a
> few hundred years old. Society has a philosophy about labour.
>
> On the other hand, most people don't think about the ethical aspects
> of software. Software is new, and the idea that software users
> deserve certain rights is barely 25 years old and is still relatively
> unknown to society-at-large.
No, software is not new. Teaching children language, teaching them
songs, teaching them epics is the spread of software, of intangible
goods cast into tangible copies. The stone age paintings of animals on
walls are copies of an idea of shapes, and the startup screen of Emacs
displays a GNU image reminiscent of these early ideas.
It is a relatively new concept to make the dissemination of copies a
business of craftsman separated from that of artists. The printing
press, the phonograph are comparatively new developments that suddenly
created business opportunities able to thrive independently from the
artist himself. And that made artists and other creators prefer to put
a stop to dissemination by choosing not to divulge their works publicly.
So that the public may yet again receive software, namely creations of
thought living through thought, copyright laws were created, to give
creators an exclusive window of opportunity where the dissemination is
under their control and to their benefit. It is only in our times that
the corporate disseminators have yanked all the control from both
artists and the public and are using the laws created for joining
artists and the public to milk both for what they are worth.
So no, the concepts and ethics of software and knowledge sharing are not
new. They started together with culture. Only their perversion is
comparatively new.
Ciaran O'Riordan
JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
> "let the best program win." If the commercial application is
> truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
> inspire an open source "knock off."
It might, but it's predictable that the developer of the proprietary
application will try to make life as difficult as possible for any computer
users who want to migrate from the proprietary program to the free software
"knock off".
Even if the free software application ends up technically superior, society
will be stuck using the inferior proprietary application. Maybe because
their data will end up in some undisclosed format. Maybe because the
proprietary developer will patent some functionality and legally block the
free software developer from implementing an equal feature. Maybe they'll
use the DMCA, maybe DRM, ...
It also puts users in the position of wanting to use the software, but never
being able to see what it's actually doing. (This is in my mind because
Slashdot featured a story today about some company that's making software
for journalists to bypass China's Internet censorship - and I'm amazed
because I don't see the source code anywhere. How does anyone know what the
software is really doing? It could be from the Chinese government. Or if
this version really is good, the next version might not be, but no one can
check.)
> If that doesn't happen,
> then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
> to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
> (dollar price as well as closed source price).
> And OpenOffice.org is slowly becoming a viable open source
> "knock off" alternative.
I think it's been capable of doing what 99% of people want already for the
last few years, but people are stuck with MS word because MS have leveraged
the software to gain control over the software users' data.
To let the best program win, the users have to be in a free position to
choose between the available options. Among free software applications,
this is usually assured (or at least, it's guaranteed to be possible). When
software that resepects users rights has to compete against software that
tries to control users, the free market then fails to give people "the
best".
> That decision is legitimately made by the copyright holder.
Legally legitimate, yes, just as existing import laws make it possible for
me to go into certain shops in my developed country and buy the produce of
child labour. Whether either of these things are ethical is another
question altogether.
[snip: mail by company claiming to be helping schools]
> The writer goes on to request permission to distribute mimetex outside
> the gpl. What the heck am I supposed to do in a case like this?
That's a tough one alright.
Unfortunately, businesses are very good at selling petrol-guzzlers as "green
cars", or equally-addictive cigarettes as "light", or sugar bars as "health
food", or litigation companies as "innovation drivers", etc. etc. When
someone says they're helping schools, but refusing to let the schools see
what the software is doing or make copies, it's very difficult to discern
whether this is really a society-improving company or if they're just
another company trying to control a market and coldly using all available
communication means ("we're helping kids") at their disposal.
If the company were releasing their software as free software, it would be a
lot easier to believe that their work really is aimed at helping the schools
that use their software. By keeping the software proprietary, they're
probably making the school dependent on their company (maliciously or not),
so it's hard to judge this proprietary software company's true intentions.
> But it would be really nice to
> have a more straightforward procedure for dealing with these kinds
> of situations, especially a procedure that leaves me out of the loop.
Maybe it's easy for me to say, since I haven't been put in that position,
but one simple answer that leaves you out of the loop would be to tell them
that it's GPL'd, and that they can avoid all compatibility problems by
making their software GPL'd too.
To personalise it, in the helping-schoolkids example, you could also note
that by GPLing their software, they'd be allowing schools in Africa, South
East Asia, and other poor regions to benefit from their software.
JohnF
>> "let the best program win." If the commercial application is
>> truly better, maybe its superior functional specifications will
>> inspire an open source "knock off."
>
> It might, but it's predictable that the developer of the proprietary
> application will try to make life as difficult as possible for any computer
> users who want to migrate from the proprietary program to the free software
> "knock off".
>
> Even if the free software application ends up technically superior, society
> will be stuck using the inferior proprietary application. Maybe because
> their data will end up in some undisclosed format. Maybe because the
> proprietary developer will patent some functionality and legally block the
> free software developer from implementing an equal feature. Maybe they'll
> use the DMCA, maybe DRM, ...
I thought I'd already acknowledged that class of problems in a
preceding post in this thread (quoting myself) ...
"Of course, I do condemn big companies, like, sometimes, MicroSoft,
when they try to dominate the market by choking competition rather
than by developing superior applications. That's a whole different
story."
That was a general remark meant to cover all the specific tactics
(and, I'm sure, others I'm not even aware of) that you mentioned
above. Or maybe I'm missing some other issue you're addressing
and that's just going totally over my head.
> It also puts users in the position of wanting to use the software, but never
> being able to see what it's actually doing. (This is in my mind because
> Slashdot featured a story today about some company that's making software
> for journalists to bypass China's Internet censorship - and I'm amazed
> because I don't see the source code anywhere. How does anyone know what the
> software is really doing? It could be from the Chinese government. Or if
> this version really is good, the next version might not be, but no one can
> check.)
Well, we all use products whose manufacture, and often ingredients,
are "trade secrets", not revealed to the end user. If you don't
like that, then don't use the product. Or, if you feel that, to you,
the benefits of the product outweigh any negative aspects, then
go ahead and use it. Your choice.
>> If that doesn't happen,
>> then the superior commercial application has every ethical right
>> to dominate the market if users are willing to pay the price
>> (dollar price as well as closed source price).
>
>> And OpenOffice.org is slowly becoming a viable open source
>> "knock off" alternative.
>
> I think it's been capable of doing what 99% of people want already for the
> last few years, but people are stuck with MS word because MS have leveraged
> the software to gain control over the software users' data.
>
> To let the best program win, the users have to be in a free position to
> choose between the available options. Among free software applications,
> this is usually assured (or at least, it's guaranteed to be possible). When
> software that resepects users rights has to compete against software that
> tries to control users, the free market then fails to give people "the
> best".
I think we've already agreed (as per my self-quote above)
that certain tactics used to curtail competition are unfair,
including proprietary formats that intentionally hold user
data hostage.
I also think your additional argument, where we disgaree,
is that a program author who chooses not to release his source
code is also holding user data hostage. However, to my mind,
as long as the author doesn't patent/whatever any data formats
(which might prevent user data -- which I agree should be owned
by the user -- from being imported and used by other programs),
then there's no hostage situation. Other authors can write
new programs that reimplement the old format, or that import data
from the old format to some new format (or both).
>> That decision is legitimately made by the copyright holder.
>
> Legally legitimate, yes, just as existing import laws make it possible for
> me to go into certain shops in my developed country and buy the produce of
> child labour.
Let's please not drag that false "child labor" argument into
this any more. Granted, child labor is a problem, but if
that's what's on your mind, a gnu newsgroup isn't the place to
discuss it. Besides my previous remarks, children from countries
with child labor problems aren't typically well educated enough
to be writing software in a sweatshop. At worst, maybe children
are working in a paper mill producing the cardboard that copies
of Vista are packaged in.
> Whether these things are ethical is another question altogether.
Exactly.
> [snip: mail by company claiming to be helping schools]
>> The writer goes on to request permission to distribute mimetex outside
>> the gpl. What the heck am I supposed to do in a case like this?
>
> That's a tough one alright.
>
That's why I picked this guy to make an example of.
And, hey, in addition to "helping schools", don't forget
the additional emotional tug on your heartstrings that
he's helping "chronically and seriously ill children."
I did do a few google searches on this guy, and he indeed
seems to be involved in a school-related enterprise,
but I couldn't unambiguously determine whether he's
more interested in helping children or helping himself.
>
> Unfortunately, businesses are very good at selling petrol-guzzlers as "green
> cars", or equally-addictive cigarettes as "light", or sugar bars as "health
> food", or litigation companies as "innovation drivers", etc. etc. When
> someone says they're helping schools, but refusing to let the schools see
> what the software is doing or make copies, it's very difficult to discern
> whether this is really a society-improving company or if they're just
> another company trying to control a market and coldly using all available
> communication means ("we're helping kids") at their disposal.
>
> If the company were releasing their software as free software, it would be a
> lot easier to believe that their work really is aimed at helping the schools
> that use their software. By keeping the software proprietary, they're
> probably making the school dependent on their company (maliciously or not),
> so it's hard to judge this proprietary software company's true intentions.
>
>> But it would be really nice to
>> have a more straightforward procedure for dealing with these kinds
>> of situations, especially a procedure that leaves me out of the loop.
>
> Maybe it's easy for me to say, since I haven't been put in that position,
> but one simple answer that leaves you out of the loop would be to tell them
> that it's GPL'd, and that they can avoid all compatibility problems by
> making their software GPL'd too.
>
> To personalise it, in the helping-schoolkids example, you could also note
> that by GPLing their software, they'd be allowing schools in Africa, South
> East Asia, and other poor regions to benefit from their software.
My thought about this is that, besides the gpl, perhaps the fsf
could draft an optional agreement whereby authors of gpl'ed
software agree to let compl...@fsf.org determine whether or
not any specific request for a "gpl waiver" is or isn't legitimate,
and is or isn't in the best interests of the community.
That is, anyone emailing a gpl author for a license waiver
would have their email forwarded to compl...@fsf.org, with the
author's agreement that they'd make the waiver decision.
Moreover, maybe fsf could charge some nominal fee to the requestor
for this service, and obtain some small revenue from it.
I, for one, would be delighted to agree to this arrangement.
These kinds of emails are just a pain in the neck for me,
and (as you've hinted at above) I'm not competent to deal
with them, anyway.
JohnF
And I'm willing to agree to disagree about child labor vis-a-vis open
source software.
> The idea "may the best software win" puts the cart before the
> horse. The GNU project started with the aim to produce a reasonable
> free operating system sufficiently close to the UNIX specs describing
> existing systems. By _necessity_, _every_ free software component
> started out technically _inferior_ to the proprietary offerings.
>
> So your "may the best win" attitude would never have lead to any
> software freedoms being available to any person, since there would have
> been no incentive to use and improve free software.
For the sake of argument (though I don't believe it's always true,
e.g., http://www.joomla.org/ might serve as one recent counterexample),
let's assume free software always starts out technically inferior.
That doesn't automatically mean that "may the best win" always
favors commercial products, because "best" may include components
besides technical superiority. Open source is a very strong
advantage in and of itself. Some users may appreciate and want that
advantage; others may not. Their choice.
Secondly, you're amazingly incorrect in implying that immediate
user acceptance is the only reason authors have to improve free
software. Many (I'd say most) have a vision about what they're
trying to accomplish, and will continue to improve version 0.1
until they achieve their vision. Version 0.1 is often not intended
to achieve user acceptance or market superiority, but rather to
attract other developers (and visionary users) to participate
in an ongoing vision.
Now, I feel absolutely certain you already knew all of this.
So you're again putting forth a known false argument just to try
to prove your own intended point. Why not just stick to the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and let
the outcome of the discussion take its own course.
To me, you seem to have settled on a preconceived conclusion,
and are obdurately putting forth any argument, legitimate or not,
that steers the discussion in that direction.
> Now it is sort of an obvious consequence that freedom benefits people
> indiscriminately whether or not they can be bothered about it. Whereas
> unfreedom benefits some people at the cost of others.
You're absolutely right. Acknowledging the ethical right of
program authors to keep their source code secret, to charge (or not)
what they want for their efforts, etc, will definitely harm other
people. Let me make a rather far-flung analogy...
Every time I buy a loaf of bread, it creates a demand for
grain, thus increasing its cost, and thus harming impoverished
people in underdeveloped countries, some of whom may starve
as a result. So, should I not be allowed to buy a loaf of bread?
We live in a vastly interconnected world, where everyone's
choices and actions affect everyone else, sometimes advantaging
and sometimes disadvantaging other people in the same market.
There's no way around that in a world of limited resources --
that's what economic's all about. And the simple fact that
my action may disadvantage you doesn't immediately make my action
unethical. It's more complicated than that.
> You are claiming that when considering only one's own benefits, the
> right decisions for everybody will fall out.
No, I'm not, as elaborated above. I'm claiming that if I write
some software, then I can do what I want with it. And you're
free to ignore me and my software if you don't like what I've done.
Now, if I happen to care what you think, then I'd better
consider your reaction before choosing how to distribute
my software. But if I couldn't care less what you think,
then what right do you have to tell me what to do with my
own property?
> But that works only in
> political systems or societies or at least thought models where there
> are measures against shortcircuiting the common good for the gain of
> single persons.
Let's not get into a Hobbes vs Locke debate.
That belongs in totally another newsgroup.
> With regard to software freedom, political systems and societies work
> against it. So that leaves the thought models and philosophical
> imperatives.
>
> And you want to have them blocked as well. Why should anybody create
> free software in your opinion? You feel fine using it, but what
> possible incentive do you leave for people creating it?
Because they want to.
There's absolutely no other reason.
Maybe that sounds like I'm trying to evade the question,
but that's all I've got. Any time I do something I'm
not compensated for, then I do it because I want to.
You've got another reason on your mind? I give up, what is it?...
Small correction: I didn't say, "don't believe." I said, "don't
*completely* believe." Small syntactic difference, but I meant
a large semantic one. To wit, you acknowledged the need to make
a living, and permitted an exception, vis-a-vis free software,
in your own behavior to fulfill that need.
I'm well aware of your TeX contributions, and therefore
know that you basically believe what you're saying. But I think
you're taking it to an extreme, demanding that other people always
develop software according to a model that you don't always
follow yourself.
> Are you of the type who only accepts the message "respect other's life"
> from people who commit suicide rather that eat anything that once was
> alive?
Depends what "others'" refers to. If it means respecting other
*peoples'* lives, then, no, I wouldn't accept that message from
a cannibal. But I think you've yet again "jumped the shark"
with that analogy vis-a-vis free software.
Hyman Rosen
> But if I couldn't care less what you think,
> then what right do you have to tell me what
> to do with my own property?
The only thing that makes it "your property" is the
consensus of society that it benefits by putting its
resources behind granting you a limited monopoly for
a limited time. I'm frankly sick and tired of people
who want to do one piece of work one time and then
sit back and expect the rest of us to spend our time,
effort, and money making sure that royalties flow
their way for the rest of their lives.
Alexander Terekhov
Hey Hyman, if I recall correctly, you're paying a royalty to a landlord
in New York for renting an apartment. Why is that?
regards,
alexander.
--
"Copyright license -> Copyright law
Contract -> Contract law
DUH!"
-- mini-RMS <r...@1407.org>
David Kastrup
> Small correction: I didn't say, "don't believe." I said, "don't
> *completely* believe." Small syntactic difference, but I meant
> a large semantic one. To wit, you acknowledged the need to make
> a living, and permitted an exception, vis-a-vis free software,
> in your own behavior to fulfill that need.
> I'm well aware of your TeX contributions, and therefore
> know that you basically believe what you're saying. But I think
> you're taking it to an extreme, demanding that other people always
> develop software according to a model that you don't always
> follow yourself.
I think you are just confused. For the record: I also tend to go to the
bathroom and defecate from time to time. That does not contribute in
any way to society as a whole, but I don't see why that makes me unfit
about talking about what benefits society.
>> Are you of the type who only accepts the message "respect other's
>> life" from people who commit suicide rather that eat anything that
>> once was alive?
>
> Depends what "others'" refers to. If it means respecting other
> *peoples'* lives, then, no, I wouldn't accept that message from a
> cannibal. But I think you've yet again "jumped the shark" with that
> analogy vis-a-vis free software.
For the record: plants are alive. So you equate vegetarians with
cannibals if you think that it is some way for arguing yourself out of
personal responsibility?
Hyman Rosen
> Hey Hyman, if I recall correctly, you're paying a royalty
> to a landlord in New York for renting an apartment.
> Why is that?
I own a co-op, actually. But the answer to your implied
question is that physical property, because of its nature,
falls very naturally into a state of being controlled by
a single person. It's so natural that I wouldn't be
surprised if understanding of property is part of evolution.
The artificial monopolies created by patents and copyrights
are much less natural, and the effort to treat them as if
they are physical property leads to restrictions of freedom
on everyone.
By and by, as long as we're asking questions, what's the
difference between a Broadway star and an author of a book?
JohnF
> JohnF wrote:
>> But if I couldn't care less what you think,
>> then what right do you have to tell me what
>> to do with my own property?
>
> The only thing that makes it "your property" is the
> consensus of society that it benefits by putting its
> resources behind granting you a limited monopoly for
> a limited time.
Isn't that just another reason for software authors
to prefer not releasing the source code to their
programs? There's no law forcing authors to publish
source code. And the absence of any such law is
"the concensus of society" too. If you're so
committed to society's consensus, maybe you should
accept it more graciously.
> I'm frankly sick and tired of people
> who want to do one piece of work one time and then
> sit back and expect the rest of us to spend our time,
> effort, and money making sure that royalties flow
> their way for the rest of their lives.
Personally, I don't expect you (or anybody) to do
anything, and I couldn't care less what you do.
I make a living doing contract programming. The
"public" software I write in spare time is gpl'ed
to begin with, and I've never made a penny from
any of it.
But I've got no problem with people making
royalties from their work, if that's what they
choose to do with it. And if they choose not
to release the source, well, that's their
right, too. I'm very happy that open source
software exists, but that's the authors'
choice.
Hyman Rosen
> There's no law forcing authors to publish source code.
That's what decompiling and reverse engineering is for :-)
> But I've got no problem with people making royalties from
> their work
My problem with it are the restrictions I'm forced to undergo
to protect their royalty stream.
Alexander Terekhov
Ciaran O'Riordan
JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
> I thought I'd already acknowledged that class of problems in a
> preceding post in this thread (quoting myself) ...
> "Of course, I do condemn big companies, like, sometimes, MicroSoft,
> when they try to dominate the market by choking competition rather
> than by developing superior applications. That's a whole different
> story."
You got me :-) I was suffering a lack of imagination with my examples in
the last email :-/
I think I've listed a better variety of problems below.
> Well, we all use products whose manufacture, and often ingredients,
> are "trade secrets", not revealed to the end user. If you don't
> like that, then don't use the product. Or, if you feel that, to you,
> the benefits of the product outweigh any negative aspects, then
> go ahead and use it. Your choice.
I don't think this idea of handing all responsibilities to the buyers/users
is good policy for software. I think it should be legislated against, like
it was in the food industry.
Food developers used your argument when mandatory labeling was first
proposed. Governments decided that, in the public's interest, it was better
to legislate a public right-to-know what ingredients, including their rough
amounts for macro ingredients and exact amounts for micro ingredients, were
in food products.
Software users not knowing what's happening inside the software they use
leads to many problems:
* Most people are using software which is invading their privacy (usually
without the user being aware)
* Users, or third-parties, cannot check the security of their software
* If bugs, including security problems, do exist, users have no power to to
anything about it, other than ask the original developer
* Data is being saved in a format that the user cannot understand, and which
can be difficult or impossible to get raw data back out from if you want
to move to another application
* If a small change is needed to make someone's life easier, or if a certain
feature is needed, users are powerless to improve their situation
I don't think software users consciously weighed up these problems and
decided that the software they use is still worth using.
In the mean time, while there is no legislation to protect software users,
we rely on software developers to voluntarily solve these social problems by
releasing their software as free software.
> then there's no hostage situation. Other authors can write
> new programs that reimplement the old format, or that import data
> from the old format to some new format (or both).
Big examples where this has proved to be a monumental amount of work for
imperfect results include Samba, OpenOffice.org, and Gnash. Of course, to
give well-known examples, I've had to pick examples involving
anti-competitive megacorporations, which you've agreed are a pain.
To give examples not involving such companies, people won't recognise the
names, but it happens. For example, a music notation program that a friend
uses. It's proprietary, and my friend finds using that program a real
frustration, but his data (gotten from friends) is in that program's format.
Other programs exist, and maybe the data format isn't so complicated, but
it's just a small software package for a small number of hobbyists. No
one's going to hire the necessary programmer to do this task of decoding the
format so that a converter can be written.
If that software was free software, someone could write a converter a lot
easier (they might even be able to simply re-use a lot of the code), so
someone might actually do it. Or someone could make the original
application less frustrating.
> Let's please not drag that false "child labor" argument into
It was meant as an example of why putting all responsibility with the
buy/user isn't always a good policy. ...but I think the food manufaturers
example is better anyway.
>>> But it would be really nice to
>>> have a more straightforward procedure for dealing with these kinds
>>> of situations, especially a procedure that leaves me out of the loop.
I thought of another one: assign copyright to FSF.
If you do this, then when someone emails you asking for an exception, you
can just tell them that FSF holds the copyright and they should ask FSF if
they want an exception.
Information about this is here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/html_node/Copyright-Papers.html
> My thought about this is that, besides the gpl, perhaps the fsf
> could draft an optional agreement whereby authors of gpl'ed
> software agree to let compl...@fsf.org determine whether or
> not any specific request for a "gpl waiver" is or isn't legitimate,
> and is or isn't in the best interests of the community.
Copyright assignment to FSF would do this.
I imagine the result would be that they would refuse almost all requests for
exceptions, and you might not get a say in the decision, so it's not
precisely the solution you're suggesting, but it would relieve you of this
work. You could mention on your website or documentation that FSF is the
copyright holder, and that anyone with licence questions should go straight
to FSF. Then you would get fewer emails to start with, and the few you get
could be simply ignored and passed on to FSF.
Hyman Rosen
> http://lysanderspooner.org/intellect/contents.htm
I don't see him addressing pervasive invasion of all
people's rights and actions in order to safeguard
intellectual property, presumably because no one was
doing that in 1855.
By the way, his attempt to counter the argument that
intellectual property is incorporeal by comparing it
to labor, which he claims is also incorporeal, is
specious.
JohnF
Well, software doesn't have to be free to protect users from
these kinds of problems, just open -- or visible -- source.
But, as I suppose the usual argument goes, legislating that
publicly available software must be open source might
have a chilling effect on developers which could outweigh any
perceived good. There's always some kind of tradeoff like
that, which can't be quantitatively predicted before the fact
(i.e., before legislation is passed and its actual effects
observed).
Food is an extreme example, since that can literally
affect your health, e.g., if you're allergic to peanuts and
a "closed ingredient" product is prepared with peanut oil.
Software can also affect your well being (and I've seen
Inside Risk columns where bad software has indeed killed
people), but its ill effects are typically more benign
than food. Therefore, the "chilling effects" argument
gains some additional merit relative to the ill effects.
Where it all balances out is, again, quantitatively
unpredicatble before the fact.
But one thing's for sure. If I, as a completely
uncompensated developer of free software, am ever told
that there now exists legislation which potentially
subjects me to civil or criminal penalties if my
free and uncompensated software fails to comply with it,
then that'll have a chilling effect on me. For sure!
Commercial developers are probably a different
story. So are my own contract programming assignments,
where all my code is a "work for hire" and owned by
someone else -- I've got no problem with that, and
I have errors and omissions insurance in case I mess up.
But I ain't paying for insurance to cover damages
from uncompensated free software that I write.
Right now, the gpl covers that for me, but that
"coverage" disappears if legislation intervenes.
So any legislation should clearly distinguish these
cases. Similarly, "good samaritan" laws already exempt
well-intended (and uncompensated) bystanders from
unintentional ill effects of their attempts to be helpful.
I don't see fsf/open/free advocates demonstrating much
sensitivity to these kinds of issues.
>> then there's no hostage situation. Other authors can write
>> new programs that reimplement the old format, or that import data
>> from the old format to some new format (or both).
>
> Big examples where this has proved to be a monumental amount of work for
> imperfect results include Samba, OpenOffice.org, and Gnash. Of course, to
> give well-known examples, I've had to pick examples involving
> anti-competitive megacorporations, which you've agreed are a pain.
>
> To give examples not involving such companies, people won't recognise the
> names, but it happens. For example, a music notation program that a friend
> uses. It's proprietary, and my friend finds using that program a real
> frustration, but his data (gotten from friends) is in that program's format.
> Other programs exist, and maybe the data format isn't so complicated, but
> it's just a small software package for a small number of hobbyists. No
> one's going to hire the necessary programmer to do this task of decoding the
> format so that a converter can be written.
>
> If that software was free software, someone could write a converter a lot
> easier (they might even be able to simply re-use a lot of the code), so
> someone might actually do it. Or someone could make the original
> application less frustrating.
It's a complicated issue. All non-trivial programs have some
kind of non-trivial data structures/formats/whatever.
If those formats are commensurate with the complexity of
the task performed, then that's not an ethical issue.
Hard tasks are going to be hard to program, and hard to
re-program.
The only issue I can see is when formats are intentionally
made unnecessarily complicated with the specific purpose of
locking users in to a particular program/vendor.
And that'll be tough to legislate. It's kind of like that
US Supreme Court remark on pornography: I can't define it,
but I recognize it when I see it.
>>>> ... it would be really nice to
>>>> have a more straightforward procedure for dealing with these kinds
>>>> of situations, especially a procedure that leaves me out of the loop.
>
> I thought of another one: assign copyright to FSF.
> <<snip>>
Yup, copyright assignment is definitely a complete solution
to that problem (except for referring requests to the fsf,
which is simple enough that it wouldn't bother me too much).
Thanks for pointing that out to me. I'll definitely keep
it in mind. For now, my gut reaction is to keep (copyright)
ownership of my own uncompensated work. I suppose that's why
I (maybe unconsciously) conjured up a slightly more complicated
procedure that accomplishes approximately the same thing without
copyright assignment.
JohnF
Ciaran O'Riordan
JohnF <jo...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> writes:
> Well, software doesn't have to be free to protect users from
> these kinds of problems, just open -- or visible -- source.
Well, if the source is visible, people can examine it and see where the
problem is, but I think people should also be allowed fix problems (bugs and
security holes) and should be allowed to make modifications to reduce
pointless frustration. And when they do fix bugs, improve security, or
improve the functionality, they should be allowed to publish their
modifications so that their work can benefit everyone.
Also, if the source is visible but users aren't allowed do anything
interesting with it, it's possible that no one will bother to look at the
code.
> But, as I suppose the usual argument goes, legislating that
> publicly available software must be open source might
> have a chilling effect on developers which could outweigh any
> perceived good. There's always some kind of tradeoff like
> that, which can't be quantitatively predicted before the fact
[...]
> Commercial developers are probably a different
> story.
Agreed. Such legislation would have to be debated at length first.
Software is certainly different from food in that individuals can mass
produce software, but mass producing food is only done by companies. Giving
liability to companies is usually reasonable because they have lawyers and
cash, but giving liability to individuals requires much more care.
I think a reasonable first step would be legislation saying that government
bodies can only use software if they are free to view the source code, to
make changes, and to make and distribute copies (at least internally). This
should be required simply so that the government can be transparent and is
always in contol of it's own actions.
John Hasler
> Well, if the source is visible, people can examine it and see where the
> problem is, but I think people should also be allowed fix problems (bugs
> and security holes) and should be allowed to make modifications to reduce
> pointless frustration.
In the US they can.[1]
> And when they do fix bugs, improve security, or improve the
> functionality, they should be allowed to publish their modifications so
> that their work can benefit everyone.
If you wrote the patch you own the copyright and can publish it if you wish
as long as you don't include any significant amount of the original
code.[1]
[1] Unless they have entered into a contract in which they agree not to.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Alfred M. Szmidt
As long as you do not use any code from the GIMP, you have every legal
right to do so. But if you use code that is copyrighted, say by
linking or otherwise, then you do not have this right. And this does
not just relate to the GPL.
I agree with you.
Two fools agreeing to jump from a cliff, will not make them smarter.
Hyman Rosen
> But if you use code that is copyrighted, say by linking or otherwise
Writing a plug-in for the GIMP does not do anything
prohibited by copyright. Even if you include header
files and such, that comes under "there's just one
way to do it", which makes it OK. So you don't need
permission and you don't need to distribute it under
any particular license.
Some GPL theorists would like it if making a program
that inter-operates at the code level with another
program would entangle its source in the copyrights
of that program, but in fact that does not happen.
Alfred M. Szmidt
> otherwise
Writing a plug-in for the GIMP does not do anything prohibited by
copyright. Even if you include header files and such, that comes
under "there's just one way to do it", which makes it OK. So you
don't need permission and you don't need to distribute it under any
particular license.
If the program depends on the other program in some manner, then yes
you do.
Some GPL theorists would like it if making a program
that inter-operates at the code level with another
program would entangle its source in the copyrights
of that program, but in fact that does not happen.
Ofcourse it does happen.
Tim Smith
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <a...@gnu.org> wrote:
> > But if you use code that is copyrighted, say by linking or
> > otherwise
>
> Writing a plug-in for the GIMP does not do anything prohibited by
> copyright. Even if you include header files and such, that comes
> under "there's just one way to do it", which makes it OK. So you
> don't need permission and you don't need to distribute it under any
> particular license.
>
> If the program depends on the other program in some manner, then yes
> you do.
"Depends on" is does not automatically require copyright permission. If
work X depends on Y, in the sense that X is useless without Y, and X
interfaces at run time to Y and Y's data, that *can* be OK. See, for
example, the various video game cases, where third parties made cheat
add-ons for video games, without permission of the game makers.
The relevant question is whether or not X is a derivative work of Y, not
whether or not it "depends on...in some manner".
--
--Tim Smith
Hyman Rosen
> If the program depends on the other program in some manner,
> then yes you do.
Here's what the US Copyright Code says:
A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
preexisting works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion
picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work
consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole,
represent an original work of authorship, is a
“derivative work”.
It is entirely clear that for a work to be derivative, it must
incorporate significant portions of the original work. Code
written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative
work of that code by the definition given in the law.
You don't like that? Too bad. Get the law changed. And then
be prepared when Microsoft sues Samba out of existence.
David Kastrup
> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> If the program depends on the other program in some manner,
>> then yes you do.
>
> Here's what the US Copyright Code says:
> A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more
> preexisting works, such as a translation, musical
> arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion
> picture version, sound recording, art reproduction,
> abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which
> a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work
> consisting of editorial revisions, annotations,
> elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole,
> represent an original work of authorship, is a
> “derivative work”.
>
> It is entirely clear that for a work to be derivative, it must
> incorporate significant portions of the original work.
Hm? "based upon", "translation", "fictionalization", "transformed",
"adapted" are not really "incorporate". #include, on the other hand,
is.
> Code written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative work
> of that code by the definition given in the law.
The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to
interoperate with other fiction (namely, using the same
setting/worldview and characters).
> You don't like that? Too bad. Get the law changed.
It is sufficient to have it interpreted properly.
> And then be prepared when Microsoft sues Samba out of existence.
Samba does not #include any Microsoft stuff. But yes, this is certainly
something that's in the realm of the possible. If Microsoft has not
done this yet, it is not because they have no chance in court, but
rather because there is little strategic interest for them.
Projects like Samba have a hard time getting heavy-weight industrial
backers not least because that could make them a single target worth
Microsoft's trouble.
There is a difference between "clearcut case" and "stuff one wants to
take no chances with". Linking and inclusion of headers is a borderline
that has not been tested thoroughly in court.
And some large companies may be quite willing to pay the price of
purported GPL compliance just to have this nontestedness continue also
regarding their own products.
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never
stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and
neither do we."
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to
> interoperate with other fiction (namely, using the same
> setting/worldview and characters).
Dak, dak, dak.
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/AlphaBrief.pdf
-------
Omega will argue that our case is more analogous to Micro Star v.
Formgen, 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998), as opposed to Galoob. In
Formgen, defendant’s “MAP files” created new levels for plaintiff’s
video game and were found to be derivative works of the original game.
Id. at 1112. However, analogizing Connector to the MAP files in Formgen
is inappropriate. First, it is important to note that the infringed
preexisting work in Formgen was the story of plaintiff’s original game.
Id. The court found that defendants MAP files “described” new stories
that were “based upon” plaintiff’s original story, and so the MAP files
were deemed to be “sequels” that incorporated plaintiff’s preexisting
protected story. Id. at 1111-1112. As such, although the MAP files
contained no computer code from plaintiff’s preexisting work, the MAP
files incorporated copyrightable elements of plaintiff’s story and were
therefore considered derivative works. Id. at 1112. In contrast to the
video games at issue in Formgen, neither Database Manager 2.0 nor
Connector contain a copyrightable “story.” Connector consists of literal
computer code that invokes the functionality provided by Database
Manager 2.0, and in no way “describes” Database Manager 2.0. Analogizing
Database Manager 2.0 to a “story,” and Connector to a “sequel,” is
inappropriate. Connector incorporates no copyrightable elements from
Database Manager 2.0, whether literal or non-literal. As such, Connector
should not be considered a derivative work under the Copyright Act.
-------
Don't miss
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/MootFacts.pdf
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/OmegaBrief.pdf
http://www.law.washington.edu/LCT/Events/FOSS/media/04.%20Beyond%20the%20Basics%20-%20Patent%20Law.mp3
as well.
More on Micro Star and Duke Nukem:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/9656426.html
-------
Micro Star further argues that the MAP files are not derivative works
because they do not, in fact, incorporate any of D/N-3D’s protected
expression. In particular, Micro Star makes much of the fact that the
N/I MAP files reference the source art library, but do not actually
contain any art files themselves. Therefore, it claims, nothing of
D/N-3D’s is reproduced in the MAP files. In making this argument, Micro
Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes
is the D/N-3D story itself—a beefy commando type named Duke who wanders
around post-Apocalypse Los Angeles, shooting Pig Cops with a gun,
lobbing hand grenades, searching for medkits and steroids, using a
jetpack to leap over obstacles, blowing up gas tanks, avoiding
radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create sequels,
see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 (11th Cir.
1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely sequels,
telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke’s fabulous
adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason,
even if it contained no pictures.
-------
rjack
> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> If the program depends on the other program in some manner,
> > then yes you do.
> It is entirely clear that for a work to be derivative, it must
> incorporate significant portions of the original work. Code
> written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative
> work of that code by the definition given in the law.
>
> You don't like that? Too bad. Get the law changed. And then
> be prepared when Microsoft sues Samba out of existence.
Hyman! You sound like an eminently reasonable person who has read the
law and then thoughtfully crafted a cogent reply.
Feverish today?
Sincerely,
Rjack
"While computer programs are not specifically listed. . . the legislative
history leaves no doubt that Congress intended them to be considered literary
works."; Computer Associates International v. Altai, 982 F.2d 693 (United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 1992)
Tim Smith
wrote:
> > Code written to interoperate with other code is not a derivative work
> > of that code by the definition given in the law.
>
> The courts have ruled differently for works of fiction designed to
> interoperate with other fiction (namely, using the same
> setting/worldview and characters).
Works of fiction are not utilitarian objects, and setting, worldview,
and characters are creative elements, not functional elements.
Incorporating them into your work thus makes your work a derivative work.
A program is a utilitarian object, and whatever is necessary to
interface to it is not subject to copyright.
--
--Tim Smith