Business Concept based on GPL... is this okay?
Andy
I would like to base a new business on some GPL'ed software as follows.
(a) I would like to host the GPL applications on my own web-server and
charge customers to access the functionality from *my* server.
(b) I would like to make extensive modifications to the software to
address the particular needs of my target market, and to add unique
selling points for my business.
(c) I would like to brand the modified software in much the same way that
Ximian have branded Ximan-Gnome and Redhat have branded RedHat-Linux.
I am very much a supporter of the freedoms given by the GPL and have read
the license in detail. I am a hacker and have no intentions to rip off
the developer community. But before I base my business on Open Source
software, I would like to get a handle on the issues below so that I do
not violate the terms of the license or corrupt the ideology:
1. The software will run on my server, so as I am not distributing the
software to customers do I have to make the modified source code publicly
available?
2. For aesthetic reasons, can I remove notices displaying the authors name
from any web page output, whilst still keeping all source code notices in
tact?
3. Can I rename the software application? (Say for example, change
"PHPads" to "MarketPro+").
4. I want to contribute some of the profit (if any!) to the Open Source
cause, how would I go about doing that?
Your advice/thoughts on the above would be appreciated,
Thanks,
Andy
--
Windows - A thirty two bit extension and gui shell to a sixteen bit
patch to an eight bit operating system originally coded for a four bit
microprocessor and sold by a two bit company that can't stand one bit
of competition.
phil hunt
>Hi,
>
>I would like to base a new business on some GPL'ed software as follows.
>
>(a) I would like to host the GPL applications on my own web-server and
>charge customers to access the functionality from *my* server.
sounds OK.
>(b) I would like to make extensive modifications to the software to
>address the particular needs of my target market, and to add unique
>selling points for my business.
Note that your mods would probably have to be GPL'd.
>(c) I would like to brand the modified software in much the same way that
>Ximian have branded Ximan-Gnome and Redhat have branded RedHat-Linux.
I don't know whether doing so would impinge on anyone else's trademark.
>I am very much a supporter of the freedoms given by the GPL and have read
>the license in detail. I am a hacker and have no intentions to rip off
>the developer community. But before I base my business on Open Source
>software, I would like to get a handle on the issues below so that I do
>not violate the terms of the license or corrupt the ideology:
>
>1. The software will run on my server, so as I am not distributing the
>software to customers do I have to make the modified source code publicly
>available?
True, at present. My understanding is the FSF is considering changing the
GPL so that you would have to disclose your changes in these instances.
>2. For aesthetic reasons, can I remove notices displaying the authors name
>from any web page output, whilst still keeping all source code notices in
>tact?
It's probably legal to do so, but some might consider it unethical.
>3. Can I rename the software application? (Say for example, change
>"PHPads" to "MarketPro+").
As long as you make clear that MarketPro+ is basically the same program
as PHPads, I don't see why not.
>4. I want to contribute some of the profit (if any!) to the Open Source
>cause, how would I go about doing that?
Donate to the FSF would be one way.
--
===== Philip Hunt ===== ph...@comuno.freeserve.co.uk =====
One OS to rule them all, one OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Redmond, where the Shadows lie.
John Hasler
> 1. The software will run on my server, so as I am not distributing the
> software to customers do I have to make the modified source code publicly
> available?
No.
> 2. For aesthetic reasons, can I remove notices displaying the authors
> name from any web page output, whilst still keeping all source code
> notices in tact?
From the GPL:
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
This would appear to apply only to modified works that you distribute, but
I think it would be rather rude of you not to comply with it anyway.
> 3. Can I rename the software application? (Say for example, change
> "PHPads" to "MarketPro+").
Yes.
> 4. I want to contribute some of the profit (if any!) to the Open Source
> cause, how would I go about doing that?
Contact the authors of the programs you intend to use and ask them what
they would like you to do. For example, you could purchase special support
from them, commission customized versions of their programs, or make
donations to organizations of their choice.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Andy Mayer
<jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
Thanks for your useful replies John that have helped me understand the
spirit of GPL better... but I have another thought:
> From the GPL:
>
> c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
> when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
> interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
> announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice
> that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a
> warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these
> conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License.
> (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not
> normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program
> is not required to print an announcement.)
>
> This would appear to apply only to modified works that you distribute,
> but I think it would be rather rude of you not to comply with it anyway.
Is a web application classed as a program that "reads commands
interactively when run"? (The reason I ask, is that I rarely see GPL web
apps displaying these announcements in their output in the same way as
command line tools).
I guess the best way to address this clause, and avoid affending the
original author, is to have an "About" link in the application that
displays the license info and copyright info of the original author. Do
you think that is reasonable, even though that message will not be
displayed initially when the web app is "started running for such
interactive use"?
Andy
John Hasler
> Is a web application classed as a program that "reads commands
> interactively when run"?
I should think so.
> The reason I ask, is that I rarely see GPL web apps displaying these
> announcements in their output in the same way as command line tools
In my experience programs rarely displays such announcements at all. From
the GPL again:
> (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not
> normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program
> is not required to print an announcement.)
Thus as long as the program doesn't do announcements you need not concern
yourself about them.
> Do you think that is reasonable, even though that message will not be
> displayed initially when the web app is "started running for such
> interactive use"?
I think it is reasonable to do whatever it is that that the program does
when run as distributed by the author.
Sam Holden
>Andy Mayer writes:
>> Is a web application classed as a program that "reads commands
>> interactively when run"?
>
>I should think so.
I disagree. If it's a plain old cgi thing, then it is plain old batch
processing. It takes a bunch of input, and run a process, which produces
some output and terminates. No input is done while the process is running.
Once you have javascript and funky server side stuff that all changes of
course.
A web application is much more like say gcc. You give it some input and it
produces some output, no interactivity while running. Note g++, doesn't
produce a license message when run normally. gdb is interactive, it
presents a license message when run normally, and interactively reads
commands. But most web applications aren't like that.
>> The reason I ask, is that I rarely see GPL web apps displaying these
>> announcements in their output in the same way as command line tools
>
>In my experience programs rarely displays such announcements at all.
That's true. bash doesn't after all, and it's FSF copyrighted...
--
Sam Holden
Ralph Corderoy
> That's true. bash doesn't after all, and it's FSF copyrighted...
GNU bc is an example of one that does.
% bc
bc 1.05
Copyright 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1997, 1998 Free Software Foundation,
Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
The non-GNU original didn't, as is the Unix norm. Don't know why GNU
bc differed.
Cheers,
Ralph.
Jeffrey Siegal
> That's true. bash doesn't after all, and it's FSF copyrighted...
The requirement wouldn't apply to the copyright holder anyway.
Barry Margolin
Also, if the original program was interactive and didn't have the
announcement, you don't have to add one when you modify the program.
But if you take a non-interactive program and turn it into an interactive
one, I think you would be required to add the announcement. So the
question becomes whether providing a web front-end to a program counts as
"reads commands interactively". IMHO it doesn't -- it's just another way
to provide a bunch of input, which happens to be the values of the fields
of the form, not much different from supplying an input file to many
applications.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Woburn, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
John Hasler
> The non-GNU original didn't, as is the Unix norm. Don't know why GNU bc
> differed.
Probably because the original couldn't tell if its input was coming from a
terminal or a pipe.
Jeffrey Siegal
> But if you take a non-interactive program and turn it into an interactive
> one, I think you would be required to add the announcement. So the
> question becomes whether providing a web front-end to a program counts as
> "reads commands interactively". IMHO it doesn't -- it's just another way
> to provide a bunch of input, which happens to be the values of the fields
> of the form, not much different from supplying an input file to many
> applications.
I think it could or couldn't, depending on the situation. There are web
applications which are interactive and there are some that are not. The
mechanism by which the user interacts isn't all that relevant; what
matters is whether the user interacts.
J.B. Nicholson-Owens
difficult to do so.
Andy wrote:
> ...But before I base my business on Open Source software...
GNU GPL covered software is better described as free software, not open
source software. Calling the GNU GPL covered code open source software
misattributes the author of the license and the movement with which this
license is primarily associated. It is the freedom of the software that is
so important.
If you say you are interested in the ideology behind the GNU GPL, you would
do well to read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
which addresses the difference between the two movements (open source
movement and free software movement) from the FSF's perspective.
> 4. I want to contribute some of the profit (if any!) to the Open Source
> cause, how would I go about doing that?
If it is really free software you are interested in, I suggest giving
generously to the FSF.
Andy Mayer
<j...@forestfield.org> wrote:
> I would have e-mailed this response but "Andy" purposefully made it
> difficult to do so.
(OT: That's right... sorry, but I get far too much spam.)
> GNU GPL covered software is better described as free software, not open
> source software. Calling the GNU GPL covered code open source software
> misattributes the author of the license and the movement with which this
> license is primarily associated. It is the freedom of the software that
> is so important.
I agree totally about the importance of freedom, but I didn't realise
there was a different between GPL and open source. Apologies for my
ignorance.
> If you say you are interested in the ideology behind the GNU GPL, you
> would do well to read
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html which
> addresses the difference between the two movements (open source movement
> and free software movement) from the FSF's perspective.
Great. Thanks! I will read and inwardly digest.
> If it is really free software you are interested in, I suggest giving
> generously to the FSF.
It's the freedom to improve the software, and collaboratively contribute
to it's development, without the shackles of prioritory standards etc,
that really floats my boat!
Andy
Chris Barney
> I agree totally about the importance of freedom, but I didn't realise
> there was a different between GPL and open source. Apologies for my
> ignorance.
Also realize there is a different between GPL and "free software".
GPL'ed software is "free software", "open-source software", and even
"proprietary software" (see a good dictionary). It's even "Open Source
Software" according to the people who define that term. The different
is that these statements may not be reversed; GPL is a specific type of
the other generic types. Disciples of Stallman have trouble dealing
with terms that don't have the "ring" of "freedom", though, so they will
often get on your case if you don't stick to pure GNU-speak. You'll need
to decide for yourself whether you want to apologize for not using their
confusing promotional jargon as part of your language.
> Great. Thanks! I will read and inwardly digest.
While digesting, pay particular notice to the different between GPL and
"free software". GPL software is a particular (or maybe I should say
peculiar) kind of "free software", very different from truly free
software (that in the public domain -- with no owner/proprietor and no
copyright restrictions) and quite different from software under
BSD/MIT/X11-type licenses. Most importantly, GPL'd software is not free
to be distributed in derivatives which are not also GPL'd (despite the
commonly-seen claim that it is "freely re-distributable".)
Digest the fourth "freedom": "The freedom to improve the program, and
release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community
benefits." First, notice that this freedom, like the others, refers not
to the freedom of "software", but "to the users' freedom to run, copy,
distribute, study, change and improve the software." Second, notice
that the GPL does not grant you this fourth freedom. You do NOT have
"the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public". You may do so only if you waive your copyrights to your
work or cross-license your valuable intellectual property back to the
original GPL licensor and everyone else for some uses and do it for
free, regardless of their relative values. That may be a good thing;
other proprietary licensors engage in cross-licensing all the time. But
it's not freedom; it's barter -- it's contracting. Digest that, please.
> It's the freedom to improve the software, and collaboratively contribute
> to it's development, without the shackles of prioritory standards etc,
> that really floats my boat!
Please keep in mind that the GPL gives you no more freedom to do any of
that than less restrictive licenses (which were not designed mainly to
punish developers who sometimes want to develop closed-source code, like
the GPL was). As the copyright owner, you don't need any more freedom
to use your software; you have all that's available. The only extra
freedom that the GPL gives you is the freedom to use other people's
software through exchange of licensing. You withhold certain freedoms
from X to use your software unless you (and others) may use X's source.
You should be able to understand now why it is only a matter of careful
definition that GPL's software may be called either "free" OR "open";
it's only free or open for some specific uses and not other uses.
You may find that this GPL bartering of your software for other's back-
licensing is a good thing, despite (or because of) the fact that it
keeps it from being used by closed-source developers (and, practically,
by non-GPL free software developers) and you can't be blamed any more
than any other proprietary software developer who puts his license on
the bartering block. (Actually, less blame. because you DO offer truly
generous licensing of SOME uses, if not derivation publication.) But
while you're digesting the FSF philosophy, beware that some of it needs
to be passed without becoming part of your thoughts and language. Do
not try to fool yourself or others that the GPL is about "sharing", for
instance; the GPL is about sharing some things and bartering others.
The less restrictive licenses do "sharing" better. I could go on, but
I'll end with a plea that you do not forget that the GPL is not the
only free software license -- it's only the most restrictive one.
P.S. More on "open" versus "free": If you accept the GNU-speak
definition of "Free" and one of the popular definitions of "Open",
then while GPL'd software is both "Free" and "Open", "Free Software"
and "Open Source Software" are not the same thing. Some open software
does not qualify in GNU-speak as "Free" (mainly because some may not
be used in GPL derivatives) while, AFAIK, all so-called "Free Software"
qualifies as "Open Source Software" (even though much of it may not
be used in Open Source derivatives). The shortest English translation
of GNU-speak "Free Software" is "may be used in GPL'd derivatives".
Ralph Corderoy
> > The non-GNU original didn't, as is the Unix norm. Don't know why
> > GNU bc differed.
>
> Probably because the original couldn't tell if its input was coming
> from a terminal or a pipe.
Why couldn't it if it wanted to? isatty() has been around for yonks.
Cheers,
Ralph.
John Hasler
> Why couldn't it if it wanted to? isatty() has been around for yonks.
I thought I remembered a time when it wasn't available, but I see that
Seventh Edition had it. Most likely the original authors simply saw no
reason for a banner: why waste storage on a banner and then add code to
find out if it is safe to display it?
Barry Margolin
John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>Ralph writes:
>> Why couldn't it if it wanted to? isatty() has been around for yonks.
>
>I thought I remembered a time when it wasn't available, but I see that
>Seventh Edition had it. Most likely the original authors simply saw no
>reason for a banner: why waste storage on a banner and then add code to
>find out if it is safe to display it?
Most traditional Unix programs don't display a banner. bc is to
calculating what ed is to editing: when you enter either of them, they just
wait for your commands. Prompts and banners are for wimps. :)
David Masterson
> In article <87zo3b9...@toncho.dhh.gt.org>,
> John Hasler <jo...@dhh.gt.org> wrote:
>> I thought I remembered a time when it wasn't available, but I see
>> that Seventh Edition had it. Most likely the original authors
>> simply saw no reason for a banner: why waste storage on a banner
>> and then add code to find out if it is safe to display it?
> Most traditional Unix programs don't display a banner. bc is to
> calculating what ed is to editing: when you enter either of them,
> they just wait for your commands. Prompts and banners are for
> wimps. :)
Also banners have an annoying tendancy to clog pipes... ;)
--
David Masterson dmaster AT synopsys DOT com
Sr. R&D Engineer Synopsys, Inc.
Software Engineering Sunnyvale, CA
Barry Fishman
> Digest the fourth "freedom": "The freedom to improve the program, and
> release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community
> benefits." First, notice that this freedom, like the others, refers not
> to the freedom of "software", but "to the users' freedom to run, copy,
> distribute, study, change and improve the software." Second, notice
> that the GPL does not grant you this fourth freedom. You do NOT have
> "the freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
> the public". You may do so only if you waive your copyrights to your
> work or cross-license your valuable intellectual property back to the
> original GPL licensor and everyone else for some uses and do it for
> free, regardless of their relative values. That may be a good thing;
> other proprietary licensors engage in cross-licensing all the time. But
> it's not freedom; it's barter -- it's contracting. Digest that, please.
If you were sincere in you efforts to improve the software and release
your improvements free to the public, the restriction does you no
harm. Your life is not changed in any way. You even have the right
to release any of the code you wrote as a part of other programs with
any licensing you choose. But your remark about "valuable
intellectual property" hints at another agenda. Talk about value
usually means thoughts about cashing in on it. The other authors of
the program still have the right not to have you steal their efforts
for you own profit. The GNU Licence actually gives you the right to
make money of of the program if you follows certain specified rules.
This needs to be applied to people you give it too, to keep them from
missunderstanding the constraints.
Although free software is not a charity, the morality is the same.
One does not like to see their donations to help starving children in
Africa end up being spent on somebodys sports car in the USA. In fact
its considered fraud, and can earn serious jail time. Should their
defense be, "Well I had this money that was given away..."
One can get hung up on the meaning of "freedom," but of course this is
just a distraction. Most programmers work for companies who assume
the copyright of all of their work. No matter how self-important you
may feel, the issue is that the bulk of the value of GNU copyrighted
works lie just out of the reach of companies like Microsoft, and its
their freedom to just take this software and re-license under their
increasingly oppressive restrictions is what really is at issue.
Intellectual property seems to be a phrase that has cropped up lately.
Ideas have never been considered property. You could only hord them
by keeping them secret. The idea of trade secrets is very old. It
implies that if the secret got out, there wasn't any constraint of its
use.
The US Constitution has the clause:
"To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
repective writings and discoveries."
This does not sound like property to me. The government is
guaranteeing a limited period of time where the author or inventor has
control over their discoveries and writings. It sounds more like
renting. One can call your apartment your home, but it isn't your
property. With ideas you pay your rent by releasing the ideas to the
public who really own's them. You should probably use the term
"Intellectual Rental", although it doesn't have quite the same
resonance.
--
Barry Fishman
John Hasler
> Also banners have an annoying tendancy to clog pipes...
That's one of the things isatty() is for. Try
echo '2 + 2' | bc
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
Chris Barney
> If you were sincere in you efforts to improve the software and release
> your improvements free to the public, the restriction does you no
> harm. Your life is not changed in any way. You even have the right
> to release any of the code you wrote as a part of other programs with
> any licensing you choose. But your remark about "valuable
> intellectual property" hints at another agenda. Talk about value
> usually means thoughts about cashing in on it. The other authors of
> the program still have the right not to have you steal their efforts
> for you own profit. The GNU Licence actually gives you the right to
> make money of of the program if you follows certain specified rules.
> This needs to be applied to people you give it too, to keep them from
> missunderstanding the constraints.
Golly. That's so dense in things to respond to, I'll pick a few.
You imply that if I am not harmed by a GPL restriction that I satisfy.
I think that should goes without saying and has nothing to do with
whether the GPL give a user the freedom distribute modifications. The
user who doesn't want to release his improvements free to the public
doesn't have the freedom that gnu.org says he does. Moreover, even the
use who does want to release his improvements free to the public, may
only release his improvements to the subset of the public willing to
accept the terms of the GPL which also means that some uses of his
improvements are released under a barter of cross-licensing, and not
for free.
Your "right to release" thing is only sincerely true for modifications
which may be extracted in chunks large enough to be copyrightable, which
much modification work is not.
Your reading of my mind is simply wrong. Nor do you need to preach to
me about stealing. I'm asking you to consider giving away a little
more since it cost you so little (besides your selfish pride) and can
benefit others a great deal. The benefit to me would be negligible,
except through it's benefit to society. I'm also asking you to not fool
yourself into thinking that the GPL is about user OR software freedom
any more than less restrictive license are, or that you are sharing
software when you are actually trading in licenses, or that _your_
intellectual property is not proprietary.
> Although free software is not a charity, the morality is the same.
> One does not like to see their donations to help starving children in
> Africa end up being spent on somebodys sports car in the USA.
I'm glad to see that you don't buy all the GNU philosophy either. The
stuff about software being different than sports cars in that it can
be copied for free. All that stuff about the evils of owning software
and how copyrights shouldn't be granted; the constitution doesn't
require it; copyright was meant to be temporary; etc.
We all have the same selfish instinct that you do. I'd sort of hate to
see the sports car I donate to the charity being sold at the Used Car
Shoppe. But if the charity could duplicate that car, and maybe soup it
up first, and let me keep the original, how am I harmed? I could have
done all that. The main reason I'd be peeved is jealousy. Especially
if I they had duplicated the car for many who sold it as-is, but someone
else took their copy and put in a patented wiz-bang and sold their copy
for big bucks. No hard to me, but I just hate to see someone make money
off something which I gave away. But for open source software, I really
don't think that way. I don't find the benefit of withholding open source
software from closed source developers to be worth the cost of doing so.
I'm sad that so many GPL users do. When I see Grandma's new Mac, I'm
glad that not all open source developers have thought that way.
> ... No matter how self-important you
> may feel, the issue is that the bulk of the value of GNU copyrighted
> works lie just out of the reach of companies like Microsoft, and its
> their freedom to just take this software and re-license under their
> increasingly oppressive restrictions is what really is at issue.
No matter how insulting you may be, your issue is not really an issue.
M$ obviously doesn't have the freedom mentioned. There's no debate
there. (Or will you argue that the software shouldn't be property and
so they should have that freedom?) No, the issue I was discussing is
how the OP should condider all the talk of "software that is free" and
"sharing" and the "freedom to distribute modification", etc., that he
was about to "digest".
> Intellectual property seems to be a phrase that has cropped up lately.
> Ideas have never been considered property. You could only hord them
> by keeping them secret. The idea of trade secrets is very old. It
> implies that if the secret got out, there wasn't any constraint of its
> use.
I'm sure that ancient rulers restricted the use of ideas frequently.
Peasant's can't wear purple. Only priests may own (or read) scriptures.
> The US Constitution has the clause:
>
> "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for
> limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their
> repective writings and discoveries."
>
> This does not sound like property to me. The government is
> guaranteeing a limited period of time where the author or inventor has
> control over their discoveries and writings. It sounds more like
> renting. One can call your apartment your home, but it isn't your
> property. With ideas you pay your rent by releasing the ideas to the
> public who really own's them. You should probably use the term
> "Intellectual Rental", although it doesn't have quite the same
> resonance.
But if you're renting something, you can't sell it or give it away (or
even rent it, often). If you don't want to think of "your" ideas as
property, try thinking of your government-granted exclusive rights to
certain uses of the ideas for a certain time to be the property. You
are the propietor of those rights which you may sell or rent or give
away. The fact that they vanish at some future time has no more bearing
on their being called property than the fact that your dog will die,
your oranges will rot, or your ice cubes will evaporate.
The fact that the public, by reason of it's democratic power to control
what anyone does or doesn't do with anything, really owns everything
doesn't stop us from pretending that legal persons own things too.
Russ Allbery
> Disciples of Stallman have trouble dealing with terms that don't have
> the "ring" of "freedom", though, so they will often get on your case if
> you don't stick to pure GNU-speak.
Or, alternately, they object to attempts to co-opt their efforts into
apparent support for a political movement that they don't agree with.
Read the available literature, decide for yourself what the motivations
actually are.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Peter Seebach
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>Or, alternately, they object to attempts to co-opt their efforts into
>apparent support for a political movement that they don't agree with.
This is one of the things I've remained undecided about for quite a while.
Imagine, if you will, that I were to conclude (quite reasonably, I think)
that, in general, software for which the users are always given modification
rights is economically superior to software which users never have source
to. I can't see anyone having any right to tell me not to believe this,
even though it might be wrong. Imagine, then, that I wish to describe
my idea of a "utopia", and in this "utopia", free commerce plays a crucial
role - and thus, I argue that software for which source is available
is a useful thing for this commercial utopia.
If I then point out that GPL'd software would serve as an excellent example
of the kind of software I mean, and use it as an example of economic
efficiency, I'm not sure this gives anyone any right to complain that I'm
"co-opting" their efforts.
>Read the available literature, decide for yourself what the motivations
>actually are.
I think they're tangled, inconsistent, and full of personal egos and belief
systems. Tragically, most of the software developers of the world are human,
and fallible.
I think that there's no reasonable basis on which to complain if someone
defines a term which describes many things, and one of the things is something
you hold dear. It may be annoying, but the definition of terms is a crucial
part of communication.
Anyway, didn't RMS occasionally talk about how BSD TCP/IP stacks were a useful
part of the "GNU system"? Sounds like everyone plays this game.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Russ Allbery
> If I then point out that GPL'd software would serve as an excellent
> example of the kind of software I mean, and use it as an example of
> economic efficiency, I'm not sure this gives anyone any right to
> complain that I'm "co-opting" their efforts.
I don't think it is either.
If you then proceed to give a particular name to that type of software,
advertise and advocate use of that name, and specifically advocate that
people use that name *instead* of the free software name and try to get
people to stop using the term "free software," I think that *does* qualify
as co-opting someone else's efforts once they indicate that they don't
appreciate that.
> I think that there's no reasonable basis on which to complain if someone
> defines a term which describes many things, and one of the things is
> something you hold dear.
If they stop with just defining the term, I can agree with you. But in
this particular case, they didn't.
> Anyway, didn't RMS occasionally talk about how BSD TCP/IP stacks were a
> useful part of the "GNU system"? Sounds like everyone plays this game.
RMS doesn't try to get people to stop calling it BSD software, or even
advocate "GNU system" as a superior name for that whole class of software
that everyone should use. He just uses the term himself.
David Masterson
> David Masterson writes:
>> Also banners have an annoying tendancy to clog pipes...
> That's one of the things isatty() is for.
Ahh! Good point.
Barry Fishman
>
> You imply that if I am not harmed by a GPL restriction that I satisfy.
> I think that should goes without saying and has nothing to do with
> whether the GPL give a user the freedom distribute modifications. The
> user who doesn't want to release his improvements free to the public
> doesn't have the freedom that gnu.org says he does. Moreover, even the
> use who does want to release his improvements free to the public, may
> only release his improvements to the subset of the public willing to
> accept the terms of the GPL which also means that some uses of his
> improvements are released under a barter of cross-licensing, and not
> for free.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that by common law you do not have the
right to violate the licensing agreement under which you used the work
of others. Don't you think they also have rights?
What you do or do not think about their philosophy and their use of
the word 'free', is not of any relevance. A least they do not use a
different meaning when they apply it to you as when they apply it to
themselves.
> Your "right to release" thing is only sincerely true for modifications
> which may be extracted in chunks large enough to be copyrightable, which
> much modification work is not.
Exactly!
> Your reading of my mind is simply wrong. Nor do you need to preach to
> me about stealing. I'm asking you to consider giving away a little
> more since it cost you so little (besides your selfish pride) and can
> benefit others a great deal. The benefit to me would be negligible,
> except through it's benefit to society.
Yes, I can't read your mind. But this insight does not follow you
through the rest of the paragraph where you seem to feel that you can
read my mind. I don't recognize anything other than my preaching to
you about stealing. Do you know of some software I distributed to you
that you have a problem? I am not sure how I could be selfish in
regards with someone elses agreements with you, and I take no part.
> I'm also asking you to not fool
> yourself into thinking that the GPL is about user OR software freedom
> any more than less restrictive license are, or that you are sharing
> software when you are actually trading in licenses, or that _your_
> intellectual property is not proprietary.
I certainly did not *say* anything about the GPL being about `user
OR software freedom'. Or that the GPL was not actually trading in
licenses. I actually tried to get away from the issue of freedom and
concentrate on law and fairness.
You go on and on about how selfish I am being, but I guess I don't quite
see where I have anyway held back on something you deserve. Even if I
represented someone such as the FSF, I don't see why ther opinions on
software licensing effect the legal basis on which their license
stands.
And why would it be worse if their licence did not fulfill their
goals, that your unacceptance of licencing for them and asserting it
for yourself? People do have the right of free speech. In the US,
this is a right explicitly given in the bill of rights, as opposed to
the right to licence software which is just within the rights the
government can provide individuals as it chooses.
It seem clear from their writing, the FSF is trying to emulate
with licencing the situation as it would be if there were no licencing
constraints under law. This, of course, tries to make taking their
software and puting it your own propriety licences impossible. Why
is this so hard to grasp? This may be not as generous as you would
like, but its hardly selfish. I don't see why you, Sun, AOL, and
Microsoft are somehow being deprived of you own efforts.
The use of the term "Intellectual Property", I probably was not clear.
I can't just let terms like that be bandied about without being
continually challenged. They are obvious attempts at changing the
mindset of the public in very distructive ways.
For example, in the US, the rights of 'authors and inventors' to their
works is only given to them at the whim of the government, for a
limited period of time. Compare this with the right to free speach,
which is granted to people directly and not subject to any federal
or state legislated limits, other than changes to the constitution.
Property is quite different legally. Under common law people can take
property just on the basis of having uncontestedly used it for a
period of time, and then retain it indefininitely. This kind of
behavior appeals to companies that don't liked being bogged down under
govenment regulation. Of course they can be taxed, but with a
limitedly avalable commodity, this cost can always be passed on to
their customers. (For example, its easy to see who pays gasoline
taxes, even without limitied licensing.)
If the current situation was present when electicity was invented,
every electic item would be under the control of just one company. As
time goes by the values of key ideas become more and more central to
our way of life, and desire for the 'progress of science and useful
arts' would eventually force the governent to retrieve these ideas
back into the public domain. It would require continuous govenment
action to do this. Since the burden of proof would now be on the
government rather than as licences are now inforced, worked out by
suits between the people involved, this would be a very politically
influenced legal mess.
Do we need to go even further and use property law.
Barry Fishman
Peter Seebach
Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>If you then proceed to give a particular name to that type of software,
>advertise and advocate use of that name, and specifically advocate that
>people use that name *instead* of the free software name and try to get
>people to stop using the term "free software," I think that *does* qualify
>as co-opting someone else's efforts once they indicate that they don't
>appreciate that.
I'm having a hard time finding good analogies to work with. Hmm. It's
sort of like the difference between "religious" and "Christian"; it's not
immediately obvious to me that there's something wrong with someone advocating
use of the "more general" term, and including Christianity as "one kind of
religion".
Essentially, both sides of this particular debate are trying to push ideology
at me, so I don't see that as a reason to prefer one over the other. Maybe
the Open Source people are "co-opting" the GNU people - but at the same time,
the GNU people are being awfully dismissive of the other people who do stuff
which can be called "Open Source".
I think I'm still unconvinced that there's any meaningful "co-opting" going
on. Someone has made an observation that a group of things have common
characteristics, and that referring to them as a group can simplify and
improve communications. I can't come up with any other cases where I'd find
this offensive, so I can't figure out why this one should be.
-s
p.s.: It may matter that I always thought the "free as in speech software"
thing was a poor choice of phrasing, almost chosen specifically to *avoid*
communicating clearly with people not yet familiar with it.
Russ Allbery
> I'm having a hard time finding good analogies to work with. Hmm. It's
> sort of like the difference between "religious" and "Christian"; it's
> not immediately obvious to me that there's something wrong with someone
> advocating use of the "more general" term, and including Christianity as
> "one kind of religion".
"Religious" isn't a term invented by a political movement that
specifically wants to exclude some of the moral principles of Christianity
from what they talk about in public. In fact, religious as a generic term
and concept predates Christianity entirely.
So no, that's not a good analogy.
> Essentially, both sides of this particular debate are trying to push
> ideology at me, so I don't see that as a reason to prefer one over the
> other.
One side is only trying to push their own ideology and principles using
their own software. The other side is trying to co-opt *part* of other
people's ideology and the concrete creations of that ideology and include
it in a larger "tent" (that actually isn't all that inclusive, but that's
another rant) and stealing other people's hard work to push their agenda.
Frankly, the open source movement reminds me in some ways of the
evangelical Christians who try to convert Jews to Christianity by claiming
that Christianity is the "completion" of Judaism, despite the fact that
the underlying motivating concepts are not actually compatible or even
that similar.
> Maybe the Open Source people are "co-opting" the GNU people - but at the
> same time, the GNU people are being awfully dismissive of the other
> people who do stuff which can be called "Open Source".
But they *should* be respecting other people's desire to call their
software open source. (If there is software whose authors prefer "open
source" that is being called "free software" by GNU folks, I think those
GNU folks fully deserve to get yelled at for that too, and if you know of
such examples, feel free to point me at them.)
> I think I'm still unconvinced that there's any meaningful "co-opting"
> going on. Someone has made an observation that a group of things have
> common characteristics, and that referring to them as a group can
> simplify and improve communications. I can't come up with any other
> cases where I'd find this offensive, so I can't figure out why this one
> should be.
If the open source movement actually was a superset, it might not be
offensive. Given that the open source movement in actuality involves a
huge amount of RMS-bashing and very clear indications that people with a
moral belief in free software aren't welcome, it's really nothing close to
a simple generalization of a set of characteristics.
> p.s.: It may matter that I always thought the "free as in speech
> software" thing was a poor choice of phrasing, almost chosen
> specifically to *avoid* communicating clearly with people not yet
> familiar with it.
I don't think it was chosen to avoid communicating clearly. I do think
that it was a conscious attempt to force together two concepts that people
have a great deal of resistance to equating, and as such I find it to be a
very interesting social experiment.
Kai Henningsen
> I'm having a hard time finding good analogies to work with. Hmm. It's
> sort of like the difference between "religious" and "Christian"; it's not
> immediately obvious to me that there's something wrong with someone
> advocating use of the "more general" term, and including Christianity as
> "one kind of religion".
>
> Essentially, both sides of this particular debate are trying to push
> ideology at me, so I don't see that as a reason to prefer one over the
> other. Maybe the Open Source people are "co-opting" the GNU people - but at
> the same time, the GNU people are being awfully dismissive of the other
> people who do stuff which can be called "Open Source".
As far as I'm concerned, "Open Source" and "free software" are 100%
synonymous, by design. They're just intended as marketing terms in two
almost completely separate markets - or maybe I should s/intended/usable/.
Open Source is designed to appeal to managers; there is little doubt that
free software generally doesn't.
Remember: the Open Source guidelines were *verbatim* taken from the Debian
Free Software Guidelines. It *really* is the same thing.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu)
Chris Barney
> Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> writes:
> > Essentially, both sides of this particular debate are trying to push
> > ideology at me, so I don't see that as a reason to prefer one over the
> > other.
>
> One side is only trying to push their own ideology and principles using
> their own software. The other side is trying to co-opt *part* of other
> people's ideology and the concrete creations of that ideology and include
> it in a larger "tent" (that actually isn't all that inclusive, but that's
> another rant) and stealing other people's hard work to push their agenda.
Someone reading that out of context couldn't tell which side of the
argument it came from. (Still no help to Peter.)
> Frankly, the open source movement reminds me in some ways of the
> evangelical Christians who try to convert Jews to Christianity by claiming
> that Christianity is the "completion" of Judaism, despite the fact that
> the underlying motivating concepts are not actually compatible or even
> that similar.
Again, right back at you.
> > Maybe the Open Source people are "co-opting" the GNU people - but at the
> > same time, the GNU people are being awfully dismissive of the other
> > people who do stuff which can be called "Open Source".
>
> But they *should* be respecting other people's desire to call their
> software open source. (If there is software whose authors prefer "open
> source" that is being called "free software" by GNU folks, I think those
> GNU folks fully deserve to get yelled at for that too, and if you know of
> such examples, feel free to point me at them.)
The FSF definition of free software calls most open source software
free software. Few, if any, open source software people object to that.
(Calling GNU software free software is another issue.)
> > I think I'm still unconvinced that there's any meaningful "co-opting"
> > going on. Someone has made an observation that a group of things have
> > common characteristics, and that referring to them as a group can
> > simplify and improve communications. I can't come up with any other
> > cases where I'd find this offensive, so I can't figure out why this one
> > should be.
Well, each side makes claims about their philosophy, most of which apply
to the other philosophy too. It draws some newbies into each cult who
should be in the other camp, either by lack of knowledge or by the kind
of mind-washed, fuzzed-up-thinking common in all philosophical camps.
The difference is that because copyleft is a subset of open source,
they gain a hugely unfair advantage from loosely worded propaganda. If
"free software" proselytizing just brought people into the "free
software" philosophy (which includes most of open source), there'd be
no problem. The co-opting is a result of advertizing with "free
software" and then doing the ol' switchero and selling "copyleft"
software.
It's important to remember that the philosopy of "free software" (even
by the GNU-speak definition) is NOT the philosopy of the "free software
community" as it is generally understood; ie, the GNU world. The
philosopy of "Free Software", while in significant disagreement with
the philosopy of "Open Source", is not in significant disagreement with
the philosopy of almost all in the open source communtity. The reverse
is not even roughly true. And more to the point, the philosophy of
copyleft is in significant disagreement with many who hold to the
free software philosophy. The problem is that GNU people use a copyleft
philosophy, but preach a free software philosophy which is much broader.
> If the open source movement actually was a superset, it might not be
> offensive. Given that the open source movement in actuality involves a
> huge amount of RMS-bashing and very clear indications that people with a
> moral belief in free software aren't welcome, it's really nothing close to
> a simple generalization of a set of characteristics.
If "aren't welcome" is seen to be offensive, the very terms of the GPL
should be seen so. GNU is all about creating a guild of programmers
in which non-copyleftists (either closed source or BSDL/MITL/X11L/PD)
are not welcome. I suppose someone could find no offense in the
attitude of either side, but I must agree that it's "religious".
The one-sided person bashing is simply a result of the lack of a leader
in one of the cults (and the deservedness of the bashing, of course).
> > p.s.: It may matter that I always thought the "free as in speech
> > software" thing was a poor choice of phrasing, almost chosen
> > specifically to *avoid* communicating clearly with people not yet
> > familiar with it.
>
> I don't think it was chosen to avoid communicating clearly. I do think
> that it was a conscious attempt to force together two concepts that people
> have a great deal of resistance to equating, and as such I find it to be a
> very interesting social experiment.
It's a group of proprietary software developers who have decided that if
and only if THEY are free to use their software freely, then it's free
software. Even the group of developers named M$ doesn't have the
perfidy to claim that.
It's also a result of confusing (or intention to confuse) the recipient
of the freedom referred to. People will naturally think it's either
about software that may be used freely or about their freedom to use
the software freely. Strictly speaking, that only applies to software
in the public domain. Allowing for some practical restrictions, it
applies to most "free software" and most "open source" software. Few
would find that it applied to software with restrictions as draconian as
those of the MPL or GPL, if it were not for the ability of people to see
things so parochially that they only think of their own freedom. When
people try to justify this misuse of the term, they pull out the line
that it is about the freedom of the software (and all it's future
derivatives, when you can get them to admit it) to not be withheld from
use by their community. When you get down to brass tacks, you find out
that it is really about their freedom to use other people's code in
derivatives. And if other people will not license that freedom to them,
the other people are not allowed the corresponding freedom. You see,
it's really not about freedom at all; it's about reciprocity, just as
in every other form of software licensing in exchange for things of
value.
Kai Henningsen
> One side is only trying to push their own ideology and principles using
> their own software. The other side is trying to co-opt *part* of other
> people's ideology and the concrete creations of that ideology and include
> it in a larger "tent" (that actually isn't all that inclusive, but that's
> another rant) and stealing other people's hard work to push their agenda.
Come on, that's a gross and unfair distortion.
1. A large number of people contributing to what rms calls "free software"
don't like his rethoric any better than the Open Source proponents.
2. Quite a number of the people using the term "Open Source" are writing
their own free software. Including the guy who most pushes the term. And I
haven't noticed a free software advocate excluding that software from his
"free software", either.
3. Quite a number of people happily use both terms interchangeably. I do,
for example.
Frankly, I think the vitriol used on this topic - from both sides - is
completely unnecessary *and* childish.
But then again, the Pope decided to excommunicate Luther when that guy
simply wanted to improve their common religion ... from which analogy you
could (correctly) deduce that I primarily blame rms. Of course, I've been
known to label him a "PR catastrophe" even before "Open Source" happened;
there were enough incidents even back then ...
Practically nobody likes it when the Jehova's Witnesses knock at the door.
> Frankly, the open source movement reminds me in some ways of the
> evangelical Christians who try to convert Jews to Christianity by claiming
> that Christianity is the "completion" of Judaism, despite the fact that
> the underlying motivating concepts are not actually compatible or even
> that similar.
Well, that's how it all started. Most Christians have trouble recognizing
that Christianity today is very different from when it started.
But then again, I'm pretty sure the same can be said about just about
every old religion over, say, a century.
> But they *should* be respecting other people's desire to call their
> software open source. (If there is software whose authors prefer "open
> source" that is being called "free software" by GNU folks, I think those
> GNU folks fully deserve to get yelled at for that too, and if you know of
> such examples, feel free to point me at them.)
Whereas I think that nobody yelling really has a leg to stand on.
> If the open source movement actually was a superset, it might not be
> offensive. Given that the open source movement in actuality involves a
> huge amount of RMS-bashing and very clear indications that people with a
> moral belief in free software aren't welcome, it's really nothing close to
> a simple generalization of a set of characteristics.
And that is new since Open Source?
Don't be ridiculous.
Oh, and it's not the moral belief that's unwelcome, it's the idea that
people who don't share it are bad heathens. Which I, for example,
*strongly* object to, even though (or maybe especially as) I do share at
least some of those beliefs.
> > p.s.: It may matter that I always thought the "free as in speech
> > software" thing was a poor choice of phrasing, almost chosen
> > specifically to *avoid* communicating clearly with people not yet
> > familiar with it.
>
> I don't think it was chosen to avoid communicating clearly. I do think
> that it was a conscious attempt to force together two concepts that people
> have a great deal of resistance to equating, and as such I find it to be a
> very interesting social experiment.
The problem here really is that it's the wrong concepts. Free speech would
be the right analogue if this was the fight against software patents, but
it's entirely the wrong one when fighting against copy-forbidden software.
If I recall correctly the tales about the events which started rms off,
the most important freedom is the freedom to *change* ... as in tinkering
with your car. I admit it's hard to make a slogan out of that, but IMO
that is a *much* better analogy.
Russ Allbery
> r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote:
>> One side is only trying to push their own ideology and principles using
>> their own software. The other side is trying to co-opt *part* of other
>> people's ideology and the concrete creations of that ideology and
>> include it in a larger "tent" (that actually isn't all that inclusive,
>> but that's another rant) and stealing other people's hard work to push
>> their agenda.
> Come on, that's a gross and unfair distortion.
No, I do not believe that it is.
> 1. A large number of people contributing to what rms calls "free
> software" don't like his rethoric any better than the Open Source
> proponents.
That's fine. If the ideology of the project bothers them to a sufficient
degree, they may not want to participate. That will happen; some free
software or open source projects are just about writing the software, and
some are actually about making a larger political point as well.
Sometimes the ideology drives people away from contributing, and sometimes
the ideology is one of the reasons *why* people contribute.
But the people running a project set its goals. If you choose to
participate in a project that's run by RMS, I don't think you have a whole
lot of ground later to say that he shouldn't use your contributions as
part of the project goals. That's something you should think about before
you contribute in the first place.
People who don't like the goals and ideology of the GNU project probably
shouldn't contribute to it. That's just reality; software development
*always* has a political component. It involves people working together,
after all, which invariably results in some degree of politics. There's
no way to avoid the politics, only pick and choose what politics one likes
to work with.
I don't run my projects anything like RMS does. I don't consider ensuring
copyright ownership or always using free software to be nearly important
as he does. But I respect his opinions, and I respect his right to set
the rules for his own projects, and if I choose to contribute in one of
his projects I do so on his terms.
> 2. Quite a number of the people using the term "Open Source" are writing
> their own free software. Including the guy who most pushes the term. And
> I haven't noticed a free software advocate excluding that software from
> his "free software", either.
And if they were only talking about their own software, that's great.
> 3. Quite a number of people happily use both terms interchangeably. I
> do, for example.
You're certainly entitled to do that if you wish. I prefer to respect the
desires of the authors of the software in what they want their software to
be called. I don't find using both terms interchangeably that
objectionable; what I find particularly objectionable is trying to
reclassify all free software as open source software *and* trying to hide
the term "free software" so that no one will use it.
> Frankly, I think the vitriol used on this topic - from both sides - is
> completely unnecessary *and* childish.
I've been following this whole saga from the very beginning. I started
off as a big fan of the Open Source movement. I've read most of the
writings of the people on both sides. Over time, I've come to deeply
dislike and distrust the Open Source movement because of what Eric Raymond
has done with it, because of the antagonistic, demeaning, and exclusionary
attitude that he's put forward particularly towards RMS and the lack of
public rebuttal of those attitudes by other people, and because I think
they've gone beyond deciding that some principles aren't that important to
them (which is perfectly fine and something that I can even support) clear
into deciding that those principles shouldn't be important to *anyone* and
that people who want to talk about them should be hushed or shouted down.
Bruce Perens can *almost* salvage it for me, but not quite. I have a lot
of personal respect for him, but that isn't quite enough to translate over
into the movement that he mostly started (but then largely lost control
of).
So you're entitled to your own opinion about the vitriol on the topic, but
I've seen a very strong mismatch of vitriol; nearly all of it is coming
from one of the two sides, and that side is not the free software side.
Given that I've formed that opinion over years of watching these debates,
the chances that I'm going to change my mind just because you don't agree
with me are vanishingly small.
My vitriol, such as it is, is certainly going in the other direction, but
I pretty much restrain it to this newsgroup alone, where it's at least
on-topic. I've seen ESR *viciously* attack RMS in all sorts of other
fora, with no or very little provocation, where such attacks were
completely off-topic.
Sure, I could just shrug and go on with my life and decide that ESR is
being petty and is best ignored. And in fact, I largely do that. But
occasionally there comes a point when I'm really, deeply *offended* by the
attitude that he's pushing and that he's trying to fill the open source
movement with, and periodically I have to say something about it because
it feels *wrong* to just leave it unchallenged.
And I have no desire to be part of his movement.
Jeffrey Siegal
> If "aren't welcome" is seen to be offensive, the very terms of the GPL
> should be seen so. GNU is all about creating a guild of programmers
> in which non-copyleftists (either closed source or BSDL/MITL/X11L/PD)
> are not welcome.
It is a gross distortion to lump "closed source" (whatever that is) with
the others. The GNU project has generally supported what the FSF calls
noncopylefted free software, which would include all of the other
categories you list (assuming you mean the modified BSDL, without the
advertising clause), just not as strongly as copylefted free software.
Indeed, at one point I remember seeing a development plan for GNU that
stated that the GNU project did not plan to develop its own UI system
because it would just use X11, and there were several other areas where
noncopylefted free software was part of the plan.
Kai Henningsen
> Kai Henningsen <kaih=8HYG7...@khms.westfalen.de> writes:
> > r...@stanford.edu (Russ Allbery) wrote:
>
> >> One side is only trying to push their own ideology and principles using
> >> their own software. The other side is trying to co-opt *part* of other
> >> people's ideology and the concrete creations of that ideology and
> >> include it in a larger "tent" (that actually isn't all that inclusive,
> >> but that's another rant) and stealing other people's hard work to push
> >> their agenda.
>
> > Come on, that's a gross and unfair distortion.
>
> No, I do not believe that it is.
I do.
> > 1. A large number of people contributing to what rms calls "free
> > software" don't like his rethoric any better than the Open Source
> > proponents.
>
> That's fine. If the ideology of the project bothers them to a sufficient
> degree, they may not want to participate. That will happen; some free
It's not the ideology so much as rms' (and his ardent followers') rhetoric
about that ideology. At least from where I sit.
Hey, I'd *like* all software to be free.
> But the people running a project set its goals. If you choose to
> participate in a project that's run by RMS, I don't think you have a whole
> lot of ground later to say that he shouldn't use your contributions as
> part of the project goals. That's something you should think about before
> you contribute in the first place.
You're putting words in my mouth. I've never said that.
> People who don't like the goals and ideology of the GNU project probably
> shouldn't contribute to it. That's just reality; software development
> *always* has a political component. It involves people working together,
> after all, which invariably results in some degree of politics. There's
> no way to avoid the politics, only pick and choose what politics one likes
> to work with.
Well, some of the more visible contributors to some of the FSF projects
(say, gcc) seem to be unhappy with some of rms' ideology ...
> > 2. Quite a number of the people using the term "Open Source" are writing
> > their own free software. Including the guy who most pushes the term. And
> > I haven't noticed a free software advocate excluding that software from
> > his "free software", either.
>
> And if they were only talking about their own software, that's great.
Um, *will* you please argue what I actually *wrote*?!
Is there *anyone* on rms' side of the argument who excludes (say)
fetchmail or CML2 from the set of "free software"?
If not, why then is an Open Source advocate supposed to exclude gcc?
It's exactly the same situation.
> > 3. Quite a number of people happily use both terms interchangeably. I
> > do, for example.
>
> You're certainly entitled to do that if you wish. I prefer to respect the
> desires of the authors of the software in what they want their software to
> be called. I don't find using both terms interchangeably that
> objectionable; what I find particularly objectionable is trying to
> reclassify all free software as open source software *and* trying to hide
> the term "free software" so that no one will use it.
Apart from some obvious rethoric, I haven't even seen esr do that. Heck,
fetchmail is under the GPL, and esr's addition to the GPL does mention the
word "free" but not "open". CML2 - a much more recent project - is under
the GPL, too.
And the Opensource FAQ says "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing
program for free software.".
> > Frankly, I think the vitriol used on this topic - from both sides - is
> > completely unnecessary *and* childish.
>
> I've been following this whole saga from the very beginning. I started
> off as a big fan of the Open Source movement. I've read most of the
> writings of the people on both sides. Over time, I've come to deeply
> dislike and distrust the Open Source movement because of what Eric Raymond
> has done with it, because of the antagonistic, demeaning, and exclusionary
> attitude that he's put forward particularly towards RMS and the lack of
> public rebuttal of those attitudes by other people, and because I think
> they've gone beyond deciding that some principles aren't that important to
> them (which is perfectly fine and something that I can even support) clear
> into deciding that those principles shouldn't be important to *anyone* and
> that people who want to talk about them should be hushed or shouted down.
Frankly, I do not see it.
> Bruce Perens can *almost* salvage it for me, but not quite. I have a lot
> of personal respect for him, but that isn't quite enough to translate over
> into the movement that he mostly started (but then largely lost control
> of).
I once had a lot of respect of Bruce, but the way he left Debian left me
rather sour.
> So you're entitled to your own opinion about the vitriol on the topic, but
> I've seen a very strong mismatch of vitriol; nearly all of it is coming
> from one of the two sides, and that side is not the free software side.
Actually, now that I think about it, pretty much all vitriol I have seen
has been between extremists of the GPL and BSD camps. Compared to that,
any vitriol related to free software vs. open source is deep down in the
noise.
*But* I also notice that pretty much all the vitriol I actually remember
is people upset about the existence of more than one term.
> on-topic. I've seen ESR *viciously* attack RMS in all sorts of other
> fora, with no or very little provocation, where such attacks were
> completely off-topic.
I haven't. I seem to remember reading something from rms once where he
attacked the term "Open Source" with no good argument that I could see.
Not that that surprised me, I still vividly remembered the "Lignux"
debacle.
I've said before that I think rms is really, really bad at PR.
> Sure, I could just shrug and go on with my life and decide that ESR is
> being petty and is best ignored. And in fact, I largely do that. But
Actually, I do similar often enough - it's completely impossible to
reasonably talk to him about what he puts in his .sig, and even in
technical arguments he's too arrogant. (At least he's not as vitriolic as
djb.)
> And I have no desire to be part of his movement.
I have no desire to be a member of either movement. I don't like
movements, period.
But, I notice it's rms who insists on burdening GPL'd software with "must
not ever change" propaganda writings (to the effect that lots of Debian
people have (since becoming aware of this) serious stomach ache including
the emacs or gdb manuals as "free"), not esr.
Frankly, from where I sit, the only "movement" is rms'.