home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4394 talk.philosophy.misc:3262 misc.legal:22362
- Path: sparky!uunet!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!husc10.harvard.edu!zeleny
- From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Message-ID: <1993Jan11.144521.19192@husc3.harvard.edu>
- Date: 11 Jan 93 19:45:18 GMT
- Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan11.144521.19192
- References: <MIB.93Jan8191428@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu> <BURLEY.93Jan9171820@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal
- Lines: 196
- Nntp-Posting-Host: husc10.harvard.edu
-
- Although I prefer not to bother with philippics, the meager substantive
- content of this particular effort can be dispensed with in less than five
- minutes.
-
- In article <BURLEY.93Jan9171820@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
-
- >In article <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu>
- >zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
-
- MZ:
- >>This is correct, but you could still restrict the GPL, and follow by
- >>licensing subsequent releases under the new version thereof, leaving
- >>the dreaded software hoarders with nought but obsolete "free" software.
-
- CB:
- >Yes, and the US Government could redefine "public domain" as now meaning
- >"owned and licensable by Greenpeace", which would have far worse consequences,
- >but is more likely now that Al Gore is in the White House.
-
- Ha ha.
-
- CB:
- >Even if the FSF was somehow taken over and the new "owners" released a new
- >version of the GPL that further restricted rights, several things would
- >happen:
- >
- >1. Significant legal challenges would be threatened (and probably
- > succeed) regarding whether the new version of the GPL maintained
- > the "spirit" of the previous version, as required in the GPL itself.
-
- Yes, just like the Coca-Cola Company was challenged in court by its
- irate customers, for betraying the "spirit" of Coke by decocainizing
- it.
-
- CB:
- >2. The existing code, protected by the previous version of the GPL, would
- > not be obsolete simply because its GPL was an older version; and,
- > since the source code would still be freely copyable according to the
- > GPL, people would have the same ability to continue to enhance
- > the software as they do now.
-
- Apply this argument to public domain software, and you will summarily
- refute every claim made by Stallman to the effect of the putative
- superiority of "copyleft".
-
- CB:
- >3. The FSF would lose most or all of its support, especially given how
- > many people scream and moan about how FSF software is not "Truly Free"
- > today (and somehow still have time to write truly free software?).
-
- By the same token, should they release their programs into the public
- domain, the FSF would *gain* the support of many people currently
- disagreeing with the GPL.
-
- CB:
- >I cannot think of a better way to release my Fortran compiler than by
- >not only GPL-protected it, but signing copyright over to the FSF. Sure,
- >bad things _might_ happen if the FSF mismanages things (they're no big
- >fans of Fortran, believe me :-), but the alternatives are generally
- >worse and more risky:
- >
- >- If I release the whole thing (source code and all) to public domain,
- > then unquestionably I will end up having neighbors (in the Christian
- > sense of the term :-) who ask me to help them fix or enhance their
- > compiler derived even 99% from my code, and I won't be able to do so
- > practically. Further, I could lose everything I have to software-patent-
- > infringement lawsuits, a danger I have no way to protect myself against.
- >
- >- If I simply GPL-protect the thing but don't sign copyright ownership
- > over to someone like the FSF, I'm still open to patent-infringement
- > lawsuits against which I can have no defense.
- >
- >- If I use other licensing terms that are more free than the GPL but not
- > quite PD, I still have patent-infringement problems unless I can find an
- > organization like the FSF that is willing to take the risk, which seems
- > unlikely. Meanwhile, some of the licenses I've seen considered "more
- > free" than the GPL are unsatisfactory: those that restrict military use,
- > distribution for commercial gain, use on Apple products (I just made that
- > one up, actually :-), don't require source code to be available, and so
- > on.
-
- While some of these reasons may be subjectively justified by your
- irrational fear of lawsuits, none of them justifies the GPL. The
- ability of the FSF to protect your rights against frivolous and
- arbitrary lawsuits does not in any way depend on the restrictive terms
- and conditions of its software licensing.
-
- CB:
- >Releasing code via the GPL and/or the FSF isn't perfect. But then, nothing
- >is. People looking for perfection in the material, human realm will always
- >be disappointed unless they are easily misled. Same for people expecting
- >Richard M. Stallman to be the ideal leader of the free-software
- >movement. I fit none of these descriptions, and feel sorry for anyone
- >who fits any of them.
-
- Most categorical generalizations are stupid.
-
- CB:
- >But, instead of bitching and moaning about rms, the FSF, or the GPL,
- >which I suppose I could do, I just keep writing code that, for all
- >practical and useful purposes, will be free. I don't particularly care
- >that some people will restrict themselves such that they can't use
- >my code in the way I'd like them to and will permit them to. And I
- >have no use for extremists who claim my 2.5+ years of volunteer effort
- >to write a free Fortran compiler isn't genuine because I don't release
- >it under _their_ terms (PD, or some other license agreement). This is
- >the best way I've found so far (using both theoretical analysis and
- >practical experience) to do what I'm doing and have it benefit the
- >people most ready to be benefitted. I'm not one to cast pearls before
- >swine, though I occasionally make mistakes in that direction when posting
- >to newsgroups, perhaps. :-)
-
- I have addressed this sort of reasoning in my replies to other people.
-
- CB:
- >Ultimately, the GPL and the FSF way have advantages and disadvantages
- >that correspond pretty much to a radically new computer language or
- >operating system: it might seem ideal when one stays within the system,
- >but have (or appear to have) shortcomings when it comes to interfacing
- >to the outside world or, more specifically, being backwards compatible.
- >
- >I've seen a .signature that said something like:
- >
- > "In response to the 5/2/2014 announcement by FooBar Computer Corp.
- > of a new computer that fits in a shirt pocket, runs entirely on
- > solar and thermal energy, and has the compute power and storage
- > capacity roughly equivalent to a Connection Machine 10 or Cray
- > Z-2, reporters quickly asked: 'Does it run MS-DOS programs?'"
- >
- >The equivalent for the FSF might be:
- >
- > "In response to the announcement of a new software licensing scheme
- > called the GPL that, if widely followed, would promote software reuse,
- > increase innovation, cooperation, and useful competition, thus leading
- > to better utilization of society's resources and improve the level of
- > service provided to users of computers, reporters quickly asked:
- > 'Can I copy the GPL software and call it my own?' and 'Will an average
- > computer software company be able to earn $1B using the GPL in 1Q92?'"
- >
- >Not that these aren't valid questions, but it seems to me that people
- >who find that GPL too restrictive don't appreciate or consider the vision
- >of having software that you can _always_ fix or hire someone to fix because
- >you _always_ have access to the source code, not just because someone's
- >been nice enough to follow protocol and provide it (the pre-1975 standard
- >in some pockets of the industry).
-
- None of these arguments demonstrate the superiority of the GPL over
- public domain.
-
- CB:
- >But, then, some people think source code contains all the programmer's
- >knowledge of the problem (it doesn't, or else the problem is trivially
- >solved), so they somehow think there are moral reasons to withhold it
- >from people. Fine. My vision of where the computer industry will, or
- >could, go, includes technologies and capabilities far greater than what
- >we have today without necessarily requiring much better hardware (though
- >it would take much better advantage of better hardware than our present,
- >feeble conceptions), but is basically unachievable without vastly greater
- >cost _unless_ LPF and FSF concepts become more widely adopted. In
- >particular, I believe software patents, look-and-feel copyright, and
- >even widespread release of binary images without corresponding source
- >code already unnecessarily hampers the industry today, and the degree
- >to which it does so will increase as computer-related technologies
- >(software, hardware, communications) increase. (E.g. you'd be amazed
- >at how much we accept as "normal" in the way we use computers that
- >has come about partly because we _don't_ share source code; I'm more
- >aware of that since I'm one of the old fogies who was using computers
- >back when source code was much more ubiquitous. It scares me to think
- >what kinds of ludicrous new approaches we'll have to invent and have
- >become "part of software engineering" to deal with look-and-feel
- >copyrights and software patents, but that's another issue.)
-
- This visionary outburst is wholly irrelevant to the argument.
-
- CB:
- >But that is just my vision, one I have cultivated and reality-checked for
- >over 20 years, and is worthless to anyone who is bent on whining about the
- >GPL and attacking those who, rather selflessly, help out the FSF in its
- >quest in making software freely copyable (not unnaturally restricted)
- >for everybody who wants freely copyable software (and many, apparently,
- >do not). So I will not share my vision here. After all, it's probably
- >pretty blurry anyway, and could turn out to be very wrong (though the
- >past 20 years suggest I've had pretty good vision so far).
-
- I prefer not to dignify this piece of narcissistic, self-righteous
- claptrap with a reasoned answer.
-
- >--
- >
- >James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
- >Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) lpf@uunet.uu.net
-
- cordially,
- mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
- "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
-