BSD & GPL comparaison
Chris Topher
or distribut(ing) or publish(ing)" in this.
Both licenses offer presumably valuable non-exclusive rights to
distribute certain software and documentation and to distribute
derivations of it, conditioned on the continued demonstration of
acceptance of the license, thus forming a legal contract (at least in
the USA - some places require exchange of something of value in both
directions).
Neither license gives one the right to "run" the software. US
copyright law allows one to run it without a license since one
can own BSDL and GPL software copies without accepting the license.
(Closed-source software usually is different in that respect,
having nothing to do with its closedness.)
Neither license applies to a derivative -- only to the orignal
licensor's rights in the derivative. The deriver offers his own
license in his work in the derivative. They both own the derivative.
The big difference between BSDL and GPL is that the GPL essentially
requires the deriver to use the GPL on his own work in the derivative.
(Hence the common characterization as a "virus".) The BSDL doesn't.
It is generally thought that the BSDL's only important conditions are
that you don't sue and that you keep the copyright claim and license
with the software and its derivatives. Again: the license doesn't apply
to the derivative - only to the the licensor's rights in the derivative.
The BSDL's terms imply very few restrictions on the terms of the
deriver's license. Most importantly, he needn't open his source code.
A key portion of the GPL: ".., the intent is to exercise the right to
control the distribution of derivative or collective works...".
While this could be said to be true of all licensors, BSDL licensors
basically only want liability protection and/or attribution while GPL
licensors also want to prohibit the use of their proprietary open-source
code by proprietary closed-source derivers. The goal is to encourage
open-source development by punishing closed-source development. (It has
few other important advantages over the BSDL, despite misleading
claims. Maybe it has better legalese.)
Sadly, I suspect that the popularity of the GPL has less to do with
consideration of this dubious, or at least, very long-term goal than to
an instinctual selfishness which makes people want to avoid helping
people who have no incentive to return their help. Heap shame on them,
especially since that help costs them nothing (except some dubious hope
for damage to the closed-source world. It seems to be mostly out of
raw spite (as opposed to the desire to earn a buck which motivates
the closed-source developers). It might be successful in advancing its
goal. I don't care. I see it as a bullying tactic worthy of Bill Gates
and prefer GPL software over M$ software only as the lesser of two evils
or because it has the benefits of Unix software or because it is cheap.
The differences have little to do with distributing unchanged software;
both allow that with few conditions, none controversial. The differences
have to do with distributing derivatives; specifically with the freedom to
choose the license for one's own work in derivatives. In this, the BSDL
is on the side of freedom; the GPL is on the side of slavery.
The BSDL is about SHARING one's copyrights with others to use as they
see fit whether they give you anything back or not. The GPL is SAID to
be about sharing, but it is, in fact, about TRADING one's copyrights:
"you can't use mine unless I (and others) can use yours". Similar to
how M$, IBM, and Intel trade patent rights. (Again, the right to
distribute non-derivatives is shared by both licenses and the right to
run the software doesn't even require a license: the important
difference between the licenses is only in the handling of copyrights in
derivatives.) Copyrights have value and law sees dealing in things of
value as commerce. Don't let anyone tell you the GPL is about
non-commercial software even if it does claim to be licenced "FREE OF
CHARGE". Maybe to people who distribute raw copies; but not to derivers.
Well, I got to rambling there. I should clean that up for next time.
JD
"Chris Topher" <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote in message news:iz8ziza...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> The BSDL is about SHARING one's copyrights with others to use as they
> see fit whether they give you anything back or not. The GPL is SAID to
> be about sharing, but it is, in fact, about TRADING one's copyrights:
> "you can't use mine unless I (and others) can use yours
>
that some (the deceptive) GPL advocates will often use the term 'share', when
it should really be called 'trade' or 'coerce'. Also, some of the deceptive
GPL crowd ( a subset of the larger GPL community) will also use the term
'free', when they really should more honestly say 'redistribution encumbered.'
The only way that GPLed works are free is in a limited, redefined sense. Once
someone has a copy of the code (legally), then they can use that code. The
GPL provides additional rules that need to be followed (beyond the carry
forward of license information and attribution), that are especially unpleasant
for developers who add their hard earned effort to a code base. BSD and
other relatively free licenses offer the opportunity to share in this case,
while GPL has a requirement that additionally has to be followed that extends
redistribution encumberances beyond the original works before being extended.
Our culture does often accept sleazy sales people misrepresenting the facts
with respect to product quality or attributes, and any unqualified claim that
GPLed works are 'free' is rather deceptive in that way. I have always suggested
(strongly) that using the term 'free' WRT the GPL should always be qualified,
perhaps with a coined term like: GPLfree.
GPL isn't all that bad a license, and could certainly have some useful anti-competitive
effects, but it is the rhetoric associated with SOME GPL advocates that make it
a somewhat unsavory innovation.
John
Chris Topher
> "Chris Topher" <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote in message news:iz8ziza...@localhost.localdomain...
> >
> > The BSDL is about SHARING one's copyrights with others to use as they
> > see fit whether they give you anything back or not. The GPL is SAID to
> > be about sharing, but it is, in fact, about TRADING one's copyrights:
> > "you can't use mine unless I (and others) can use yours
> >
> IMO, you are clearly understanding *at least* part the rhetoric about GPL. Note
> that some (the deceptive) GPL advocates will often use the term 'share', when
> it should really be called 'trade' or 'coerce'. Also, some of the deceptive
> GPL crowd ( a subset of the larger GPL community) will also use the term
> 'free', when they really should more honestly say 'redistribution encumbered.'
Thank you. I seldom complain about "free" because: 1) the term, in any
setting, is generally propagadistic double-talk and everyone should know
that; 2) it's common for groups to come up with their own meaning of
that word and the GNUers use it fairly consistently (although they often
"advertise" the features of the left end of free spectrum (PD, BSDL)
while "selling" the right end (copyleft). 3) It usually close enough to true.
> The only way that GPLed works are free is in a limited, redefined sense. Once
> someone has a copy of the code (legally), then they can use that code.
GNU-speak has become so common that even you, who should know better,
make unclear statements like that one which mislead the unwarry. Your
"use" in that statement is a too-short shorthand for the law's "the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner". A better short hand would be
"execute", or "run". There are, of course, other very important uses,
like using it in a derivative which you create and distribute.
You're not alone. I see GNU-speak pouring out of the fingers of a
supposed lawyer in this month's Linux Journal, saying "you can use
the software freely". If I could scream, I would. I don't usually
call people liars even in these forums, and cringe when YOU do it,
but when I read something like that from a supposedly clued-in person,
I think maybe I should. But it's counter-productive, I suppose.
> I have always suggested
> (strongly) that using the term 'free' WRT the GPL should always be qualified,
> perhaps with a coined term like: GPLfree.
It probably good enough to just quote "free", as a polite reminder.
JD
"Chris Topher" <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote in message news:yh7kyh8...@localhost.localdomain...
> "JD" <dy...@jdyson.com> writes:
>
> > "Chris Topher" <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote in message news:iz8ziza...@localhost.localdomain...
> > >
> > > The BSDL is about SHARING one's copyrights with others to use as they
> > > see fit whether they give you anything back or not. The GPL is SAID to
> > > be about sharing, but it is, in fact, about TRADING one's copyrights:
> > > "you can't use mine unless I (and others) can use yours
> > >
> > IMO, you are clearly understanding *at least* part the rhetoric about GPL. Note
> > that some (the deceptive) GPL advocates will often use the term 'share', when
> > it should really be called 'trade' or 'coerce'. Also, some of the deceptive
> > GPL crowd ( a subset of the larger GPL community) will also use the term
> > 'free', when they really should more honestly say 'redistribution encumbered.'
>
> Thank you. I seldom complain about "free" because: 1) the term, in any
> setting, is generally propagadistic double-talk and everyone should know
> that; 2) it's common for groups to come up with their own meaning of
> that word and the GNUers use it fairly consistently (although they often
> "advertise" the features of the left end of free spectrum (PD, BSDL)
> while "selling" the right end (copyleft). 3) It usually close enough to true.
>
> > The only way that GPLed works are free is in a limited, redefined sense. Once
> > someone has a copy of the code (legally), then they can use that code.
>
> GNU-speak has become so common that even you, who should know better,
> make unclear statements like that one which mislead the unwarry
>
GPL indoctorinated that their form of 'use' was misleading. I made the
mistake that I have so strongly tried to fight against :-).
The destruction of the language (by people like the GPL-heads, not just
the GPL-users) are exactly the reason why we have so little 'reason'
in our society. I try to avoid using 'language' to 'think', but too many
people do use language to think, and therefore end up with very
muddy thought processes.
The US-left, Jesse Jackson and GPLites come to mind as groups that confuse
meanings so severely as to become incoherent. (AGAIN, not all users of the
GPL are part of the mindless GPL advocacy groups.)
John
Stefaan A Eeckels
"JD" <dy...@jdyson.com> writes:
>
> "Chris Topher" <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote in message news:iz8ziza...@localhost.localdomain...
>>
>> The BSDL is about SHARING one's copyrights with others to use as they
>> see fit whether they give you anything back or not. The GPL is SAID to
>> be about sharing, but it is, in fact, about TRADING one's copyrights:
>> "you can't use mine unless I (and others) can use yours
>>
> IMO, you are clearly understanding *at least* part the rhetoric about GPL.
> Note that some (the deceptive) GPL advocates will often use the term
> 'share', when it should really be called 'trade' or 'coerce'.
> community) will also use the term 'free', when they really should more
> honestly say 'redistribution encumbered.'
Don't forget that the GPL calls itself "free" as opposed to licenses
that give you access to a binary (with limited use rights compared
to the rights granted by the copyright statute), and formally forbid
any form of redistribution.
It would be fair to say that calling GPLed works "redistribution
encumbered" implies that most other licenses are not so encumbered,
which is false (the BSDL being the only widely-used license that
carries less redistribution restrictions).
Obviously, insisting that only one set of limited restrictions
warrants the moniker 'free' is not a sign of an open mind.
It reminds me of European politicians who argue that the restrictions
they impose on 'free speech' actually insure greater, or "more
real" freedom than the relative absence of restrictions on free
speech in the USA.
> The only way that GPLed works are free is in a limited, redefined sense. Once
> someone has a copy of the code (legally), then they can use that code. The
> GPL provides additional rules that need to be followed (beyond the carry
> forward of license information and attribution), that are especially
> unpleasant for developers who add their hard earned effort to a code base.
Indeed. Note that the subset of developers affected is fairly small,
limited to those who want to sell many licenses of binary-only
products. No sane person will ever buy such software unless it is
totally mission-uncritical (like a game), or they are totally
clue- or clout-less (small businesses that buy closed-source
accounting software spring to mind).
Most people who buy a mission-critical product from a small
developer insist on getting the source code, and most will
demand that the copyright be ceded to them. Trust in the stability
of software development companies is so low that any largish
organization will demand the source code (or at least the
specifications of any closed file formats) to be made available
before they tie their fate to a software product such as Word.
> BSD and
> other relatively free licenses offer the opportunity to share in this case,
> while GPL has a requirement that additionally has to be followed that extends
> redistribution encumberances beyond the original works before being extended.
>
> Our culture does often accept sleazy sales people misrepresenting the facts
> with respect to product quality or attributes, and any unqualified claim that
> GPLed works are 'free' is rather deceptive in that way.
> I have always suggested (strongly) that using the term 'free' WRT the
> GPL should always be qualified, perhaps with a coined term like: GPLfree.
As there are many examples of "free" being used when definite
restrictions are in place, and no examples of the use of
qualified "free-words", such as AmericanFree, EuropeanFree,
ChineseFree, etc., this suggestion is not in line with
the common use of the English language.
>
> GPL isn't all that bad a license, and could certainly have some useful
> anti-competitive effects, but it is the rhetoric associated with SOME GPL
> advocates that make it a somewhat unsavory innovation.
Please don't confuse the message with the messengers.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
Chris Topher
> Indeed. Note that the subset of developers affected is fairly small,
> limited to those who want to sell many licenses of binary-only
> products.
In practice, if not in strict reasoning, it also affects those
developers who do not wish their free work encumbered by the GPL.
JD
"Chris Topher" <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote in message news:b5zob53...@localhost.localdomain...
very free, slap redistribution restrictions on it, and call such redistribution
encumbered (very limited free) software 'free.'
For someone to donate software for free use and reuse (execution, modification,
distribution, etc) and have someone call slightly modified works 'free', yet take
some of the very advantageous attributes away is misleading and deceptive. GPL
is certainly a good example of an anti-competitive license that can be used to
provide certain forms of leverage, but the license isn't a license of free software.
Authorship is often associated with the perq of attribution. Also, when receiving
a piece of software, it is a 'good thing' to be informed of the associated license
and copyrights. Beyond those items, additional restrictions of 'free' works
that unnecessarily encumber further distribution of modified versions aren't
immoral or unethical (unless the license places restrictions on the terms), but
calling such restricted freeness-restricted software 'free' is pretty much a lie.
John
Stefaan A Eeckels
In which case the GPLed code won't be improved upon, and
those programmers can busy themselves improving BSDLed
code. Or even better, instead of deriving stuff, they could
write something new, and license it as they please.
david parsons
Yes and no. It's extremely annoying that the FSF continues to lie
and call the GPL a free software license, but it only trips the
unwary (who, once they cease being unwary, have the option of
converting to a free software license and circumventing the FSF goal
of a Windows machine on every desk) and causes the wary to reinvent
the wheel. I can't think of anyplace other than free compilers
where the GPL has caused all the alternatives to dry up.
And the GPL is useful in many ways, too. For instance, it provides
a constant source of annoyance to anti-GPL evangelists as well as
making an attractive honeypot to distract the kill-the-free-software
forces Microsoft is marshalling now that they've won the latest
antitrust case.
____
david parsons \bi/ Of course the risk with the latter is that eventually
\/ someone will sue the FSF and lose.
brl...@my-deja.com
> Yes and no. It's extremely annoying that the FSF continues to lie
> and call the GPL a free software license
You believe that true freedom must include the freedom to restrict
others' freedom, but most people do not. The FSF is not lying.
Followups set to gnu.misc.discuss; I doubt the comp.unix.bsd.freebsd is
interested in extended license discussions.
brl...@my-deja.com
> For someone to donate software for free use and reuse (execution,
> modification, distribution, etc) and have someone call slightly
> modified works 'free', yet take some of the very advantageous
> attributes away is misleading and deceptive.
The only "very advantageous attribute" taken away is the ability to add
restrictions to downstream licensees. Few people object to the word
"free" applied here.
I suspect most BSD folks are not as religious about the BSDL as JD, and
mostly chose BSDL because they don't care what people do with their
code. OTOH, lengthy, flamacious license wars are on-topic for
gnu.misc.discuss, so I've set followups there.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to brl...@my-deja.com
Jay Maynard
>o...@pell.portland.or.us (david parsons) writes:
>> Yes and no. It's extremely annoying that the FSF continues to lie
>> and call the GPL a free software license
>You believe that true freedom must include the freedom to restrict
>others' freedom, but most people do not. The FSF is not lying.
True freedom must include the freedom to do things that piss others off but
do not harm them. This is the freedom that the GPV steals, this is the
freedom that the BSD license does not infringe, and this is the reason that
the GPV harms the cause of freedom instead of helping it.
brl...@my-deja.com
> True freedom must include the freedom to do things that piss others off but
> do not harm them.
I've gotten really sick of this red herring. The GPL allows plenty of
freedoms that fit your description.
I wish you'd come out and state your case precisely: that true freedom
must include the freedom to restrict others' freedom. That's precisely
the restriction added by the GPL. You won't state it that way because
it reveals how flimsy your arguments are. Instead you use a deceptive
phrase that implies licensees cannot do anything that makes the licensor
unhappy.
If you like the BSDL, use it. Please desist from this worthless
campaign against the GPL. Or at least phrase your opposition honestly,
e.g. "In some cases, allowing downstream restrictions on others'
freedom is desirable. For example, in the RIPEM case..." And we can
discuss from there.
Linus Torvalds
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>
>True freedom must include the freedom to do things that piss others off but
>do not harm them. This is the freedom that the GPV steals, this is the
>freedom that the BSD license does not infringe, and this is the reason that
>the GPV harms the cause of freedom instead of helping it.
Well, you and John have long shown that you don't understand the
difference between "freedom" and "anarchy".
The BSD license is anarchy - anybody gets to do anything. And yes,
anarchy is obviously the "most free" state. That doesn't mean that
other forms of freedom aren't "free".
The GPL is not anarchy - but that dpesn't mean that it's not "free".
It's a different kind of freedom. The word "freedom" is not well-defined
in that sense. But clearly _your_ definition (and that of John Dyson) is
complete and utter crap.
According to you, no democracy in the world would ever attain the status
of being "free". The US is obviously not free, as you have to use
seatbelts, you must not walk against red lights, and you cannot run for
president unless you were born here. None of which "harm others".
Face it. You may not like the GPL, but your arguments against it are
full of sh*t and have no basis in reality.
Linus
Jay Maynard
wrote:
>jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> True freedom must include the freedom to do things that piss others off but
>> do not harm them.
>I've gotten really sick of this red herring. The GPL allows plenty of
>freedoms that fit your description.
However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works and profit
from them. Doing so would not harm the original author, but would piss him
off.
>I wish you'd come out and state your case precisely: that true freedom
>must include the freedom to restrict others' freedom.
This is exactly the wrong idea I'm arguing against. Restricting freedom in
the name of freedom is like the classic "****ing for virginity".
>If you like the BSDL, use it. Please desist from this worthless
>campaign against the GPL. Or at least phrase your opposition honestly,
>e.g. "In some cases, allowing downstream restrictions on others'
>freedom is desirable. For example, in the RIPEM case..." And we can
>discuss from there.
My point is that allowing downstream restrictions on others' freedom is NOT
desirable if one's cause is advancing freedom, something the FSF claims to
want.
Jay Maynard
<torv...@penguin.transmeta.com> wrote:
>Well, you and John have long shown that you don't understand the
>difference between "freedom" and "anarchy".
Not so...because anarchy *does* involve the ability to harm others without
their consent.
>The BSD license is anarchy - anybody gets to do anything. And yes,
>anarchy is obviously the "most free" state. That doesn't mean that
>other forms of freedom aren't "free".
Almost. The BSD license has exactly one practical effect: the code covered
under that license cannot ever be made proprietary. (Note that this is often
claimed to be the reason for the GPV. This is not true, as BSD-licensed code
is now and will forever be freely available. If this weren't true, BSD
itself wouldn't exist today, as Sun or DEC or any of several other vendors
would have locked it up.)
>The GPL is not anarchy - but that dpesn't mean that it's not "free".
>It's a different kind of freedom. The word "freedom" is not well-defined
>in that sense. But clearly _your_ definition (and that of John Dyson) is
>complete and utter crap.
I'm sorry you feel that way. I disagree, rather strongly (as, I'm sure, most
folks who have been around here a while can no doubt confirm!). The simple
fact is that the only difference in practical effect between the GPV and the
BSDL is that GPVed code cannot ever be incorporated into a larger
proprietary product. This pretects the author from being pissed off by
someone doing that. It does not protect him from any harm that the BSDL does
not. There's no way that anyone can squelch a BSDLed program in the ways
that people constantly cite as needing the full protection of the GPV.
>According to you, no democracy in the world would ever attain the status
>of being "free". The US is obviously not free, as you have to use
>seatbelts, you must not walk against red lights, and you cannot run for
>president unless you were born here. None of which "harm others".
I'm not claiming the US is perfect, although I do support seat belt and
helmet laws fully (after 17 years as a volunteer paramedic, I got rabid
about those anyway...but they do prevent someone from harming others through
their own stupidity, even if that harm is only through economic effects).
There are laws that have been adopted here that I would love to see tossed
out. That doesn't mean that we can't strive for true freedom in other areas,
however.
>Face it. You may not like the GPL, but your arguments against it are
>full of sh*t and have no basis in reality.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I believe the GPV is
only necessary to prevent the author of GPVed code from being pissed off,
not from being harmed, and thus the GPV is not the minimum set of
restrictions needed to guarantee freedom.
Isaac
>
>However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works and profit
>from them. Doing so would not harm the original author, but would piss him
>off.
Your test doesn't work. If an author released code under BSD or even into
the public domain, and someone else claims to have written it, the author
would be pissed, and I've seen only a few cases where an author allowed
that kind of plagirism. Does that mean that such code isn't free?
If so, I submit that you are using a definition of free that is
uninteresting and useless.
Isaac
david parsons
>o...@pell.portland.or.us (david parsons) writes:
>
>> Yes and no. It's extremely annoying that the FSF continues to lie
>> and call the GPL a free software license
>
>You believe that true freedom must include the freedom to restrict
>others' freedom,
Eh? What I said was fairly simple, so are you deliberately reversing
my argument or is English not your native language? If the former,
shame on you; if the latter, you need more study. In both cases,
you should shut the fuck up(tm).
____
david parsons \bi/ Sheesh.
\/
Chris Topher
> Well, you and John have long shown that you don't understand the
> difference between "freedom" and "anarchy".
I've read John Jay and John and Jay are no John Jays. (I won't
explain this for Linux since I don't expect him to read it.)
> The BSD license is anarchy - anybody gets to do anything. And yes,
> anarchy is obviously the "most free" state. That doesn't mean that
> other forms of freedom aren't "free".
>
> The GPL is not anarchy - but that dpesn't mean that it's not "free".
> It's a different kind of freedom. The word "freedom" is not well-defined
> in that sense. But clearly _your_ definition (and that of John Dyson) is
> complete and utter crap.
It might have been clear, if he had tried to clarify that instead
of trotting out old, unhelpful analogies to poorly explain his own
unstated definition.
Let's consider "free software" freedom. The FSF mentions four:
1) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
2) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.
3) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor.
4) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements
to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
In this arbitrary and idiosyncratic definition the word "freedom" is
not defined so it seems fair to assume it means the usual "lack of
control".
First note that the BSD license fits this definition (with negligible
exceptions mostly shared by any license). The FSF acknowledges that.
But suprisingly, the GPL doesn't fit the definition in parts 2 and 4.
The GPL gives the "user" (conveniently left undefined) an additional,
unstated, freedom which the BSD license does not: the right to withhold
the software from those who would improve it without using a GPL-like
license on their own work; in effect, the right to use other people's
software. To effect this freedom, parts 2 and 4 must be changed to "The
privilege, subject to your using the GPL on your work, to..." In other
words, "The license, in exchange for your GPL cross-licensing, to..."
Fair people do not call that "freedom". The word is not that fuzzy.
It's rather like saying "you're free to run M$ software if you want".
I rely on a bit of fuzziness, in that one is not strictly free to use
any copyrighted software. One is free to... subject to some
conditions. The BSD license's conditions are minor; some of the GPL's
are not. The GPL was designed to do battle with closed source
development and does it by restricting user's freedoms in a very
significant way: effectively withholding freedoms part 2 & 4 above for
ransom. (The ransom being a cross-license to use other people's code.)
We're not discussing whether this is a good thing; just about what is
fair use of "freedom". Of course, if somebody wants to define "license,
paid for by cross-licensing" as "freedom", it's hard to argue with them.
> According to you, no democracy in the world would ever attain the status
> of being "free". The US is obviously not free, as you have to use
> seatbelts, you must not walk against red lights, and you cannot run for
> president unless you were born here. None of which "harm others".
Most know that the word is sufficiently fuzzy make US citizens free or
non-free. It is subject to over-strictness and over-exaggeration, as
practiced by politicians and GNU propagandists. People have different
tolerances for language misuse. Most allow for and understand what is
meant by certain kinds of uses. I won't waste my time on the above
sillyness except to note I've not considered the US a free country since
I first studied the subject; certainly not since I learned about zoning
laws. Whoops; I'll also say that "the US is free (of monarchy)", but
even that could be argued.
> Face it. You may not like the GPL, but your arguments against it are
> full of sh*t and have no basis in reality.
(Why do people think that misspelled foul language is any less foul?)
Linus should know that one of John or Jay claims to prefer the GPL,
but just hates misleading GNU propaganda.
Sam Holden
>wrote:
>>jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>> True freedom must include the freedom to do things that piss others off but
>>> do not harm them.
>>I've gotten really sick of this red herring. The GPL allows plenty of
>>freedoms that fit your description.
>
>However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works and profit
>from them. Doing so would not harm the original author, but would piss him
>off.
Yes it does. There is nothing restricting making a profit. Of course the
distribution and licensing of source requirements make it harder to make a
profit selling shrinked wrap software, but there is nothing restricting making
a profit.
In fact there are rumours of companies like cygnus that actually did (until
the idiocy that is the stock exchange decided the profit level of a company
should be inversely related to the stock price and Redhat moved in - though the
cygnus 'division' may still be profitable?)
The BSDL restricts me from making a profit by not allowing me to
require everyone who wants to use BSD licensed software to pay me $100. It's
just not fair. I don't want to have to actually compile the code and
distribute binaries to make a profit. I just want everyone who downloads
BSDL stuff to pay me money... Boo hoo...
>>If you like the BSDL, use it. Please desist from this worthless
>>campaign against the GPL. Or at least phrase your opposition honestly,
>>e.g. "In some cases, allowing downstream restrictions on others'
>>freedom is desirable. For example, in the RIPEM case..." And we can
>>discuss from there.
>
>My point is that allowing downstream restrictions on others' freedom is NOT
>desirable if one's cause is advancing freedom, something the FSF claims to
>want.
Some obviously consider that is desirable.
--
Sam Holden
Linus Torvalds
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>
>>The BSD license is anarchy - anybody gets to do anything. And yes,
>>anarchy is obviously the "most free" state. That doesn't mean that
>>other forms of freedom aren't "free".
>
>Almost. The BSD license has exactly one practical effect: the code covered
>under that license cannot ever be made proprietary.
You're being silly.
ANY file released under ANY license basically has that property.
You might as well put the file in the public domain - that too will
"never be made proprietary".
The fact is that if you think a software project is just a collection of
files, you're looking at a very limited definition of software project.
To me, and to a lot of people, a software project is not just the status
quo, but how you got there, and how it evolves in the future. It's a
timeline.
And that's where the GPL ensures that the _timeline_ continues to be
available to people. Not just today, but the stuff based on it in
perpetuity. And that's _my_ (and the other GPL users) choice, and not
something you have anything to do with.
The thing really boils down to the fact that you don't like the GPL.
Fine. Don't use it. Stop complaining about it. You don't have any
real grounds to complain about what other people use their time and
effort on.
And turning your personal complaints about the GPL into some semantic
war against the word "free" is just stupid.
Do you accept the GPL when I call it "Open Source"? A lot of people,
including me, don't agree with the political side of FSF. That, along
with the stupid emotional reaction some people (not just you) have about
the word "free", is why most people talk about "Open Source" these days.
But if it is the FSF you're complaining about, then stop blathering
about the GPL, and be _honest_ about your complaints. Don't bitch about
other peoples choice of license. Don't make pointless semantic
arguments that have nothing to do with the English language as most
people would define it.
Linus
Jay Maynard
<torv...@penguin.transmeta.com> wrote:
>And that's where the GPL ensures that the _timeline_ continues to be
>available to people. Not just today, but the stuff based on it in
>perpetuity. And that's _my_ (and the other GPL users) choice, and not
>something you have anything to do with.
I don't have anywhere near as much experience with managing (FSVO "manage")
software projects as you do, as the Hercules project has only been live and
in public view for a little more than a year and a half (and nowhere near as
big as the Linux kernel, either), and I've only been really involved for
about a year. Even so, the GPV doesn't provide you with the assurance that
someone won't fork it and take it in a direction you don't agree with - with
the sole exception of "direction you don't agree with" == "available with
distribution restrictions only". This seems like an incomplete form of
protection, at best.
>The thing really boils down to the fact that you don't like the GPL.
>Fine. Don't use it. Stop complaining about it. You don't have any
>real grounds to complain about what other people use their time and
>effort on.
I don't use it. I argue against it in the hope that others will see the
light and make another choice when choosing a license for their projects.
>And turning your personal complaints about the GPL into some semantic
>war against the word "free" is just stupid.
I consider freedom to be too valuable a concept, and too easily lost, to sit
idly by while others give it away voluntarily in the name of preserving it.
>Do you accept the GPL when I call it "Open Source"? A lot of people,
>including me, don't agree with the political side of FSF. That, along
>with the stupid emotional reaction some people (not just you) have about
>the word "free", is why most people talk about "Open Source" these days.
I support the concept of Open Source as opposed to so-called "free
software", for the same reasons. I believe the OSI is correct to emphasize
results instead of RMS's approach based on principles, and credit it with
much of the success of open source software in the past few years.
Even so, calling the GPV an open source license, while correct according
to the definition that counts (the OSD), does nothing to change its
objectionable features.
>But if it is the FSF you're complaining about, then stop blathering
>about the GPL, and be _honest_ about your complaints. Don't bitch about
>other peoples choice of license. Don't make pointless semantic
>arguments that have nothing to do with the English language as most
>people would define it.
You certainly had the right to select any license you wished for the Linux
kernel. Personally, I don't believe that the GPV was a better choice than
the BSD license, but a) that wasn't my choice to make and b) there's a whole
lot of water under that bridge. I would hope, though, that other folks who
come along and wish to select a license that maximizes freedom for all do
not follow your example.
I do have problems with the FSF's politics. I also have problems with the
GPV itself. I also refuse to consider freedom merely a matter of semantics.
Jan Schaumann
> Even so, the GPV doesn't provide you with the assurance that
> someone won't fork it and take it in a direction you don't agree with
Neither das the BSD license. The point was, the GPL[1] guarantess that
any "work" (derived from the original) will always be available under this
license, thus guaranteeing that even if the software evolves over several
maintainers, it will always be freely available under these terms.
Theoretically, it is possible for a BSD licensed project to vanish if the
original author discontinues his/her work and the people who took it
over make it proprietary.
The point is that the BSD style license would be nice in a perfect world,
where everybody agrees that software should be available for everybody,
but in real life, our cruel cruel world, percaussions must be taken.
-Jan
[1] I joined the discussion late - what's the GP_V_?
--
Jan Schaumann <http://www.netmeister.org>
unless ($humorEnabled || $canDetectSarcasm)
{printf "Please add Smileys where appropriate.";}
Linus Torvalds
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>
> Even so, the GPV doesn't provide you with the assurance that
>someone won't fork it and take it in a direction you don't agree with - with
>the sole exception of "direction you don't agree with" == "available with
>distribution restrictions only". This seems like an incomplete form of
>protection, at best.
That IS the "freedom" that you decry as missing in the GPL.
The freedom is there for everybody to make their own decisions - and
take the project in any direction they feel like. Wasn't it you who
claimed that the definition of freedom is "the right to piss people
off"?
If by "pissing people off" you mean the right to take a project into a
direction that the original developer didn't want, then that freedom
definitely exists in the GPL. And that is very much on purpose.
The GPL allows anybody to fork at any time. It would be a bad license
if it didn't allow that - and the definition of "Open Source" licenses
really all have that in common.
The fact that so many people dislike about the GPL is that it requires
that _if_ you fork, you have allow other people to follow your fork.
And that's a powerful thing. Somebody can go off and do their own thing
with the GPL - and if it turns out that they were right and did
something really good, everybody else can decide to join. You can fork
all you want, the same way you can with the BSD license, but YOU CANNOT
KEEP ANYBODY OUT!
So you don't get "private forks" (yeah, that's not strictly true: you
can have private forks on a microscopic level within a company or a
group, but you cannot make those forks available to others without
allowing those others to get into your fork).
Now, I'm not saying that this is "superior" to the BSD license. It's
not. It's _different_. Neither better nor worse. Some people like it a
lot, some people absolutely hate it. That's fine.
I happen to believe that for stuff that I've done for my own enjoyment
and made available to others because I like to, I want to always have
the ability to decide to follow somebody elses fork of my work instead.
The GPL gives me that. I have the right to say "I don't _have_ to be the
driver - I can decide to be a follower too".
And that's my choice.
I see why people like the BSD license too. If you don't really care
what people do with it, the BSD license is more of a "do what you will"
kind of thing. You obviously retain the right to do whatever you want
to your original code - and you don't even _care_ about the right to
follow other peoples forks.
And that's a lot of other peoples choice.
Other people decide that they'd be crazy to use _any_ open source
license, and have a strictly commercial "you get to use it if you pay
for it". That's _their_ choice.
And you shouldn't argue against _any_ of them. You should be out doing
your OWN choices.
>I don't use it. I argue against it in the hope that others will see the
>light and make another choice when choosing a license for their projects.
Why? What "light"? Who made you the arbiter of good taste and "the one
true way"?
The GPL is a valid license. If you are about your project, and you want
to see where it can take you, the GPL gives you (and other people)
rights that you wouldn't have if you chose the BSD license.
And as with _anything_ in life, you don't get something for free. The
GPL gives you rights you don't have with the BSD license, but it does so
by limiting other rights. That's how it always is - in licenses or in
anything else.
You have the right to your life - but that also implies that you don't
have the right to kill others. It's a give-and-take situation. There
are no "intrisic" rights that you or anybody else has. You always have
to pay for a right by giving up another right - that's what _any_
license is (that is, fundamentally, the whole definition of any
"agreement", whether in copyrights or anywhere else).
And everybody has to choose for themselves what is the right license for
them. You arguing against the GPL, calling it names, makes you nothing
but a bigot. You think you have the right to say what other people
should and should not use. You think you have the right to call the
choice of other people names ("GPV" - yeah, very witty).
Do you perhaps also condemn people for their choice of religion? Do you
try to push the "light" to them too? The one true religion? Do you think
you have the moral right (nay, _imperative_!) to try to show people the
error of their ways, and take them all to Jesus/Allah/Buddha/that-great-
big-fluffy-kitty-in-the-sky?
>I consider freedom to be too valuable a concept, and too easily lost, to sit
>idly by while others give it away voluntarily in the name of preserving it.
Classical blathering.
Face it, "freedom" as a pure concept does not exist. You seem to think
that "freedom" means "not bound by any rules", and you didn't understand
my reference to anarchy. Not having rules is _not_ freedom, even though
you (and others) make that mistake over and over again.
Repeat after me: freedom is NOT about the lack of rules.
A lack of rules is called anarchy, not freedom, and the two aren't
really opposites - it's just that they aren't even in the same frame of
reference. They are about two completely different things. Independent.
So what is "freedom"? In the end, it's about having choice. You have to
realize that you cannot live without rules, but at least within a set of
rules YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT TO DO!
Does that give a good definition of "freedom"? Of course not. If there
_was_ a good definition of freedom, people wouldn't get so damn worked
up about the notion.
But the closest approximation of having freedom is to have the right to
do as you please. Without never losing sight of the fact that there ARE
rules.
And part of it is the right to choose your own license for things you
write.
But you have to realize that by your choices, you also limit yourself.
You can choose to work together with other people, and accept some of
their rules - you might choose the GPL. By accepting those rules, you
buy into _their_ choices, and that gives you leverage, in the form of
getting the right to use their code. You win something, but you also
limit yourself by your choice.
But this ALWAYS happens. That's pretty much again a definition: a
choice is not just an action, it also limits your future choices. Your
sequence of choices define who you are as a person, and what you get
done.
You don't get to have your cake and eat it too: the choice if eating it
limits your ability to "have" it.
So _one_ part of freedom is your freedom to choose your own license. But
you have to realize that if you want that freedom, then you should also
allow OTHER PEOPLE the same freedom, instead of thinking that you are
the grand poo-bah of licenses and know what "the light" is.
So please give other people the same respect that you seem to require
yourself. Which implies that you should NOT try to show them "the
light".
And there's another part of freedom: the freedom to socialize, and
partake in other peoples activities. Do you get to "join the club" or
not. Do other people have the right to have a "whites only" club? Or a
"straight people only" club? Or a "you can't be part of our development
team" kind of club?
And THAT's the freedom that rms so dearly loves. The freedom to fix
other peoples bugs. The freedom that the GPL tries so hard to protect.
Do you lose something? Yes. You make the choice of living with a set of
ideals. As with any community, you buy into their rules. Because it's a
free world, you don't _have_ to buy into them, but the same way that
if you join a country club you have to follow the dress code, if you buy
into the GPL rules you have to follow the virtual dress code.
Does it give you something in return? Yes.
Are YOU the person to decide whether people should have the right to
join? Nope.
>I do have problems with the FSF's politics. I also have problems with the
>GPV itself. I also refuse to consider freedom merely a matter of semantics.
Freedom as a concept is _not_ a "matter of semantics".
However, your personal definition of "freedom" is not something that
most people would buy into. And when you start to argue about other
peoples rights to use a common word in the English language, then you
HAVE started arguing semantics, whether you want to or not. And whether
you mean to or not.
And quite frankly, your arguments are not very strong. They may feel
very strong to you personally, because you have some very personal
notion of freedom, but when you start a public argument you have to
realize that not everybody is Jay. And we (including the FSF) very much
have the right to disagree with your definition of what is free, and
what is not.
And while I personally use the phrase "Open Source" because I disagree
with the FSF on many things, I do not think you are right in trying to
(re-)define the meaning of the word "freedom". They have an equal right
to use that word as you do, and I would say that the common semantics
for the word are _not_ perverted by them any more than it is by you.
And you not realizing this only show yourself to have a very limited
understanding of other peoples ideas and notions.
In short: you're arguing on very slippery ground, and you look silly for
doing so.
The ONE rule about freedom is: everybody wants it for themselves, yet
wants to take it away from others. You want freedom, yet you don't want
to let other people decide what freedom even IS.
Think about it.
Linus
Chris Topher
> On 19 Jun 2001 14:13:57 -0400, brl...@my-deja.com <brl...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >> True freedom must include the freedom to do things that piss others off but
> >> do not harm them.
> >I've gotten really sick of this red herring. The GPL allows plenty of
> >freedoms that fit your description.
>
> However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works and profit
> from them. Doing so would not harm the original author, but would piss him
> off.
>
> >I wish you'd come out and state your case precisely: that true freedom
> >must include the freedom to restrict others' freedom.
>
> This is exactly the wrong idea I'm arguing against. Restricting freedom in
> the name of freedom is like the classic "****ing for virginity".
Nope. brlewis had it almost right. A free man has the freedom to
restrict how others benefit from his work, and for others to have that
freedom, he must not restrict how people benefit from others' work.
The GPL, in its specific instance of contract law, removes one's freedom
to restrict others' use of one's work in a derivative and goes further
in forcing one to remove that freedom from others' in their work on a
derivative of one own work. That might be a bad thing or a good thing,
but it is not about freedom, except the freedom to use other's work
and about withholding one's work from those who won't give that freedom.
It's a kind of bargain I find admirable in some circumstances, like
in earning a living, but in most circumstances of free software
development I find it quite ugly, like the FSF finds closed licenses.
In fact, some define "closed" in a way that would admit GPL software as
partially closed in that it's use is restricted in very important ways.
> >If you like the BSDL, use it. Please desist from this worthless
> >campaign against the GPL. Or at least phrase your opposition honestly,
> >e.g. "In some cases, allowing downstream restrictions on others'
> >freedom is desirable. For example, in the RIPEM case..." And we can
> >discuss from there.
I think he's not talking about the desirableness of restricting
freedoms. His response below is one of many examples you seem to
have missed that he's talking about the usage of the word "freedom".
The only "campaign" is not against the GPL but against the naive or
mislead acceptance of it. One frequent campaigner even claims to
prefer the GPL, IIRC. A "skirmish" occasionally develops over the
merits of restricting peoples freedom with the GPL versus letting them
control their work in derivatives more freely.
> My point is that allowing downstream restrictions on others' freedom is NOT
> desirable if one's cause is advancing freedom, something the FSF claims to
> want.
As I mentioned above, that depends on who's freedoms are being
discussed, but I get your point.
All should note that the FSF's "four freedoms" does not include the
freedoms to allow nor to disallow downstream restrictions on other's
freedoms, while copyleft clearly requires restrictions. They use the
characteristics of all Free Software to promote copyleft which
stealthily gives that "fifth freedom" to restrict other's freedoms which
most other Free Software licenses don't.
It's unfortunate that you two seem to be talking past each other with
brlewis implying that jmaynard wants to restrict freedom and jmaynard
implying that brlewis wants to restrict freedom. Both are right and
need to develop their arguments to clarify the discussion.
Jeffrey Siegal
> The GPL allows anybody to fork at any time. It would be a bad license
> if it didn't allow that - and the definition of "Open Source" licenses
> really all have that in common.
In fact, that is essential to the OSD:
"3. The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software."
Chris Topher
> On 19 Jun 2001 19:50:36 GMT, Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote:
> >
> >However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works and profit
> >from them. Doing so would not harm the original author, but would piss him
> >off.
>
> Your test doesn't work. If an author released code under BSD or even into
> the public domain, and someone else claims to have written it, the author
> would be pissed, and I've seen only a few cases where an author allowed
> that kind of plagirism. Does that mean that such code isn't free?
Whether or not any such freedoms harm the original author is debatable
and so I can't support Jay's test/definition (which I don't fully
remember anyway), but I doubt that he meant to including making someone
mad as part of the test/definition. I think he's just reminding us of a
probable motivation for withholding such freedoms in licenses.
The GNU project was started as a straighforward effort to develop some
free software, but it seems obvious that what motivates many to use
copyleft is the horror that overcomes them when they supsect someone
somewhere will benefit from their work without paying them for it in
some way, however worthless. It makes them mad. I suspect that the
high frequency of an over-developed sense of fairness reflects itself in
the popularity of the copyleft over other free software licenses more
than the (usually non-malevolent) misleading GNU-speak I frequently
complain about. But I know better than to often complain about people's
moral lackings. Whoops; I guess that ups my count by one.
Chris Topher
> I believe the GPV is
> only necessary to prevent the author of GPVed code from being pissed off,
"Only?" No, it is "necessary" for other reasons, though I suspect that
that is upper-most in the minds of most copyleftists. But it is also
"necessary" to punish non-users of the GPL (closed and open software
alike) in the battle against closed source. It is a cold-blooded
tactical maneuver by a few. It might even have some merit, though
that is far from evident; it's hard to apportion what little success
open software has had between the open part and the copyleft part.
> not from being harmed, and thus the GPV is not the minimum set of
> restrictions needed to guarantee freedom.
Which freedom? Not the FSF's four-part freedom, true (the BSDL does
that), but it does guarantee the freedom to derive from other people's
code. In trade, it fails to guarantee two of the FSF's four freedoms,
namely the freedom to adapt the software for one's use and the freedom
to improve the software and release it to the public. (One may do those
things, but only under severe conditions, not under freedom.)
Chris Topher
> In article <F15C8E7A92C73BC0.9D8F66BA...@lp.airnews.net>,
> Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
> >
> >Almost. The BSD license has exactly one practical effect: the code covered
> >under that license cannot ever be made proprietary.
>
> You're being silly.
>
> ANY file released under ANY license basically has that property.
Arghhh. Any file under any license is always proprietary; some more
than others.
> You might as well put the file in the public domain - that too will
> "never be made proprietary".
True, except that some like to exert their proprietary rights to get
attribution and less risk of a liability suit.
> The fact is that if you think a software project is just a collection of
> files, you're looking at a very limited definition of software project.
>
> To me, and to a lot of people, a software project is not just the status
> quo, but how you got there, and how it evolves in the future. It's a
> timeline.
>
> And that's where the GPL ensures that the _timeline_ continues to be
> available to people. Not just today, but the stuff based on it in
> perpetuity.
Yes. The stuff based on it. The GPL ensures that you can use other
peoples stuff which is based on (or even minorly includes part of) it.
Not just your stuff that you license, but other people's stuff.
Arguing that, as you do (if in less clear terms) is honest, but the GPL
isn't on a project; it's on a bunch of files at one instant and on
individual files at various instants. And the people Jay complains
about argue about the copyrights and licenses on files, not on projects.
> And that's _my_ (and the other GPL users) choice, and not
> something you have anything to do with.
It's something he has influence on (at least the "other GPL users").
He might have been that straw that convinced me to switch from Linux
to a largely non-copylefted Unix clone.
> The thing really boils down to the fact that you don't like the GPL.
> Fine. Don't use it. Stop complaining about it. You don't have any
> real grounds to complain about what other people use their time and
> effort on.
He's not complaining about it. He's: 1) complaining about its misleading
promotion, and maybe 2) trying to convince people not to use copyleft.
Even if he was, he has as much ground to complain about that as you
have to complain about his use of Usenet or as RMS has to complain about
even more restricted software than copylefted software.
> Don't bitch about other peoples choice of license.
That's always good for a laugh, coming from people who impose the high
costs (in division, duplication of effort, etc.) of copyleft on the free
software world in order to withhold their software from those who
chose a different license for their own derivative work. (Derivative
in the sense that a device driver is a derivative of an OS kernel,
per foolish copyright law. But that's a different subject.) It's
even more ironic when it's stated "let the author chose the license".
Jeffrey Siegal
> In trade, it fails to guarantee two of the FSF's four freedoms,
> namely the freedom to adapt the software for one's use and the freedom
> to improve the software and release it to the public. (One may do those
> things, but only under severe conditions, not under freedom.)
You are mistaken as to ones own use. GPL places no restrictions
whatsoever on adaptations made for your own use.
Isaac
>
>Whether or not any such freedoms harm the original author is debatable
>and so I can't support Jay's test/definition (which I don't fully
>remember anyway), but I doubt that he meant to including making someone
>mad as part of the test/definition. I think he's just reminding us of a
>probable motivation for withholding such freedoms in licenses.
>
Really? I'll agree that he never called it a test, but he's been
pretty explicit that freedom includes the right to do what the
copyright holder doesn't like, and that the GPL doesn't have such
freedoms.
My point was that Jay is cherry picking which of the author's rights
must be given up before the word free can be applied. While he has
every right to do so, it should be obvious that others have a
legitimate right to do their own cherry picking. People who come
up with a different answer than Jay or JD are not dishonest, lying,
hypocrites. Those people simply aren't Jay and JD.
>The GNU project was started as a straighforward effort to develop some
>free software, but it seems obvious that what motivates many to use
>copyleft is the horror that overcomes them when they supsect someone
>somewhere will benefit from their work without paying them for it in
>some way, however worthless. It makes them mad. I suspect that the
However worthless? Are we really discussing code that nobody wants?
Probably not, so if we restrict our discussion to code people have
written that the author feels is of value, are their concerns (horror?)
legitimate? And do those authors have a universal fear that someone,
somewhere will benefit from their code, or are there concerns
(suspicions?) restricted to their dislike for being exploited financially
by someone who doesn't really care about the reasons why they
released the code as free software.
While I understand the motivations of someone who feels that it's more
altruistic to release the code without the strings that the GPL
has, I think it is the movitations of someone who complains that they
cannot commercially exploit code that the author clearly didn't want
exploited that way that are suspicious.
>high frequency of an over-developed sense of fairness reflects itself in
Over-developed? In other words people who release code under the GPL
aren't rational. They don't know what they are doing and hopefully
they'll read your post and wise up?
I normally don't bother with posts that simply express disagreement with
the GPL and it's objectives. It's only the one's that additionally
suggest that no rational or honest person can disagree that get my goat.
>the popularity of the copyleft over other free software licenses more
>than the (usually non-malevolent) misleading GNU-speak I frequently
I understand why you consider the GNU-speak misleading, but I just
don't agree that it is so. The FSF explains exactly what they mean
by the word free to anyone who cares to listen every time they use it.
It's not a big secret which the FSF uses to entrap the unwary.
>complain about. But I know better than to often complain about people's
>moral lackings. Whoops; I guess that ups my count by one.
Isaac
Phillip Lord
Linus> In article
Linus> <F188263C4FACE776.80D2D9D4...@lp.airnews.net>,
Linus> Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>> Even so, the GPV doesn't provide you with the assurance that
>> someone won't fork it and take it in a direction you don't agree
>> with - with the sole exception of "direction you don't agree
>> with" == "available with distribution restrictions only". This
>> seems like an incomplete form of protection, at best.
Linus> And while I personally use the phrase "Open Source" because I
Linus> disagree with the FSF on many things, I do not think you are
Linus> right in trying to (re-)define the meaning of the word
Linus> "freedom". They have an equal right to use that word as you
Linus> do, and I would say that the common semantics for the word
Linus> are _not_ perverted by them any more than it is by you.
Linus> In short: you're arguing on very slippery ground, and you
Linus> look silly for doing so.
Linus> The ONE rule about freedom is: everybody wants it for
Linus> themselves, yet wants to take it away from others. You want
Linus> freedom, yet you don't want to let other people decide what
Linus> freedom even IS.
I think that you are in danger here of becoming a wolf
savaging a dead sheep.
What I don't understand is why Jay is so emphatic in his
notion that the GPL is going to cause an end to programming as a
profession, and where his passion comes from. He regularly posts about
GPL in this way on a board in the gnu hierarchy, which is clearly not
the more receptive of audiences. Where does the passion come from Jay?
What experiences, what emotions make you do this? This sort of passion
is rare to see, and good to understand.
Phil
brl...@my-deja.com
> To effect this freedom, parts 2 and 4 must be changed to "The
> privilege, subject to your using the GPL on your work, to..." In other
> words, "The license, in exchange for your GPL cross-licensing, to..."
>
> Fair people do not call that "freedom". The word is not that fuzzy.
> It's rather like saying "you're free to run M$ software if you want".
Sorry, you're 300 years too late. The OED documents "free" being used
centuries ago in phrases like, "a library I have free access to".
Obviously such access would have reasonable restrictions associated with
it.
> The BSD license's conditions are minor; some of the GPL's are not.
That's your opinion; you're free based on that opinion to say that the
GPL is not a free-software license from your POV. I think the GPL's
restrictions are minor, so it's a free-software license from my POV.
Note that with the BSD license, you cannot make copies, etc. until you
agree to the license terms. Some might feel that having to agree to the
disclaimer of warranty is not a minor restriction; for them the BSDL is
not a free-software license.
Jay Maynard
> What I don't understand is why Jay is so emphatic in his
>notion that the GPL is going to cause an end to programming as a
>profession, and where his passion comes from. He regularly posts about
>GPL in this way on a board in the gnu hierarchy, which is clearly not
>the more receptive of audiences. Where does the passion come from Jay?
>What experiences, what emotions make you do this? This sort of passion
>is rare to see, and good to understand.
Good question, and I'm not sure I can provide a clear answer...
It's been a decade since I first came to the conclusions I did about the
GPV and the GNU Manifesto. It's been so long that the conclusions -
especially the one that the goal of the FSF is the destruction of the
software industry as we know it - seem completely obvious to me.
I've been working with computers for a living in the real world for better
than 20 years. I started out with dedicated micros, moved to IBM mainframe
systems programming for 15 years, then on into Unix and Linux; my current
job involves both manframes and Unix boxes (with the occasional router and
VMS box). In that time, a large part of the job has involved installing and
maintaining commercially sold software. I simply cannot imagine a world
where that software does not exist, and I cannot imagine a world where
companies would produce that software without the right to limit to whom it
may be distributed and under what conditions.
I know of no mainframe shop that operates without a wide range of add-on
software from several vendors. Computer Assholes^H^H^H^H^Hociates, BMC
Software, Compuware, and other large systems software vendors fill gaping
holes in the functionality offered by IBM in its OSes. These vendors employ
thousands of people themselves, and expect to get compensated for their
work. More importantly, without their products, the systems that large
corporations depend on for their everyday operation would be much less
useful, and those corporations would get a lot less done. As much as open
source types and Unix weenies like to think mainframes are old and obsolete,
the reality is that they're in heavy use every day in places you never see
or hear about.
The revenue stream from providing software maintenance is what the FSF types
hold up as the replacement for licensing fees. I do not argue that that can
be a significant source of revenue, but to replace licensing fees and become
the *sole* source of revenue for a company would require raising those fees
to levels that customers would find unacceptable; it would likely drive
smaller companies, like my current employer, completely out of business.
I have severe heartburn with people who argue that millions of people should
be thrown out of work to satisfy their view of how the world should operate,
and yet this is exactly the result of the FSF's policies: it would be much
harder, if not downright impossible, to make money in the software field,
and so many companies would either go out of business or else cut back their
staffs severely to fit expenses into available income. I cannot see any way
at all that this would be a good thing.
The FSF sees a land of milk and honey as the eventual result of their
policies. I see a vast economic wasteland, littered with the broken careers
of thousands - possibly millions - of programmers unable to earn a living
doing what they've spent their entire working life doing.
Do people expect me to sit back and let this happen? If so, they're going to
be disappointed. I'm no more going to stand on the sidelines and watch than
you would stand by and watch Microsoft try to get a law passed that would
outlaw open source software. (Or I, for that matter.)
Yes, I'm tilting at windmills. My hope is that, in showing that not everyone
agrees with the FSF's destructive philosophy, others don't see an endless
stream of people agreeing with each other and conclude there are no problems
with that philosophy, and blindly adopt it for their own. If someone
concludes the wasteland I described is worth it to have "free software" as
the norm, then I can't stop them...but I want them to reach that conclusion
with their eyes wide open.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Chris Topher <do...@wantnomail.org> writes:
>
> Which freedom? Not the FSF's four-part freedom, true (the BSDL does
> that), but it does guarantee the freedom to derive from other people's
> code. In trade, it fails to guarantee two of the FSF's four freedoms,
> namely the freedom to adapt the software for one's use and the freedom
> to improve the software and release it to the public. (One may do those
> things, but only under severe conditions, not under freedom.)
Please note that the GPL doesn't limit you in any way from
using the software, not from improving/modifying it for
your own use.
Also note that to you, releasing modifications and derivatives
under the GPL might be a "severe" condition, but that, at least
to me, it doesn't seem "severe". I venture to say that a
large majority of people would equally not find it a "severe"
limitation.
Finally, and for the umpteenth time, no-one forces you to use
GPLed software. The rules are clear, and whining about the
effects of a choice you made with all the information on
these effects at your disposal is unbelievably childish.
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
Phillip Lord
Jay> On 20 Jun 2001 13:32:23 +0100, Phillip Lord
Jay> <p.l...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote:
>> What I don't understand is why Jay is so emphatic in his notion
>> that the GPL is going to cause an end to programming as a
>> profession, and where his passion comes from. He regularly posts
>> about GPL in this way on a board in the gnu hierarchy, which is
>> clearly not the more receptive of audiences. Where does the
>> passion come from Jay? What experiences, what emotions make you
>> do this? This sort of passion is rare to see, and good to
>> understand.
Jay> Good question, and I'm not sure I can provide a clear answer...
Jay> As much as open source types and Unix weenies like to think
Jay> mainframes are old and obsolete, the reality is that they're in
Jay> heavy use every day in places you never see or hear about.
I am not sure that there is a necessary contradiction between
mainframe and unix/open source types. I notice that IBM is going for
its notion of running linux on virtual machines within a
mainframe. Seems like an interesting idea to me.
Jay> it would likely drive smaller companies, like my current
Jay> employer, completely out of business.
It is certainly true that if the FSF's aims were achieved
companies such as your current employer might very well not exist, at
least not unless they were massively changed.
Jay> I have severe heartburn with people who argue that millions of
Jay> people should be thrown out of work to satisfy their view of
Jay> how the world should operate
The FSF has quite a big vision that it is seeking to achieve
that its certainly the case. Anyone who wishes to change the world in
any significant way of course has to cope with the fact that if they
do so, many people will be affected by the change, and inevitable some
will be affected in a bad way. The alternative is the status quo
though, and this also affects many people. Certainly Stallman argues
that free software predates proprietary software (I am sure you have
heard his printer driver story).
Jay> The FSF sees a land of milk and honey as the eventual result of
Jay> their policies. I see a vast economic wasteland, littered with
Jay> the broken careers of thousands - possibly millions - of
Jay> programmers unable to earn a living doing what they've spent
Jay> their entire working life doing.
This might be so. I earn a perfectly reasonable living as
a software programmer though, and I have never sold a piece of
software in my entire life. The software that I generate is somewhat
subsidiary to my main task which is as a research scientist. I have
heard it said that many software organisations are actually service
providers. Even M$ seems to explicitly recognise this.
The debate is vital though. I am also a musician, and I see
a similar debate going on there, with respect to things such as
napster. Most musicians do not make money out of recording, but out of
live performances, but most of the money comes into the profession as
a whole from recording. Its interesting to see the parallels.
Jay> If someone concludes the wasteland I described is worth it to
Jay> have "free software" as the norm, then I can't stop them...but
Jay> I want them to reach that conclusion with their eyes wide open.
I suspect that most people here disagree with you that this
is what would happen, not that this is a desirable end.
Jay> Yes, I'm tilting at windmills. My hope is that, in showing that
Jay> not everyone agrees with the FSF's destructive philosophy,
Jay> others don't see an endless stream of people agreeing with each
Jay> other and conclude there are no problems with that philosophy,
Jay> and blindly adopt it for their own.
Then to be honest I think you are going about this in the
wrong way. I think that you are talking to a very small set of people,
many of who already use the GPL for their code for what ever
reasons. If you add to this your somewhat combative style I don't
think that your point gets across. If you spent more time explaining
the virtues of the BSD rather than slagging off the GPL I think you
would get more across. This is just my feeling of course and you can
take it or leave it as you choose.
Phil
Linus Torvalds
Chris Topher <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote:
>
>> Don't bitch about other peoples choice of license.
>
>That's always good for a laugh, coming from people who impose the high
>costs (in division, duplication of effort, etc.) of copyleft on the free
>software world in order to withhold their software from those who
>chose a different license for their own derivative work. (Derivative
>in the sense that a device driver is a derivative of an OS kernel,
>per foolish copyright law. But that's a different subject.) It's
>even more ironic when it's stated "let the author chose the license".
Oh, but any GPL person is MORE than happy to have people choose
something else than the GPL. In fact, at least for me that's part of
the self-selection process for developers.
It's just that there is a tit-for-tat: if you are my friend and let me
work with you, I will be your friend and let you work with me.
If my code is so insignificant that you don't think it's a fair deal,
then you can, and should, always choose to just ignore it, and write
your own version.
And if it turns out that my (and other peoples) software is so critical
to your project that you are convinced to use it, then obviously we've
done something for you.
Fair is fair. You have the choice of ignoring the code I write, but I
have the choice of ignoring you and not letting you change it. Do you
_really_ think that is unfair? Remember - it's NOT your code.
There are technical advantages here - it keeps people honest. It allows
forking - which is absolutely critical for good development - while
always also requiring that people always have to be able to "merge back"
(or "merge sideways" or "merge forward" - there are lots of licenses
that allow merging only one way, but the GPL explicitly makes it clear
that _anybody_ can merge, not just the originating person. Again, that
keeps people honest).
But there are also social advantages. It keeps the whiners and
free-riders away. And to me, that's a big advantage, actually. I don't
have to deal with people who think they are "entitled" to my code. I
only occasionally peek in to gnu.misc.discuss to see who is the latest
person who is misguided enough to think that "freedom" means "no
responsibility".
Linus
phil hunt
>
>It's been a decade since I first came to the conclusions I did about the
>GPV and the GNU Manifesto. It's been so long that the conclusions -
>especially the one that the goal of the FSF is the destruction of the
>software industry as we know it - seem completely obvious to me.
That's interesting phrasing. You do of course realise that "the
software industry as we know it" doen't mean the same as "the
software industry"? IOW, if the FSF win all their goal, there will
still be a large industry of people getting paid to write software.
This must be true, because 90% of programmers work producing bespoke
software, for one particular client. Indeed, most of the paid
programming I have done has been of this nature.
>I've been working with computers for a living in the real world for better
>than 20 years. I started out with dedicated micros, moved to IBM mainframe
>systems programming for 15 years, then on into Unix and Linux; my current
>job involves both manframes and Unix boxes (with the occasional router and
>VMS box). In that time, a large part of the job has involved installing and
>maintaining commercially sold software. I simply cannot imagine a world
>where that software does not exist,
Does that mean that you don't think the FSF will achieve their
goals?
>and I cannot imagine a world where
>companies would produce that software without the right to limit to whom it
>may be distributed and under what conditions.
You mean like they do when they release GPL'd software? :-)
>The revenue stream from providing software maintenance is what the FSF types
>hold up as the replacement for licensing fees. I do not argue that that can
>be a significant source of revenue, but to replace licensing fees and become
>the *sole* source of revenue for a company would require raising those fees
>to levels that customers would find unacceptable; it would likely drive
>smaller companies, like my current employer, completely out of business.
I think you may be right here.
I am unimpressed with arguments that maintenance payments can fund
software development. A more likely model to fund open source, IMO,
would be similar to what Aladdin do with Ghostscript: make it
proprietary, but release it as open source after a time delay.
>I have severe heartburn with people who argue that millions of people should
>be thrown out of work to satisfy their view of how the world should operate,
>and yet this is exactly the result of the FSF's policies: it would be much
>harder, if not downright impossible, to make money in the software field,
>and so many companies would either go out of business or else cut back their
>staffs severely to fit expenses into available income. I cannot see any way
>at all that this would be a good thing.
But new ways of doing things that throw people out of work *are*
a good thing. Or would you rather the motor car industry had been
supressed, to protect the livelihood of buggy-whip manufacturers?
>The FSF sees a land of milk and honey as the eventual result of their
>policies. I see a vast economic wasteland, littered with the broken careers
>of thousands - possibly millions - of programmers unable to earn a living
>doing what they've spent their entire working life doing.
What about the poor buggy-whip manufacturers?
>Do people expect me to sit back and let this happen? If so, they're going to
>be disappointed. I'm no more going to stand on the sidelines and watch than
>you would stand by and watch Microsoft try to get a law passed that would
>outlaw open source software. (Or I, for that matter.)
Why not, if you genuinely think open source is a threat to the
livelihood of millions?
>Yes, I'm tilting at windmills. My hope is that, in showing that not everyone
>agrees with the FSF's destructive philosophy, others don't see an endless
>stream of people agreeing with each other and conclude there are no problems
>with that philosophy, and blindly adopt it for their own. If someone
>concludes the wasteland I described is worth it to have "free software" as
>the norm, then I can't stop them...
I think open source is a good thing. All open source, whether copylefted
like the GPL, or not.
I don't think it will result in the loss of programmer income. I'm
a programmer myself, and I certainly want to continue doing well
paid work!
Firstly, I don't think OSS will completely wipe out proprietary
software. There will be a blanace between the two, which will
probably slowly over time move towards OSS. Secondly, to the
extent that OSS is widely used, it'll be because it is better
than the proprietary alternative, all things considered. This means
factors like control and lack of upgrade treadmills. The lower
cost price of OSS is a factor, but not a big one, in fact I'd
say a very small one for most business uses.
If OSS takes over halfway from proprietary, then maybe 50%
of the 10% of programmers jobs that write proprietary software
will be lost -- the other 95% of jobs will be unaffected.
However, if it takes over, it will be by making computers more
useful. And histiry tells us that the more useful computers are,
the more they will be used. And the more used, the more programmers.
So I am optimistic about the future.
--
## Philip Hunt ##
## ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ##
Lars Weber
Jay> However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works
Jay> and profit from them. [...]
But please note that your implied way of making profit[0] is based heavily
on some artificial rights, and that these artificial rights do quite
severely restrict the freedoms of recipients of your derivative works.
[...]
Jay> My point is that allowing downstream restrictions on others'
Jay> freedom is NOT desirable if one's cause is advancing freedom,
Jay> something the FSF claims to want.
Personally I credit many of the freedoms I exercise as a computer user of
today to the outstanding efforts of the Free Software Foundation and the
GNU General Public License.
Regards,
Lars
[0] Which is, btw, not the only way to profit financially from such works.
Not to speak of ways that do not involve money at all!
--
[ Lars Weber ]--------<m...@lars.in-berlin.de>------[ GPG-ID: 1383B42E ]
+++ fingerprint: 44B1 1D23 DD53 E6B2 4AAB 4C36 0323 9141 1383 B42E +++
[ Using GNU ]------<www.gnu.org|www.debian.org>-----[ Running Debian ]
Jay Maynard
>>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
> Jay> However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works
> Jay> and profit from them. [...]
>But please note that your implied way of making profit[0] is based heavily
>on some artificial rights, and that these artificial rights do quite
>severely restrict the freedoms of recipients of your derivative works.
This is the fundamental difference of opinion. The GPV advocates believe
they have the right to prevent me from profiting from my derivative work. I
think this is just plain wrong.
The users and authors of the freely available work lose nothing by having a
commercial derivative in existence. The choice should be left to the person
considering which version to use, and *nobody* else. The GPV robs him of the
freedom to choose a work that is only available with restrictions, should
that work otherwise better meet his needs.
> Jay> My point is that allowing downstream restrictions on others'
> Jay> freedom is NOT desirable if one's cause is advancing freedom,
> Jay> something the FSF claims to want.
>Personally I credit many of the freedoms I exercise as a computer user of
>today to the outstanding efforts of the Free Software Foundation and the
>GNU General Public License.
The freedoms you exercise today are guaranteed not by the GPV, but by the
law that says that a work released under a license that permits
redistribution cannot have that revoked retroactively unless the license
itself provides it - and the BSD license does not.
>[0] Which is, btw, not the only way to profit financially from such works.
I've commented on that already. No business model based on other than
licensing fees has ever succeeded in the long run.
> Not to speak of ways that do not involve money at all!
Perhaps not, but those don't pay the bills.
Isaac
>
>This is the fundamental difference of opinion. The GPV advocates believe
>they have the right to prevent me from profiting from my derivative work. I
>think this is just plain wrong.
Is that not the right of any copyright holder? Do you not have similar
rights in your own works?
>
>The users and authors of the freely available work lose nothing by having a
>commercial derivative in existence. The choice should be left to the person
>considering which version to use, and *nobody* else. The GPV robs him of the
>freedom to choose a work that is only available with restrictions, should
>that work otherwise better meet his needs.
So you are claiming the right to make derivative works of any work
you come across? If not could you explain under which situations you
wouldn't have that right?
Isaac
Chris Topher
> Sorry, you're 300 years too late. The OED documents "free" being used
> centuries ago in phrases like, "a library I have free access to".
> Obviously such access would have reasonable restrictions associated with
> it.
Obviously shuch access would. But the restriction that someone must
cross-license (I'll use an extreeme case) a million dollars of software
to use software that is worth (oh, say) a thousand dollars, is not
reasonable in any case, let alone calling that restriction a negligible
aspect of some system of "freedom".
> That's your opinion; you're free based on that opinion to say that the
> GPL is not a free-software license from your POV. I think the GPL's
> restrictions are minor, so it's a free-software license from my POV.
I usually say that the GPL is free software because it can be obtained
and run for no money; just like some of the software on AOL starter CDs.
I don't see how you can think the restriction is minor in the face of
much evidence to the contrary. Stallman spent a lot of effort to
develop a license who's main reason for being is to effect that
restriction. The FSF has hired lawyers to perfect it and enforce it by
threats of law suits. There's endless debate over it. There's an awful
waste of duplication of effort because of that restriction. Minor?
> Note that with the BSD license, you cannot make copies, etc. until you
> agree to the license terms. Some might feel that having to agree to the
> disclaimer of warranty is not a minor restriction; for them the BSDL is
> not a free-software license.
Some might. And some might think the term "free software license" is an
oxymoron; that only PD software is free software. But we already have
a term for that, so almost nobody (outside GNU) will complain if you use
"free software" to denote software one is allowed to get and run for
free; ie, your Free Software, freeware, demos, etc.
And I'd probably tell them that they're wrong in thinking of disclaimers
as a major issue; just like you're telling me that I'm wrong. But I'd
be more likely to change their opinion down the road than you are likely
to be with your weak argument. Sadly, more people think like you,
mostly because they don't bother to think about it (good of you to do
so) and largely because it supports their instinctual desire to prevent
people from benefiting from their work without payment or (for some) to
white-collar-bully people into releasing their source under copyleft.
Isaac
>In article <9gqgla$1kr$1...@cesium.transmeta.com>,
>Linus Torvalds <torv...@cesium.transmeta.com> wrote:
>>If my code is so insignificant that you don't think it's a fair deal,
>>then you can, and should, always choose to just ignore it, and write
>>your own version.
>>
>>And if it turns out that my (and other peoples) software is so critical
>>to your project that you are convinced to use it, then obviously we've
>>done something for you.
>
>
>-- If your software did not exist, someone else may have written a version
>with a better license. Think of software, even free software, as a market:
>Software gets written because people need it. If there is already a program
>out there to perform a task, it's less likely someone would make another one
>that does the same thing. So although I can ignore your software, ignoring
>your software doesn't leave me in the same position I would be in if it had
>never existed.
I don't think anyone needs to apologize for having written code under any
license. I think you'd have to feel you were owed free software of any
given functionality under your chosen license before this complaint would be
legitimate.
In the case of linux of course there is an alternate kernel with a different
free license.
>-- The FSF's attitude towards derivative works created by dynamic linking and
>towards "user does the link" is nasty, and has bad implications. I know that
>you disclaim it, but I don't believe that every contributor to the kernel has
>done so, and at any rate it's still a problem for GPL code in general.
Hopefully the FSF's attitude only has those implications for their own
code. I don't believe their attitude is legally correct, so I don't
really care about any far reaching effects of their "nasty" position.
I think the FSF's stance is going to be used against the GPL and other
free software. It looks to be just that little bit of truth that Microsoft
is latching onto in their anti open source blathering.
That said, I don't think it's a problem for the kernel.
Isaac
John Hasler
> If not could you explain under which situations you wouldn't have that
> right?
Any situation in which someone else has already done what Mr. Maynard
demands the right to do: sell a derivative of a free work under a
proprietary license.
Apparently, he finds it offensive that I choose to release my software
under terms that forbid him to release derivatives of it under terms that
would deny me the right that he demands for himself.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Jay Maynard
>Apparently, he finds it offensive that I choose to release my software
>under terms that forbid him to release derivatives of it under terms that
>would deny me the right that he demands for himself.
No, I simply object to calling such a thing "free".
Chris Topher
> In article <rjofrj1...@localhost.localdomain>,
> Chris Topher <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Don't bitch about other peoples choice of license.
> >
> >That's always good for a laugh, coming from people who impose the high
> >costs (in division, duplication of effort, etc.) of copyleft on the free
> >software world in order to withhold their software from those who
> >chose a different license for their own derivative work. (Derivative
> >in the sense that a device driver is a derivative of an OS kernel,
> >per foolish copyright law. But that's a different subject.) It's
> >even more ironic when it's stated "let the author chose the license".
>
> Oh, but any GPL person is MORE than happy to have people choose
> something else than the GPL. In fact, at least for me that's part of
> the self-selection process for developers.
(The following is written with near-certainty that Linus won't see it.)
You reinforce my point. You (and most GPL users) make a big deal of
choice of license, even to the point of ostracizing people who fail
to use it. (Thoough that doesn't stop you from accepting their gifts.)
Bitching is mild, in comparison.
> It's just that there is a tit-for-tat: if you are my friend and let me
> work with you, I will be your friend and let you work with me.
So who's stopping you from working with the BSD kernel hackers in
writing kernel code? The GPL is. I see tit-for-/dev/null.
> Fair is fair. You have the choice of ignoring the code I write, but I
> have the choice of ignoring you and not letting you change it. Do you
> _really_ think that is unfair? Remember - it's NOT your code.
I don't recall saying that it's unfair. I've said it's a honest
contract in intellectual property, subject to honest dealings, like with
any other contract. Misrepresentations are an important consideration
which most of our discussion here revolves around; not the contract.
And many are the bullies who have used honest contracts and honest
dealings in a way I consider not nice or to poor effect. There are
several who work in Redmond, WA. I consider you and RMS and any
copyleftist a bit of a bully who cost free software much and get little
benefit from copyleft that a freer license doesn't give, with the
exception of this influence over other people's licensing choices and
the code of those few who don't want to open their code and choose the
GPL anyway. I'll agree that it is a fair bargain while I call it a
highly political act of bullying. And I reserve the right to discuss
such actions with the people who practice them. Remember - it's NOT
your Usenet.
> There are technical advantages here [...]
We weren't disussing that. We know that copyleftists' and M$'s
licenses give them an advantage when it come to bullying people into
exchanging the benefits of their work for use of the bully's software.
> But there are also social advantages. It keeps the whiners and
> free-riders away. And to me, that's a big advantage, actually. I don't
> have to deal with people who think they are "entitled" to my code. I
> only occasionally peek in to gnu.misc.discuss to see who is the latest
> person who is misguided enough to think that "freedom" means "no
> responsibility".
You think you'd find more whiners in a non-copyleft free software
environment? Why would that be? I expect you'd here less; you
sure wouldn't hear much whining about copyleft or its propaganda.
Where have you read that anyone thinks they are entitled anybody's code,
besides maybe that hang-out of GPL proponents known as Slashdot?
We mostly object to hearing that copyleft is about freedom and sharing
when the fine print explains that it's about a tit-for-tat fair deal.
I like to give free rides when I can afford to. I'm sorry you don't.
I guess I can't be your friend, despite what I've done and continue
to do for Linux in a LUG and a couple Linux web sites. Boo hoo. I'll
have to comfort myself in the knowledge of having made what must be a
fair bargain (since I chose to enter into it). I only wish it was
a good bargain. I'll tell you that my efforts have been worth a whole
lot more than the price of the software on my disk and six years of
upgrades. But I feel increasingly bullied out and have started to jump
ship. I wish I could say I'm glad that you think that's a good thing.
Peter Seebach
Lars Weber <m...@lars.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>But please note that your implied way of making profit[0] is based heavily
>on some artificial rights, and that these artificial rights do quite
>severely restrict the freedoms of recipients of your derivative works.
In one way, that's true. In another way, no restriction you place on
something I write can leave anyone with any fewer options than they would
have had if I hadn't written it.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
+--- Need quality network services, server-grade computers, or a shell? ---+
v C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon! v
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
John Hasler
> In one way, that's true. In another way, no restriction you place on
> something I write can leave anyone with any fewer options than they would
> have had if I hadn't written it.
No restriction I place on anything you write can have any effect at all
(absent a contract).
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
phil hunt
>>>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
>> Jay> However, it does not allow the freedom to create derivative works
>> Jay> and profit from them. [...]
>>But please note that your implied way of making profit[0] is based heavily
>>on some artificial rights, and that these artificial rights do quite
>>severely restrict the freedoms of recipients of your derivative works.
>
>This is the fundamental difference of opinion. The GPV advocates believe
>they have the right to prevent me from profiting from my derivative work.
And under the law they do have that right. It is the same law that
allows people to profit from the sale value of software they create;
so if the GPL is immoral, isn't profitting from the sale value? If
not, why not?
> I think this is just plain wrong.
Say you write some proprietary software. I create a derivative work
containing your work, and sell copies of it, without getting your
permission. You thren find out what I'm doing; do you seek to prevent
me from profiting from my derivative work? or would that be
"just plain wrong" too?
What about the mixed GPL/proprietary model of companies like
Sleepycat or Troll Tech?
>The users and authors of the freely available work lose nothing by having a
>commercial derivative in existence.
And you would lose nothing by me making an unauthorised derivative
work of your software. Sure, you would have less expectation of gaining
money from it in the future. However, someone who writes GPL'd software
might have the expectation of other people making additiions to it,
which the original author can then use.
Now, you might say that's different, that it's OK to want payment in
money but wrong to hope for payment in code. But I say it is up to
the individual: if someone does some work, they are entitled to
want payment in whatever form they like, be it money, or code, or
the esteem of their peers, or whatever.
> The choice should be left to the person
>considering which version to use, and *nobody* else. The GPV robs him of the
>freedom to choose a work that is only available with restrictions, should
>that work otherwise better meet his needs.
Protprietary code also robs him of that choice. So if the GPL is bad,
surely proprietary code is worse?
Consider this table:
License Restrictions
=============== ============
BSDL'd code few restrictions
GPL'd code some restrictions
Proprietary code more restrictions
If BSD code is good, and proprietary is good, why is GPL bad, given
that it is in the middle.
>The freedoms you exercise today are guaranteed not by the GPV, but by the
>law that says that a work released under a license that permits
>redistribution cannot have that revoked retroactively unless the license
>itself provides it - and the BSD license does not.
Sorry I don't follow you.
>>[0] Which is, btw, not the only way to profit financially from such works.
>
>I've commented on that already. No business model based on other than
>licensing fees has ever succeeded in the long run.
How long is "the long run"? (The reason I ask is when you specify a
time, I will see if I can find a counteraxample). Bear in mind that
the software industry isn't very old.
phil hunt
>someone else's GPL code.
That *never* happens.
> He might not really care if I follow it when using
>his code--he may consider it a necessary evil to use the code of someone
>else down the line. While in theory he could then give me a dual license or
>an exemption, the logistics of tracking down the author of a particular piece
>of code and getting another license from him, even if he's willing, often
>make dual licensing very impractical.
I disagree. It is quite easy to write a copyright notice like this
at the top of every file:
Copyright (c) 2001 A.N. Other
Licensed under the GPL and BSDL; See README for details.
>-- The FSF's attitude towards derivative works created by dynamic linking and
>towards "user does the link" is nasty, and has bad implications.
It seems to me that static linking, dynamic linking, calling as a separate
process, calling using an interface such as CORBA, or over the web such
as SOAP are all different ways of achieving fundamentally the same thing,
differing only in technical detail. I'm a bit uneasy about the FSF's
stand here. I think the MPL's deliniation of where the boundaries of
a program lie is quite good, however.
Russell Senior
Linus> And while I personally use the phrase "Open Source" because I
Linus> disagree with the FSF on many things, [...]
I am curious what these `many things' are.
--
Russell Senior ``The two chiefs turned to each other.
sen...@aracnet.com Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible
profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
extremely unusual.' ''
Stefaan A Eeckels
Odd, but that's exactly the way "freedom" is achieved, namely
by forbidding people to do unto others what they don't want to
have done unto themselves.
Stefaan A Eeckels
Chris Topher <do...@wantnomail.org> writes:
> torv...@cesium.transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) writes:
>
>> In article <rjofrj1...@localhost.localdomain>,
>> Chris Topher <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Don't bitch about other peoples choice of license.
>> >
>> >That's always good for a laugh, coming from people who impose the high
>> >costs (in division, duplication of effort, etc.) of copyleft on the free
>> >software world in order to withhold their software from those who
>> >chose a different license for their own derivative work. (Derivative
>> >in the sense that a device driver is a derivative of an OS kernel,
>> >per foolish copyright law. But that's a different subject.) It's
>> >even more ironic when it's stated "let the author chose the license".
>>
>> Oh, but any GPL person is MORE than happy to have people choose
>> something else than the GPL. In fact, at least for me that's part of
>> the self-selection process for developers.
>
> (The following is written with near-certainty that Linus won't see it.)
>
> You reinforce my point. You (and most GPL users) make a big deal of
> choice of license, even to the point of ostracizing people who fail
> to use it. (Thoough that doesn't stop you from accepting their gifts.)
> Bitching is mild, in comparison.
If people release code under the BSDL, they intend/hope that
it will be as widely used as possible, including closed source
developments. Please explain what is so offensive about the
GPL that a GPLed project using BSDLed code makes you rant.
>
>> It's just that there is a tit-for-tat: if you are my friend and let me
>> work with you, I will be your friend and let you work with me.
>
> So who's stopping you from working with the BSD kernel hackers in
> writing kernel code? The GPL is. I see tit-for-/dev/null.
The GPL prevents BSDL kernel hackers from using Linux code.
Nothing prevents Linux kernel hackers from contributing
to the *BSD efforts.
>> Fair is fair. You have the choice of ignoring the code I write, but I
>> have the choice of ignoring you and not letting you change it. Do you
>> _really_ think that is unfair? Remember - it's NOT your code.
>
> I don't recall saying that it's unfair. I've said it's a honest
> contract in intellectual property, subject to honest dealings, like with
> any other contract. Misrepresentations are an important consideration
> which most of our discussion here revolves around; not the contract.
There are no misrepresentations, unless you use an overly
restrictive definition of the words free and freedom.
> And many are the bullies who have used honest contracts and honest
> dealings in a way I consider not nice or to poor effect. There are
> several who work in Redmond, WA. I consider you and RMS and any
> copyleftist a bit of a bully who cost free software much and get little
> benefit from copyleft that a freer license doesn't give, with the
> exception of this influence over other people's licensing choices and
> the code of those few who don't want to open their code and choose the
> GPL anyway. I'll agree that it is a fair bargain while I call it a
> highly political act of bullying. And I reserve the right to discuss
> such actions with the people who practice them. Remember - it's NOT
> your Usenet.
When I release code under the GPL I do not get _any more_ influence
over you, or your licensing choices than by
- not releasing my code
- releasing my code under a closed source license
- dancing on one leg.
The only choice I could possibly ask you to make is whether you'll
use my code, and the _only_ time that becomes relevant is when
my code (and the code of all of those who opted into my project and
my choice of license) becomes so useful, or compelling, that you
cannot hope to achieve the same result without using it.
In the free (as per the FSF) software world, most projects exist
in GPL and BSDL varieties. This is _good_, unless you strongly,
nay passionately, believe that maximizing the use of one code base
is the only true way.
People who are passionate about the GPL believe that universal
source code distribution and availability is the only true way;
those who are passionate about the BSDL long to see their code
base used in all products, open- or closed source.
It's a different goal, but make no mistake, you've got the same
problem: you're too passionate to see that it really doesn't
matter all that much to those who don't share your passion.
Chris Topher
[ a few reasons he choses copyleft over less restricted licensing ]
>
> And that's my choice.
Glad to hear it (again). Just don't get in a snit when you read
someone else's reasons for their choice or reasons why your choice
might be wrong or how some language may be misleading people into
making poor or misinformed choices. It's gnu.misc.DISCUSS, not
gnu.misc.ADVOCACY.
> I see why people like the BSD license too. If you don't really care
> what people do with it, the BSD license is more of a "do what you will"
> kind of thing. You obviously retain the right to do whatever you want
> to your original code - and you don't even _care_ about the right to
> follow other peoples forks.
Some care about it; some might even complain about people who close their
fork by keeping the source secret (eg, M$) or by imposing nasty license
restrictions (eg, Linux kernel hackers). You just don't refuse to
license them to use your software in a derivative. Some don't care;
others are motivated by altruism, which is not a desire to be a sucker.
It's a desire to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The
hope is that those for whom releasing the source of their derivative
work makes economic sense will do so, benefiting society, and the
others will get use of the code, also benefiting society, just to a lessor
degree.
> And you shouldn't argue against _any_ of them. You should be out doing
> your OWN choices.
That's a reasonable opinion, but it looses most of it's punch from
someone who's just argued that the GPL lets you use other people's forks
while the BSDL doesn't. Isn't that arguing against the BSDL, or do you
never argue and only proclaim The Truth?
>
> >I don't use it. I argue against it in the hope that others will see the
> >light and make another choice when choosing a license for their projects.
>
> Why? What "light"? Who made you the arbiter of good taste and "the one
> true way"?
He did. It's his right as a human to comment on the bad behavior of
those around him. It's how we conduct civilization these days. If
he may not express his own opinion on the matter, who's must he express?
> You always have
> to pay for a right by giving up another right - that's what _any_
> license is (that is, fundamentally, the whole definition of any
> "agreement", whether in copyrights or anywhere else).
(Just can't bring yourself to write "contract", huh? I notice M$ and
many companies lately pulling the same trick. This sort of thing makes
me wonder about people's intellectual honesty, but this is not strong
enough evidence to remove all doubt like that RMS has provided. You're
much more politically savvy than he.)
The quote is only approximately true. One may truly give (or even
license) rights (exclusive or not) without condition. Moreover, once
you've required "payment" for one right in a typical free software
license, you sort of give away all others for no additional "pay". If
you gave up another right, you wouldn't change the "fee" schedule; you
would, in effect, be giving up another right for no payment. An
exception to this is the GPL which removed the right to publish
derivatives from the basic license and changed the fee schedule to
require the separate payment at the separate cost of cross-licensing
under a GPL-like license.
> And everybody has to choose for themselves what is the right license for
> them. You arguing against the GPL, calling it names, makes you nothing
> but a bigot. You think you have the right to say what other people
> should and should not use. You think you have the right to call the
> choice of other people names ("GPV" - yeah, very witty).
It's the same right you have to use "should" a couple times above or
to name-call BSD licensing "anarchy" or to treat people with whom you
disagree with disdain in the Linux kernel list. Or does your position
give you special rights in this regard?
> Do you perhaps also condemn people for their choice of religion? Do you
> try to push the "light" to them too? The one true religion? Do you think
> you have the moral right (nay, _imperative_!) to try to show people the
> error of their ways, and take them all to Jesus/Allah/Buddha/that-great-
> big-fluffy-kitty-in-the-sky?
In words of a famous person: "Very witty." & "Classical blathering."
> >I consider freedom to be too valuable a concept, and too easily lost, to sit
> >idly by while others give it away voluntarily in the name of preserving it.
>
> Classical blathering.
>
> Face it, "freedom" as a pure concept does not exist. You seem to think
> that "freedom" means "not bound by any rules", and you didn't understand
> my reference to anarchy. Not having rules is _not_ freedom, even though
> you (and others) make that mistake over and over again.
Of course it doesn't exist. It's an ideal by which other things are
measured. You have freedom if you're free to do what you want to do
without punishment (or fear of same) from people single, or organized,
rules or no rules. (But presumably they only punish you for violating
rules whether their own or their group's.) Anarchy is only the
absense of a ruler or by extention, the absense of rules. Another ideal
which doesn't exist in reality. Any attempt will instantly transform
into a multitude of rulers and rules. Why talk about it? It surely
has little to do with BSD licensing.
If anyone will punish your actions, you don't have freedom; if nobody
will punish your actions, you have freedom. Where government rules fall
away, other organization, mob, or personal rules will talk their place
so that you will never have freedom in a non-ideal world. In an ideal
world everyone would want to do the right thing and nobody would punish
anybody for their actions and rules would be useless.
> Repeat after me: freedom is NOT about the lack of rules.
It's about lack of punishment for breaking them -- a fine distinction,
> A lack of rules is called anarchy, not freedom, and the two aren't
> really opposites - it's just that they aren't even in the same frame of
> reference. They are about two completely different things. Independent.
Right. And in an ideal world you would have both but in our world you
may have neither, without considering the words fuzzy and introducing
arbitrary definitions of the words for purposes of your discussion.
> So what is "freedom"? In the end, it's about having choice. You have to
> realize that you cannot live without rules, but at least within a set of
> rules YOU CAN CHOOSE WHAT TO DO!
That renders the word meaningless. I could make it fit any slave
state in history. You're free to be my field hand or my house boy!
> Does that give a good definition of "freedom"? Of course not. If there
> _was_ a good definition of freedom, people wouldn't get so damn worked
> up about the notion.
>
> But the closest approximation of having freedom is to have the right to
> do as you please. Without never losing sight of the fact that there ARE
> rules.
That IS a good definition of freedom. And most of us have the good
sense to accept SOME, but only some degree of hidden meaning to the use
of the word so the word is useful to convey meaning in the real world.
For instance, we're seldom talking about all possible things one could
want to do or not do; just some subset.
> And part of it is the right to choose your own license for things you
> write.
And other parts of it are the right to explain why one choice is better
than another and the right to ignore explanations.
> But you have to realize that by your choices, you also limit yourself.
> You can choose to work together with other people, and accept some of
> their rules - you might choose the GPL. By accepting those rules, you
> buy into _their_ choices, and that gives you leverage, in the form of
> getting the right to use their code. You win something, but you also
> limit yourself by your choice.
A choice made under threat of punishment is not a free choice.
Please try hard to follow this: If it PLEASES you to work together with
someone and accept their rules you have no fear of punishment and have a
sort of freedom, but if it DOESN"T PLEASE you to accept their rules and
you do so only to avoid the punishment of having your license to publish
derivations withheld from you, then you don't have that sort of freedom;
you have only rules, threats of punishment, and someone who would rather
sumbit than be punished. The only freedom involved is the freedom to
surrender one's freedom in what is nothing but a commercial transaction
(which the governement will probably tax if it ever finds that there is
any money in it). Sure, you can talk about any commercial transaction
as a fair contract, freely made, but that's a different kind of usage
than we are discussing; it's the kind of freedom a M$ licensee has.
> So _one_ part of freedom is your freedom to choose your own license. But
> you have to realize that if you want that freedom, then you should also
> allow OTHER PEOPLE the same freedom, instead of thinking that you are
> the grand poo-bah of licenses and know what "the light" is.
There you go again. You say people should allow other people to choose
their own license, but you do more than complain if they choose something
more (or less) restrictive than copyleft; you punish them by withholding
rights to certain uses of your software which you allow to those that
have seen "the light" of your choice. You seem to say elsewhere that
they "self-select" themselves out of your friendship. Who's acting
more the grand boo-bah here? It's you.
> So please give other people the same respect that you seem to require
> yourself. Which implies that you should NOT try to show them "the
> light".
More irony, I guess.
> And there's another part of freedom: the freedom to socialize, and
> partake in other peoples activities. Do you get to "join the club" or
> not. Do other people have the right to have a "whites only" club? Or a
> "straight people only" club? Or a "you can't be part of our development
> team" kind of club?
>
> And THAT's the freedom that rms so dearly loves. The freedom to fix
> other peoples bugs. The freedom that the GPL tries so hard to protect.
But it forms another kind of exclusive club. Too few people know that
GNU stands for "Guild for a New Unix". There's insiders and outsiders
with very different freedoms for each; there's rules for membership and
there's punishments from ejection to large fines; about the only part of
the analogy that fails is the selection of leaders and other formalities.
> Are YOU the person to decide whether people should have the right to
> join? Nope.
I don't rember him asking to decide. He's simply trying to disuade some
from exercising their right to join through discussion of related issues.
> And while I personally use the phrase "Open Source" because I disagree
> with the FSF on many things, I do not think you are right in trying to
> (re-)define the meaning of the word "freedom". They have an equal right
> to use that word as you do, and I would say that the common semantics
> for the word are _not_ perverted by them any more than it is by you.
Well which is it? Do you not think he has a right to his meaning or
they have equal rights to their different meanings? And where has the
FSF defined "freedom" except by saying it is "the freedom to ..." which
I hope you'll agree it leaves room for improvement and in any case that
their definition applies to all Free Software, not just the copylefted.
> And you not realizing this only show yourself to have a very limited
> understanding of other peoples ideas and notions.
Pow. Right in the stomach. And you not knowing the difference between
the right to do something and the advisability or merit of doing it show
yourself to have a very limited understanding of common discourse.
> In short: you're arguing on very slippery ground, and you look silly for
> doing so.
Sadly true. We all do. Even you.
> The ONE rule about freedom is: everybody wants it for themselves, yet
> wants to take it away from others. You want freedom, yet you don't want
> to let other people decide what freedom even IS.
You seem to implying that one should let other people decide what
freedom is. I guess that means you'll have to reject Stallman's
because he didn't let others decide. He too wanted freedom and
didn't want to let other people decide what freedom even IS.
> Think about it.
You want freedom, and now you're telling people what to think.
Oh, the shame! We're being silly indeed.
I notice that you're quick to give advice and slow to follow it.
That distracts from your considerable persuasive skills. I'll
ask you to please think more about what other people say too.
Austin Ziegler
> On 21 Jun 2001 16:13:14 GMT, Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>> -- Often an author GPLs his own code because he has to in order to use
>> someone else's GPL code.
> That *never* happens.
ObjectiveC.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
-----------------* I speak for myself alone
Jay Maynard
<Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>Odd, but that's exactly the way "freedom" is achieved, namely
>by forbidding people to do unto others what they don't want to
>have done unto themselves.
No.
It's achieved by forbidding people to harm others without their consent.
Anything else leads to infringements on freedom such as laws forbidding
people from denying the Holocaust. (I don't agree with those who do, but I
will defend their right to say it.) Content-based restrictions on speech are
not freedom, no matter how you rationalize it.
brl...@my-deja.com
> I don't see how you can think the restriction is minor in the face of
> much evidence to the contrary. Stallman spent a lot of effort to
> develop a license who's main reason for being is to effect that
> restriction. The FSF has hired lawyers to perfect it and enforce it by
> threats of law suits. There's endless debate over it. There's an awful
> waste of duplication of effort because of that restriction. Minor?
Minor in that it doesn't bother me. I'm restricted from licensing
derived works under different license terms, but why would I want to do
that in the first place? I've been making a living as a programmer for
11 years without any of my code ever resulting in license fees for
myself or my employer. Chances are that such an economic model would
not improve my income.
Yes, Stallman spent a lot of effort on the license. Like good system
software, that license is essentially invisible to me as I go about my
work. I would have to do something awfully unusual before those lawyers
come after me with lawsuits.
Yes, there's endless debate. How can you, a Usenet user, cite endless
debate as evidence that an issue is not minor?
Duplication of effort? Only because some people find the GPL
unacceptable. That's not my problem. Maybe it was partly because
people *like* duplicating effort, because programming is fun.
> And I'd probably tell them that they're wrong in thinking of disclaimers
> as a major issue;
That would be rather presumptuous of you. You don't know their
situation. Maybe for *them* it *is* a major issue.
However, if they said you were lying to call the BSDL a free license,
you would be perfectly justified in saying they were wrong.
Stefaan A Eeckels
jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 09:37:20 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>>Odd, but that's exactly the way "freedom" is achieved, namely
>>by forbidding people to do unto others what they don't want to
>>have done unto themselves.
>
> No.
> It's achieved by forbidding people to harm others without their consent.
Or with their consent. Why else the big discussion about euthanasia?
Harm doesn't enter into it. You cannot take $1000 from someone who
wouldn't be "harmed" by that loss, you just cannot steal.
Your opinion of what harms someone, and even their opinion on the same,
is not taken into account when deciding how to restrict the behaviour of
an individual to maximize freedom for all (and not to minimize
the number of restrictions, BTW; that's totally specious).
> Anything else leads to infringements on freedom such as laws forbidding
> people from denying the Holocaust. (I don't agree with those who do, but I
> will defend their right to say it.) Content-based restrictions on speech are
> not freedom, no matter how you rationalize it.
No, and no-one would argue they are. But a case can be made that
these restrictions are necessary (something I personally do not
not agree with, but that's beside the point).
What matters is that in all cases freedom is limited, and that
there is no hard-and-fast rule that allows us to decide which
limitation is justified. That is and will remain a matter for
people to decide, based on their culture, history and circumstances.
Proclaiming to have the only true definition of freedom is really
an advanced case of hubris.
Phillip Lord
Jay> No. It's achieved by forbidding people to harm others without
Jay> their consent. Anything else leads to infringements on freedom
Jay> such as laws forbidding people from denying the Holocaust. (I
Jay> don't agree with those who do, but I will defend their right to
Jay> say it.) Content-based restrictions on speech are not freedom,
Jay> no matter how you rationalize it.
Speech can harm people also, at least that is how our
society judges it. Its called libel, or slander, and there are laws
against it.
The holocaust denial laws in some countries usually come in
under these laws, or at least operate under the same logic. In the UK
at least also have race laws which make racist literature or language
potentially illegal. And of course we still have archaic blasphemy
laws. Some of these I agree with and some of them I disagree
with. There are people who argue for an absolutist position that all
speech should be protected under all circumstances. I disagree. I
think for instance allowing distribution of fascist literature is
likely to result in more curtailment of freedom through fear than
banning the literature is.
We all have the right to define freedom in the way we
choose. I have respect for the absolutist position. I still think its
wrong.
Phil
Lars Weber
Jay> This is the fundamental difference of opinion. The GPV advocates
Jay> believe they have the right to prevent me from profiting from my
Jay> derivative work. I think this is just plain wrong.
What I was wondering (and still wonder) is how your "...freedom to create
derivative works and profit from them" (a freedom that is, in the way you
implied, only made possible through artificial restriction of the freedoms
of recipients of your modified software) relates to your (possibly
paraphrased) position of: "There is no such thing as restricted freedom".
Jay> The users and authors of the freely available work lose nothing by
Jay> having a commercial derivative in existence. The choice should be
Jay> left to the person considering which version to use, and *nobody*
Jay> else. The GPV robs him of the freedom to choose a work that is only
Jay> available with restrictions, should that work otherwise better meet
Jay> his needs.
Saying that the GPL robs a user of the freedom to use a derivative work
that might have been developed if it were released under a more permissive
license seems a little farfetched to me.
What the GPL does take away is the freedom of an author of a derivative
work to choose whatever license he wants to use for it. But this is a
freedom that only exists because of artificial rights that do themeselves
(by design) restrict other peoples freedoms.
Jay> The freedoms you exercise today are guaranteed not by the GPV, but
Jay> by the law that says that a work released under a license that
Jay> permits redistribution cannot have that revoked retroactively
Jay> unless the license itself provides it - and the BSD license does
Jay> not.
I would expect that quite a large part of enhancements to programs that I
use were only not released under terms that would have massively
restricted my freedoms because of the requirements of the GPL.
So, while you might not find the requirements of the GPL to be acceptable
for something called a "Free Software License", I beg to differ. The
reason is that I personally see the artificial restrictions that copyright
laws provide (especially when applied to the field of software; and at the
very least to the extend that they are exercised today) as a major threat
to the overall freedom of society. And as such I don't see it as a
contradiction if people that don't like this (artificially freedom
restricting) system "misuse" copyright law to at least make sure that such
restrictions can not be applied to modified versions of their own works.
Jay> I've commented on that already. No business model based on other
Jay> than licensing fees has ever succeeded in the long run.
One should keep in mind that the value of business isn't the business
itself. If it is only possible to keep a given business model alive by
making sacrifices elsewhere the only reason for doing so should be an
overall win for society (not ignoring major discrimination of specific
minorities, etc., of course).
>> Not to speak of ways that do not involve money at all!
Jay> Perhaps not, but those don't pay the bills.
No. But paying bills is fortunately not everything in live.
Regards,
Lars
brl...@my-deja.com
> What if you want to use two pieces of code with incompatible licenses? That
> might bother you even if you have no intention of gaining any license fees
> yourself.
Being "incompatible" means that each license dictates something about
the terms under which I distribute the derived work, and that it's
impossible to satisfy the requirements of both at the same time.
I've never found myself in such a situation. In the situations like
this that I've heard of involving the GPL, there's always been a
requirement in the other license that I dislike -- required mention in
advertising, litigation subject to the laws of Virginia (my
Massachusetts employer would love that one!), derived works must be
distributed as patches to the original work (a requirement incompatible
with itself if you use thus-licensed code from two sources), etc.
If I were in such a fix, it wouldn't be the GPL I had a problem with.
John Hasler
> Speech can harm people also, at least that is how our society judges
> it. Its called libel, or slander, and there are laws against it.
In the sense of it being a crime and prosecutable by the government, not in
the US. Libel and slander are torts for which you can sue in civil court
and recover damages for if you can prove that the putative libel is false
(and the defendant knew that) and that it damaged you.
phil hunt
>On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, phil hunt wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2001 16:13:14 GMT, Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>> -- Often an author GPLs his own code because he has to in order to use
>>> someone else's GPL code.
>> That *never* happens.
>
>ObjectiveC.
They didn't have to release it under the GPL. They *did* have to
release it under a license *compatible* with the GPL, but that's
another matter entirely.
--
==== Philip Hunt == ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk ====
Want to stop global warming? Do you support the Kyoto
Treaty? Then boycott Esso (ExxonMobil in the USA).
See www.stopesso.com for details.
phil hunt
>In article <slrn9j4u3...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk>,
>phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>On 21 Jun 2001 16:13:14 GMT, Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>-- Often an author GPLs his own code because he has to in order to use
>>>someone else's GPL code.
>>That *never* happens.
>
>that "has to do X in order to do Y" is meaningless because you can always
>choose not to do Y.
>
>>> He might not really care if I follow it when using
>>>his code--he may consider it a necessary evil to use the code of someone
>>>else down the line. While in theory he could then give me a dual license or
>>>an exemption, the logistics of tracking down the author of a particular piece
>>>of code and getting another license from him, even if he's willing, often
>>>make dual licensing very impractical.
>>I disagree. It is quite easy to write a copyright notice like this
>>at the top of every file:
>> Copyright (c) 2001 A.N. Other
>> Licensed under the GPL and BSDL; See README for details.
>
>down.
True.
People should give consideration to what license they use for the
software they write, and should choose an appropriate license for
the goals they wish to further.
It isn't the FSF's fault if other people are careless about choosing
open source licenses.
>And how in the world do you track down the owner of a 20 line patch who
>never put in either a name or a copyright notice?
Normally such pateches wouldn't have separate copyright. When
I have received short patches for my software, i have just merged
them in, creiting the authorws, but not changing the copyright
notices.
Longer patches (such as one added to the forthcoming release of
Leafwa), denote a separate copyright statement to the relevant files.
In all cases, patches are customarily released under the same license
as the original software.
Austin Ziegler
> I wrote:
>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, phil hunt wrote:
>>> On 21 Jun 2001 16:13:14 GMT, Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>> -- Often an author GPLs his own code because he has to in order to use
>>>> someone else's GPL code.
>>> That *never* happens.
>> ObjectiveC.
> They didn't have to release it under the GPL. They *did* have to
> release it under a license *compatible* with the GPL, but that's
> another matter entirely.
Of which there weren't any at the time, really. Maybe the MIT licence,
but I'm not sure at that. They weren't interested in open-sourcing
anything, so they wouldn't have wanted to create an open-source licence
of their own, if it had even been in the public mindset at that point.
Note that I'm not trying to excuse NeXT's behaviour, but it *does*
happen, and has happened historically. The alternate circumstance is
that needless reengineering is done for open-source projects.
Frankly, if there were a way to make it so that the GPL protected code
from inclusion in closed-source software but pretty much allowed it in
OSD-open-source software ... I wouldn't have nearly the problem with the
GPL that I do.
Chris Topher
> Minor in that it doesn't bother me.
So if an issue doesn't bother you, it's a minor issue. OK.
I hope I can remember that next time you use the word.
> > And I'd probably tell them that they're wrong in thinking of disclaimers
> > as a major issue;
>
> That would be rather presumptuous of you. You don't know their
> situation. Maybe for *them* it *is* a major issue.
But, you see, my primary concern is not with them (BSD people) or you;
it's with free software development. Yes, I find no shame in presuming
to talk for free software development.
Sometimes it's hard to tell when people are expressing private
viewpoints which they know are not prevalent or are trying to express
Great Truths. Please excuse me if I've made errors. I don't remember.
> However, if they said you were lying to call the BSDL a free license,
> you would be perfectly justified in saying they were wrong.
Unless I was using "free" as meaning "without restraint" as "in the
public domain" as in "non-proprietary", which I've been known to do
(with explanation). Why do YOU presume to know what I mean by "free"?
(OK, maybe it's because I've said I usually mean "priceless".)
JD
"Chris Topher" <do...@wantnomail.org> wrote in message news:ij8zijz...@localhost.localdomain...
strings attached, or other software (even if added to the original works)
being encumbered. Free allows for attribution, or requirement for license
information to be passed along.
Licenses for free software don't encumber add on software, licenses for
free software don't require any actions other than those necessary for
attribution (e.g. Signed paintings), and for informing subsequent recipients
of the software the terms for use and/or redistribution.
Free software doesn't need a manifesto. Free software doesn't need large
number of advocates or web pages extolling the virtues of the non-free
license terms that are masquerading as 'free.'
Of course, just because a license isn't a license for free software (e.g. GPL),
doesn't mean that the license is bad. Telling lies about it being free is
bad though (using the term 'free', with careful qualification doesn't constitute
a lie though.)
John
Stefaan A Eeckels
arro...@rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) writes:
> In article <slrn9j7iq...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk>,
> phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>It isn't the FSF's fault if other people are careless about choosing
>>open source licenses.
>
> his program, yet still GPL it. It might not even occur to him that others
> would want to use his code, let alone that the GPL might prevent them
> from doing so. While this is in some sense a mistake on the part of the
> programmer, the GPL is set up to take maximal advantage of mistakes of this
> kind: after several such mistakes, it becomes impossible (for all practical
> purposes) to contact all the people who worked on a project, so the project
> remains stuck under the GPL no matter what its contributors would want.
This smells like the old "people who use the GPL don't
think clearly" argument.
IMHO, people who use the GPL know full well what they do,
and _don't_ want their code used in closed-source projects.
The fact that this makes it difficult to use the code in
projects that use a free license that doesn't prohibit its
use in closed-source projects is sad, but unavoidable.
Stefaan A Eeckels
"JD" <dy...@jdyson.com> writes:
>>
> Free means free for use, reuse and redistribution. Free also includes no
> strings attached, or other software (even if added to the original works)
> being encumbered. Free allows for attribution, or requirement for license
> information to be passed along.
>
> Licenses for free software don't encumber add on software, licenses for
> free software don't require any actions other than those necessary for
> attribution (e.g. Signed paintings), and for informing subsequent recipients
> of the software the terms for use and/or redistribution.
>
> Free software doesn't need a manifesto. Free software doesn't need large
> number of advocates or web pages extolling the virtues of the non-free
> license terms that are masquerading as 'free.'
Thank you for your personal definition of "free software".
Now please accept that others might not agree with you,
and use, with as much honesty as you (seem to) do, their
definition of "free software".
> Of course, just because a license isn't a license for free software (e.g. GPL),
> doesn't mean that the license is bad. Telling lies about it being free is
> bad though (using the term 'free', with careful qualification doesn't constitute
> a lie though.)
And the web page that you deprecate does just that. It's also
open enough to accept that your definition is also valid, if,
and the opposite would be amazing, not their favourite.
I know your viewpoint. I respect it, even though I don't
agree with you. I believe you're honest, and well-meaning.
Would it be too much to ask that you extend the same attitude
to those who do not agree with you, and still, after reading
the licenses, pondering the issue, feel that the GPL _can_
be called, in all honesty, a free license?
Thank you.
Jay Maynard
<Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>The fact that this makes it difficult to use the code in
>projects that use a free license that doesn't prohibit its
>use in closed-source projects is sad, but unavoidable.
"The ends justify the means."
"You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
...and other such morally equivalent statements.
Stefaan A Eeckels
These statements imply that one does something morally
indefensible to achieve a just cause. Restricting the
use of software isn't morally indefensible, it's just
unfortunate.
You're inventing a moral connotation where there is none,
to make people feel bad. That's a cheap trick.
phil hunt
>In article <slrn9j7iq...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk>,
>phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>People should give consideration to what license they use for the
>>software they write, and should choose an appropriate license for
>>the goals they wish to further.
>>It isn't the FSF's fault if other people are careless about choosing
>>open source licenses.
>
>his program, yet still GPL it.
Indeed they might. However, people can and will make ill-considered
decisions regardless of whether the GPL exists, so it isn't the
GPL's fault if people do this.
> It might not even occur to him that others
>would want to use his code,
When why's he open-sourcing it?
> let alone that the GPL might prevent them
>from doing so.
Is there any GPL'd software where the developer did
in fact make this mistake? Anecdotal evidence anyone?
> While this is in some sense a mistake on the part of the
>programmer, the GPL is set up to take maximal advantage of mistakes of this
>kind:
I don't think it was part of the FSF's strategy to do this, and
I hope you're not saying it was.
phil hunt
>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, phil hunt wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, phil hunt wrote:
>>>> On 21 Jun 2001 16:13:14 GMT, Ken Arromdee <arro...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>>>> -- Often an author GPLs his own code because he has to in order to use
>>>>> someone else's GPL code.
>>>> That *never* happens.
>>> ObjectiveC.
>> They didn't have to release it under the GPL. They *did* have to
>> release it under a license *compatible* with the GPL, but that's
>> another matter entirely.
>
>Of which there weren't any at the time, really.
It would have taken NeXT a lot less effort to write one than it
took them to implement Objective C.
> Maybe the MIT licence,
>but I'm not sure at that. They weren't interested in open-sourcing
>anything, so they wouldn't have wanted to create an open-source licence
>of their own, if it had even been in the public mindset at that point.
>
>Note that I'm not trying to excuse NeXT's behaviour, but it *does*
>happen, and has happened historically
How do you know? Unless you have actually spoken to the people
at neXT who made the decision to GPL it, for all you know, they
could have intentionally GPL'd it, knowing full well the consequences
of doing so.
>Frankly, if there were a way to make it so that the GPL protected code
>from inclusion in closed-source software but pretty much allowed it in
>OSD-open-source software
I would also be happy if a new version of the GPL was compatible
with all other open source licesnes, as far as possible.
phil hunt
>think clearly" argument.
>IMHO, people who use the GPL know full well what they do,
>and _don't_ want their code used in closed-source projects.
I agree, and will continue to do so until the opposing side of
the argument produce some examples to support their supposition.
JD
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote in message news:ph35h9...@justus.ecc.lu...
> In article <3834C0D6FA20BBBC.BF0E2842...@lp.airnews.net>,
> jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> > On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:02:56 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
> > <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
> >>The fact that this makes it difficult to use the code in
> >>projects that use a free license that doesn't prohibit its
> >>use in closed-source projects is sad, but unavoidable.
> >
> > "The ends justify the means."
> > "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
> > ...and other such morally equivalent statements.
>
> These statements imply that one does something morally
> indefensible to achieve a just cause. Restricting the
> use of software isn't morally indefensible, it's just
> unfortunate.
>
but the deception about it being a license of free software. It isn't
just 'unfortunate' that the lie had been perpetrated, it was a consious
decision to deceive.
John
Phillip Lord
>> These statements imply that one does something morally
>> indefensible to achieve a just cause. Restricting the use of
>> software isn't morally indefensible, it's just unfortunate.
>>
JD> Of course, the real BAD thing about the GPL isn't really the
JD> license, but the deception about it being a license of free
JD> software. It isn't just 'unfortunate' that the lie had been
JD> perpetrated, it was a consious decision to deceive.
Dear god does someone have to wind you up when you stop?
Its very simple. You do not have a monopoly on the word
"free". You can choose to define it all you like, but this does not
mean that others have to accept your definition. I am happy to apply
the term "free" to GPL software and so are many others. Its not a lie,
its a difference of opinion. The only lie here is your statement that
there was a conscious decision to deceive. The GPL is now, and always
has been open about its aims, and its intentions. It has a long
preamble (which also gets criticised all the time) explaining exactly
what its intentions are.
Phil
Phillip Lord
John> Phil writes:
>> Speech can harm people also, at least that is how our society
>> judges it. Its called libel, or slander, and there are laws
>> against it.
John> In the sense of it being a crime and prosecutable by the
John> government, not in the US. Libel and slander are torts for
John> which you can sue in civil court and recover damages for if
John> you can prove that the putative libel is false (and the
John> defendant knew that) and that it damaged you.
Civil law has different punishments, and different standards
of proof. This is all known to me. Its still law.
What is your point?
Phil
phil hunt
>In article <slrn9jcqv6...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk>,
>phil hunt <ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>>The GPL is an attractive nuisance here. Someone may not care who else uses
>>>his program, yet still GPL it.
>>Indeed they might. However, people can and will make ill-considered
>>decisions regardless of whether the GPL exists, so it isn't the
>>GPL's fault if people do this.
>
Er, how?
Let's say I write a software license; I'm sure that just as many people
will make uninformed decisions is if I don't write a license.
People make uninformed decisions because they are too lazy to get
the right information. This has nothing to do with software licenses.
> You can't say it's
>not the license's fault just because people could always do it anyway. (Do
>you know what an attractive nuisance is?)
Not really.
Jay Maynard
<Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>In article <3834C0D6FA20BBBC.BF0E2842...@lp.airnews.net>,
> jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:02:56 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
>> <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>>>The fact that this makes it difficult to use the code in
>>>projects that use a free license that doesn't prohibit its
>>>use in closed-source projects is sad, but unavoidable.
>> "The ends justify the means."
>> "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
>> ...and other such morally equivalent statements.
>These statements imply that one does something morally
>indefensible to achieve a just cause. Restricting the
>use of software isn't morally indefensible, it's just
>unfortunate.
Harming the cause of freedom by diluting the meaning of the word is not
morally defensible.
>You're inventing a moral connotation where there is none,
>to make people feel bad. That's a cheap trick.
You refuse to see that, for me, this *is* a moral issue...an issue that
strikes at the very foundations of morality, for without a consistent view
of freedom, other moral values lose their anchor.
brl...@my-deja.com
> It has a long preamble (which also gets criticised all the time)
> explaining exactly what its intentions are.
Note that the third paragraph of the preamble begins with:
"To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions..."
Not a smart thing to put in there if you're a rabid fanatic out to
deceive people into thinking you're using "free" to mean no
restrictions.
cbbr...@hex.net
> Oh, but any GPL person is MORE than happy to have people choose
> something else than the GPL. In fact, at least for me that's part
> of the self-selection process for developers.
This isn't _quite_ correct; there is a population out there [likely
largely made up of those that "nearly worship" the FSF] that are are
quite _UNHAPPY_ that there are licenses other than the GPL out there.
It may not be a huge population, but they do exist.
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "ac.notelrac.teneerf@" "454aa"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/xwindows.html
"Cars move huge weights at high speeds by controlling violent
explosions many times a second. ...car analogies are always fatal..."
-- <west...@my-dejanews.com>
Phillip Lord
cbbrowne> torv...@cesium.transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) writes:
>> Oh, but any GPL person is MORE than happy to have people choose
>> something else than the GPL. In fact, at least for me that's
>> part of the self-selection process for developers.
cbbrowne> This isn't _quite_ correct; there is a population out
cbbrowne> there [likely largely made up of those that "nearly
cbbrowne> worship" the FSF] that are are quite _UNHAPPY_ that there
cbbrowne> are licenses other than the GPL out there.
And some people think that the world is flat. So what?
Phil
Phillip Lord
>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
>> You're inventing a moral connotation where there is none, to make
>> people feel bad. That's a cheap trick.
Jay> You refuse to see that, for me, this *is* a moral issue...an
Jay> issue that strikes at the very foundations of morality, for
Jay> without a consistent view of freedom, other moral values lose
Jay> their anchor.
You seem to be suggesting that if you view of what "freedom"
means then morality is going to collapse. Strange notion.
Phil
Jay Maynard
> Jay> You refuse to see that, for me, this *is* a moral issue...an
> Jay> issue that strikes at the very foundations of morality, for
> Jay> without a consistent view of freedom, other moral values lose
> Jay> their anchor.
> You seem to be suggesting that if you view of what "freedom"
>means then morality is going to collapse. Strange notion.
Huh? I can't quite parse this.
What I mean is that, for me, the highest and best moral idea is that people
should be free to act as they wish as long as they do not harm others
without their consent. (People may harm others with their consent, as long
as that consent is fully informed and freely given. See, for example, BDSM.)
All other moral values I hold flow from that premise, and I believe that
applying that idea consistently will lead to a maximum of human happiness
and a stable society. Redefining freedom weakens it, and thus makes the
entire moral structure weaker.
John Hasler
> Civil law has different punishments, and different standards of
> proof. This is all known to me. Its still law.
1) Many people take "there are laws against it" as meaning "it is a crime"
(there are jurisdictions outside the US where it is). You know this,
but others may not.
2) Damages are compensation, not punishment (except for punitive damages,
which I've not heard of in libel cases).
3) In the US you cannot prevent someone from libeling you. You can only
recover damages after the fact.
Phillip Lord
Jay> On 25 Jun 2001 15:49:30 +0100, Phillip Lord
Jay> <p.l...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> wrote: You refuse to see that, for me,
Jay> this *is* a moral issue...an issue that strikes at the very
Jay> foundations of morality, for without a consistent view of
Jay> freedom, other moral values lose their anchor.
>> You seem to be suggesting that if you view of what "freedom"
>> means then morality is going to collapse. Strange notion.
Jay> Huh? I can't quite parse this.
That is not surprising as it is gibberish....
I lost the middle bit.
I was saying:-You seem to be suggesting that if your view
of what "freedom" means is not accepted then morality is going to
collapse.
Jay> What I mean is that, for me, the highest and best moral idea is
Jay> that people should be free to act as they wish as long as they
Jay> do not harm others without their consent. (People may harm
Jay> others with their consent, as long as that consent is fully
Jay> informed and freely given. See, for example, BDSM.)
BDSM means very little to me I am afraid.
Interestingly in the UK this is not the case, nor I think
in the US. However much you consent for instance to your own death
anyone helping you is open to a murder charge. I don't know about the
US, but in the UK this is also true for actual or grievous bodily
harm.
I am not sure that this is correct as it happens.
Jay> All other moral values I hold flow from that premise, and I
Jay> believe that applying that idea consistently will lead to a
Jay> maximum of human happiness and a stable society. Redefining
Jay> freedom weakens it, and thus makes the entire moral structure
Jay> weaker.
I am sure that you are aware that the FSF position is clearly
that proprietary take over of existing free software is harmful. Now
you may not agree with this position, and you are welcome to disagree
(please don't tell me why you disagree, as I have heard the arguments
before). So even if I accept your definition of "free", then GPL still
fulfils it.
You seem to argue both from a moralistic point of view (this
is what freedom is, this is what it means) and from a practical point
of view (GPL will end jobs for programmers). Which leads which I
wonder?
Phil
Jonathan Thornburg
Jay Maynard <jmay...@conmicro.cx> wrote
>for me, the highest and best moral idea is that people
>should be free to act as they wish as long as they do not harm others
>without their consent. (People may harm others with their consent, as long
>as that consent is fully informed and freely given. See, for example, BDSM.)
Interesting question to ponder: should slavery be allowed with
the consent of the slave? I believe Jay is saying "yes".
--
-- Jonathan Thornburg <jth...@thp.univie.ac.at>
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Gravitationsphysik (Albert-Einstein-Institut),
Golm, Germany http://www.thp.univie.ac.at/~jthorn/home.html
Only 6 countries in the world have the death penalty for children:
Congo, Iran, Nigeria, (Pakistan), Saudi Arabia, United States, Yemen
(Pakistan reportedly ended it in July 2000) -- Amnesty International
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/AMR511392000
brl...@my-deja.com
> Interesting question to ponder: should slavery be allowed with
> the consent of the slave? I believe Jay is saying "yes".
When there's consent, we don't call it "slavery". The more common term
is "graduate school".
Jay Maynard
<jth...@mach.thp.univie.ac.at> wrote:
>>(People may harm others with their consent, as long
>>as that consent is fully informed and freely given. See, for example, BDSM.)
>Interesting question to ponder: should slavery be allowed with
>the consent of the slave? I believe Jay is saying "yes".
Bruce's comment aside (and I got a chuckle out of it too), if one does not
harm others by giving fully informed and free consent to that state, then
nobody else - not you, not I, not (most certainly not) a government - has
any right to interfere.
Note that I am not defending or condoning slavery in the common usage at
all, since it does not involve consent, informed or otherwise. (If you even
admit the possibility of such a thing as "uninformed consent".)
Phillip Lord
>>>>> "John" == John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> writes:
John> 3) In the US you cannot prevent someone from libeling you.
John> You can only recover damages after the fact.
Really? In the UK repetition of libel would I think
be considered to be contempt of court. Unlike libel contempt IS a
criminal offence, and can attract severe punishments.
Phil
Phillip Lord
>>>>> "Jay" == Jay Maynard <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> writes:
Jay> Bruce's comment aside (and I got a chuckle out of it too), if
Jay> one does not harm others by giving fully informed and free
Jay> consent to that state, then nobody else - not you, not I, not
Jay> (most certainly not) a government - has any right to interfere.
Of course you would have to wonder what its means to have
"fully informed and free consent" in this case. I don't know about the
US but in the UK there is the concept of a "reasonable contract". If a
contract is not so then it just not enforceable. Recent examples of
this would be seen in the surrogate mother cases. A contract with a
woman saying that she must give up her child following the birth is
not enforceable in the UK, even if free consent to the contract was
given before the pregnancy.
Does the state have a right to interfere in this way?
I would say so. Perhaps you would not.
Phil
Stefaan A Eeckels
jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 18:12:41 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>>In article <3834C0D6FA20BBBC.BF0E2842...@lp.airnews.net>,
>> jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>> On Sun, 24 Jun 2001 13:02:56 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
>>> <Stefaan...@ecc.lu> wrote:
>>>>The fact that this makes it difficult to use the code in
>>>>projects that use a free license that doesn't prohibit its
>>>>use in closed-source projects is sad, but unavoidable.
>>> "The ends justify the means."
>>> "You can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs."
>>> ...and other such morally equivalent statements.
>>These statements imply that one does something morally
>>indefensible to achieve a just cause. Restricting the
>>use of software isn't morally indefensible, it's just
>>unfortunate.
>
> Harming the cause of freedom by diluting the meaning of the word is not
> morally defensible.
The word freedom is routinely used when a number of
restrictions are in place.
Which restrictions are acceptable depends on the
culture, history and attitude of the people concerned
by the freedom.
What remains is _not_ that the FSF or the GPL are
diluting the meaning of the word freedom, but that
_you_ don't agree with some of the restrictions.
This is your absolute right. You are expressing
your view (impolitely, by not using the correct name of
the GPL), at all opportune and inopportune moments.
This is rude, and doesn't further your cause.
>>You're inventing a moral connotation where there is none,
>>to make people feel bad. That's a cheap trick.
>
> You refuse to see that, for me, this *is* a moral issue...an issue that
> strikes at the very foundations of morality, for without a consistent view
> of freedom, other moral values lose their anchor.
And you fail to see that a set of rights limited by
the rights of others is _exactly_ the definition of
freedom...
John Hasler
> Really? In the UK repetition of libel would I think be considered to be
> contempt of court. Unlike libel contempt IS a criminal offence, and can
> attract severe punishments.
In the US the First Amendmant has been interpreted as a near-absolute bar
on any sort of prior restraint.
Chris Topher
> Free means free for ...
Are you taking lessons from the FSF in ambiguous definition writing?
Linus Torvalds
>
>Licenses for free software don't encumber add on software, licenses for
>free software don't require any actions other than those necessary for
>attribution (e.g. Signed paintings), and for informing subsequent recipients
>of the software the terms for use and/or redistribution.
You saying so doesn't make it so.
Are you a "free person"?
Apparently, according to your rather one-sided above definition of
"free", that means that there are no additional encumbrances for using
you, except maybe the acknowledgement that you were used.
So according to your above definition of free, I should be able to do
with you whatever I like, including using you as a personal slave and
have you wash my feet whenever my little toesies get dirty. "Kneel
before me, uncouth knave, my toesis dost be dirty".
Do you seriously mean that? According to your novel interpretation of
the English language, "free people" are people who you can use to your
hearts content, without worrying about getting any permission to do so
from anybody else?
Now do you not see how your personal definition of "freedom" has
absolutely _nothing_ to do with reality?
So take a step back, take a deep breath, and THINK. You being a "free
person" does NOT mean that others can do as they wish to you. Quite the
reverse, in fact. You are a free person exactly because others can NOT
impose their will on you.
Now, take that, and use the word "software" instead of "person". And
realize that the "free software" is about the _software_ being free.
Not _you_ being free to do whatever you want with it. It's not about
anybody being able to abuse the software any which way they like. Quite
the reverse. "Free software" is software that nobody can shackle to
some particular use. "Free software" doesn't get "enslaved" to a person
or corporation. It maintains a lack of control over it by anybody.
See? The word "free" is not such a simple thing after all. And maybe
you could admit some day that your stupid crusade against people calling
it "free software" is just that - stupid. You're trying to restrict the
word "free" to a meaning that it simply DOES NOT have.
Yes, the word "free" can also mean "you get it for free", ie "no strings
tied". And that is the traditional meaning used for inanimate objects.
But the FSF clearly states that they are talking not about that kind of
"no money" "free", but the more complex issue of "freedom" - the meaning
of the word that "free person" has, NOT the meaning of the word that
"free lunch" has.
YOU are asking for a "free lunch" kind of freedom.
The FSF talks about a "free person" kind of freedom.
Get that. And get the fact that "free" means more than you want it to
mean, and that the FSF has a strong case for their use of the word too.
And your refusal to understand that is ludicrous. Your total inability
to understand that "free" is not just about "free lunch", and that
others have equally valid (and much more philosophical) definitions of
the word "free", is incredible.
Now, it is such lack of understanding that makes me personally prefer
"Open Source". However, it still amazes me that people like you can
argue for YEARS against the accepted use of the word "free", just
because you _refuse_ to acknowledge that "free" means more than just
"free lunch".
What drugs do you use that limit your understanding so?
And this despite the fact that the FSF goes to some _pain_ to try to
make it easier to figure out.
Just give up, John. There are two meanings for the word "free". We
already know you want a free lunch. But give the English language the
respect it deserves, and do not try to ignore the fact that the other,
conceptually much more interesting meaning, also exists. And is a
perfectly valid use of the word "free".
It's doubly ironic, that you try to argue that the word "free" should
mean "free lunch", and then go on to argue that "free" is too important
a word to be used lightly - and in the second part of the argument
you've obviously switched the meaning of "free" to the "land of the
free" kind of "free".
That isn't logical, John. Either "free" means the "no ties, you can do
what you want" kind of "free lunch" thing, in which case we're certainly
not talking about great thinkers of our times, and THAT use of the word
"free" does not merit any lofty idealism. THAT use of the word "free"
gets used in every advertising jingle ever thought up: "20% more free
for the same price".
OR we're talking about "free" as in the lofty "you cannot shackle my
mind" kind of freedom, in which case the FSF _is_ right, and in which
case the word "free" _does_ indeed merit some reverence.
But you're trying to have it both ways - you want the free lunch, AND
you want the reverence for it. That doesn't make any sense. But
neither do the rest of your arguments, so I guess that's just par for
the course.
Whether you like the FSF notion of "freedom of software" or not is
immaterial. As Jay said, "freedom" is also about being able to piss
people off, and the FSF has that kind of freedom too (which is not about
the software being free, but the FSF being free - which again does not
mean that you can do anything you want to them).
And it obviously pisses you off that you don't get a free lunch, yet
people still can use the word "free". You'd much rather have software
that was slave to your smallest whim. You'd rather have software that
you could rape and use as you see fit without anybody having any say on
it. And you'd like to call that "freedom".
I bet the plantation owners found it distateful to have THEIR freedom to
treat people like their personal toys taken away from them in the name
of freedom. Freedom of the slaves, not of the plantation owners.
Understand that. It's the _software_ that is free. It is not you who
are free to do whatever you want with it. So the term "free software"
makes perfect sense, and does not actually imply any slight of the
English language.
Tough. Learn to deal with it, instead of whining (incorrectly) about
other peoples use of language.
Linus
brl...@my-deja.com
> The FSF talks about a "free person" kind of freedom.
Your idea about "free software" referring to the software's freedom is
interesting, but I don't see the FSF talking that way. I don't speak
for them, but I do notice that they use the analogy "free speech" more
often, in which the freedom applies not to the ideas/opinions being
expressed, but to the people who express/espouse/propagate them.
I see "free software" as referring to the freedom of its users. The GPL
refers to "your freedom" a lot. I think Open Source software is *more*
subservient to me; it has less freedom of its own. Closed-source
software can remain stubbornly independent. But if you prefer a
different metaphor, that's fine.
> What drugs do you use that limit your understanding so?
Do you think this kind of talk will help? Maybe it was late when you
wrote this. Maybe you were already mad about something else. But this
kind of venom serves only to fan the flames. As soon as work on Linux
2.5 picks up, we likely won't see you on gnu.misc.discuss anymore, but
those of us who visit regularly or semi-regularly will still be dealing
with the reverberations of this kind of ad-hominem attack.
Like it or not, you're not just a hacker now; you're also a spokesman.
It's especially important that you demonstrate that the free-software
community can disagree strongly, even vehemently, without getting nasty.
Phillip Lord
brlewis> torv...@cesium.transmeta.com (Linus Torvalds) writes:
>> What drugs do you use that limit your understanding so?
brlewis> Like it or not, you're not just a hacker now; you're also a
brlewis> spokesman. It's especially important that you demonstrate
brlewis> that the free-software community can disagree strongly,
brlewis> even vehemently, without getting nasty.
Give him a break. There's no real reason that he should not
speak his mind. Besides all the GPV stuff ain't exactly polite.
Phil
brl...@my-deja.com
> Give him a break. There's no real reason that he should not
> speak his mind. Besides all the GPV stuff ain't exactly polite.
There is a real reason: I want to keep all the rudeness on the *other*
side of the argument so that we look better. Duh. Isn't that obvious?
Couldn't you figure that out yourself, bonehead!?!
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
I rarely read mail sent to brl...@my-deja.com
fnordsmileyfnord
Phillip Lord
brlewis> Phillip Lord <p.l...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk> writes:
>> Give him a break. There's no real reason that he should not speak
>> his mind. Besides all the GPV stuff ain't exactly polite.
brlewis> There is a real reason: I want to keep all the rudeness on
brlewis> the *other* side of the argument so that we look better.
A good argument. I still think a bit of passion is no bad
thing though. Nowt wrong with expressing exasperation at times.
brlewis> Duh. Isn't that obvious? Couldn't you figure that out
brlewis> yourself, bonehead!?!
Well why don't you go **** yo*****, y** ******* ****** **
Phil
JD
"Jay Maynard" <jmay...@thebrain.conmicro.cx> wrote in message
news:1581E14A6B3DFD65.D80BA9D4...@lp.airnews.net...
Please don't try to justify your position based upon your own philosophy. The fact
is that it is an overt and disugusting lie that the GPL is a license of free software.
You don't have to justify your own position, in order to criticise the deception about
the GPL being free.
John