Please run the GPL by me again
Mathias Koerber
am very confused about the GPL and its intentions. True, I use GPL'd software
and am happy if the author of the thing is happy with what the GPL promises.
But I fail to see where the GPL is of advantage in the following scenario.
The FSF claims that it protects the freedom of the software, but what of the
freedom to write *enhancements* to GPL software and then keeping them
proprietary? The General argumentation by the FSF is that *my* changes to
a GPL'd product must be as free as the original piece, so that others can
benefit. This is supposed to be so that *fair* enterprise can exist in a
framework of free software. But I contest that being forced to give away
my own enhancements for others to use freely is far!
Scenario I:
I write some software which contains mostly proprietary code
for some kind of specialised system. I know I have competitors
who know my customers and try to get my business. I also know I
currently have the cutting edge, but thet my customers still
make demands as to certein enhancements. One of these enhancements
requires me to have a good regular expression system inside my code.
The one that fits best is GPL'd.
So I enhance my program using this regexp library. Suddenly all my
code becomes GPL'd, and my competitors can get for free all the
other enhancements I have in my code that have nothing to do with
the regexp package, and are really my own brainchild, and constitute
the base for my leading over my competitor. But now, the competitor
can pick up all those sources and incorporate that stuff into his
code, without doing all the reasearch etc.
Now my question: Why sould MY code become GPL'd just because I use
parts of a GPL'd product inside it. My competitor is no worse off,
since he can use the SAME GPL'd source inside HIS product. Maybe I will
have to acknowledge the use of the xxx regexp package in my copyrights, and
point to where I got it, or even distribute it with my programs, so that
my competitor can pick it up easily and enhance his code with it. But to
ask me to make my own inventions GPL just because I fall back on GPL code
for parts of my program that are fairly standard and are not in the area
where my program really is innovative is asking too much.
Please don't say now that in the above exapmle it should read LGPL and
that would solve the problem. I might as well have taken a piece of code
from some other GPL package and used it.
Here again my claim:
Using GPL software or parts of GPL software in my code does not prevent
my competitors from doing the same. Any writer of GPL code could ask me
to point out that I use his/her code in my software, and to distibute it
along with my binaries, but no-one should ask me to publicise my super-
duper AI-shell innards, just because I use GPL'd regexps for the globbing.
Please clarify this point, anyone
Mathias
--
Mathias Koerber | Tel: +65 / 7780066 ext 29
SW International Systems Pte Ltd | Fax: +65 / 7779401
14 Science Park Drive #04-01 |
The Maxwell, Singapore Science Park | email: mat...@solomon.technet.sg
Singapore 0511 | swi...@solomon.technet.sg
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Eifersucht ist eine Leidenschaft die mit Eifer sucht was Leiden schafft *
Joe Buck
| I write some software which contains mostly proprietary code
| for some kind of specialised system. I know I have competitors
| who know my customers and try to get my business. I also know I
| currently have the cutting edge, but thet my customers still
| make demands as to certein enhancements. One of these enhancements
| requires me to have a good regular expression system inside my code.
| The one that fits best is GPL'd.
|
| So I enhance my program using this regexp library. Suddenly all my
| code becomes GPL'd,
Not true. What happens is this: you can either keep the code on your own
disk, or you can distribute it. If you distribute it, you *then* must
make the entire program that contains the regexp package GPLed. (This
does not necessarily mean that all your code must be GPLed -- code in a
different program that communicates with the first program with a pipe
need not be GPLed). If you do not do this, then you have copied GPLed
software in violation of its copyright notice, and you have violated
copyright law.
| and my competitors can get for free all the
| other enhancements I have in my code that have nothing to do with
| the regexp package,
But you want to take GNU regexp for free. Anyway, your competitors only
get your enhancements for free if they are willing to make *their* code
GPLed. (They could use your ideas but not your code, it is true, but it
might be tricky to prove they hadn't used any of your code). For example,
NeXT wanted to build an Objective-C compiler for their system on top of
gcc. They would rather have had a proprietary compiler, but by using gcc
they had 90% of the work done for them already. They had to make the
compiler freely redistributable, though. The result is that there is now
a GNU Objective-C compiler for many platforms besides NeXT. This is an
example of how the GPL benefits the entire community.
| and are really my own brainchild, and constitute
| the base for my leading over my competitor. But now, the competitor
| can pick up all those sources and incorporate that stuff into his
| code, without doing all the reasearch etc.
If he incorporates your code, then all *his* code becomes GPLed and you
can pick up everything *he* did without doing the research.
|Now my question: Why sould MY code become GPL'd just because I use
|parts of a GPL'd product inside it.
Because it's FSF's code and they say you can't use it unless you agree to
their terms. You see, they are your competitor. Your model of how the
software business should work is in competition with theirs. They believe
that there should be no proprietary software, and they certainly aren't
going to help you make more.
| My competitor is no worse off,
|since he can use the SAME GPL'd source inside HIS product. Maybe I will
|have to acknowledge the use of the xxx regexp package in my copyrights, and
|point to where I got it, or even distribute it with my programs, so that
|my competitor can pick it up easily and enhance his code with it. But to
|ask me to make my own inventions GPL just because I fall back on GPL code
|for parts of my program that are fairly standard and are not in the area
|where my program really is innovative is asking too much.
I agree, in some situations it may be asking too much (since I believe
that there is a place for proprietary software and I've even written quite
a bit in my career -- also a lot of free software). In such cases the
solution is simple: don't use GPLed software in your code. FSF is under
no obligation to give you their software for free.
|Here again my claim:
|
|Using GPL software or parts of GPL software in my code does not prevent
|my competitors from doing the same. Any writer of GPL code could ask me
|to point out that I use his/her code in my software, and to distibute it
|along with my binaries, but no-one should ask me to publicise my super-
|duper AI-shell innards, just because I use GPL'd regexps for the globbing.
What you are asking is for FSF to change their license terms to let you
use their code in proprietary products. Their answer is no. They have a
right to answer this way, since their code belongs to them. Sorry. If
you need a good regexp package get the one Henry Spencer wrote.
(Actually, he just wrote another one as well).
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Michael Golan
> [ classic example requiring some GPLed code in a proprietary product remove]
>Now my question: Why sould MY code become GPL'd just because I use
>parts of a GPL'd product inside it. My competitor is no worse off,
>since he can use the SAME GPL'd source inside HIS product. Maybe I will
>have to acknowledge the use of the xxx regexp package in my copyrights, and
>point to where I got it, or even distribute it with my programs, so that
>my competitor can pick it up easily and enhance his code with it. But to
>ask me to make my own inventions GPL just because I fall back on GPL code
>for parts of my program that are fairly standard and are not in the area
>where my program really is innovative is asking too much.
Simple. The FSF (rms) have stated over and over again that:
All proprietary software and their authors are immoral.
The FSF has no interest in helping any immoral person or having their
code used for immoral purposes. period. If you think that's unfair
or illogical or not helpful to the proliferation of free software,
then don't support the FSF (w/ code or money.) -- release and use PD
(or BSD-style license, etc) code instead. I do.
--
Michael Golan | Duel, PD add-on to gdb, allows "x[..100] >? 0" to
m...@cs.princeton.edu | show the positive elements of x in the debugger, etc.
| annon ftp ftp.cs.princeton.edu:/duel or send me mail!
Mathias Koerber
| mat...@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:
| | and my competitors can get for free all the
| | other enhancements I have in my code that have nothing to do with
| | the regexp package,
| But you want to take GNU regexp for free. Anyway, your competitors only
Yup, since its author has already made it free. Mark, that I don't say I
want it only for myself. My competitors are free to take the same code,
and I might even point them to it. That furthers the use of GNU software
demanding that those pieces of code on which I have to rely for my
living have to become GPL'd also. I somehow object to the hypocrisy of
saying that something is free for the taking only if the taker also makes
*all* their stuff free.
Please be also advised that I have nothing against making further enhancements
of mine to the GPL'd stuff GPL'd or even GPL some general purpose libs that
are not curcial to my specific market. If I wrote some fancy inline editing
function, I' most likely make it GPL, but not the parts that really make my
product stand out above others. In a specialised market that is.
mathew
>But you want to take GNU regexp for free.
And why not? It's free software. Says so in the README file.
mathew
Warwick Allison
>Joe Buck (jb...@forney.eecs.berkeley.edu) wrote:
>| mat...@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:
>| | and my competitors can get for free all the
>| | other enhancements I have in my code that have nothing to do with
>| | the regexp package,
>| But you want to take GNU regexp for free...
>Yup, since its author has already made it free. Mark, that I don't say I
>want it only for myself. My competitors are free to take the same code,
>and I might even point them to it...
While there are still people wanting to take and not give, "free" software
will have to be protected from abuse.
There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch... at least not while there is
someone standing by wanting to take all the lunches, add 11 secret
herbs and spices to them and sell them for "just $3.95".
--
Warwick
_-_|\ war...@cs.uq.oz.au /
/ * <-- Computer Science Department, /
\_.-._/ University of Queensland, / How now, Tao cow?
v Brisbane, Australia. /
david d `zoo' zuhn
>>But you want to take GNU regexp for free.
> And why not? It's free software. Says so in the README file.
Oh, please! Let's not start this debate. The FSF means one thing when
they free software. Other people have a different definition that they
want to use. Arguing over this (yet again) will get nowhere and will
needlessly raise the collective blood pressure.
When the FSF speaks of free software, they use the meaning of "free" that
is more closely aligned to "free speech" and not the meaning associated
with "free beer".
If you don't like the FSF's use of the word free, you're not likely to get
them to change it, since it's been in use for so long.
david d 'zoo' zuhn |
cygnus support | And if you're never lost, how can you be found?
z...@cygnus.com |
Joe Buck
>When the FSF speaks of free software, they use the meaning of "free" that
>is more closely aligned to "free speech" and not the meaning associated
>with "free beer".
The ambiguity does not arise in Spanish: think "free" as in "libre", not
"gratis". This came up when someone was translating the GPL into Spanish,
as a direct translation of "When we speak of free software, we are
referring to freedom, not price." would cause considerable confusion.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
Alan Morgan
> >>But you want to take GNU regexp for free.
> > And why not? It's free software. Says so in the README file.
>
>Oh, please! Let's not start this debate. The FSF means one thing when
>they free software. Other people have a different definition that they
>want to use. Arguing over this (yet again) will get nowhere and will
>needlessly raise the collective blood pressure.
Agreed. Free speech doesn't mean I can get on NBC for nothing and
spout my views to the world. It is clearly misnamed. I called up a
skydiving place, a "free" fall will cost me $200. Maybe I should sue
them for misleading me. One of the C libraries on my machine contains
a function "free()". The library still costs money. Don't you hate
how evil communist types have perverted the meaning of the word "free"?
Gee, next thing you'll be telling me is that software isn't soft and
I can't wear it.
> david d 'zoo' zuhn |
Alan
----
EFI agrees with me 100% on matters of fact. The above isn't and they don't.
-----> Mail abuse to: al...@efi.com <-----
Alias 'C Frog'. Keeper of the alt.tasteless song and part-time evil genius.
Mathias Koerber
| mat...@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:
| >Joe Buck (jb...@forney.eecs.berkeley.edu) wrote:
| >| mat...@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:
| >| | and my competitors can get for free all the
| >| | other enhancements I have in my code that have nothing to do with
| >| | the regexp package,
| >| But you want to take GNU regexp for free...
| >Yup, since its author has already made it free. Mark, that I don't say I
| >want it only for myself. My competitors are free to take the same code,
| >and I might even point them to it...
| While there are still people wanting to take and not give, "free" software
| will have to be protected from abuse.
| There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch... at least not while there is
| someone standing by wanting to take all the lunches, add 11 secret
| herbs and spices to them and sell them for "just $3.95".
Once again: I don't want to deprive anybody from the free use of the things
I'm using for free, but I don't agree with having to disclose those parts
that I really invented/created/whatever.
Not like adding a few secret herbs to a bsically free soup, but more like
adding a few free herbs ( which I even announce I'm using) to my secret
brew, urging other s to do the same.
Mathias Koerber
| In article <ZOO.93Au...@rtl.cygnus.com>
| z...@cygnus.com (david d `zoo' zuhn) writes:
| > >>But you want to take GNU regexp for free.
| > > And why not? It's free software. Says so in the README file.
| >
| >Oh, please! Let's not start this debate. The FSF means one thing when
| >they free software. Other people have a different definition that they
| >want to use. Arguing over this (yet again) will get nowhere and will
| >needlessly raise the collective blood pressure.
| Agreed. Free speech doesn't mean I can get on NBC for nothing and
| spout my views to the world. It is clearly misnamed. I called up a
| skydiving place, a "free" fall will cost me $200. Maybe I should sue
| them for misleading me. One of the C libraries on my machine contains
| a function "free()". The library still costs money. Don't you hate
| how evil communist types have perverted the meaning of the word "free"?
Again and again and again. I will accept FSF's definition of free, but I don't
think it is good. I only want to use freely what others have intended for
use for free, but I object to them then asking me to disclose those parts
of my product that are not intended for free use. Why would anyone writing
free (GPL) software object to me using a lib or two in my product if it then
adheres to another good standard, but is proprietary in those parts that
really make my product a product and not just another emacs rip-off.
As I said in another post, I'm not just offering another version of a
free soup someone else has invented, but I rather offer a whole meal with
some secret dishes that contains a soup based on the free one as starter.
AND I WILL DECLARE IT AS THAT AND TELL ANYONE: IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN THAT
SOUP ALONE; GET IT FOR FREE FROM <insert your fav cook here> or from me.
My use of the soup is only to make my whole meal more attractive and
to enable others for whom this soup as started is a must to use it.
I am not trying to rip anyone off. But I think it very bad form if someone
makes a soup publicly available and then tries to tell me I have to do the
same. Sure they have the right to do so, but it doesn't feel right.
Another point: If more proprietary applications used some GPL'd standard
libs for standard stuff (emacs as built-in editor, others), the worls would
be a better place, for we would not have to learn so many different things.
That's why I like TCL, which allows me to do exactly that and still keep
earning my money with what my business is, without the fear of someone
just ripping me off legally.
Alan Morgan
mat...@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:
>Again and again and again. I will accept FSF's definition of free, but I don't
>think it is good.
So do what rms did. He looked at the world of commercial software,
conceeded that it was legal but wished it wasn't standard practice.
He then started the FSF to promote the way *he* wanted software to be.
He didn't start it to make you happy. He didn't start it to make me
happy. He didn't aim to please 4 out of 5 computer programmers, he did
it to please himself. If you want to start the MSF (Mathias Software
Foundation) to promote the way *you* want software to be distributed then
I can guarantee that no one in the FSF will complain. But don't you think
it is a little late to get the FSF to change its ways?
>I am not trying to rip anyone off. But I think it very bad form if someone
>makes a soup publicly available and then tries to tell me I have to do the
>same. Sure they have the right to do so, but it doesn't feel right.
The FSF wasn't created in an attempt to appease you.
>Mathias Koerber | Tel: +65 / 7780066 ext 29
Alan
Joe Buck
>Once again: I don't want to deprive anybody from the free use of the things
>I'm using for free, but I don't agree with having to disclose those parts
>that I really invented/created/whatever.
This is your legal right. It is also the FSF's legal right to deny you
the use of their code in any program you won't distribute the source for.
This means that you'll need to use something else (an LGPL'ed library
routine, or one with a Berkeley-style copyright, one you buy, or one
you write yourself).
It isn't enough for the FSF for you to avoid depriving anybody of "the
free use of the things you are using for free." They deliberately
designed the GPL to generate more free software (some call it the GNU
Public Virus for this reason) since that's what they believe in.
--
Joe Buck jb...@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU
david d `zoo' zuhn
I am not trying to rip anyone off. But I think it very bad form if someone
makes a soup publicly available and then tries to tell me I have to do the
same. Sure they have the right to do so, but it doesn't feel right.
Okay. You don't like their rules. That's obvious by now. But it's their
game, and they get to make the rules in it. If you want to use the
software that they have written, please abide by their rules. If you're
unwilling to do that, then write something else and release on *your* terms
instead of theirs. Bill Cox (bi...@cygnus.com) posted an excellent article
to this effect a couple of weeks ago. I wholeheartedly suggest you read it
again.
That's why I like TCL, which allows me to do exactly that and still keep
earning my money with what my business is, without the fear of someone
just ripping me off legally.
Hmmm. If it's done legally, then you have consented to the terms, and you
have agreed to be ripped off. So you don't have much room to complain.
If you want the world to be the way you want it, make it that way. And
don't do it by legalistic technicalities and whining, but by presenting a
viable alternative.
Michael Golan
>While there are still people wanting to take and not give, "free" software
>will have to be protected from abuse.
"free" in quotes is appropriate indeed. And since all of us know
that some people will always want to "take and not give", GPL and
its like are going to remain "free" in quotes, forever. I just
wished the FSF used the term "free" instead of _free_
% gdb
GDB is "free" software and you are "welcome" to distribute ...
GDB 4.9, Copyright 1993 "Free" Software Foundation ...
--
Michael Golan | Duel, PD add-on to gdb, allows "h-->next->val >? 0" to
m...@cs.princeton.edu | show the positive val elements of linked list h in the
Michael Golan
>In article <ZOO.93Au...@rtl.cygnus.com>
> z...@cygnus.com (david d `zoo' zuhn) writes:
>> >>But you want to take GNU regexp for free.
>> > And why not? It's free software. Says so in the README file.
>>
>>Oh, please! Let's not start this debate. The FSF means one thing when
>>they free software. Other people have a different definition that they
>>want to use. Arguing over this (yet again) will get nowhere and will
>>needlessly raise the collective blood pressure.
>Agreed. Free speech doesn't mean I can get on NBC for nothing and
>spout my views to the world. It is clearly misnamed. I called up a
>skydiving place, a "free" fall will cost me $200. Maybe I should sue
>them for misleading me. One of the C libraries on my machine contains
>a function "free()". The library still costs money. Don't you hate
>how evil communist types have perverted the meaning of the word "free"?
>Gee, next thing you'll be telling me is that software isn't soft and
>I can't wear it.
cute, but meaningless.
Free speech, free fall, etc. are well-defined English terms. So is
"free software", for most people. There is no question what "free
copyrightable items" means, and no intentions to redefine this term,
except by the FSF. Webster has some two screens about "free". Many
(like "having no trade restrictions") definitions fit the normal,
common definition of free software. None fit the FSF's.
People like me are upset because we think many people are being
deceived by the FSF's use of the term free. Some us even feel
that the FSF is intentionally using this deceiving term.
Mark C. Henderson
>... He didn't aim to please 4 out of 5 computer programmers, he did
>it to please himself.
Certainly a good point. In fact, I find that most programmers do NOT agree
with the GNU Manifesto.
--
Mark Henderson ma...@wimsey.bc.ca (personal account)
RIPEM key available by key server/finger/E-mail
MD5OfPublicKey: F1F5F0C3984CBEAF3889ADAFA2437433
Robi Karp
: That's why I like TCL, which allows me to do exactly that and still keep
: earning my money with what my business is, without the fear of someone
: just ripping me off legally.
:
: Hmmm. If it's done legally, then you have consented to the terms, and you
: have agreed to be ripped off. So you don't have much room to complain.
Oh please. I just finished working, as a salaried employee, for a
company here. The company went into receivership. I am now owed
$4500 of salary which I will not see. My ex-employer files around the
world and lives a life of luxury. Legally he is protected. I agreed
to the terms when I joined the company. Am I not being ripped off?
- Robi
--
INTERNET: ro...@adacel.com.au TEL: (+61) (3) 596 2991 FAX: (+61) (3) 596 2960
"We're not laughing at you -- we're laughing near you."
Cory F. Cohen
> mat...@solomon.technet.sg (Mathias Koerber) writes:
> >Once again: I don't want to deprive anybody from the free use of the things
> >I'm using for free, but I don't agree with having to disclose those parts
> >that I really invented/created/whatever.
>
> It isn't enough for the FSF for you to avoid depriving anybody of "the
> free use of the things you are using for free." They deliberately
> designed the GPL to generate more free software (some call it the GNU
> Public Virus for this reason) since that's what they believe in.
GNU Public Virus... I like it! :-)
I always thought it was pretty clear...
Get all the people in the world who love to program, and don't
expect to get paid for it together. Have them write the greatest
collection of software to have ever graced the earth. Programmers
all get jobs in support/maintenace and/or private development
projects. World is a better place.
Some how this just doesn't work if you insert:
Commercial programmers take greatest software on earth and add some
features, sell it, get rich, and rub it in the noses of the poor
dumb programmers who gave their code away.
THE BIG QUESTION......
Did you write it cause you enjoyed it or because you're gonna make
money? If you wrote it because you enjoy programming, then quit
charging me for it. :-)
======================================================================
Cory Forrest Cohen uunet!coplex!cecily!cory co...@cecily.UUCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We only have ONE line. There is NO job.
======================================================================