GPL 3 As Bonfire of the Vanities

morganew writes "Jonathan Zuck has written a CNET Op-ed stating that the GPL 3 is about returning the flock to the faith, and is reminiscent of Savonarola's 'Bonfire of the Vanities', urging true believers to burn things that took their eyes off God. From Article: 'The commercial humanists such as Lawrence Lessig with his Creative Commons initiative have turned away from the Old Testament, and the GPL 3.0 license is a call to the faithful to reject these vanities'. Given the reaction by Linus Torvalds and nearly all the OSS business community to the GPL 3, are we going to see a break in the church?"

Comments

Full Disclosure

[gowen]

When reading any socio-political article, be sure you know who the author works for.

What is the problem?!

[ajs318]

We believe that every user of software has four basic rights: the right to ENJOY the software, the right to STUDY how the software works, the right to SHARE the software with others and the right to ADAPT the software to their needs. We believe that these rights spring directly from the existence of software, are fundamental and can never be signed away.

THE RIGHT TO ENJOY

We believe that everyone has the right to use software that they have legitimately acquired, for any purpose: it is for the user to determine whether it is suitable for a particular application. If the supplier of a program were somehow unfairly to impose their will upon the user, perhaps by stipulating that the program should not be used for certain purposes, that would constitute an act of violence.

THE RIGHT TO STUDY

We believe that every user of a program has the right to study how that program works. If the user of a program wishes to replicate a particular piece of functionality from that program, they have the right to examine the program in order to determine how the functionality is performed. Nobody should be forced to re-invent the wheel. The supplier of a program does not have the right to keep secret from any rightful user how the program works: by allowing someone else to use the program, they have invited that person in on the secret.

If the creator of a process wishes to keep secret the details of a process, then that is their prerogative. Effectively, they are providing a service: a customer supplies the materials; the provider of the service takes them away, does something secret, and later returns a finished product to the customer. The customer has certain rights in respect of the transaction, including the right to decline the transaction altogether based upon the level of secrecy expected by the supplier. Where the right to study a program is denied, the user {customer} is expected to provide the supplier with not just the raw materials {input to the program}, but also the resources to carry out the process {computer time and disk space}. This diminishes the quid pro quo, and so is potentially an unfair transaction.

Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.

THE RIGHT TO SHARE

We believe that all the fruits of all human endeavour properly belong to all of humankind.

Software can be shared without being diminished by the act of sharing: if I give a copy of a program to my neighbour, I still have a copy. {Of course, I no longer have the exclusive use of that software. This exclusivity is a form of artificial scarcity.} Nobody has the right to impose their will on my neighbour and say that they should not use a particular program: to do so would be a form of violence.

THE RIGHT TO ADAPT

We believe that every user of a program has the right to adapt that program to their own needs. Nobody should be forced to adapt their method of working to suit the way that someone else believes that the job should be done that would constitute unfairly imposing one's will on another, which is a form of violence.

Access to the source code is highly desirable in the exercise of this right.

DELEGATION OF RIGHTS

We further believe that any user who is not skilled in the art of computer programming, or who simply desires to delegate the task to another, has the right to employ a competent programmer [2] of their choice and whom they trust, to assist them in the exercise of their rights to enjoy, study, share and adapt computer software; and that every competent programmer has the right to run a business based on providing such services in a free market. These services might include independent appraisal of the program to determine its suitability for a particular application {which is contingent upon the right to study}; modification to tailor the program to the customer's working

Re:What is the problem?!

[fossa]

Ok, I see your point. All freedoms flow from the values of a society. Values which are often under debate. Yet you seem to belive that the reason I should be unable to copy something is because it's somehow "yours", and you have the "right" to say what is done with "your" work. No. The reason I should be unable to copy something is because society has agreed to limit my freedom.* Society has made a choice based upon values. It has nothing to do with this fantasy you hold to that this software might be "yours". Perhaps you should not have given me a copy if you wanted it to remain "yours". Society may treat it as "yours to copy", but it does not do this because it's "yours"; it does this because its members have agreed that doing so will have benefits, say, the promotion of the progress of science and the useful arts.

You and others may believe or wish that the reason is because it's "yours", but the law does not currently say that (in the US at least, apologies if it does say that in your country). If you seek to change that then all I can say is I hope you fail. Do you believe copyright should have a limit? Why should it, if it's "yours"? Pass it on to your great-great grandchildren like you will pass on your grandfather's watch. After all, they're both "yours".

Peace.

* Now, I have not personally agreed as such, but I am a member of society, and it includes mechanisms for change should the values of a society change, so I'll try to change it but won't complain about the fact that I never agreed to it as I don't see a way around that.

Here's what you did say

[GuloGulo]

It's not ad hominem to point out that someone may have been paid to hold a certain opinion

Which is factually incorrect. That is ad hominem. Whether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements.

You can check the accurracy of his statements and decide if they are correct. The source of funding doesn't change this.

I realize yours is a widely held belief, but it's wrong.

Re:Here's what you did say

[Frymaster]

That is ad hominem. Whether he was paid or not has absolutely no bearing on the accuracy of his statements.
You can check the accurracy of his statements and decide if they are correct.

correct. attempting to invalidate someone's statements by pointing out they have been paid to make them is ad hominem. just because a person, in a worst case scenario, makes a cynical statement merely for personal profit has absolutely no bearing on the truth of that statement whatsoever.

now, having said that, i went and read the article and have come to the conclusion that the real purpotrator of fallicies in this thread is Jonathan Zuck himself. the entire rambling piece is little more than a bag of poor analogies propped up as straw men, miscontextualized quotes and mild ad hominem. this is a gross exercise in rhetoric that brings approprixmately zero new insight to discussion about the future of the gpl.

Re:Wow

[tpgp]

Yup - Mr Zuck is the one with religious fervour.

Consider this quote of his:

ZUCK: Sure. ACT is an IT industry trade association based in Washington, D.C. It represents mostly small- and medium-sized information technology companies and their interests in Washington. So, we lobby on their behalf to prevent over-regulation of the industry; we fight both here and abroad for intellectual property protection;

Errr right, fight against over-regulation.... with ip regulation?

He also shows no understanding of the issues

selectively chosen one format (Adobe's PDF) that has some IP associated with (it) and said, 'That's OK, but this one (Microsoft Office) isn't.'

Uh huh - thanks Jonathon, you do understand that anyone can (and plenty do) implement PDF royalty free don't you.

Conclusion - don't feel dirty, Zuck is the misinformed zealot, Stallman looks positively calm & reasonable in comparison.

Re:Wow

[amliebsch]

You can implement Microsoft Office XML formats royalty-free too.

And you misunderstand the definition

[GuloGulo]

I've grown tired of this exchange, but I'll say this and then end it.

Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not.

Bringing up his motivation for making those statements is the ad hominem. Whether you beleive tham is not the consideration. I think that is where your confusion comes from. I'll say that again, it doesn't matter if you denounce/endorse the author's statements, because that is not the ad hominem, the act of bringing up the author's bias is the ad hominem.

I've said this as many ways, and as many times as I care to. Educate yourself or not, I'm finished with it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Re:And you misunderstand the definition

[Taevin]

According to your own link:
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;
2. there is something objectionable about A,
3. therefore claim B is false.

You'll notice that gowen has not made an argumentum ad hominem because he has not made an argument of that form. He has only said parts 1 and 2 of the above form. Never did he say "Mr. Zuck made this claim but he received money from ACT, therefore what he said is wrong."

If I may further direct to you to the strangely titled "Validity" section of the wiki link:

"Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility, but to doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy."

Again: "Evidence may be doubted or rejected based on the source for reasons of credibility..." That is all you can 'accuse' gowen of doing. All he did was point out who the author works for so that you can decide for yourself if the author or his employer has any credibility. Again, only to "doubt or reject a deduction based on the source is the ad hominem fallacy." gowen has not made any comment doubting the validity of Zuck's deduction. Hell, unless I've missed one of his posts, he hasn't made any comment on the deduction at all.

If you want to say that perhaps it was unnecessary to bring up the author's employer, fine. If you want to say that perhaps it is misleading or shady or some other subjective description, fine. But it is not an argumentum ad hominem.

Re:And you misunderstand the definition

[TXG1112]

The world is not a Greek forum, strict logic is not always the most useful view of the world.
From that wikipedia article you enjoy linking so much:

Such arguments are not necessarily irrational, but are not correct in strict logic. This illustrates one of the differences between rationality and logic.

While the fact that someone is being paid to hold an opinion does not in fact affect the validity of that opinion, anyone who takes that opinion at face value is an idiot. What it affects is how thoroughly one should verify the validity of that opinion. Gowen is making a rational case to thoroughly verify the opinion, not attacking the opinion itself. One is common sense, the other is Ad Hom. If you can't see the difference I don't know what to tell you.

Re:And you misunderstand the definition

[Lochin Rabbar]

"Gowen has committed ad hominem, regardless of his position on the author's statements. They are verifiable or they are not."

He may have committed ad hominem, but he hasn't committed a fallacy. Ad hominem is only a fallacy in deductive reasoning which deals in absolutes. However Gowen only invites us to hypothesise that the article is tainted not to regard it as a certainty. That is abductive rather than deductive logic, and in the real world abductive logic is usually a more useful tool than deduction. Given the number of observations of those funded by MS making bogus statements about the GPL, and the puacity of truthful statements on any subject from such sources it is reasonable to infer there is rule that such sources are tainted.

One only needs to glance at the article to see that in this case that the hypothesis is not disproven. This gives further weight to the theory that any source funded by MS is untrustworthy.

Since none of us have the time nor ability to independently verify every source of information out there only a fool would dismiss the utility of sifting information according to the likely veracity of its source.