home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4190 talk.philosophy.misc:3149 alt.usage.english:10239 alt.society.anarchy:1006
- Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zeleny
- From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Message-ID: <1993Jan4.033849.18981@husc3.harvard.edu>
- Date: 4 Jan 93 08:38:46 GMT
- References: <C0B34q.Ax0@news.udel.edu> <1993Jan3.213759.18973@husc3.harvard.edu> <C0BEFv.BJr@news.udel.edu>
- Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
- Lines: 285
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu
-
- In article <C0BEFv.BJr@news.udel.edu>
- johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
-
- >In article <1993Jan3.213759.18973@husc3.harvard.edu>
- >zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
-
- >>In article <C0B34q.Ax0@news.udel.edu>
- >>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
-
- >>>In article <1993Jan3.170815.18962@husc3.harvard.edu>
- >>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
-
- >>>>In article <C0Ap5A.A4v@news.udel.edu>
- >>>>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
-
- >>>>>In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu>
- >>>>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
-
- MZ:
- >>>>>>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
- >>>>>>the FSF [...]
-
- BJ:
- >>>>>What legal obligation is placed upon the USER of GNU software?
-
- MZ:
- >>>>The obligation is not to use any part of GNU in a proprietary manner.
-
- BJ:
- >>>You could have saved time by making it clear that what you meant
- >>>in repeated assertions about the "use" of GNU software is really
- >>>"proprietary use of the source code".
-
- MZ:
- >>The use of any text encompasses quotation and paraphrase, as well as
- >>any other form of consumption; programs are no exception.
-
- BJ:
- >>>If you are complaining that the GPL does not grant you the right
- >>>to "proprietary use of the source code", well, that's tough.
-
- MZ:
- >>Tough or not, that is what makes it non-free.
-
- BJ:
- >If that is what you mean be free in this instance, I agree.
-
- That is what I meant all along. Why not concede the argument at this
- point and cut your losses? Anything else you might say, will inevitably
- amount to a futile search for an escape hatch.
-
- BJ:
- >>>The only sense of the word "proprietary" that is applicable here
- >>>would be "made and marketed by by one having the exclusive right
- >>>to manufacture and sell" (Webster's 7th Collegiate).
-
- MZ:
- >>Not so. Read the GPL. Any inclusion of GNU code into a piece of
- >>software legally causes the latter to fall under the provision of the
- >>former's licensing. In other words, it's the Foundation's way of
- >>saying "use me in what you make, and it becomes mine".
-
- BJ:
- >Wrong. The source that you wrote is still yours. You can still
- >use it in any way that you see fit, including later replacing the
- >GNU code that you used with code that you have written on your own
- >or or even re-implemented based on the ideas rather than on their
- >specific expression in the text of the GNU source. You can then
- >release "your" program under whatever terms you choose.
-
- You are changing the conditions of my example, instead of addressing it.
- How brave of you! How especially poignant that you happen to be
- prevaricating!
-
- BJ:
- >If you want to use the text of the GNU source verbatim as part
- >of the source for your program, yes, you are obligated to release
- >all your source under the GPL. This does not make the portions
- >that you wrote the property of FSF; it merely forces you to use
- >their license if you distribute an aggregation that includes
- >their source.
-
- You are lying. The GPL specifically requires the distributor to
-
- cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
- that in whole or in part contains the Program or any part
- thereof, either with or without modifications, to be licensed
- at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
- General Public License (except that you may choose to grant
- warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your
- option).
-
- This is another good point for you to apologize, conceding defeat.
-
- BJ:
- >If you don't like this, don't engage in "proprietary use of GNU
- >source code". Few commercial software companies use GNU source
- >in this way, although many use GNU tools and even read GNU source
- >as a way of getting ideas (not verbatim copies) for their own work.
-
- You are still not addressing my point. Not only are you a liar, but a
- weaseling, cowardly one at that.
-
- MZ:
- >>What I would like to see, is programs like GNU distributed with a
- >>copyright notice containing a supererogatory (look it up) *request*
- >>that their proprietory employment not exceed the conventional limits
- >>of "fair use".
-
- BJ:
- >That might be nice if people agreed on the meaning of fair use,
- >and if it was easy to evaluate such "fairness". With proprietary
- >software it is often difficult to judge the extent of "borrowing"
- >because software is often distributed in compiled binary form. It's
- >not easy to judge fair use even when comparing complete source trees.
-
- Fair enough. If you are uncomfortable with "fair use", put everything
- in the public domain. If you are uncomfortable with the public
- domain, just copy the X copyright notice.
-
- BJ:
- >A fair use clause sounds nice; similar suggestions were made
- >in a previous debate/flamewar that centered on the efficacy of
- >various licensing schemes (mostly PD vs. GPL) for those who
- >"just want to cut code" without worrying about the legalese.
- >
- >Two things changed my mind on this point. Unlike Mr. Zeleny,
- >I was not concerned with semantics, but I was worried that
- >the self-perpertuating aspect of the GPL would delay or impede
- >the porting of GNU software to new platforms - that it would
- >in a broader sense impede the application of existing knowledge
- >to new problems.
- >
- >The practical difficulty is that other forces in our society
- >already act as impediments; among these are our current
- >muddled software copyright and patent laws. As I see it,
- >the GPL merely attempts to counter one nasty set of impediments
- >by substituting a lesser impediment that unfortunately seems
- >to bother lazy programmers and semanticists.
-
- If you believe that my concern with the meaning of freedom should be
- relegated to the provenance of semanticists, I offer you my condolences
- and withdraw from this exchange. For you, freedom might be just a word;
- I see the matter very differently.
-
- BJ:
- >It's not a perfect world, but when faced with a choice I prefer
- >rules that bother the lazy to those that hinder the productive.
-
- That the choice exists only in your own mind is borne out by the
- example of X.
-
- BJ:
- >I was also concerned that no one would invest $$$ to port GNU
- >code if the results were required to be released under the GPL.
- >
- >Two cases in point were the recent ports of GNU software to
- >Sun's Solaris operating system and to the DEC Alpha CPU.
- >In both cases the work was nearly completed before the flamewars
- >fed by skeptics like me died down. The desirability of using
- >the code evidentally outweighed the impediments.
- >
- >Others with a better sense of history can probably point to other
- >examples in which a strict interpretation of the GPL forced release
- >of source code that ultimately benefitted in good measure both users
- >and "coerced" developers who were willing to accept the GPL's terms
- >for using "free" GNU source. I'm sure there have been many ...
-
- You are arguing that coersion can have beneficial effects for the
- society. So can slavery, -- just ask Aristotle.
-
- If you do not wish to address my argument, kindly do the decent thing
- and admit that you are wrong. Either shit or get off the pot.
-
- MZ:
- >>Anything else is coersion, and as such, does not
- >>deserve to be called free.
-
- BJ:
- >Says you. It is free-er in every sense of the word than any other
- >software I've worked with, including stuff that I was either paid
- >to use or forced to use and ultimately wasted my time.
-
- The limitations of your life experience have absolutely no bearing on
- the facts of the matter.
-
- BJ:
- >>>The only way to assert a truly proprietary interest in someone
- >>>else's work is to buy the rights to it from a copyright owner, ie,
- >>>someone who has not given up his/her intellectual property rights
- >>>by placing the source into the public domain. I doubt that FSF
- >>>would consider selling the rights to an entire package, but at
- >>>least it is possible to call FSF or other author/copyright holder
- >>>of a GPL'ed product and request permission to "use" an algorithm
- >>>or two without giving up your proprietary interest in a larger work.
- >>>They own it; therefore they have the right to refuse your request.
-
- MZ:
- >>Huh? are you suggesting that they own the *algorithms*? In any case,
- >>your suggestion only buttresses my point.
-
- BJ:
- >Mea culpa. I meant "verbatim use of GPL'd code snippets".
- >Your point, whatever it is, can use buttressing anyway.
-
- Not that you have managed to vitiate it by anything you said so far.
-
- BJ:
- >A "fair use" clause would be nice, but I can't imagine a scenario
- >in which I'd use just a portion of a GNU program in my own work
- >without ultimately having to understand it well enough to re-express
- >it on my own in a way that would satisfy FSF. FSF does not support
- >ownership of algorithms, so any incorporation of a snippet that would
- >qualify as "fair use" in the sense that we judge quotations (typically
- >a paragraph or less culled from a many-page book or article) would not
- >be likely to upset either the FSF or its way-part-time lawyer.
-
- Your putative programming ability is likewise irrelevant to the issue of
- freedom.
-
- BJ:
- >When FSF enforces its copyright in such a way that it changes
- >my opinion of its essential reasonableness or fairness, I won't
- >hesitate to complain. Until such time, you'll forgive me if I
- >express a greater respect for do-ers and workers than blowhards.
-
- Please note that I am not soliciting your respect.
-
- BJ:
- >And yes, I realize that Mr. Zeleny is concerned principally
- >with semantics and his defense of the "sorely abused" English
- >language. It is a good thing that he focusses his efforts
- >on such ends, because he shows no evidence of genuine concern
- >about issues that matter, like finding better ways to communicate
- >and share human knowledge, which is in the broadest sense is the
- >issue that matters to the organization and people that Mr. Zeleny
- >has chosen to attack.
-
- You do not realize jack shit, my lad. Least of all you realize that by
- interpreting a matter of principle as just another banal language game,
- you are only exposing the pitiful smallness of your mind, and the abject
- degradation of your spirit. As for communication and the sharing of
- knowledge, kindly take note that your own position in this debate
- presents you as nothing more than a cavilling coward, determined at all
- costs to avoid confronting the simplest truth:
-
- Freedom is incompatible with restriction or obligation to another.
-
- BJ:
- >One could easily ignore his unprovoked tirade, but the problem
- >with this is that some people mistake clever writing for good
- >ideas. Some give credence to attacks that are not countered,
- >even when they are done only to illustrate important points made
- >in Mr. Zeleny's noble defense of the English language, and
- >not out of some petty concern that it is Mr. Stallman who is
- >generally well-regarded for his contributions to the computing
- >and net.connected communities, and his self-described former
- >colleague Mr.Zeleny who is considered a net.pest without portfolio.
-
- Well, I claim a small distinction from Mr Stallman, in that I have never
- broken a personal obligation, nor, to resort to his charming idiom,
- "stabbed anyone in the back"; furthermore, I claim a small distinction
- from yourself, in that I have never lied for the sake of winning an
- argument, nor refused to squarely address my opponent's point. Having
- said that, I confess belonging to the ancient tradition, which regards
- the merits of a man's argument as wholly independent from his character,
- and _a fortiori_, the size of his portfolio. Thus, notwithstanding your
- demonstrable lack of intellectual integrity, I remain open to any
- rebuttal you might choose to attempt.
-
- BJ:
- >Mr. Zeleny is a talented writer, in approximately the same way
- >that Ronald Reagan is a talented orator. Pity that neither
- >learned to use the gift for a useful end.
-
- You are really withering me with your witty opprobrium, Mr Bill. Pity
- that you happen to lack the courage required for admitting your defeat.
-
- >--
- >-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
- >-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
-
- cordially,
- mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
- "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
-