GPL warning label idea, has anyone thought of this before?
Dave Arbok
it.
Often, companies and websites will take a GPL licensed program, add
very little to it, perhaps a GUI, and sell it for a lot of money.
Almost all programs sold to steal DVD movies are based almost entirely
on GPL software. There was a controversy a while ago where O'Reilly
had a book with a CD with Perl on it and said you couldn't copy the
CD. True, some people who would try to profit from GPL code blatantly
violate the license by not admitting where their code came from, or by
not distributing its source and the source of their modifications.
But what about people who do distribute their modifications and
technically follow the GPL but still try to profit by selling
something that is a very slight change from a GPL program? That's
where my idea comes in-
I think any website or box of software that contains GPL code should
have an easily readable notice or warning label that says something
like:
"Part of this software is licensed under GPL, and available for free.
You are legally entitled to receive some, if not all of the
functionality
of this program, and its source code, for free. Keep that in mind
before buying this box."
Comments, thoughts?
David Kastrup
> I had an idea the other day and I was wondering what people thought
> of it.
> Often, companies and websites will take a GPL licensed program, add
> very little to it, perhaps a GUI, and sell it for a lot of money.
Evidence? I don't see that.
> Almost all programs sold to steal DVD movies are based almost
> entirely on GPL software.
"Steal DVD movies"? For "stealing" them, you just need to copy them
1:1, no need for DeCSS or similar. You need DeCSS to get at the
content you paid for for viewing, or for image manipulation. For
"stealing", no GPL software is necessary.
> There was a controversy a while ago where O'Reilly had a book with a
> CD with Perl on it and said you couldn't copy the CD.
Well, so what? If it is an aggregation that would be fine even if
that Perl was licensed under the GPL. Which it isn't.
> But what about people who do distribute their modifications and
> technically follow the GPL but still try to profit by selling
> something that is a very slight change from a GPL program?
They are investing more work than those that try to profit by selling
something that is not changed at all.
> That's where my idea comes in- I think any website or box of
> software that contains GPL code should have an easily readable
> notice or warning label that says something like: "Part of this
> software is licensed under GPL, and available for free. You are
> legally entitled to receive some, if not all of the functionality of
> this program, and its source code, for free. Keep that in mind
> before buying this box."
This is a lie. You are not legally entitled to receive any GPL
software for free. Once you have received it, regardless of how much
money you were forced to pay for it, you are free to further
redistribute it for as much money as you like.
Please read the licence and the usual commentaries from the FSF
before spouting complete nonsense about it.
--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Sam Holden
> I had an idea the other day and I was wondering what people thought of
> it.
> Often, companies and websites will take a GPL licensed program, add
> very little to it, perhaps a GUI, and sell it for a lot of money.
>
> But what about people who do distribute their modifications and
> technically follow the GPL but still try to profit by selling
> something that is a very slight change from a GPL program? That's
> where my idea comes in-
> I think any website or box of software that contains GPL code should
> have an easily readable notice or warning label that says something
> like:
> "Part of this software is licensed under GPL, and available for free.
> You are legally entitled to receive some, if not all of the
> functionality
> of this program, and its source code, for free. Keep that in mind
> before buying this box."
>
>
> Comments, thoughts?
The GPL doesn't require that anything be available for free to all
comers. So the idea makes no sense.
I can release my own software licensed under the GPL and charge money
for it. If none of the buyers bother distributing then it would
not be true that the GPLd code was available for free.
The GPL is written to allow others to sell derived works (and even
just the plain old original work) so such a label seems a very
unlikely thing for the FSF to require.
--
Sam Holden
Barry Margolin
sho...@flexal.cs.usyd.edu.au (Sam Holden) wrote:
>
> The GPL doesn't require that anything be available for free to all
> comers. So the idea makes no sense.
I think the OP's intent is that this applies in cases where the
distributor knows that there are other parties already making the
software available for free downloads. Perhaps rather than "entitled to
receive ... for free" he should have said "able to receive ... for free".
However, I don't really like the spirit of the proposal. It seems like
requiring McDonalds to post a notice saying that you may prefer the
hamburgers at Burger King or Wendy's better.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
Tim Smith
> "Steal DVD movies"? For "stealing" them, you just need to copy them 1:1,
> no need for DeCSS or similar. You need DeCSS to get at the content you
> paid for for viewing, or for image manipulation. For "stealing", no GPL
> software is necessary.
Well, close, but that's not the whole story. There are two layers of
protection on DVDs. The content is encrypted, so, as you say, you need
DeCSS or similar to view it or manipulate the images.
However, access to the sectors is also restricted. There's basically a
challenge/response the player puts you through before it will let you even
read the encrypted sectors.
On systems that have a licensed DVD player software, such as PowerDVD on
Windows, you can use a trick: put the disc in and start it playing, so that
the player software does the handshake. That authorizes reading the
encrypted sectors, and that authorization is good until you eject the disc
(or, I would guess, reset the drive). You can then stop the player
software, and access the sectors to make your 1:1 copy.
On a system that does not have licensed DVD player software, then you would
need DeCSS or something like it to get to the encrypted sectors to make the
1:1 copy.
--
--Tim Smith
Tristan Miller
In article <x5u12zc...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote:
> roc...@shegolfs.com (Dave Arbok) writes:
>> Often, companies and websites will take a GPL licensed program, add
>> very little to it, perhaps a GUI, and sell it for a lot of money.
>
> Evidence? I don't see that.
A case was recently discussed here. See article
<3F9B75C7...@mega-nerd.com>.
>> There was a controversy a while ago where O'Reilly had a book with a
>> CD with Perl on it and said you couldn't copy the CD.
>
> Well, so what? If it is an aggregation that would be fine even if
> that Perl was licensed under the GPL. Which it isn't.
Yes it is, or rather, it can be; Perl is licenced under a disjunction of
licences, one of which is the GPL. But you're still right about the
copying; O'Reilly can't legally prevent you from copying Perl off the CD,
but it can enjoin you from duplicating the entire CD as an aggregate work.
Regards,
Tristan
--
_
_V.-o Tristan Miller [en,(fr,de,ia)] >< Space is limited
/ |`-' -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= <> In a haiku, so it's hard
(7_\\ http://www.nothingisreal.com/ >< To finish what you
David Kastrup
> In article <x5u12zc...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> > Well, so what? If it is an aggregation that would be fine even if
> > that Perl was licensed under the GPL. Which it isn't.
>
> Yes it is, or rather, it can be; Perl is licenced under a
> disjunction of licences, one of which is the GPL. But you're still
> right about the copying; O'Reilly can't legally prevent you from
> copying Perl off the CD,
Is there no licence in that set that would allow them to do this?
O'Reilly is not required to relicence under the complete set of
licences. They can pick their favorite one.
Martin Dickopp
> Almost all programs sold to steal DVD movies
Programs to steal DVD movies? How do they do that? Do they break into the
DVD owner's home and remove the DVD?
(I know what you mean, but you should really avoid such grossly incorrect
terminology. To be completely blunt, after reading this sentence, my first
thought was that probably no sensible ideas would follow in the remaining
posting...)
> But what about people who do distribute their modifications and
> technically follow the GPL but still try to profit by selling
> something that is a very slight change from a GPL program?
Unless I misunderstand what you mean, that seems to be in line with the
FSF's recommendation to charge as much as possible for Free Software.
Anyway, the right to sell Free Software for profit is an important
freedom, and it would be unacceptable to many (most?) people to limit or
remove this freedom.
> That's where my idea comes in- I think any website or box of software
> that contains GPL code should have an easily readable notice or warning
> label that says something like:
This sounds somewhat like the obnoxious advertizing clause in the original
BSD licence.
> "Part of this software is licensed under GPL, and available for free.
The word "free" in this context appears to mean "at no cost", and would
therefore only contribute to water down the important distinction between
free as in freedom and free as in no cost.
Of course, software licensed under the GPL is not necessarily available at
not cost.
> You are legally entitled to receive some, if not all of the
> functionality of this program, and its source code, for free.
That's simply not true, you are not entitled to anything. There is no
requirement in the GPL to distribute anything. Even if you receive a
GPL'ed program without source code (and without a written offer for the
sorce code), you are not entitled to anything.
That needs a little more explaining. Let's assume three parties: the
author _A_ who has the copyright on some software which she offers
licensed under the GPL, the distributor _D_ who distributes said software,
and the receiver _R_ who receives the software from _D_ (either at no cost
or in exchange for money).
_A_ has all rights with respect to the software, because she holds the
copyright, and the copyright laws grant coypright holders various rights.
_D_ has the right to distribute the software under certain conditions.
If _D_ distributes the software to _R_ without source code (and without
offer), he has violated the rights of _A_. _A_ can therefore sue _D_ to
stop distributing the software, and possibly for damages.
However, _D_ has only violated the rights of _A_, not the rights of _R_.
What rights do you think _R_ has that _D_ has violated? There's no law
that everybody has automatically some rights with respect to some
software. Therefore, _R_ cannot demand anything, and _R_ cannot sue _D_
(at least not with any change of success). All that _R_ can do is to
notify _A_, who has the right, but not the obligation, to take appropriate
steps against _D_. Note that this may result in a revocation of _D_'s
rights to distribute the software, but _R_ still hasn't got the source
code.
In practice, _A_ will probably make sure that _R_ gets the source code,
but if she doesn't, _R_ doesn't have the right to demand it from either
_A_ or _D_.
HTH,
Martin
Tristan Miller
Even if there is a Perl licence which prevents copying and which O'Reilly
has chosen to use, it's a moot point. O'Reilly may not have given you
permission to copy Perl, but Larry Well et al. have. Under typical
copyright laws, O'Reilly can't prevent you from exercising your right to
copy code which you have been licenced; the licence applies to the actual
Perl program in general, not individual copies thereof. (Of course, under
DMCA-like laws, O'Reilly could conceivably encrypt the Perl distribution on
the CD and then sue you for unathorized decryption.) Besides, AFAIK
O'Reilly does not hold the copyright to Perl, so they couldn't sue you even
if it were illegal to copy Perl.
Tristan Miller
In article <f74816b5.04011...@posting.google.com>, Dave Arbok
wrote:
> But what about people who do distribute their modifications and
> technically follow the GPL but still try to profit by selling
> something that is a very slight change from a GPL program?
The market takes care of it in time. Companies who add little or no value
to GPL'd code and then try to resell it will find the price pushed down
through the action of third parties who are selling it for less. (The code
is, after all, free for the copying once purchased.)
Tristan Miller
In article <bu3bkp$78j$02$1...@news.t-online.com>, Martin Dickopp wrote:
> roc...@shegolfs.com (Dave Arbok) writes:
>> That's where my idea comes in- I think any website or box of software
>> that contains GPL code should have an easily readable notice or warning
>> label that says something like:
>
> This sounds somewhat like the obnoxious advertizing clause in the original
> BSD licence.
Not really. The reason the original BSD licence was "obnoxious" was that it
required a credit notice for the author to appear on advertising material,
and that once a project had more than a few authors, said credit notice
would grow to unreasonable proportions. Dave's proposal, while misguided,
does not suffer from the problem of obnoxious unchecked growth.
David Kastrup
> In article <x5k73uc...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote:
> > Tristan Miller <psych...@nothingisreal.com> writes:
> >> In article <x5u12zc...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Well, so what? If it is an aggregation that would be fine even if
> >> > that Perl was licensed under the GPL. Which it isn't.
> >>
> >> Yes it is, or rather, it can be; Perl is licenced under a
> >> disjunction of licences, one of which is the GPL. But you're still
> >> right about the copying; O'Reilly can't legally prevent you from
> >> copying Perl off the CD,
> >
> > Is there no licence in that set that would allow them to do this?
> > O'Reilly is not required to relicence under the complete set of
> > licences. They can pick their favorite one.
>
> Even if there is a Perl licence which prevents copying and which O'Reilly
> has chosen to use, it's a moot point. O'Reilly may not have given you
> permission to copy Perl, but Larry Well et al. have. Under typical
> copyright laws, O'Reilly can't prevent you from exercising your right to
> copy code which you have been licenced; the licence applies to the actual
> Perl program in general, not individual copies thereof.
No. Licences apply to physical copies, while the extent of the
copyright covers the program, copies and derivatives.
For example, if I get paid by Microsoft for licensing them a program
under a "you may demand what you want from the customer" licence, this
does not give their customers or anybody else the right in turn to
demand what they want, even though it is the same program.
And that is exactly because the licence to do so is not attached to
the program, but to the transaction under which I transfer the copy.
> Besides, AFAIK O'Reilly does not hold the copyright to Perl, so they
> couldn't sue you even if it were illegal to copy Perl.
It is sufficient for them to hold the copyright to the CD as long as
there is enough copyrightable content of their own on it.
Paolo Gianrossi
> author _A_ who has the copyright on some software which she offers
> licensed under the GPL, the distributor _D_ who distributes said
> software, and the receiver _R_ who receives the software from _D_
> (either at no cost or in exchange for money).
>
> _A_ has all rights with respect to the software, because she holds the
> copyright, and the copyright laws grant coypright holders various
> conditions. If _D_ distributes the software to _R_ without source code
> (and without offer), he has violated the rights of _A_. _A_ can
> therefore sue _D_ to stop distributing the software, and possibly for
> damages.
>
> However, _D_ has only violated the rights of _A_, not the rights of
> _R_. What rights do you think _R_ has that _D_ has violated? There's
> no law that everybody has automatically some rights with respect to
> some software. Therefore, _R_ cannot demand anything, and _R_ cannot
> is to notify _A_, who has the right, but not the obligation, to take
> appropriate steps against _D_. Note that this may result in a
> revocation of _D_'s rights to distribute the software, but _R_ still
> hasn't got the source code.
So, I hope to be wrong, but what happens in following case:
A wants to do proprietary software but for publicity reasons she
wants to use the GPL. So she makes a program and gives out just
the binary. Since she is the copyright holder she can do that.
It's unethic, since she uses the GPL and gives no source but
she's legally doing it. Right?
D cannot distribute the program because she cannot provide the source code (note she never got it, but can't obviously sue A, since A is the Author and can do anything she wants with her
code).
So you have proprietary software with the GPL on it... Or not? I really hope I'm missing something..
cheers
paolino
Sam Holden
Paolo Gianrossi <paoli...@disi.unige.it> wrote:
>
> So, I hope to be wrong, but what happens in following case:
>
> A wants to do proprietary software but for publicity reasons she
> wants to use the GPL. So she makes a program and gives out just
> the binary. Since she is the copyright holder she can do that.
> It's unethic, since she uses the GPL and gives no source but
> she's legally doing it. Right?
>
> D cannot distribute the program because she cannot provide the
> source code (note she never got it, but can't obviously sue A,
> since A is the Author and can do anything she wants with her
> code).
>
> So you have proprietary software with the GPL on it... Or not? I
> really hope I'm missing something..
Yes, you can do that. The copyright holder doesn't have to follow their
license since they own the copyright.
It would be pointless and obvious, and would generate bad publicity.
The free software folk would condemn it as a idiotic meaningless
stunt, while the propietary folk dismiss it as free software
junk and hence don't use it, and the "normal" folk get confused by
the above and also don't use it.
--
Sam Holden
John Hasler
> So, I hope to be wrong, but what happens in following case:
> A wants to do proprietary software but for publicity reasons she wants to
> use the GPL. So she makes a program and gives out just the binary. Since
> she is the copyright holder she can do that. It's unethic, since she
> uses the GPL and gives no source but she's legally doing it. Right?
What she is doing is not a violation of copyright law or of any contract or
license, but it may be fraud.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Paolo Gianrossi
Well... Depends: let's suppose M.A.Licious writes a program _P_ which uses the
readline library: since readline is GPL, he'll have to release _P_ under the
GPL as well...
But M.A. releases _P_ in binary only, and with sourcecode for readline. What
happens then?
cheers
paolino
John Hasler
> Well... Depends: let's suppose M.A.Licious writes a program _P_ which
> uses the readline library: since readline is GPL, he'll have to release
> _P_ under the GPL as well...
> But M.A. releases _P_ in binary only, and with sourcecode for
> readline. What happens then?
The FSF threatens to sue him for copyright infringment, of course.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Paolo Gianrossi
> paolino writes:
> > Well... Depends: let's suppose M.A.Licious writes a program _P_ which
> > uses the readline library: since readline is GPL, he'll have to release
> > _P_ under the GPL as well...
>
> > But M.A. releases _P_ in binary only, and with sourcecode for
> > readline. What happens then?
>
> The FSF threatens to sue him for copyright infringment, of course.
why? he will release P as GPL, but refrain from giving source code of *his*
program, of which he's copyright holder. He will just say "Hey! this P is
GPLed! get the binary!"... Then, he should sue himself for his program source
code not being distributed, but he's obviously not going to do it... The source
for readline is given, so FSF cannot sue him, because he is distributing FSF's
library correctly... Distributors won't be able to redistribute because they
cannot provide source code of P, so this is basically proprietary sw derived
from GPLed..
Am I wrong?
cheers
paolino
David Kastrup
> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
>
> > paolino writes:
> > > Well... Depends: let's suppose M.A.Licious writes a program _P_ which
> > > uses the readline library: since readline is GPL, he'll have to release
> > > _P_ under the GPL as well...
> >
> > > But M.A. releases _P_ in binary only, and with sourcecode for
> > > readline. What happens then?
> >
> > The FSF threatens to sue him for copyright infringment, of course.
>
> why? he will release P as GPL, but refrain from giving source code
> of *his* program, of which he's copyright holder.
He is releasing a derived work of readline, and the licence of
readline only permits him to do this including source. And the GPL
defined source pretty unambiguously.
Of course, the copyright holder is free to do with his program and
licence and use it however he wants. But only certain usages and
licences allow him to use readline.
> He will just say "Hey! this P is GPLed! get the binary!"... Then, he
> should sue himself for his program source code not being
> distributed, but he's obviously not going to do it... The source for
> readline is given, so FSF cannot sue him, because he is distributing
> FSF's library correctly...
No, he isn't. Because he is distributing a derived work of readline
without adhering to readline's terms.
> Am I wrong?
Yes.
Paolo Gianrossi
David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > He will just say "Hey! this P is GPLed! get the binary!"... Then, he
> > should sue himself for his program source code not being
> > distributed, but he's obviously not going to do it... The source for
> > readline is given, so FSF cannot sue him, because he is distributing
> > FSF's library correctly...
>
> No, he isn't. Because he is distributing a derived work of readline
> without adhering to readline's terms.
>
> > Am I wrong?
>
> Yes.
You are right... I forgot for a moment section 3... Thank God you are right...
Sorry for the stupid question
cheers
paolino
rixed
> "Part of this software is licensed under GPL, and available for free.
> You are legally entitled to receive some, if not all of the
> functionality
> of this program, and its source code, for free. Keep that in mind
> before buying this box."
This sounds very fair to me, but this is the exact oposite of what the
GPL says and what the FSF wants.
The FSF always speack about the rights of the users, but getting things
for free (like in free beer) is NOT a right of the users for them. When
it comes to prices, the FSF forget everything about the user and
speack about the rights of the companies to package and distribute and
sell free software at the highest possible prices.
Because most of them believe in the free market, they think (with free
marketers) that if all the actors were free (as in free speach), free to
use and free to sell, then the market will automagically converge to
fair prices ; then, your notice would be useless.
Actually, the whole GNU movement speacks AGAINST the free market dogma,
for its build from free_as_in_free_beer work from thouthands of
developpers who had put themself and their work aside from the market as
it is ; but as people say here, no one is blind like someone who refuses
to see :-)
And yes, Im a little upset against the FSF because they decided to _not_
count amongst the fundamental rights of the users the right to get
things for free instead of buying things.
David Kastrup
> The FSF always speack about the rights of the users, but getting
> things for free (like in free beer) is NOT a right of the users for
> them.
Why should it? If it is a right to get things for free, it would
become someone's duty to provide them for free. Who are you going to
enslave to do the work for free for freedom's purpose?
> When it comes to prices, the FSF forget everything about the user
> and speack about the rights of the companies to package and
> distribute and sell free software at the highest possible prices.
> Actually, the whole GNU movement speacks AGAINST the free market
> dogma, for its build from free_as_in_free_beer work from thouthands
> of developpers who had put themself and their work aside from the
> market as it is ; but as people say here, no one is blind like
> someone who refuses to see :-)
But those developers were free in their choice. And much of their
work was also channeled by people that did not work for free, making
it useful for others in the first place.
> And yes, Im a little upset against the FSF because they decided to
> _not_ count amongst the fundamental rights of the users the right to
> get things for free instead of buying things.
So who is it that should be forced to work for free? Would you shout
"hurrah" if the police came to arrest you and would keep you in prison
until you have coded at least 100kB of useful source code, in order to
free yourself of your duty to the freedom of others? What if you
don't have the mental capacities? Buy yourself out of your
predicament? But nobody else would be allowed to accept your money
for writing software. Perhaps you could find a programmer in the
black market?
Barry Margolin
rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
> And yes, Im a little upset against the FSF because they decided to _not_
> count amongst the fundamental rights of the users the right to get
> things for free instead of buying things.
RMS is an idealist. He believed that if we give users the right to
share things, they would often do so voluntarily. All it takes is one
or two prominent sharers to ruin the market of someone trying to sell
the same software with no added value.
And don't forget that the FSF itself gets revenues from selling their
software. The value they add is packaging it onto some media, saving
you the trouble of performing hundreds of downloads. (In addition, some
people buy the software from the FSF as a way of supporting the
organization, although it would probably be better for them to make a
tax-deductible contribution.) Should the FSF be required to provide the
disclaimer that you can save money by going to their web site?
Martin Dickopp
> The FSF always speack about the rights of the users, but getting things
> for free (like in free beer) is NOT a right of the users for them.
Such a right wouldn't be pratical. There has been a large-scale experiment
going on for decades in many countries on this planet (socialism) which
was supposed to lead to a final state where money could be abolished
(communism). It has failed miserably before even coming close to the final
state.
> When it comes to prices, the FSF forget everything about the user and
> speack about the rights of the companies to package and distribute and
> sell free software at the highest possible prices.
In a capitalistic system, the balance between supply and demand auto-
matically ensures prices which are reasonable for both sides. This works
well in theory as well as practice. In fact, most Free Software costs
much less than similar proprietary products.
> Because most of them believe in the free market, they think (with free
> marketers) that if all the actors were free (as in free speach), free to
> use and free to sell, then the market will automagically converge to fair
> prices ; then, your notice would be useless.
Yes, that's exactly what is happening.
> Actually, the whole GNU movement speacks AGAINST the free market dogma,
> for its build from free_as_in_free_beer work from thouthands of
> developpers who had put themself and their work aside from the market as
> it is
I find it a bit concerning that you critize how I spend my time.
(Disclaimer: While I do write and maintain Free Software, I'm not involved
with the GNU project.)
Martin
rixed
> > [ It should be stated that the users have the right togetthings gratis ]
> Why should it? If it is a right to get things for free, it would
> become someone's duty to provide them for free. Who are you going to
> enslave to do the work for free for freedom's purpose?
Is it free or not to use roads in your country ? Or are the roads
crossed every miles by a toll ? Are there slaves who build those roads ?
As you see, I can reuse RMS's analogy, for I totally agree with him on
this point : softwares cost nothing to duplicate, so one should not own
(and, I add, should not sell - this is the whole purpose of ownage, the
FSF faint to ignore this very obvious fact) softwares.
This does not means softwares, like roads, must not be funded in a way
or another.
That's why (if I were RMS) I would encourage users to donate some money
to an author (or to the FSF) - but without having to actually "buy"
anything. By donating money, they should not get anything more they
would not get for free, including support, documentation, source code,
rights to copy, access to faster ftp, whatever (like its already the
case when they donate to the FSF - Im not critisizing the practise of
the FSF, Im criticizing their speach). This is the difference between
funding and buying - buying is just a way to fund, not the best in
practical nor moral whatsoever, because it turns simple human relations
between authors and users to commercial oddities.
My whole point is that freeing users from the "property" of softwares is
irrelevant if the purpose is not to free users (and authors) from those
oddities.
And I say "commercial oddities" to not shock anybody - I should have
said, of course, law of profit >8)
This is the conclusion where you stand when you think about "freedom".
If you are afraid to state that users should get things for free, and
that the evil thing in software property is that it leads to commercial
relations between people(*), lets stop to tell stories about freedom of
users, and just lets go back to this PDP printer driver thing that
offusced RMS in the first place... :-)
(*): The texts I like best from RMS is when he try to explain why the
GNU project is about human fellowship. He just can't see, or can't tell,
that thoses relationships are what they are because people interract
only with a buyer/seller protocol.
Sorry for my bad english and for my space key thats not working as it
should.
rixed
And so are we.
> He believed that if we give users the right to
> share things, they would often do so voluntarily. All it takes is one
> or two prominent sharers to ruin the market of someone trying to sell
> the same software with no added value.
Yes! I agree.
So why sould we not say so ? Why the GPL should not states that "you
should not charge for redistribution of this software more than what it
really costs to you, excluding any profit" ?
Why should we say the contrary, why should we encourage companies to
make profit by selling free softwares ?
> Should the FSF be required to provide the
> disclaimer that you can save money by going to their web site?
The FSF isnot selling software, but is calling for donations. This is a
very different process.
Please read my preceding reply which is I believe clearer than my first
post.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > > [ It should be stated that the users have the right togetthings gratis ]
> > Why should it? If it is a right to get things for free, it would
> > become someone's duty to provide them for free. Who are you going to
> > enslave to do the work for free for freedom's purpose?
>
> Is it free or not to use roads in your country ?
Last time I looked, road building companies were not prohibited from
charging money for their work. Last time I looked, nobody was free
to demand that roads should be built wherever he wants them, without
him paying for it. Last time I looked, the roads that were paid for
by the state were roads that everybody could make about equal use of.
The only area where "state pays the developers" would even be half way
appropriate would be standard software. And that would, according to
the needs of the average user, mean that several hundreds to thousands
of Euros from my taxes would be used for paying Microsoft for Windows,
Excel, Word, Office and similar stuff. That's by far the most common
commodity software, and if the state were to pay for software for
general use, this would what it would buy from my money. Nothing
else, and for understandable reasons.
Instead, I use no Microsoft product and pay no taxes just to have some
buggy Microsoft product I don't want delivered at my door. I like it
better that way.
> That's why (if I were RMS) I would encourage users to donate some
> money to an author (or to the FSF) - but without having to actually
> "buy" anything. By donating money, they should not get anything more
> they would not get for free, including support, documentation,
> source code, rights to copy, access to faster ftp, whatever (like
> its already the case when they donate to the FSF - Im not
> critisizing the practise of the FSF, Im criticizing their
> speach). This is the difference between funding and buying - buying
> is just a way to fund, not the best in practical nor moral
> whatsoever, because it turns simple human relations between authors
> and users to commercial oddities.
But that's the way needs are matched. If I need a programming job
done, but no programmer is allowed to receive money for it, the job
will not get done. Even if it is worth something to me to have it
done, and it would be worth it to somebody else to do it.
> This is the conclusion where you stand when you think about
> "freedom". If you are afraid to state that users should get things
> for free, and that the evil thing in software property is that it
> leads to commercial relations between people(*), lets stop to tell
> stories about freedom of users, and just lets go back to this PDP
> printer driver thing that offusced RMS in the first place... :-)
>
> (*): The texts I like best from RMS is when he try to explain why
> the GNU project is about human fellowship. He just can't see, or
> can't tell, that thoses relationships are what they are because
> people interract only with a buyer/seller protocol.
Buying and selling is a way of matching the interests of producers and
consumers. You are suggesting using the state as an unavoidable
intermediary. I doubt that in the field of software where needs and
desires are much more widely diversified than with roads, this
intermediary will be worth his money.
There is a reason that socialism has not been the most convincing
success.
David Kastrup
> > RMS is an idealist.
>
> And so are we.
>
> > He believed that if we give users the right to share things, they
> > would often do so voluntarily. All it takes is one or two
> > prominent sharers to ruin the market of someone trying to sell the
> > same software with no added value.
>
> Yes! I agree.
>
> So why sould we not say so ? Why the GPL should not states that "you
> should not charge for redistribution of this software more than what
> it really costs to you, excluding any profit" ? Why should we say
> the contrary, why should we encourage companies to make profit by
> selling free softwares ?
Because that will mean that companies will make it a business to
distribute free software, and that means they'll do it efficiently,
since the time their workers spend on doing it must be less than what
the average non-profit user would need to spend on it, or he would not
choose pay them for it in the first place.
If you prohibit a profit, you take away a motivation for doing so.
If one would regulate the newspaper industry according to your ideas,
it would be prohibited profiting from selling news on paper or TV.
Nobody would do it, and you would have to exchange news by telephone,
calling your friends for more information, and by letter, with
considerable delay. You'd have to expend a lot more money in the end
for worse quality.
Most free software authors are not interested in having to worry about
distribution. Why prohibit others from doing it for them if they can?
rixed
> going on for decades in many countries on this planet (socialism) which
> was supposed to lead to a final state where money could be abolished
> (communism). It has failed miserably before even coming close to the final
> state.
Here we are, already...
I often refer to history myself, but I don't see the point here.
Obviously, as people are always misleading about this cost thing in free
softwares, there _is_ a conceptual problem in the GNU project : people
continuously looks toward the GNU project for something, namely
commercial-free softwares, and short after they encounter people who
hardly try to explain them in detail the subtle distinctions between
free as in free speach or free as in free beer, between the right to
distribute and the right to sell, between the magic market that will, in
a near future, yes my friend believe me, fix all the inacuracies that
have rised since it exists, that companies are encouraged to make profit
out of free software, etc, etc.
Obviously, we won't be able to solve this conceptual problem with the
simple assertion that people who want something else that the usual
profit model are dangerous communists (hint : why not terrorists ?) and
that the GNU project is nothing more that an original way to build
business plans.
> In a capitalistic system, the balance between supply and demand auto-
> matically ensures prices which are reasonable for both sides.
Yes, and the United Nations prevent wars.
My fault, I shouldn't have spoken about free marketers. Lets be serious
and not that much off topic. :-)
> [ fair prices ]
> Yes, that's exactly what is happening.
As an author of free and gratis software, if I find a company that sells
my software for anything more than the costs of redistribution, that
is, that makes profit out of it, I wont considering it fair price.
(please please please, do not tell me the story that I "just" have to
offer gratis download of my software to rip this company : they should
sell my software packaged with other non free software that I can't
offer for download, they could advertise more than I can, etc etc. Or
explain me why microsoft is still selling software (and why they sold
DOS in the first place) :-) -> the laws of market are still at work, but
not with that efficiency, and second it would be simplier to state in
the first place, that is in the GPL, that its not allowed to make profit
out of free software, which was, I think, the whole point of the OP)
>>Actually, the whole GNU movement speacks AGAINST the free market dogma,
>>for its build from free_as_in_free_beer work from thouthands of
>>developpers who had put themself and their work aside from the market as
>>it is
> I find it a bit concerning that you critize how I spend my time.
Oh no! Sorry if I offended you, fellow. I would be criticizing how you
spend your time if you turned to be an economic teacher, but as you are
a free software coder/maintainer I do not ! This is what I do myself
(otherwise I wouldn't give a dime for this gnu thing).
:-)
David Kastrup
> > Such a right wouldn't be pratical. There has been a large-scale
> > experiment going on for decades in many countries on this planet
> > (socialism) which was supposed to lead to a final state where
> > money could be abolished (communism). It has failed miserably
> > before even coming close to the final state.
>
> Here we are, already...
>
> I often refer to history myself, but I don't see the point here.
You are asking for the state to intervene between buyer and vendor,
managing the money (=work) of taxpayers according to what it
considers better for them than they do themselves, and don't see the
point in mentioning socialism? Try harder.
> Obviously, as people are always misleading about this cost thing in
> free softwares, there _is_ a conceptual problem in the GNU project :
> people continuously looks toward the GNU project for something,
> namely commercial-free softwares,
Do they? Again you demand that everybody else's needs and views
should be the same as yours, and so the state should collect
everybody's money and pay for your needs. But if everybody is willing
to expend the same money for the same thing, why not omit the state in
the first place and match buyers and sellers without it?
> Obviously, we won't be able to solve this conceptual problem with
> the simple assertion that people who want something else that the
> usual profit model are dangerous communists
You are not dangerous, just entertaining ideas that have failed for a
long time already, and we are talking socialism here, not communism.
> (hint : why not terrorists ?) and that the GNU project is nothing
> more that an original way to build business plans.
No, it isn't. GNU is about developing and using a software pool that
comes with indelible freedoms attached. There is no prescribed
business model how this software should come about in the first place.
That's not what GNU is about. It is clear that it can be challenging
to get a business to thrive from creating GNU software. You want to
make it impossible.
What's the purpose in that?
> > In a capitalistic system, the balance between supply and demand
> > automatically ensures prices which are reasonable for both sides.
>
> Yes, and the United Nations prevent wars.
If the price is not worth it to the buyer, he needs not buy. If the
price is not worth it to the seller, he need not have invested his
work in the first place.
You are asking for the state to buy the software. You are asking it
to take taxes from me and pay for standard software. I don't like
standard software.
> As an author of free and gratis software, if I find a company that
> sells my software for anything more than the costs of
> redistribution, that is, that makes profit out of it, I wont
> considering it fair price.
Then why don't you sell your software yourself and profit from it if
you think you could do it better?
cedric
its the same guy :)
David Kastrup wrote:
> [The only area where "state pays the developers" ...]
Do not put words in my mouth.
I didn't speack about state, I spoke about donations.
Like the FSF does.
Go and tell the FSF about state waging developpers, then.
> But that's the way needs are matched. If I need a programming job
> done, but no programmer is allowed to receive money for it, the job
> will not get done.
Off topic.
We do not discuss what you can do to get a program done by a developper, we
discuss how a developper should release a programm he made to serve the
users best.
> Buying and selling is a way of matching the interests of producers and
> consumers.
Yes. But its not the only one, and its not, in the case that is of
interrest for us, the best ; so I think.
> You are suggesting using the state as an unavoidable
> intermediary.
No, the idea does not even comes to my mind.
> There is a reason that socialism has not been the most convincing
> success.
Who speack about socialism here ?
<OT>
(ps: for your general knoledge, socialism is a society without State)
</OT>
cedric
> rixed <ri...@free.fr> writes:
>
>> > Such a right wouldn't be pratical. There has been a large-scale
>> > experiment going on for decades in many countries on this planet
>> > (socialism) which was supposed to lead to a final state where
>> > money could be abolished (communism). It has failed miserably
>> > before even coming close to the final state.
>>
>> Here we are, already...
>>
>> I often refer to history myself, but I don't see the point here.
>
> You are asking for the state to intervene between buyer and vendor,
> managing the money (=work) of taxpayers according to what it
> considers better for them than they do themselves, and don't see the
> point in mentioning socialism? Try harder.
please see my preceeding answer.
you are the only one who speack about State and socialism.
> GNU is about developing and using a software pool that
> comes with indelible freedoms attached. There is no prescribed
> business model how this software should come about in the first place.
> That's not what GNU is about. It is clear that it can be challenging
> to get a business to thrive from creating GNU software. You want to
> make it impossible.
>
> What's the purpose in that?
To attach the only true freedom for the user. Not the freedom to read the
source code (who cares ? users or developers ?), but the freedom from being
used as a source of revenues.
>> > In a capitalistic system, the balance between supply and demand
>> > automatically ensures prices which are reasonable for both sides.
>>
>> Yes, and the United Nations prevent wars.
>
> If the price is not worth it to the buyer, he needs not buy. If the
> price is not worth it to the seller, he need not have invested his
> work in the first place.
Yes, and tue United Nations prevent wars.
> You are asking for the state to buy the software.
:-)
> Then why don't you sell your software yourself and profit from it if
> you think you could do it better?
Im not a merchant.
Paul Jarc
> To attach the only true freedom for the user. Not the freedom to read the
> source code (who cares ? users or developers ?), but the freedom from being
> used as a source of revenues.
If you care only about price, and not freedom to copy, modify, and
redistribute, then you have very little in common with the GNU
project, and so I wonder why you chose this newsgroup to talk about
your goals.
paul
cedric
> If you care only about price, and not freedom to copy, modify, and
> redistribute,
Freedom to copy, modify and redistribute given by the GPL are due to the
fact that softwares should not be owned by no one, because they costs
nothing to copy.
This is not from me but from the FSF.
I just add that profit would have been a clearer target than property, for
its the real thing behind property.
> then you have very little in common with the GNU
> project, and so I wonder why you chose this newsgroup to talk about
> your goals.
because Im free as in free speach.
:-p
John Hasler
> As an author of free and gratis software, if I find a company that sells
> my software for anything more than the costs of redistribution, that is,
> that makes profit out of it, I wont considering it fair price.
Then distribute _your_ software under a license that forbids anyone from
profiting from it. No one will distribute it, of course, but that's your
problem. I don't mind if people profit from mine, but I would object
_violently_ were the state to try to prevent me from granting them the
right to do so.
John Hasler
> Is it free or not to use roads in your country ?
No. We pay substantial taxes for the right to use them.
> Or are the roads crossed every miles by a toll ?
Some are. They are still state monopolies, though.
> ...the evil thing in software property is that it leads to commercial
> relations between people(*)
This is our point of fundamental disagreement. You consider "commercial
relations" evil. We do not.
Byron A Jeff
rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
>David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [ It should be stated that the users have the right togetthings gratis ]
>> Why should it? If it is a right to get things for free, it would
>> become someone's duty to provide them for free. Who are you going to
>> enslave to do the work for free for freedom's purpose?
>
>Is it free or not to use roads in your country?
The payment is indirect. In the US Federal/State Gasoline taxes are used
to fund road projects. So you drive on the road, but you also buy gas and
pay the tax on it. Nothing is truly free.
> Or are the roads
>crossed every miles by a toll ? Are there slaves who build those roads ?
No. Road builders get payed from tax money.
BAJ
cedric
> This is our point of fundamental disagreement. You consider "commercial
> relations" evil. We do not.
You do not.
But just to let you know, most of people use GNU softwares because it is
gratis, actually. Then, some of them read the licenses and get interrested
in this freedom concept.
I just would have liked to hear a speach in accordance to thoses facts.
cedric
> But just to let you know, most of people use GNU softwares because it is
> gratis, actually.
BTW, I was just reading the eCos license, wich is a GPL + 1 exception
clause. Second paragraph :
"The goal of the license is to serve the eCos user community as a whole. It
allows all eCos users to develop products
_without_paying_anybody_anything_, no matter how many developers are
working on the product or how many units will be shipped." -
(http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/license-overview.html)
money, always money...
:)
Martin Dickopp
> > In a capitalistic system, the balance between supply and demand auto-
> > matically ensures prices which are reasonable for both sides.
>
> Yes, and the United Nations prevent wars.
I don't understand this remark. Are you suggesting that the balance
between supply and demand does /not/ work for Free Software, and that
consequently Free Software cannot be sold because either the price
would he so high that nobody would buy it, or the price would be so
low that nobody would sell it?
I don't think it's necessary to theorize about whether both a supply of
and a demand for commercial Free Software exists when there's already
plenty of commercial Free Software in the market.
> As an author of free and gratis software, if I find a company that sells
> my software for anything more than the costs of redistribution, that is,
> that makes profit out of it, I wont considering it fair price.
Why not? What's unfair about someone profiting from something you don't
want to or cannot use to make a profit yourself?
> (please please please, do not tell me the story that I "just" have to
> offer gratis download of my software to rip this company [...]
No, of course not. I tell you that if you don't want commercial
redistribution of your software, simply license it in a way that doesn't
allow it.
Of course, many people (including myself) would consider such a licence
non-free.
> Or explain me why microsoft is still selling software (and why they sold
> DOS in the first place) :-)
They sold DOS in the first place because when IBM urgently needed an
operating system for their newly developed PC, Bill Gates used the wealth
and influence of his father to buy the company which had written DOS.
But what does that have to do with this discussion?
> >>Actually, the whole GNU movement speacks AGAINST the free market dogma,
> >>for its build from free_as_in_free_beer work from thouthands of
> >>developpers who had put themself and their work aside from the market as
> >>it is
> > I find it a bit concerning that you critize how I spend my time.
>
> Oh no! Sorry if I offended you, fellow.
You didn't offend me at all. I was just trying to point out that I find it
strange how you portray the GNU project or generally people who /choose/
to spend their time writing software and offering it at no cost.
I mean, it's not as if the GNU project rips off a bunch of poor
developers. The GNU project /is/ (the totality of) its developers.
A number of people came together /voluntarily/ to collaborate on achieving
a certain goal that is important to them. At least one (RMS) considers it
so important that he devoted his whole life to it, while others spend
different amounts of time on it.
Martin
David Kastrup
> Im responding from my business, so its not the same email that apear, but
> its the same guy :)
>
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> > [The only area where "state pays the developers" ...]
>
> Do not put words in my mouth.
> I didn't speack about state, I spoke about donations.
So the state roads you were talking about are built with donations?
David Kastrup
> Paul Jarc wrote:
>
> > If you care only about price, and not freedom to copy, modify, and
> > redistribute,
>
> Freedom to copy, modify and redistribute given by the GPL are due to
> the fact that softwares should not be owned by no one, because they
> costs nothing to copy.
They don't cost nothing to copy when you need a medium, but the cost
is small in relation to the typical pricing. The FSF is against
prohibiting the user to do something himself which he can do, namely
copying. But the FSF is not against anybody demanding money for his
actual work, be it creating it or copying. It is just that the money
should be given for the actual work, and not simply because the user
is prohibited to do it himself.
If you feel it is somebody's duty to work for free by copying
software without recompensation, there is no reason you should not be
doing it yourself instead of complaining that nobody else does it.
rixed
Did you actually read my posts ?
rixed
> rixed <ri...@free.fr> writes:
>>>In a capitalistic system, the balance between supply and demand auto-
>>>matically ensures prices which are reasonable for both sides.
>>
>>Yes, and the United Nations prevent wars.
>
> I don't understand this remark. Are you suggesting that the balance
No, I just suggested that you share a rather naive approch to the laws
of market. but it's off topic.
I know free softwares can be sold. I just dont believe that the prices
are fixed by the simple law of supply and demand alone, but I dont feel
like discussing this here.
>>As an author of free and gratis software, if I find a company that sells
>>my software for anything more than the costs of redistribution, that is,
>>that makes profit out of it, I wont considering it fair price.
> Why not? What's unfair about someone profiting from something you don't
> want to or cannot use to make a profit yourself?
I dont care about this company itself. I care about the users who would
buy this thing, while I worked hard to provide it for free.
> No, of course not. I tell you that if you don't want commercial
> redistribution of your software, simply license it in a way that doesn't
> allow it.
Actually, Im considering changing some license from GPL to GPL with
exception. But as you said, such a license would not be considered free
(as in free market :-)) wich would make my software hard to include in
various distribution (first, quit savannah, then stop building .deb
packages, etc...) As you can see, supply and demand are not the only
things to consider :-)
> You didn't offend me at all. I was just trying to point out that I find it
> strange how you portray the GNU project or generally people who /choose/
> to spend their time writing software and offering it at no cost.
I should have written something with a very bad english, for I never
wanted to give this impression.
Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals of
authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the GNU
project fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
Martin Dickopp
> Martin Dickopp wrote:
> > rixed <ri...@free.fr> writes:
> >>>In a capitalistic system, the balance between supply and demand auto-
> >>>matically ensures prices which are reasonable for both sides.
> >>
> >>Yes, and the United Nations prevent wars.
> > I don't understand this remark. Are you suggesting that the balance
> > between supply and demand does /not/ work for Free Software, (...)
>
> No, I just suggested that you share a rather naive approch to the laws of
> market. but it's off topic.
> I know free softwares can be sold. I just dont believe that the prices are
> fixed by the simple law of supply and demand alone, but I dont feel like
> discussing this here.
I don't think I claimed that the prices are determined by supply and
demand alone. But my point still stands that the prices of commercial Free
Software, by whatever mechanisms they are influenced, are such that people
still have incentive to both sell and buy it.
> I dont care about this company itself. I care about the users who would
> buy this thing, while I worked hard to provide it for free.
Nobody forces the users to buy from this company, as long as the software
is still available through other channels. In fact, even if you (the
original author) stopped providing it, somebody else who already has
the software might offer it for download.
> I should have written something with a very bad english, for I never
> wanted to give this impression.
If I misunderstood you, blame it on /my/ bad English. :)
> Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals of
> authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the GNU project
> fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
Apparently we have very different ideals, as I feel my ideals very well
represented by the FSF and the GNU project.
Martin
tel...@xenon.triode.bogus.au
> Actually, the whole GNU movement speacks AGAINST the free market dogma,
"Free market dogma" has a lot of meanings depending on exactly where
you buy your dogma.
> for its build from free_as_in_free_beer work from thouthands of
> developpers who had put themself and their work aside from the market as
> it is
Some developers donate purely from the kindness of their heart but most
donate because it is ultimately in their benefit to see the Gnu project
become successful. This is a deal (also known as a trade or an exchange)
and it makes the basis of all economics.
The GPL does impose an alternative strategy for assigning a price to
software to what many existing software companies use. Since the only
"free market" theory of best pricing strategy is "let the market decide"
then if you believe in the free market then you must believe that all
strategies deserve a chance to demonstrate their effectiveness.
> ; but as people say here, no one is blind like someone who refuses
> to see :-)
They also say that you can observe a lot just by looking.
> And yes, Im a little upset against the FSF because they decided to _not_
> count amongst the fundamental rights of the users the right to get
> things for free instead of buying things.
You can invent your own software license that prevents the exchange
of money for the software. This is usually called a "non-commercial
license" and lots of software is distributed in both source and binary
format under such a license. Don't complain that other people want
to do things differently.
- Tel
tel...@xenon.triode.bogus.au
> I should have written something with a very bad english, for I never
> wanted to give this impression.
> Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals of
> authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the GNU
> project fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
When you go into it further, you might realise that trying to directly
control prices is doomed to failure. You have to take one step back
and control the factors that control the prices. The freedom to copy,
and modify is a price-influencing factor -- you can argue about the
details of supply and demand or about the accuracy of various economic
models but the general point is that the more choices the user has to
fulfill their needs the more the price will tend to fall.
However, there are some people who have the potential to earn MORE in
an environment where the majority of software is under GPL.
Consider that when all systems run one of a few variations of Microsoft
Windows, there isn't much you can do with respect to tuning, performance
monitoring and customisation. Sure, Microsoft give you parameters to
graph with their system monitoring tools but without source code you
can't really make sense of the results. When you do realise that some
bit of code could be better adjusted to better suit the circumstance
then you can't do it. At the same time Microsoft pump up the price of
commodity software, they also devalue the skills associated with tailored
solutions by enforcing a blanket of mediocrity on everyone.
The GPL has the opposite effect, the price of commodity software is
pushed down and the only thing left with value is the ability
to customise and fine-tune for specialist applications.
I'm just pointing out that the GPL is not trying to push ALL prices
down, some will go up... but then, the quality of the final product
will also go up.
- Tel
Barry Margolin
wrote:
> But that's the way needs are matched. If I need a programming job
> done, but no programmer is allowed to receive money for it, the job
> will not get done. Even if it is worth something to me to have it
> done, and it would be worth it to somebody else to do it.
If you need a programming job done, you hire someone to do it. You pay
for their time and service, and get something useful in return. Unlike
bits, time and talent are *not* unlimited, so it makes perfect sense to
treat them as valuable commodities. When bits are treated as property,
which can be owned and restricted, it's an artificial scarcity that's
created to make them conform to traditional economics that dealt with
tangible goods.
Barry Margolin
rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
> > Should the FSF be required to provide the
> > disclaimer that you can save money by going to their web site?
>
> The FSF isnot selling software, but is calling for donations. This is a
> very different process.
If you want them to send you a tape or CD-ROM, I believe you *must* pay
them, it is not voluntary. They also ask for donations, but this is
independent of their business of selling GNU software distributions.
However, it's true that they aren't "selling software" in the same sense
that companies like Microsoft do. They're selling the service of
putting the software on some convenient media and delivering that media
to you. However, the same is true of anyone else "selling" GPLed
software.
Barry Margolin
wrote:
> You are asking for the state to buy the software. You are asking it
> to take taxes from me and pay for standard software. I don't like
> standard software.
FYI, the original GNU Manifesto suggests something like this. RMS
proposed that the government have a pool of money to reimburse creators
of free software.
The problem with this idea is that we know it doesn't really work well.
It's basically how the National Endowment for the Arts works, and we've
seen the problems in that system. It's not a total failure, but it's
definitely not something that could be depended on for a resource as
critical as software. Art is a nice luxury, but software is a
necessity. The free market is probably a better system to handle this.
Barry Margolin
Martin Dickopp <expires-2...@zero-based.org> wrote:
> > I dont care about this company itself. I care about the users who would
> > buy this thing, while I worked hard to provide it for free.
>
> Nobody forces the users to buy from this company, as long as the software
> is still available through other channels. In fact, even if you (the
> original author) stopped providing it, somebody else who already has
> the software might offer it for download.
Go back to his original post. What he suggested is *not* that the
company be prohibited from selling the software, but merely that they
inform the prospective buyers that other delivery channels are available
that do not charge money. An analogous thing in another industry is
that I think doctors or pharmicists are required to offer cheaper,
generic equivalents to name-brand prescription drugs when feasible.
Also, when utilities are deregulated, the old monopolies are often
required to notify customers periodically that they now have the option
of purchasing from one of the new entrants into the industry.
The reason these practices exist in other industries is generally to
"level the playing" field, due to an incumbent having an unfair
advantage (e.g. when the Bell System was broken up, it took a few years
for many customers to get used to the idea that AT&T was not the only
long distance phone company, and this made it difficult for the
competitors to get their feet in the door). It's not so clear to me
that this need is so severe in software. If Microsoft were reselling
some free software then I could imagine them having a significant
advantage over everyone else, but that's not happening. People aren't
buying Red Hat distributions because Red Hat has duped them into
thinking that this is the only way to get Linux, they do it because Red
Hat adds value and it's worth the price. There may be some people who
don't know that they can download Linux for free, but they're a
minority, and probably wouldn't have the technical skills to make use of
the downloaded version anyway -- they need the prepackaged stuff that
installs automatically.
So how many people are really being ripped off by the vendors you're
trying to change?
Dave Arbok
>
> > And yes, Im a little upset against the FSF because they decided to _not_
> > count amongst the fundamental rights of the users the right to get
> > things for free instead of buying things.
>
> or two prominent sharers to ruin the market of someone trying to sell
> the same software with no added value.
>
> software. The value they add is packaging it onto some media, saving
> you the trouble of performing hundreds of downloads. (In addition, some
> people buy the software from the FSF as a way of supporting the
> organization, although it would probably be better for them to make a
> tax-deductible contribution.) Should the FSF be required to provide the
I realize now that my suggestion was unfortunately unclear, because of
the difference between free-as-in-beer and free-as-in-speech. In
practical fact, I have not seen much evidence of GPL software that is
not available for download, free-as-in-beer. The "free market" as was
suggested, seems to work in that regard. But another aspect of the
free market, is it being a relationship between INFORMED parties.
I actually do think the FSF should be required to provide the
disclaimer that you can save money by going to their web site, as
should all companies that sell software that is IN FACT available on
websites, or a large subset is available. My complaint is not with
hypothetical GPL software which only one person has and is selling for
a ridiculous amount of money, I have not seen this happen. What I do
see is people profiting largely because of the ignorance of the
customer (ignorance of the fact that they could download for free
something that gives them most of what they are buying), as in the
excellent example quoted by Tristan in the thread about
SoundConverter. <3F9B75C7...@mega-nerd.com>
I do not believe that nobody should ever make any profit selling free
software-I would hope the profit would be reasonable, and would go
mostly to the actual developers of the software, not hangers-on. But,
I do think the buyer should be told that what they are buying is GPL,
and they should know that in practical fact, if not in legal
requirement, they can get some of it for free.
If someone wants to buy a boxed GPL software, they should do it as an
informed customer, who as was stated above, does know they "can save
money by going to their web site." I believe many buyers are not this
informed, and could benefit from a warning label- but one more
accurate than my initial suggestion.
Maybe a better warning label would be:
"Part of this product is licensed under GPL. Most GPL software can be
downloaded, with source, at no charge on the internet (although this
is not a legal requirement). Money spent to purchase this package is
not guaranted to the developers of that GPL software." or if that is
too long, maybe
"This product contains GPL code, which is freely distributable (for
example, on the internet.)"
That new statement, I hope, is technically true, unlike my initial
warning label. Yes, the fact that it is distributable is not a
guarantee that it has in fact been distributed, but hopefully people
would learn that in practicality there is no difference. Then, the
buyers of boxed software, or soundconverter, etc., would hopefully be
more likely to act as informed consumers.
My complaint has always been about intended to about people taking
advantage of an uninformed user- it annoyed me to see a million spams
selling DVD rippers for $50-100 when they are no more than bundled
freeware. Yes, some of those cases are not GPL related, but if a GPL
warning can introduce newbies to the great world of GPL software and
maybe make them donate to the real author directly instead, it might
help.
David Kastrup
> The reason these practices exist in other industries is generally to
> "level the playing" field, due to an incumbent having an unfair
> advantage (e.g. when the Bell System was broken up, it took a few
> years for many customers to get used to the idea that AT&T was not
> the only long distance phone company, and this made it difficult for
> the competitors to get their feet in the door). It's not so clear
> to me that this need is so severe in software. If Microsoft were
> reselling some free software then I could imagine them having a
> significant advantage over everyone else, but that's not happening.
<URL:http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/productinfo/features/default.asp>
Powerful SDK
Use the software development kit (SDK), which supports more than
1,900 UNIX APIs and migration tools (conforming to the IEEE
1003.1-1990 standard), such as make, rcs, yacc, lex, cc, c89, nm,
strip, gbd [sic], as well as the gcc, g++, and g77 compilers.
David Kastrup
> My complaint is not with hypothetical GPL software which only one
> person has and is selling for a ridiculous amount of money, I have
> not seen this happen.
<URL:http://www.blender3d.org/Support/?sub=FAQ#general3> was sold as
GPL for the price of 100000EUR.
A GNU deluxe distribution from the FSF
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/order/deluxe.html> costs US$5000. A GNU
sourcecode CD set (2 CDs) costs US$345 for corporations.
> But, I do think the buyer should be told that what they are buying
> is GPL, and they should know that in practical fact, if not in legal
> requirement, they can get some of it for free.
So what else is new?
GPL, section 1
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an
appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep
intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the
absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the
Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
Sam Holden
Do you think they have a significant advantage over say cygwin?
Or even higher market share?
--
Sam Holden
rixed
> The free market is probably a better system to handle this.
But the free market obviously didn't, and RMS had to create the FSF...
rixed
>>authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the GNU project
>>fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
>
>
> Apparently we have very different ideals, as I feel my ideals very well
> represented by the FSF and the GNU project.
This is also how I felt untill big companies started to "join" the free
software movements. Then, you can see TV spots from IBM telling how
linux is a cool product for your company, but so far I have see no TV
spots featuring RMS explainning the purpose of free software, the value
of sharing things, etc... So I started to ask myself "what's goin on?" I
don't even feel in my place in a linux show any more. all the ideals
seams gone, marketers rules the show... we must have done a bad move
somewhere.
rixed
> When you go into it further, you might realise that trying to directly
> control prices is doomed to failure. You have to take one step back
> and control the factors that control the prices. The freedom to copy,
> and modify is a price-influencing factor -- you can argue about the
> details of supply and demand or about the accuracy of various economic
> models but the general point is that the more choices the user has to
> fulfill their needs the more the price will tend to fall.
It sounds reasonable, and I agree. But why forbidding the selling of
software (while encouraging donations) would be doomed to failure ? I
still think it would have been simplier...
> However, there are some people who have the potential to earn MORE in
> an environment where the majority of software is under GPL.
> (...)
> The GPL has the opposite effect, the price of commodity software is
> pushed down and the only thing left with value is the ability
> to customise and fine-tune for specialist applications.
>
> I'm just pointing out that the GPL is not trying to push ALL prices
> down, some will go up... but then, the quality of the final product
> will also go up.
Maybe.
Let me tell you another story : with the rise of free softwares,
hardware manufacturers(*) are more and more encouraged to conform to
standards, and then the necessity to fine-tune things slowly vanish. And
so does vanish the necessity to have so many softwares and professional
programmers, and RMS's prophecy comes true :-)
(*): which themself are about to disapeared because the free software
comunity organized the production of free, standard hardware. :-)
David Kastrup
David Kastrup
> >>Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals
> >>of authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the
> >>GNU project fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
Which GNU speakers and speeches are you talking about specifically?
> > Apparently we have very different ideals, as I feel my ideals very
> > well represented by the FSF and the GNU project.
>
> This is also how I felt untill big companies started to "join" the
> free software movements. Then, you can see TV spots from IBM telling
> how linux is a cool product for your company, but so far I have see
> no TV spots featuring RMS explainning the purpose of free software,
> the value of sharing things, etc...
And the reason for that is the same why you would not get to see a
whole lot of church coverage about Jesus Christ were he to reappear on
Earth: he is not playing game. Somebody who keeps throwing over the
moneylenders' tables in the temple is too embarrassing to keep around
if you are trying to run his religion successfully.
> So I started to ask myself "what's goin on?" I don't even feel in my
> place in a linux show any more. all the ideals seams gone, marketers
> rules the show... we must have done a bad move somewhere.
I find that the lack of mainstream coverage of the FSF and the GNU
project is more due to the FSF and RMS following their ideals pretty
much unabashedly rather than the other way round. That's why we got
an "Open Source" movement in the first place: since the "Free
Software" movement not least represented by Stallman was not focusing
on getting business users to believe that the main advantages of free
software development were economical.
David Kastrup
> tel...@xenon.triode.bogus.au wrote:
> > When you go into it further, you might realise that trying to
> > directly control prices is doomed to failure. You have to take one
> > step back and control the factors that control the prices. The
> > freedom to copy, and modify is a price-influencing factor -- you
> > can argue about the details of supply and demand or about the
> > accuracy of various economic models but the general point is that
> > the more choices the user has to fulfill their needs the more the
> > price will tend to fall.
>
> It sounds reasonable, and I agree. But why forbidding the selling of
> software (while encouraging donations) would be doomed to failure ?
You can't hope to present a convincing business plan to anybody based
on donations. That means businesses like RedHat would have no chance
to come into being. And that means that a lot of the spread of free
software would be encumbered.
As a comparative example, take the bible publishing business. There
is less money in it than in pulp fiction, there is considerable
competition, the principal content is free, but a lot of specialists
are paid for good critical work and translations. The printing is of
high quality and prices affordable. Quite a few people at the top of
their trade are involved. The system is working.
Now if it were prohibited to turn a profit from bible publishing
altogether, the system would break down, since the best would have to
earn their income elsewhere. You would find no publishing house that
would be willing to invest into solid bindings and top of the line
thin paper and so on. And that for the most published book of all
times.
> I still think it would have been simplier...
How do you prove that you did not actually turn a profit? How can you
plan in advance to be breaking even as the best choice? How can you
justify binding all your resources into a project when you have to
tell your stockholders that you are never going to make any money with
it?
If you hand over the printing of bibles to charities only, you'll
have to pay more money to keep them at what they are not good at, for
worse quality.
Stefaan A Eeckels
RMS perceived a need, and proceeded to fill it. That's the
free market.
--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
Stefaan A Eeckels
rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
> tel...@xenon.triode.bogus.au wrote:
> > When you go into it further, you might realise that trying to directly
> > control prices is doomed to failure. You have to take one step back
> > and control the factors that control the prices. The freedom to copy,
> > and modify is a price-influencing factor -- you can argue about the
> > details of supply and demand or about the accuracy of various economic
> > models but the general point is that the more choices the user has to
> > fulfill their needs the more the price will tend to fall.
>
> It sounds reasonable, and I agree. But why forbidding the selling of
> software (while encouraging donations) would be doomed to failure ? I
> still think it would have been simplier...
Software as a charity?
Mind you (and it has been said before) there are licenses that
prohibit making money other than the cost of copying the media
(and most of these forbid commercial use as well). The fact that
they're not as widely used as the GPL proves that they appeal
only to a niche market. The reason the GPL is so popular isn't
ignorance of the meaning of freedom (as is claimed by the BSDL
apostles), or ignorance of the fact that it doesn't say software
should be gratis (as you claim), but because people like what it
achieves.
> > However, there are some people who have the potential to earn MORE in
> > an environment where the majority of software is under GPL.
> > (...)
> > The GPL has the opposite effect, the price of commodity software is
> > pushed down and the only thing left with value is the ability
> > to customise and fine-tune for specialist applications.
> >
> > I'm just pointing out that the GPL is not trying to push ALL prices
> > down, some will go up... but then, the quality of the final product
> > will also go up.
>
> Maybe.
> Let me tell you another story : with the rise of free softwares,
> hardware manufacturers(*) are more and more encouraged to conform to
> standards, and then the necessity to fine-tune things slowly vanish.
My foot. Hardware standards exist because they enable mass
production, and thence low prices. And, surprise, hardware
can conform to standards and still need fine-tuning, simply
because standards cannot be so stifling as to inhibit innovation
(they can, but then you'll need the law to enforce them)
without being abandoned.
> And so does vanish the necessity to have so many softwares and
> professional programmers, and RMS's prophecy comes true :-)
What's so bad about professional programmers? Why would programming
be any different than say, gardening or cooking? It's not clear
to me whether RMS saw that his idea might lead to a revalorisation
of the independent, professional developers (which it can do, as
telford pointed out), but to me that's its real appeal. Microsoft and
its ilk are doing their damnedest to turn the computer - the most
flexible device ever invented by humankind - into a dumb device.
Free software allows programmers to find the best solution to a
problem, instead of forcing non-progammers to adapt their problems
to Microsoft's latest offerings.
May I ask what you do for a living?
>
> (*): which themself are about to disapeared because the free software
> comunity organized the production of free, standard hardware. :-)
Forget it. Hardware takes physical resources to produce, and
incredibly expensive equipment (like processor and memory fabs).
Stefaan A Eeckels
rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
> >>Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals of
> >>authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the GNU
> >project>fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
> >
> >
> > Apparently we have very different ideals, as I feel my ideals very
> > well represented by the FSF and the GNU project.
>
> This is also how I felt untill big companies started to "join" the free
> software movements. Then, you can see TV spots from IBM telling how
> linux is a cool product for your company, but so far I have see no TV
> spots featuring RMS explainning the purpose of free software, the value
> of sharing things, etc... So I started to ask myself "what's goin on?" I
Why would RMS spend money on an ad campaign? Values don't usually
get promoted that well through the telly :-). Or would you like
to see him sing the free software song dressed as St.-Ignutius?
> don't even feel in my place in a linux show any more. all the ideals
> seams gone, marketers rules the show... we must have done a bad move
> somewhere.
You wanted it to stay a clique of alter-mundialists?
Why would your enjoyment of free software be determined by either
its subversiveness, or its limited appeal, or the hairstyle of
its users? Linux is Linux, GNU is Not Unix, and what others feel
or believe, and whether Joe the Big Tycoon uses it or not shouldn't
influence you in the least. Unless, of course, you weren't
interested in the software, but the ideology. If that's the case,
I've got excellent news for you, because RMS is staying the
course. And bully to him too.
What you feel is what the first christians must have felt
when their leaders stuck christian labels on pagan rites,
to make christianity more palatable to the heathen. Don't
worry, it'll pass.
John Hasler
> Then, you can see TV spots from IBM telling how linux is a cool product
> for your company, but so far I have see no TV spots featuring RMS
That problem is easily solved: give up watching television, like I did.
> So I started to ask myself "what's goin on?" I don't even feel in my
> place in a linux show any more. all the ideals seams gone, marketers
> rules the show...
The ideals are strongly present in Debian, with not a marketer in sight.
> ...we must have done a bad move somewhere.
_You_ made a bad move. It was deciding to try to make everyone else
conform to your values. Those people buying Red Hat Enterprise for
ridiculous sums _don't_ _give_ _a_ _damn_ that they could get the software
free. They _want_ whatever it is that they get for their money.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Barry Margolin
rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
The FSF is *using* the free market system. They never depended on the
government to legislate anything special for them.
Mikko Rauhala
> The FSF is *using* the free market system. They never depended on the
> government to legislate anything special for them.
Well, nothing special, yes, and to some extent they _are_ using the free
market system, but to a great extent they are also utilizing
government-issued monopoly powers called "copyright", which, just to
remind people, are not exactly a feature of a free market.
(Not that I disagree with them in their use of them, given that
copyrights do exist in legislation.)
--
Mikko Rauhala - m...@iki.fi - <URL:http://www.iki.fi/mjr/>
Transhumanist - WTA member - <URL:http://www.transhumanism.org/>
Singularitarian - SIAI supporter - <URL:http://www.singinst.org/>
Jim
and benefit from, the FSF. Is it a defect of the free market
that the FSF wasn't created at the same time? Was RMS very
late in its creation? The whole point is that it exists and
we can all contribute and benefit. What more do you want?
Jim
Martin Dickopp
> >>Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals of
> >>authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the GNU project
> >>fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
> > Apparently we have very different ideals, as I feel my ideals very well
> > represented by the FSF and the GNU project.
>
> This is also how I felt untill big companies started to "join" the free
> software movements. [...] all the ideals seams gone, marketers rules the
> show...
Given this reply, I really don't understand how you see how the
GNU project failing to protect the ideals. I like the FSF precisely
because it protects the ideals very well: In these times, where most
people are only concerned with the pratical advantages of Free Software,
the FSF still promotes freedom.
Martin
tel...@xenon.triode.bogus.au
> It sounds reasonable, and I agree. But why forbidding the selling of
> software (while encouraging donations) would be doomed to failure ? I
> still think it would have been simplier...
It's been tried, and it does sort of work. You can find a range of such
non-commercial licenses out there but they just haven't achieved much
popularity.
My analogy goes a bit like this: money represents a way of keeping
track of reality (where by "reality" I mean actual goods that people
find valuable) but if you use money as a handle to attempt to control
reality then when you pull hard on the handle, it breaks off.
> Let me tell you another story : with the rise of free softwares,
> hardware manufacturers(*) are more and more encouraged to conform to
> standards, and then the necessity to fine-tune things slowly vanish.
Only if all applications have identical requirements.
- Tel
rixed (chez free.fr)
>>>The free market is probably a better system to handle this.
>>
>>But the free market obviously didn't, and RMS had to create the FSF...
>
> RMS perceived a need, and proceeded to fill it. That's the
> free market.
With such a tautological definition of market, Jesus also perceived and
proceeded to fill a need.
:)
rixed (chez free.fr)
>> But the free market obviously didn't, and RMS had to create the FSF...
>>
> But he was free to create it. And we're free to contribute to,
> and benefit from, the FSF. Is it a defect of the free market
> that the FSF wasn't created at the same time? Was RMS very
> late in its creation? The whole point is that it exists and
> we can all contribute and benefit. What more do you want?
We can benefit from the usefullness of the software. But we do not
(yet?) benefit a lot from the ethical concern of the FSF (wich are for
example to "help society as a whole escape from being dominated (and
gouged) by megacorporations." -- see "why schools should use free
softwares?") - because by giving the "freedom" to sell softwares to the
users, it fails to clearly identify selling as a way to restrict sharing
and enforce property.
rixed (chez free.fr)
> rixed <ri...@free.fr> writes:
>
>>Barry Margolin wrote:
>>
>>>The free market is probably a better system to handle this.
>>
>>But the free market obviously didn't, and RMS had to create the
>>FSF...
>
> And there was a market for that.
In this world where some people are trained hard to sell even the most
useless things, this is not a surprise.
But just to let you know, the existence or not of a market was not
considered (see "Why software should be free : " Vaclav Havel has
advised us to ``Work for something because it is good, not just because
it stands a chance to succeed.'' A business making proprietary software
stands a chance of success in its own narrow terms, but it is not what
is good for society.")
:)
rixed (chez free.fr)
> rixed <ri...@free.fr> writes:
>>>>Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals
>>>>of authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the
>>>>GNU project fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
>
> Which GNU speakers and speeches are you talking about specifically?
None specifically ; "speachs" should not have been the good word. I
meant texts (gnu.org or newsgroups...)
>>This is also how I felt untill big companies started to "join" the
>>free software movements. Then, you can see TV spots from IBM telling
>>how linux is a cool product for your company, but so far I have see
>>no TV spots featuring RMS explainning the purpose of free software,
>>the value of sharing things, etc...
>
> And the reason for that is the same why you would not get to see a
> whole lot of church coverage about Jesus Christ were he to reappear on
> Earth: he is not playing game. Somebody who keeps throwing over the
> moneylenders' tables in the temple is too embarrassing to keep around
> if you are trying to run his religion successfully.
Yes, this is not a surprise. What *is* a surprise is that RMS, instead
of throwing over the moneylenders, encourage them to do so (specifically
: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).
> I find that the lack of mainstream coverage of the FSF and the GNU
> project is more due to the FSF and RMS following their ideals pretty
> much unabashedly rather than the other way round. That's why we got
> an "Open Source" movement in the first place: since the "Free
> Software" movement not least represented by Stallman was not focusing
> on getting business users to believe that the main advantages of free
> software development were economical.
I didn't get your point. Do you _blame_ RMS for the OpenSource thing ?
(what does unabashedly means, anyway ? babelfish online translations
could'nt tell :))
David Kastrup
Nonsense. In order to share something, you need to have acquired it
in the first place. The GPL does not restrict you to share what you
received. But it does not give you the right to confiscate.
What problem are you having, exactly?
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> > rixed <ri...@free.fr> writes:
> >>>>Im worried about how the economics can pervert the initial ideals
> >>>>of authors and users of free software. I think the speachs of the
> >>>>GNU project fail to guard this ideals, that's all.
> > Which GNU speakers and speeches are you talking about specifically?
>
> None specifically ; "speachs" should not have been the good word. I
> meant texts (gnu.org or newsgroups...)
So which texts are you talking about specifically?
rixed (chez free.fr)
> Why would RMS spend money on an ad campaign? Values don't usually
> get promoted that well through the telly :-). Or would you like
> to see him sing the free software song dressed as St.-Ignutius?
RMS already looks like a precher man, he just would have to learn how to
sing. :)
No, I was just drawing attention to the fact that companies are playing
their own game in the area of free software (and that the FSF failed to
warn against this phenomenon).
> You wanted it to stay a clique of alter-mundialists?
I don't know for the "mundialism", but I know for the computer industry.
Yes, I would like it to stay away from business.
I this means to "stay a clique", no problem
(rather be a canker in a hedge than a rose in his grace)
> Why would your enjoyment of free software be determined by either
> its subversiveness, or (...)?
> Linux is Linux, GNU is Not Unix, and what others feel
> or believe, and whether Joe the Big Tycoon uses it or not shouldn't
> influence you in the least.
because I can see over my fences ?
I thought that considering free software for its usefullness in the
field of computers was the OpenSource credo, while the FSF consider the
usefullness for society.
> Unless, of course, you weren't
> interested in the software, but the ideology. If that's the case,
> I've got excellent news for you, because RMS is staying the
> course. And bully to him too.
This is what I was discussing. No, I don't think he is staying the
course enought.
> What you feel is what the first christians must have felt
> when their leaders stuck christian labels on pagan rites,
> to make christianity more palatable to the heathen. Don't
> worry, it'll pass.
I 100% agree with the analogy.
Yes it passed, because christianism changed to became acceptable and
usefull for the Big Tycoons. The word became the roman state religion,
while the initial spirit remained outlaw. Christians were not prepared
to face this mutation, them who believed that the word came first :-)
rixed (chez free.fr)
> Given this reply, I really don't understand how you see how the
> GNU project failing to protect the ideals. I like the FSF precisely
> because it protects the ideals very well: In these times, where most
> people are only concerned with the pratical advantages of Free Software,
> the FSF still promotes freedom.
I also like the FSF because of this. And I defend RMS in public
discussions against people annoyed by his militantism in favor of
freedom (and some get *really* annoyed).
But here, in gnu.misc.discuss, you guys where supposed to defend RMS
while I was supposed to attack. :-) (Once in a while, the attack comes
from the left.)
David Kastrup
> No, I was just drawing attention to the fact that companies are
> playing their own game in the area of free software (and that the
> FSF failed to warn against this phenomenon).
What problem is there? They can't take the freedom to share away
from their customers. The GNU project always has been about software
recipients being prohibited from copying what they received.
Always. It never was concerned with the price you had to pay for
software, but with the freedoms of what you could do with it.
More inherent freedoms might imply a higher price. When slavery was
abolished, nobody claimed this was done in order to reduce the price
of labor.
> I don't know for the "mundialism", but I know for the computer
> industry. Yes, I would like it to stay away from business.
Why?
> I thought that considering free software for its usefullness in the
> field of computers was the OpenSource credo, while the FSF consider
> the usefullness for society.
And free software becomes useless for the society if it gets
distributed by companies?
That there exist bible printing companies makes the bible useless?
> > Unless, of course, you weren't interested in the software, but the
> > ideology. If that's the case, I've got excellent news for you,
> > because RMS is staying the course. And bully to him too.
>
> This is what I was discussing. No, I don't think he is staying the
> course enought.
Then support your opinion by quoting any texts of his that would
claim a different course at some earlier time.
rixed (chez free.fr)
> You can't hope to present a convincing business plan to anybody based
> on donations. That means businesses like RedHat would have no chance
> to come into being.
so bad...
> And that means that a lot of the spread of free
> software would be encumbered.
Who can tell ?
> As a comparative example, take the bible publishing business. There
> is less money in it than in pulp fiction, there is considerable
> competition, the principal content is free, but a lot of specialists
> are paid for good critical work and translations. The printing is of
> high quality and prices affordable. Quite a few people at the top of
> their trade are involved. The system is working.
>
> Now if it were prohibited to turn a profit from bible publishing
> altogether, the system would break down, since the best would have to
> earn their income elsewhere. You would find no publishing house that
> would be willing to invest into solid bindings and top of the line
> thin paper and so on. And that for the most published book of all
> times.
Yes, we can see everyday that the profit principle can leads to a
somewhat working system. But its not the only one to consider ; or do
you think RMS should have fund the "GNU company, lmtd." instead of the
GNU project ?
:-)
> How do you prove that you did not actually turn a profit?
Good point. You can't, and you dont want to. Back some years ago, when I
was using freewares/sharewares, I didn't care if authors got rich with
their software, as soon as I could get the whole software for no price
and pay what and only if I wanted to. The main thing is : do we sell or
do we offer ?
> If you hand over the printing of bibles to charities only, you'll
> have to pay more money to keep them at what they are not good at, for
> worse quality.
consider also the advantage : editors would not consider the sell rates
only, then they would not write what they know/think people want to
read, thus adding to the overall quality and diversity of the
commentaries. on the other side, readers would judge on the quality
only, no price, thus eliminate cheap crappy bibles.
rixed (chez free.fr)
> Software as a charity?
> Mind you (and it has been said before) there are licenses that
> prohibit making money other than the cost of copying the media
> (and most of these forbid commercial use as well). The fact that
> they're not as widely used as the GPL proves that they appeal
> only to a niche market.
No, it proves nothing. Otherwise lets all go work for Microsoft.
> The reason the GPL is so popular isn't
> ignorance of the meaning of freedom (as is claimed by the BSDL
> apostles), or ignorance of the fact that it doesn't say software
> should be gratis (as you claim), but because people like what it
> achieves.
Not only. For the people attracted by what it achieves, the FSF is right
about the necessity to teach the value of freedom to all new comers. If
only they also could teach the value of free beers, that would have been
perfect !
> What's so bad about professional programmers? Why would programming
> be any different than say, gardening or cooking?
gardening or cooking can be done by non professionals. Wouldn't it be
great if it were the same with programming ? :)
Anyway, I have nothing against independant valuable professionals.
> It's not clear
> to me whether RMS saw that his idea might lead to a revalorisation
> of the independent, professional developers (which it can do, as
> telford pointed out), but to me that's its real appeal. (...)
> May I ask what you do for a living?
Im programmer, but not independant. Then I do not rely on free software
to make a living, maybe that's why I can target more ideal goals for
free softwares. :)
>>(*): which themself are about to disapeared because the free software
>>comunity organized the production of free, standard hardware. :-)
>
> Forget it. Hardware takes physical resources to produce, and
> incredibly expensive equipment (like processor and memory fabs).
This distinction between physical and not physical ressources have no
meaning at all for me. A programmer needs coca cola and chips to program
free softwares ; these are physical ressources :-) Like for programming,
the only thing needed by manufacturing is funding. But unlike software
programming, manufacturing can not be achieved on an individual scale.
When a programmer can give a little time to program free things, we need
many people to donate free time (or money, wich is a representation of
time) for manufacturing something. So this is a question of collecting
this time, then a question of organisation. And the "community" already
achieved many great things in the field of organisation, that's why I
think that a day will come when the community will manufacture things.
But this is another story.
rixed (chez free.fr)
> rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
>
>>It sounds reasonable, and I agree. But why forbidding the selling of
>>software (while encouraging donations) would be doomed to failure ? I
>>still think it would have been simplier...
>
> It's been tried, and it does sort of work. You can find a range of such
> non-commercial licenses out there but they just haven't achieved much
> popularity.
Yes and it will be more and more complicated to achieve such a
popularity, because such a license results in a non GPL compatible license.
Releasing a software under the GPL + a non-profit exception would
results in not beeing able to include this software to my favorite
debian distro. this kills me :(
> My analogy goes a bit like this: money represents a way of keeping
> track of reality (where by "reality" I mean actual goods that people
> find valuable) but if you use money as a handle to attempt to control
> reality then when you pull hard on the handle, it breaks off.
Money is what you give to the grocer to get some food. Im not for
starvation, then Im not targeting money. Im targeting sells and profit,
that is, establishing relation with other people for getting some more
money.
Here is a painting : profit is The Only Thing, and if one do not take
measures or if one is afraid to even spell its name, then with time it
rules any business completely.
:)
David Kastrup
> Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
>
> > The reason the GPL is so popular isn't ignorance of the meaning of
> > freedom (as is claimed by the BSDL apostles), or ignorance of the
> > fact that it doesn't say software should be gratis (as you claim),
> > but because people like what it achieves.
>
> Not only. For the people attracted by what it achieves, the FSF is
> right about the necessity to teach the value of freedom to all new
> comers. If only they also could teach the value of free beers, that
> would have been perfect !
Free beer is no value in itself. The Free Software foundation never
was concerned about price, but about the quality of what you get for
it: software that you aren't artificially prohibited from sharing with
other people.
I am making a business from developing free software, and it is hard
enough as it stands. You don't put forward any argument that would
have any merit to support your case.
> > What's so bad about professional programmers? Why would
> > programming be any different than say, gardening or cooking?
>
> gardening or cooking can be done by non professionals.
And that is a reason for not prohibiting taking money for it?
> Wouldn't it be great if it were the same with programming ? :)
And because programming (according to your statement) can only be
done by professionals, it must be prohibited that it must be done for
payment?
I am not sure that I could come up with more half-baked inconsistent
nonsense even if I tried really hard.
> Im programmer, but not independant. Then I do not rely on free
> software to make a living, maybe that's why I can target more ideal
> goals for free softwares. :)
I don't see any ideal in your proposals. An ideal that is worth
anything must be possible to attain at least in a world filled with
idealists. If your ideals were made real, all programmers would have
to starve, by necessity, since you don't allow them to make a profit
for any reason.
The FSF promotes a world where a stream of income is not secured at
the cost of prohibiting your users to copy and share. It does not
promote a world where income is prohibited.
> This distinction between physical and not physical ressources have
> no meaning at all for me.
A lot of distinctions appear to share this fate.
Barry Margolin
> Yes, this is not a surprise. What *is* a surprise is that RMS, instead
> of throwing over the moneylenders, encourage them to do so (specifically
> : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).
RMS needs to make a living, and he realizes that the rest of us do, too;
and most of us will never receive a genius grant. He doesn't have a
problem with people making money from programming, so long as it doesn't
prevent us from modifying and sharing the results.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
Barry Margolin
wrote:
> > > What's so bad about professional programmers? Why would
> > > programming be any different than say, gardening or cooking?
> >
> > gardening or cooking can be done by non professionals.
>
> And that is a reason for not prohibiting taking money for it?
>
> > Wouldn't it be great if it were the same with programming ? :)
>
> And because programming (according to your statement) can only be
> done by professionals, it must be prohibited that it must be done for
> payment?
The analogy I like to use is car repair and detailing. The situation
with proprietary software is like a world where such work can only be
done by the original manufacturer -- you wouldn't be able to take your
car to a local mechanic, nor would you be able to tinker with it
yourself if you have the know-how.
Free software means that you can do with the software what you like. If
you have programming skills, you can tailor it to your needs. If not,
you can find someone who is willing to do it for you (they might want
you to pay for their services, though). The important thing is that you
aren't restricted to dealing with the original vendor, you have freedom
of choice.
And none of this has anything to do with whether you paid to get the
software in the first place. In fact, I think some people would be
willing to pay *more* for free software -- the freedom that comes with
the license has added value.
David Kastrup
> And none of this has anything to do with whether you paid to get the
> software in the first place. In fact, I think some people would be
> willing to pay *more* for free software -- the freedom that comes
> with the license has added value.
In the case of "Blender", that added value was worth 100000EUR.
Martin Dickopp
> I thought that considering free software for its usefullness in the
> field of computers was the OpenSource credo, while the FSF consider
> the usefullness for society.
Correct. However, you have not yet shown any convincing evidence that
society would benefit more if Free Software couldn't be sold.
Martin
Martin Dickopp
> Martin Dickopp wrote:
> > Given this reply, I really don't understand how you see how the
> > GNU project failing to protect the ideals. I like the FSF precisely
> > because it protects the ideals very well: In these times, where most
> > people are only concerned with the pratical advantages of Free Software,
> > the FSF still promotes freedom.
>
> I also like the FSF because of this. And I defend RMS in public
> discussions against people annoyed by his militantism in favor of
> freedom (and some get *really* annoyed).
When people are not receptible to arguments, I usually give up pretty
quickly. It's usually more effective to discuss with people who actually
listen and cosider what it said.
> But here, in gnu.misc.discuss, you guys where supposed to defend RMS
> while I was supposed to attack. :-) (Once in a while, the attack comes
> from the left.)
I for one speak for myself here, so I defend my philosophy (which is
greatly influenced by RMS' philosophy and very similar to it) against
your philosophy. :)
Martin
John Hasler
> What problem are you having, exactly?
I think that's fairly clear now. He objects to the FSF's failure to push
his political agenda for him.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup writes:
> > What problem are you having, exactly?
>
> I think that's fairly clear now. He objects to the FSF's failure to
> push his political agenda for him.
That is fairly clear, yes. But I still fail to see anything that is
sane enough to be called "political agenda". He objects to people
asking money for software media, yet fails to propose how they are
going to manage providing him with it, or why they should try. The
reason is that he would find it nicer if he did not have to pay in
connection with software, ever.
In a similar vein, I could push as a political agenda that it should
not be allowed to rain on weekends. I would find it nicer if that
were the case.
John Hasler
> That is fairly clear, yes. But I still fail to see anything that is sane
> enough to be called "political agenda".
Sane political agenda? That's an oxymoron.
> He objects to people asking money for software media, yet fails to
> propose how they are going to manage providing him with it, or why they
> should try.
Worse yet, he objects to me making my software available for free because I
permit others to resell it.
> The reason is that he would find it nicer if he did not have to pay in
> connection with software, ever.
Unenlightened self interest is behind most political agendas.
Barry Margolin
wrote:
> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup writes:
> > > What problem are you having, exactly?
> >
> > I think that's fairly clear now. He objects to the FSF's failure to
> > push his political agenda for him.
>
> That is fairly clear, yes. But I still fail to see anything that is
> sane enough to be called "political agenda". He objects to people
> asking money for software media, yet fails to propose how they are
> going to manage providing him with it, or why they should try. The
> reason is that he would find it nicer if he did not have to pay in
> connection with software, ever.
I'm not sure that's it. *He* knows that free software can often be
downloaded for no fee, so this issue doesn't affect him personally.
He's concerned about all the clueless people who don't realize that they
can bypass for-fee vendors, and wants these vendors to let them know
that there are alternate ways to get the software.
In that light, he's looking out for others, not being selfish.
David Kastrup
> In article <x5k73mr...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> > John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
> >
> > > David Kastrup writes:
> > > > What problem are you having, exactly?
> > >
> > > I think that's fairly clear now. He objects to the FSF's
> > > failure to push his political agenda for him.
> >
> > That is fairly clear, yes. But I still fail to see anything that
> > is sane enough to be called "political agenda". He objects to
> > people asking money for software media, yet fails to propose how
> > they are going to manage providing him with it, or why they should
> > try. The reason is that he would find it nicer if he did not have
> > to pay in connection with software, ever.
>
> I'm not sure that's it. *He* knows that free software can often be
> downloaded for no fee, so this issue doesn't affect him personally.
> He's concerned about all the clueless people who don't realize that
> they can bypass for-fee vendors, and wants these vendors to let them
> know that there are alternate ways to get the software.
But that is stupid. If I go to the market, I don't have warning
labels everywhere "Warning: there might be trees on country roads
where apples might be picked for free.". This does not tell me the
price to drive there, anyway. And "downloaded for no fee" does not
tell me the quality of the connection, the bandwidth, and so forth
and so on. And there is no guarantee that it can be downloaded
freely, anyway: the party in question might be the only one seriously
offering it.
When they _do_ sell it to me, they have to tell me about the rights I
get with it (including the right to offer it for free download). But
that is already nailed down in the GPL's conditions.
Barry Margolin
wrote:
> Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> writes:
>
> > In article <x5k73mr...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup
> > <d...@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> > > John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > David Kastrup writes:
> > > > > What problem are you having, exactly?
> > > >
> > > > I think that's fairly clear now. He objects to the FSF's
> > > > failure to push his political agenda for him.
> > >
> > > That is fairly clear, yes. But I still fail to see anything that
> > > is sane enough to be called "political agenda". He objects to
> > > people asking money for software media, yet fails to propose how
> > > they are going to manage providing him with it, or why they should
> > > try. The reason is that he would find it nicer if he did not have
> > > to pay in connection with software, ever.
> >
> > I'm not sure that's it. *He* knows that free software can often be
> > downloaded for no fee, so this issue doesn't affect him personally.
> > He's concerned about all the clueless people who don't realize that
> > they can bypass for-fee vendors, and wants these vendors to let them
> > know that there are alternate ways to get the software.
>
> But that is stupid. If I go to the market, I don't have warning
> labels everywhere "Warning: there might be trees on country roads
> where apples might be picked for free.". This does not tell me the
Everyone knows about trees, so this doesn't have to be said. Free
software is a relatively new concept, so many customers can be expected
to be ignorant if the issues, and the vendors can take advantage of
them. He's trying to look out for these folks. This can be likened to
the disclosure requirements put on securities dealers.
> price to drive there, anyway. And "downloaded for no fee" does not
> tell me the quality of the connection, the bandwidth, and so forth
> and so on. And there is no guarantee that it can be downloaded
> freely, anyway: the party in question might be the only one seriously
> offering it.
Presumably if the software *isn't* available by other means, there
wouldn't be any requirement to have that language. I don't think he's
asking vendors to lie, he just wants customers to be made fully aware of
their options.
He's clearly talking about the cases where the vendor knows that
customers can easily get the software themselves. E.g. the vendor
downloaded the software from a good site, put it on a CD, and started
selling it.
> When they _do_ sell it to me, they have to tell me about the rights I
> get with it (including the right to offer it for free download). But
> that is already nailed down in the GPL's conditions.
Telling someone what they can do after they buy the software is not the
same as telling them that they can get it without even buying it.
David Kastrup
> In article <x5ptdep...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>
> wrote:
>
> > price to drive there, anyway. And "downloaded for no fee" does
> > not tell me the quality of the connection, the bandwidth, and so
> > forth and so on. And there is no guarantee that it can be
> > downloaded freely, anyway: the party in question might be the only
> > one seriously offering it.
>
> Presumably if the software *isn't* available by other means, there
> wouldn't be any requirement to have that language.
Oh, and the vendor is required to do a market research in order to
find out whether any customers of him have made his code available
somewhere? So that he might put a warning label on his own software
in case he can reliably track some source of his elsewhere?
Come on, this is purely insane. It is not the duty of a vendor to
figure out where and if other people might offer something that he is
getting paid for.
> I don't think he's asking vendors to lie, he just wants customers to
> be made fully aware of their options.
But the vendor can't be required to research options how he might
make less money.
> > When they _do_ sell it to me, they have to tell me about the
> > rights I get with it (including the right to offer it for free
> > download). But that is already nailed down in the GPL's
> > conditions.
>
> Telling someone what they can do after they buy the software is not
> the same as telling them that they can get it without even buying
> it.
If they don't do the market research for themselves, they pay the
price that is told to them.
That's how it is with everything you buy. I don't see why it should
be any different with free software media.
Barry Margolin
wrote:
> Oh, and the vendor is required to do a market research in order to
> find out whether any customers of him have made his code available
> somewhere? So that he might put a warning label on his own software
> in case he can reliably track some source of his elsewhere?
I think the OP's suggested wording was something like "may be available
elsewhere for no charge". I think his assumption was that it's very
likely that someone will make free software available for download, so
you can't go wrong with a qualified statement like this.
> If they don't do the market research for themselves, they pay the
> price that is told to them.
>
> That's how it is with everything you buy. I don't see why it should
> be any different with free software media.
No it isn't that way with everything. Drug manufacturers have to
disclose possible side effects, securities dealers have to warn that
"past performance is no guarantee of future returns", etc.
David Kastrup
> In article <x5ad4hn...@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org>
> wrote:
>
> > Oh, and the vendor is required to do a market research in order to
> > find out whether any customers of him have made his code available
> > somewhere? So that he might put a warning label on his own
> > software in case he can reliably track some source of his
> > elsewhere?
>
> I think the OP's suggested wording was something like "may be
> available elsewhere for no charge". I think his assumption was that
> it's very likely that someone will make free software available for
> download, so you can't go wrong with a qualified statement like
> this.
>
> > If they don't do the market research for themselves, they pay the
> > price that is told to them.
> >
> > That's how it is with everything you buy. I don't see why it
> > should be any different with free software media.
>
> No it isn't that way with everything. Drug manufacturers have to
> disclose possible side effects, securities dealers have to warn that
> "past performance is no guarantee of future returns", etc.
You are comparing apples with oranges. It is the same with everything
you buy. The price you pay is no side effect. It has to be declared,
but you don't need to mention that others may be cheaper. Drug
manufacturers don't have to print "Warning: you may get this drug
cheaper elsewhere" on their boxes, and security dealers don't have to
warn their customers that there may be other dealers.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> In that light, he's looking out for others, not being selfish.
>
There is nothing more irksome than self-appointed do-gooders,
who're so convinced of the intellectual and moral inferiority
of the rest of humankind that they feel compelled to protect the
miserable masses from their own depravity and stupidity.
I suppose they get their kicks that way, but it'd nice if they
discovered the joys of the opium pipe.
--
Stefaan
--
"What is stated clearly conceives easily." -- Inspired sales droid
tel...@xenon.triode.bogus.au
> tel...@xenon.triode.bogus.au wrote:
>> rixed <ri...@free.fr> wrote:
>>
>>>It sounds reasonable, and I agree. But why forbidding the selling of
>>>software (while encouraging donations) would be doomed to failure ? I
>>>still think it would have been simplier...
>>
>> It's been tried, and it does sort of work. You can find a range of such
>> non-commercial licenses out there but they just haven't achieved much
>> popularity.
> Yes and it will be more and more complicated to achieve such a
> popularity, because such a license results in a non GPL compatible license.
The non-commercial licenses were out there first, they are older than
the GPL and the GPL was actually in the minority when it got started.
> Releasing a software under the GPL + a non-profit exception would
> results in not beeing able to include this software to my favorite
> debian distro. this kills me :(
The Debian distro is large and useful because it is supported by a
lot of people who believe in the GPL. They aren't all rushing off to
write non-commercial software because that really is not what they
want to do. The whole design of the GPL is to ensure that anyone who
goes and decides to mess around with the license terms because they
have this great idea about how things should run will be forced out
of the GPL community. Do not report this as a bug, it is a design
feature.
>> My analogy goes a bit like this: money represents a way of keeping
>> track of reality (where by "reality" I mean actual goods that people
>> find valuable) but if you use money as a handle to attempt to control
>> reality then when you pull hard on the handle, it breaks off.
> Money is what you give to the grocer to get some food.
Money must travel both directions for the system to work properly.
It is a medium of exchange and has token value only, no physical value.
> Im not for
> starvation, then Im not targeting money. Im targeting sells and profit,
> that is, establishing relation with other people for getting some more
> money.
Are you suggesting that a relationship can never be of value?
> Here is a painting : profit is The Only Thing, and if one do not take
> measures or if one is afraid to even spell its name, then with time it
> rules any business completely.
Correct. This is how a business is designed to run.
This is why we need rules to ensure that the business community "plays
fair" and competes only on the basis of improving their own product and
not on the basis of cheating or exploitation. The GPL is not designed to
take away the profit motive it is only designed to form a framework for
what is considered to be acceptable methods of competition. It is also
designed to hurt people who refuse to accept these ground rules.
- Tel
Robert Uhl
>
> There is nothing more irksome than self-appointed do-gooders,
> who're so convinced of the intellectual and moral inferiority
> of the rest of humankind that they feel compelled to protect the
> miserable masses from their own depravity and stupidity.
*That* goes into my quotes file!
--
Robert Uhl <ru...@4dv.net>
To believe in gun control, one has to believe that guns are not an
effective means of self-defence, which is why police carry them.