v. 0.94 of the paper BSD vs. GPL. Part. 1: Social Roots, Complexity and Never Ending Process of Interpretation of GPL
Nikolai Bezroukov
The draft (version 0.94) of the paper "BSD vs. GPL Part 1: Social Roots,
Complexity and Never Ending Process of Interpretation of GPL" is now
available from
http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/social_roots_of_GPL.shtml
I am interested in further "debugging" the draft and would appreciate
comments and constructive feedback (if possible).
The following seems to be the most important ideas of the first part of
the paper.
1. The growth of the importance of free/open software development
signified the creation of "programming intelligentsia": a social stratum
of programmers who value programming as a social activity and were ready
to advance their own technological and social agenda in this area.
Developers that prefer BSD and developers that prefer GPL are just
different subgroups of programming intelligentsia as a social group. I
also think that programming intelligentsia can learn much from the
lessons of Russian intelligentsia support of radical social ideas. In
this sense academic underpinnings, not intelligentsia extremism is the
vital thing that needs to be nourished.
2. Both BSD and GPL are connected with some underling philosophy. In
case of GPL this is a philosophy of Anarchism.
3. One can view any license including BSDL and GPL as a social contract
(or even a set of rules that regulates this social process) that behaves
differently depending on a stage of the development of the programming
product and the social environment of this development. The other
possibility is to view the license as some algorithm and measure it
complexity by some metric. From both points of view a widely held notion
that GPL is a simple license is an urban myth.
4. Most free/open source developers do not think about those licenses in
purely legal terms. They are usually view them as some kind of social
framework or developer league that a particular developer adopts. In
this sense their primary social role might be in establishing of "the
rules of the game" ("rules of free/open software development league").
5. Due to the complexity of the GPL its interpretation became a
permanent intellectual game of a certain part of "programming
intelligentsia". Moreover completely along the lines of our "programming
intelligentsia" view of the free/open developers community, the ability
to interpret GPL became a subject to constant debates and is widely
considered an important and worthwhile social activity that brings most
active participants additional social status in the most radical part of
the community.
6. A substantial level of fuzziness is not an accidental, but should be
considered as an important social property of the GPL. Software
developers that use or want to use GPL might benefit from awareness of
this property of the license. The process of clarification of GPL is an
unpredictable never-ending social process with one primary (FSF) and
several minor players. Nuances of GPL interpretation can be used as a
weapon in conflicts between groups of the developers and as an
instrument of ensuring of the importance of FSF. The author suggested
that the acceptance of FSF as a "Supreme GPL Clarification Commission"
can serve as a litmus test of belonging to the "software anarchists"
camp.
7. In the next part of the paper we will try to address is the
possibility of "kidnapping" of a free/open software project by some
"evil" commercial company.
--
Regards,
- Nikolai Bezroukov
Charlie Ebert
This is the funniest bullshit I've seen yet.
I hope you didn't spend all night writing this.
Just one question.
Why did IBM dump it's gut's into Linux whilst
using the GPL license?
Answer: Because they didn't want a competitor
to copyright their contribution to the project
and then begin making money off of their work.
It's just that simple.
Charlie
Nikolai Bezroukov
Charlie Ebert wrote:
<deleted>
Just one question.Why did IBM dump it's gut's into Linux whilst
using the GPL license?
That's a very interesting question. You can read some considerations at
http://www.softpanorama.org/People/Torvalds/linus_during_the_sunset_of_linux_hype.shtml#IBM2000_strategy
Answer: Because they didn't want a competitor
to copyright their contribution to the project
and then begin making money off of their work.It's just that simple.
No, it is *not* that simple (see above). I would probably disagree with you.
Charlie
Charlie Ebert
>
> --------------9C23A7EB0B6E4424C5A26460
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Why bother to disagree. They used the GPL license.
The rest is mere speculation.
Charlie
Kenneth Downs
TOP-POST: I've read through this already, and if anyone wants to save some
trouble, RMS answered all of this BS three years ago:
http://www.linuxworld.com/linuxworld/lw-1999-11/lw-11-rms.html
>
> The draft (version 0.94) of the paper "BSD vs. GPL Part 1: Social Roots,
> Complexity and Never Ending Process of Interpretation of GPL" is now
> available from
>
http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/social_roots_of_GPL.shtml
>
> I am interested in further "debugging" the draft and would appreciate
> comments and constructive feedback (if possible).
We had a guy come in here last week and ask this type of question about
undelete in linux, then he posted a bs article that showed that either a)
he never read the responses or got, b) did not understand them, or c) did
not care.
But here is to hope triumphing over experience:
>
> The following seems to be the most important ideas of the first part of
> the paper.
>
> 1. The growth of the importance of free/open software development
> signified the creation of "programming intelligentsia": a social stratum
> of programmers who value programming as a social activity and were ready
> to advance their own technological and social agenda in this area.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, dude, I know it's your work and all, but sounds like what we used to
stay up until 2:00am arguing about in college. Very post-modern.
> Developers that prefer BSD and developers that prefer GPL are just
> different subgroups of programming intelligentsia as a social group.
Are you in the programming intelligentsia, because if not...
> I
> also think that programming intelligentsia can learn much from the
> lessons of Russian intelligentsia support of radical social ideas.
...they are going to tell you to go f**k yourself. Even Linus with his
apolitical stance that everyone loves would have no use for your opinions,
he's just going to write software, because HE CAN.
> In
> this sense academic underpinnings, not intelligentsia extremism is the
> vital thing that needs to be nourished.
What makes you think they care?
>
> 2. Both BSD and GPL are connected with some underling philosophy. In
> case of GPL this is a philosophy of Anarchism.
In the words of RMS, from the link above:
"In [...] view, to be idealistic is to be ineffective. The Free Software
movement is idealistic, but very effective: free operating systems exist
because of our idealism. If you are using Linux, Linus Torvalds' kernel,
you are most likely using it in conjunction with the GNU system. This
combination, the GNU/Linux operating system, the subject of LinuxWorld
magazine, exists because of the FSF's idealism. The system is the idealism
of the GNU project made real. "
And if you have this forum to post to, it is because of the GPL and the OS
that we discuss.
>
> 3. One can view any license including BSDL and GPL as a social contract
> (or even a set of rules that regulates this social process) that behaves
> differently depending on a stage of the development of the programming
> product and the social environment of this development. The other
> possibility is to view the license as some algorithm and measure it
> complexity by some metric. From both points of view a widely held notion
> that GPL is a simple license is an urban myth.
First rule of post-modernism: complicate the simple. Otherwise what is
there to talk about? Again RMS clears it up for us:
"The fact is, I'm more interested in defending your freedom and mine than
in how software entrepreneurs feel. So I refuse to cede any important
freedom to make them feel comfortable. (I do try to make them comfortable
about using and developing free software, but not by sacrificing the
ultimate goal.) Stig would willingly do so, because the freedom of people
in general is not such a priority for him -- that is his basic disagreement
with the Free Software movement. Naturally, then, he would disapprove of
the GPL, or anything that protects our freedom from software entrepreneurs
who would like to take it away. His real objection to the GPL is that it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
does what it was designed to do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Me suspects this is also the objection of our humble aspiring wordsmith.
>
> 4. Most free/open source developers do not think about those licenses in
> purely legal terms. They are usually view them as some kind of social
> framework or developer league that a particular developer adopts. In
> this sense their primary social role might be in establishing of "the
> rules of the game" ("rules of free/open software development league").
>
??? Too many hits on the ole pipe while dreaming this up.
> 5. Due to the complexity of the GPL its interpretation became a
> permanent intellectual game of a certain part of "programming
> intelligentsia". Moreover completely along the lines of our "programming
> intelligentsia" view of the free/open developers community, the ability
> to interpret GPL became a subject to constant debates and is widely
> considered an important and worthwhile social activity that brings most
> active participants additional social status in the most radical part of
> the community.
Bullshit. RMS again:
"The Free Software movement aims to provide certain freedoms for all
computer users, including the right to change a program, the right to
redistribute copies, and the right to publish modified versions. The most
effective way to protect these rights is to deny anyone else the power to
take them away from you."
I don't have any understanding that. In fact, I daresay I pert-near
figgered it out on the first read! Not bad for a dummy from Texas?
>
> 6. A substantial level of fuzziness is not an accidental, but should be
> considered as an important social property of the GPL. Software
> developers that use or want to use GPL might benefit from awareness of
> this property of the license. The process of clarification of GPL is an
> unpredictable never-ending social process with one primary (FSF) and
> several minor players. Nuances of GPL interpretation can be used as a
> weapon in conflicts between groups of the developers and as an
> instrument of ensuring of the importance of FSF. The author suggested
> that the acceptance of FSF as a "Supreme GPL Clarification Commission"
> can serve as a litmus test of belonging to the "software anarchists"
> camp.
>
> 7. In the next part of the paper we will try to address is the
> possibility of "kidnapping" of a free/open software project by some
> "evil" commercial company.
>
Nikolai, with all due respect, and folks around here will tell you I do not
usually talk this way, but your post is a steaming pile of shit.
But it does not really matter, post your paper, have a ball. It will be a
feather on the breeze, because thank God our fanatical RMS doesn't give a
rat's ass about these types of articles:
"In [...] view, to be firm is to be inflexible. You can see how much it
pains him to describe pragmatic compromises that we've made, such as the
Lesser GPL. The difference between us and Stig is this: we compromise when
that helps achieve the goal of free software, but we don't compromise the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
goal.
^^^^^
Happy writing, best of luck to you.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> - Nikolai Bezroukov
--
Ken
Linux, the more you learn, the more you love
Nikolai Bezroukov
Kenneth Downs wrote:
... Even Linus with his
apolitical stance that everyone loves would have no use for your opinions,
he's just going to write software, because HE CAN.
See for example Linus post about GPL v.3 at http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.1/0096.html
> In this sense academic underpinnings, not intelligentsia extremism is the
> vital thing that needs to be nourished.What makes you think they care?
Because extremism is a road to nowhere. And if you behave like a zealot and write like a zealot, chances are that you *are* a zealot.
The second thing is that if the license inhibited the development of your product and eventually the product is abandoned, you made a serious mistake as a developer and may be paid a substantial price in time and missed opportunities for this error. Actually it is not that easy to change the license because you did not adopt just a license, you adopted a whole social environment for the development of the program (including in case of GPL particular Usenet groups ;-) and changing it is not that easy and for a really sucessful product might looks like a situation in Eagle's "Hotel California". So such a decision requires some courage, proper timing and here availability of papers like mine might help. That applies both to changes from GPL to BSD and vise versa.
Or you mean nobody cares what license to chose BSD or GPL ? Then
this is kind of an interesting advocacy of dual licensing ;-).
> 2. Both BSD and GPL are connected with some underling philosophy. In
> case of GPL this is a philosophy of Anarchism.In the words of RMS, from the link above:
"In [...] view, to be idealistic is to be ineffective. The Free Software
movement is idealistic, but very effective: free operating systems exist
because of our idealism. If you are using Linux, Linus Torvalds' kernel,
you are most likely using it in conjunction with the GNU system. This
combination, the GNU/Linux operating system, the subject of LinuxWorld
magazine, exists because of the FSF's idealism. The system is the idealism
of the GNU project made real. "And if you have this forum to post to, it is because of the GPL and the OS
that we discuss.
Why you think so? Usenet was created before GPL was written and it is GPL that benefited from the Usenet existence not vise versa. Or may be you think that RMS published GNU manifesto in New York Times :-) FreeBSD and other flavors of BSD are actually the most favorite OS for ISPs: Usenet is a traditional stronghold of BSD.
> 3. One can view any license including BSDL and GPL as a social contract
> (or even a set of rules that regulates this social process) that behaves
> differently depending on a stage of the development of the programming
> product and the social environment of this development. The other
> possibility is to view the license as some algorithm and measure it
> complexity by some metric. From both points of view a widely held notion
> that GPL is a simple license is an urban myth.First rule of post-modernism: complicate the simple. Otherwise what is
there to talk about? Again RMS clears it up for us:"The fact is, I'm more interested in defending your freedom and mine than
in how software entrepreneurs feel. So I refuse to cede any important
freedom to make them feel comfortable. (I do try to make them comfortable
about using and developing free software, but not by sacrificing the
ultimate goal.) Stig would willingly do so, because the freedom of people
in general is not such a priority for him -- that is his basic disagreement
with the Free Software movement. Naturally, then, he would disapprove of
the GPL, or anything that protects our freedom from software entrepreneurs
who would like to take it away. His real objection to the GPL is that it
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
does what it was designed to do.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Me suspects this is also the objection of our humble aspiring wordsmith.
No, I would agree that GPL "does what is was designed to do". My problem is that what GPL was designed to do may not coincide with what a developer expects from it. And I just tries to clarify some issues that I think are important. Acrually Stig Hackvän in his paper raised three questions about GPL:
1. To what extent GPL is responsible for the insane enrichment of a close groups of Linux mandarins like Rob Young, Larry Augustin, etc. ? (as Stig Hackvän noted"
"Publishers win, authors lose: Once created, information can be reproduced at nearer cost. That means that publishers enjoy a markup of nearly 100 percent on each unit sold. Publishers are in a far better position than are creators because the publishers' cost of goods approaches zero. However, intellectual property laws allow authors to require payment from publishers. Such payment inflates the per-copy cost of information, which is then passed on to the consumer.2. To what extent GPL is compatible with the copyright law ? Does GPL implicitly undermining the legal regime on which it is based ? (the author noted "anti/Law is the contractually reinforced worldview of one community locally overriding the statutory worldview of another one." )
Bob Young, president of Red Hat Software, acknowledges that he can sell free bits simply on the strength of a brand-name endorsement. Although Red Hat does some development internally, the company doesn't pay anything to outside developers. Young says that he's in the same business as Evian, a company selling "millions of dollars of French tap water" solely on the strength of its brand and an "irrational fear that the water coming from your tap is not to be trusted."
3. Can GPL be considered to be a viral license ?
An interesting fact is that in his reply RMS skipped the first two questions and answered only the third (IMHO the easiest). He did repeated his usual arguments about freedom and commercial software developers and even explained why he decided to avoid the term "intellectual property", but he never addresses the first two questions raised in the paper by Stig Hackvän. I am not claiming that RMS cannot answer this question, but he defnitly chose not to address them.
...deleted...
Ken
Linux, the more you learn, the more you love
--
Regards,
- Nikolai Bezroukov
Kenneth Downs
>> > In this sense academic underpinnings, not intelligentsia extremism is
>> > the vital thing that needs to be nourished.
>>
>> What makes you think they care?
>
> Because extremism is a road to nowhere. And if you behave like a zealot
> and write like a zealot, chances are that you *are* a zealot.
>
> The second thing is that if the license inhibited the development of your
> product and eventually the product is abandoned, you made a serious
> mistake as a developer and may be paid a substantial price in time and
> missed opportunities for this error. Actually it is not that easy to
> change the license because you did not adopt just a license, you adopted a
> whole social environment for the development of the program (including in
> case of GPL particular Usenet groups ;-) and changing it is not that easy
> and for a really sucessful
> product might looks like a situation in Eagle's "Hotel California". So
> such a decision
> requires some courage, proper timing and here availability of papers like
> mine might
> help. That applies both to changes from GPL to BSD and vise versa.
>
> Or you mean nobody cares what license to chose BSD or GPL ? Then this is
> kind of an interesting advocacy of dual licensing ;-).
>
Your arguments repeat, as mine will, so we have probably wound up
discussion here.
Software developers will develop software because they can. They will
license it how they will. Your paper reads like a policy paper as if you
could control the process.
Thanks to the GPL, the developers control the process.
>
>> > 2. Both BSD and GPL are connected with some underling philosophy. In
>> > case of GPL this is a philosophy of Anarchism.
>>
>> In the words of RMS, from the link above:
>>
>> "In [...] view, to be idealistic is to be ineffective. The Free Software
>> movement is idealistic, but very effective: free operating systems exist
>> because of our idealism. If you are using Linux, Linus Torvalds' kernel,
>> you are most likely using it in conjunction with the GNU system. This
>> combination, the GNU/Linux operating system, the subject of LinuxWorld
>> magazine, exists because of the FSF's idealism. The system is the
>> idealism of the GNU project made real. "
>>
>> And if you have this forum to post to, it is because of the GPL and the
>> OS that we discuss.
>
> Why you think so? Usenet was created before GPL was written and it is GPL
> that benefited from the Usenet existence not vise versa. Or may be you
> think that RMS published GNU manifesto in New York Times :-) FreeBSD and
> other flavors of BSD are actually the most favorite OS for ISPs: Usenet is
> a traditional stronghold of BSD.
>
You missed the point completely. Sorry, Nikolai, but I really just think
your paper is in la-la land. I'm not usually so nasty, but how else can I
say it?
The zeal and idealism of the founders of the GPL gave us GNU and Linux.
Thank God. I hope they stay zealous and idealistic, and I'm very glad that
they don't think too much about these kind of arguments.
^^^^^^^^^^^
then don't use it. Next?
> important. Acrually Stig Hackvän in his paper raised three questions about
> GPL:
I suggest that the next time you develop some software and release it, you
not use the GPL, if you do not like what it does. I will release what I
can under the GPL.
This way we can disagree, and neither of us has imposed our will on the
other.
If it should come up that you want to use my code, or I want to use yours,
then one of us will have to make a deal with the owner, as always. If you
don't like the GPL, you can't use mine, and if I don't like your terms, I
can't use yours.
Welcome to the big city.
>
> 1. To what extent GPL is responsible for the insane enrichment of a close
> groups of Linux
> mandarins like Rob Young, Larry Augustin, etc. ? (as Stig Hackvän noted"
>
> "Publishers win, authors lose: Once created, information can be
> reproduced at nearer cost. That means that publishers enjoy a markup
> of nearly 100 percent on each unit sold. Publishers are in a far
> better position than are creators because the publishers' cost of
> goods approaches zero. However, intellectual property laws allow
> authors to require payment from publishers. Such payment inflates the
> per-copy cost of information, which is then passed on to the
> consumer. Bob Young, president of Red Hat Software, acknowledges that
> he can sell free bits simply on the strength of a brand-name
> endorsement. Although Red Hat does some development internally, the
> company doesn't pay anything to outside developers. Young says that
> he's in the same business as Evian, a company selling "millions of
> dollars of French tap water" solely on the strength of its brand and
> an "irrational fear that the water coming from your tap is not to be
> trusted."
>
Stig was of course the person that RMS was responding to in the article I
quoted. Stig's article, like yours, just sounds too much like someone
sitting on the sidelines playing announcer. Who needs it?
Just code and release under whatever model turns you on.
> 2. To what extent GPL is compatible with the copyright law ? Does GPL
> implicitly
> undermining the legal regime on which it is based ? (the author noted
> "anti/Law is the contractually reinforced worldview of one community
> locally overriding the statutory worldview of another one." )
No and no. This question is so much bullshit. (Geez, Nikolai, you really
bring out the worst in me). The GPL is a license in which the author
retains copyright. Next?
The derivative clauses are just plain whining from people who cannot take
the code and stop the flow of freedom downstream. Developers who release
their software, while retaining copyright and control, have determined that
they don't want that to happen.
Don't like it? Want to make money? Write your own, we're all rooting for
you.
>
> 3. Can GPL be considered to be a viral license ?
Of course, it's that way on purpose, and...
>
> An interesting fact is that in his reply RMS skipped the first two
> questions and answered
> only the third (IMHO the easiest).
...he did not skip it. He said it very plainly, "To protect your freedoms
I have to deny others the ability to remove those freedoms." That is the
key to the GPL that articles such as yours and Stigs divert attention from.
The GPL is an engenious use of the legal system to promote freedom.
> He did repeated his usual arguments
> about freedom and
> commercial software developers and even explained why he decided to avoid
> the term "intellectual property", but he never addresses the first two
> questions raised in the
> paper by Stig Hackvän. I am not claiming that RMS cannot answer this
> question, but he defnitly chose not to address them.
Read the constitution, it does not mention intellectual property. The
copyright act of 1910 further clarified that the sole purpose of copyright
law is to *promote* *distribution*, not to enrich authors. In fact, the
law of 1910 *explicitly* *disclaims* *the* *author* *as* *property* *owner.*
Why do you call constitutional arguments a repeat of the "usual arguments",
maybe ole Ken is just naive, but in school they taught us the Constitution
is how we settle these things, at least in this country.
If you want to establish intellectual property in US Law, you have to amend
the constitution, because it plainly states a "limited and expiring
privelege" to authors. Note all three words, "limited", "expiring" and
"privelege". No mention of rights, ownership or property.
I guess declining literacy can be good for some people, especially when the
Constitution is becoming inconvenient.
>
> ...deleted...
>
>> Ken
>> Linux, the more you learn, the more you love
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> - Nikolai Bezroukov
--