Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Responds to LinuxWorld GPL Article
A reader wrote to point out that RMS has responded to a recent LinuxWorld article by Stig Hackvan concerning the GPL. Interesting debate over what free means, amongst other topics.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
i am glad everyone puts a (tm) by Good Thing because that way i can tell when you're being sarcastic.
but on a more serious note, this RMS's definition of freedom, even if you competely forget about 'gratis' freedom, is a very presumptuous one. it depends on whose freedom you are trying to maximize--RMS decides one of the following things, each less defensible than the last:
1. it is only the author's freedom that is to be maximized. in this case, distribution is unnecessary.
2. it is only the GPL community whose rights are protected. people who do not wish to join this community are not to have the same rights as those who do.
3. distributing proprietary software is not a valid decision in the first place, so restricting this is not really destroying any valid kind of freedom.
cheers,
sh_
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
"Can anyone give an example of proprietary software that can be used `non-infectiously'?"
:-)
MFC.
Seriously.
If I have the license, I can link in the MFC and distribute however I want. Under a GPL library (not LGPL) I cannot do this.
However, the MFC license has other problems much, much larger than infectiousness
Okay, another example:
I can create a program that links to both the MFC and Tools++ at the same time. Neither of these tools has a problem existing along the other. However, as Corel learned last week, it's against the rules for an app to link to both a GPL and a non-GPL library at the same time.
Okay, okay. Here's another one.
The old Qt library under the old license. It was classified non-free. But I could statically link to it and release my app under any Free license without danger of infection.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You are talking about a different freedom than RMS. RMS is talking about the freedom of users, whereas you are talking about the freedom of developers. The GPL maximises the freedom of users. The BSD license, on the other hand, maximises the freedom of developers. The BSD license allows developers to restrict the freedom of users, the GPL doesn't. So from the users point of view (and that's RMS' view), the GPL is better at protecting freedom.
Chilli
PS: Realising that all of us use more software than they develop, I agree with RMS that maximising the freedom of users is more important than maximising the freedom of developers.
PPS: This is exactly like a good politician should maximise the freedom of the people and not the freedom of politicians.
-=- Just a random lambda hacker
"Using your "enemies" law against them...is a common tactic of the underdog."
But what if the *law* itself is your enemy? In the case of the FSF, they are fighting copyrights and software ownership. If it's evil for Microsoft to do it, it's still evil for the FSF to do the same.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Let's try again without your deceptive omissions, shall we?
#1: Here is the rest of the quote... "Publishers often refer to prohibited copying as ``piracy.'' In this way, they imply that illegal copying is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnaping [sic] and murdering the people on them. If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as ``sharing information with your neighbor.''" -- I agree, illegally copying work is not the same as stealing gold, sinking ships, taking hostages and killing.
#2: You did not include or link to the text of "The Manifesto: Piracy is Your Friend" , but you imply that it's a document promoting software piracy. The document does not even mention software and talks about music publishers, radio, mp3s, etc. Music piracy is a much different issue than software freedom.
#3: "Note that the GNU Project recommends avoiding the term piracy since it implies sharing copies [of software] is somehow illegitimate." -- I think you got a big lost on this one. You claim that "it" is "*still* illegal". But, since when is sharing copies illegal? It may or may not be, depending on the terms of the particular program's license. And what the FSF is saying with this statement, is that they don't want the word "piracy" to be used as a synonym for "sharing copies" because they want to share copies (but legally).
So. Where does RMS or the FSF advocate breaking the law?
How I interpret RMS' use of that line - "Using proprietary software makes you less free because it means you are living under domination," - is that you are dominated by the software developer in receiving patches and/or upgrades to proprietary software; you must go to that company or to one licensed by them. However, I partially agree with you on the use of the word domination; it is a rather strong word in my opinion. However, to use your example, you are somewhat restricted by Sun through your use of Solaris because you cannot improve on your investment (through patches or new versions) without going to Sun. Does that make you keep using it? By any means, no. But your are restricted in not being able to go to anyone else for those improvements; therefore, you are 'less free' regarding Solaris. And at this point, I can see how the word dominate can fit the situation, because Sun is in control of the progression of the OS you use, not you.
That's where the BSD License differs with the GPL.
I doesn't try to force a morality on you. If you want to use the code, you decide if you release your changes back. RedHat is a company with a heart and gives back to the community, they didn't need the GPL to force them to. The same is true for Walnut Creek's support of FreeBSD.
In addition, Redhat is not going to make money for long simply selling Linux. Mandrake is good example of how easy it is to get undercut. Redhat's only chance at profitability is to use its brandname get support contracts and the like.
CheapBytes is perhaps the only example of a business method that has a chance at long-term profitability simply selling Linux CDs.
So, therein is my justification of an Open Source licence, but why the GPL? Because it represents my belief in this paradigm. If I
were to release under BSD, I would be saying:
"This program is provided, open source, to solve a problem. If you are developing a proprietry app, and you have this problem, I believe I have done a good job of solving it, and you would do well to use my code"
I see the BSD license as such:
"I wrote this program, and I wish all to enjoy it. I do not want to choose who can enjoy; I just want to share."
I see the GPL license as such:
"I wrote this program, and I wish all to enjoy it. I will share with you as long as you share back to the GNU community."
In all actuality, I consider the BSD license to be more about sharing while the GPL license to be more about bartering.
When I write programs, I do it for fun, learning, and/or to help others. I may then wish to share them with others. I realize you can do it with the GPL license, but it still is a form of proprietary software; the software (and its decendants) remain under the GPL flag.
If a "parasite" takes your freely given code, adds some modifications to it, then refuses to give you those modifications, your original code is still yours. He has stolen nothing. His modifications are his, and his along.
This is simple freedom of speech! If I am free to speak, then I am also free NOT to speak. Thus, I don't have to release my source code. Unless, of course, you think that the free software is more important than free speech...
The only thing that keeps me from doing this to GPL'd code (besides my respect for authors' wishes) is the fact that said code is *owned* by you. But the FSF does not believe that code should be owned...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You're selling a proprietary program and offering free source licenses to everyone who buys it.
In essence you are being a bit more strict than the Sun Community Source License.
You mean not everything can be reduced to money. That's true. But it's all economics. You just have to define economics broadly enough so as to be useless, a skill at which economists are quite proficient.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
The FSF does not believe that people should own software. Copyrights are ownership of software. Thus, the FSF does not believe that people should copyright software!
But the GPL is based on a copyright! Who cares if they use the word "copyleft" instead, it's still the same thing. If no one owns emacs, where did all those restrictions on it come from?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
exception? Alright. In one of the dozen books I've got I remember it saying something about BSD network stack in Linux. Now I'm going to have to spend the whole week trying to find that section. :-)
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
fine. you are right. while we're at it, premitted is not a word.
hehe, but seriously, i realize code has no freedom. however this usage reflects an ambiguity that we incur anyway when we are talking about free code and don't specify precisely what we are talking about.
one sort of freedom that may be applied to code is the public's freedom to use it for any purpose. this sort of freedom is associated with, say, things in the public domain.
another sort of freedom is an author's freedom to see things made by people using stuff he wrote, if they distribute it. this is the sort of freedom that the GPL enforces.
these two are obviously mutually exclusive, so you might want to think about which one of these definitions seems less contrived. if you conclude that the second sense is a more natural and obvious one, by all means, feel free to argue that GPL is actually more free than public domain.
cheers,
sh_
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
I don't think he meant that ESR has Marxist tendencies, but rather that ESR, like Marx (and many capitalists), reduces everything to economics. He's not talking politics but philosophy.
This is very similar to what Troll created with their QPL license.
In fact, I think this is the best combination of all possible licenses. The customer gets the source code and rights to modify it, the author gets paid for the work he/she has done.
Simple, just and promotes creativity.
The BSD license has been revised, removing the advertising clause. I think that makes it no longer necessary to credit the people who you steal (err, borrow) code from when the code in question is under the BSD license.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
While this does restrict you (the person making the derivative work) quite a bit, it's not at all restrictive to the original author, who can still decide later to use a different license in later versions of the product. Of course, he can't change the license on the current version and people could take that code and develop it further, as long as they also release the code. Interestingly enough, I don't know what the legal status would be if the original author decided to roll their changes into his proprietary code. I'd be willing to be he'd have to GPL it and no one could change that even if they wanted to (Which would be rather amusing.)
That doesn't mean a company doesn't have recourse if they want to release a propetary version of the code, either. They would just have to hire the original author with the understanding that the license would have to change for future revisions. Again, the author's rights have been protected and he's guaranteed to be in on any project that would want to make proprietary use of his code, unlike the BSD license where any company could just come along, snap up the code, change a few lines to make it proprietary, and make millions on it.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
GPL and propietary software have a lot in common. Neither restrict us from coding independently, with, perhaps, one exception: software patents. Both put restrictions on what we can and can not do with it. GPL restricts us, in the sense that it is "viral"; this is simply not 100% freedom. In RMS's opinion, less is more; he restricts your freedom to do whatever you want with his code, so that others can enjoy the fruits of your labor in the same way that you enjoy his.
I respect the FSF's view, just as I respect propietary software's rights. The two camps can operate unimpeded by one another. Both formulas have their strengths and weaknesses. In fact, they can, and do, push each other on -- they're better for it.
However, while I respect GPL, I take exception with some of the myopic statements of RMS and company. Within his own camp (for lack of a better word) he is well within his rights to crusade against the other "open source" licenses. He finds them threatening, in that, they have the potential to dillute the power of his movement. This, however, does not mean that the other licenses do not have the right to exist -- they are yet another formula. Past a certain point, he must recognize this: That, they too, have the right to exist -- despite the threat to his own movement....
There is a big difference between a con-artist and a professional, in any field.
A professional should be characterized by way they conform to the ethical standards of our skill set, whether or not we are paid. The few bad apples -the unprofessional 'professionals'- will always leave a strong negative impression.
I'm saddened that the term professional seems to have such a negative connotation here. Where I come from a professional is moral, ethical, and highly skilled, no matter if they get paid big bucks or not. A professional is someone who has earned respect (as I said, at least where I come from).
Perhaps that particular combination of personal characteristics has become more rare in these days.
Please moderate the parent post up.
Well, I wouldn't classify one as "more free" than the other. They're different kinds of freedom.
If I were an author of a piece of software, I'd choose the GPL. The reason is that, as the author, I've obviously most interested in maximizing the freedom of the author (myself). I care less about the freedom of the users, since I'm the author. Since it's my code, I get to choose the license, so I choose the one best for me, not best for them.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
> This is very similar to what Troll created with their QPL license.
No. The QPL allows free distribution of the code without payment. The proposed license is just a proprietary license with the ability of customers to get source code.
> Simple, just and promotes creativity.
It doesn't promote creativity. The horde of open source hackers will have no interest in working on the software and improving it, since only the author gets to make any money off of it.
Not to mention that fact that code from it can't be reused in any other project.
These programs are indisputably separate works from any GPL code, you can build them without any GNU code, so the GPL does not apply to them when they are distributed as separate works. It is only when someone compiles the software linked to the GPL library, AND distribute it herself, that she is bound to distribute the GPL-linked version under the terms of the GPL.
---
Yes, in that sense it is superior. However, what about in the sense of technological evolution? Generally this is done through the free market, competition of small and large businesses. Perhaps a worse standard wins, but enough competition keeps it evolving, etc. You always have to fight the monopolies, but things keep going.
The GPL forces open source, which can hamper the rate of productivity. Now you need to re-invent the wheel at times. The only way "free software" can be more productive is when it has become main stream, where there are more people working on the free code than working on competition, as the way to create capital changes.
BSD allows anyone to use your code (a company cannot 'steal' your code, only use it just like everyone else). Small businesses add propitary value to the code (ie, Sendmail or Apache), and compete. This means the big guys have to work harder (ie. Netscape's, Microsoft's) to compete, so no stand still. Free Market. The threat of monopolies and exploitation has always existed.
IMHO, the GPL is like socialism and the BSD is like capitalism. The GPL tries to stop exploitation but needs the workers to unite, while BSDL creates the exact same thing as the free market. At least that's my impression afer readings in sociology...
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
You do know that for example Bruce Perens in the name of SPI (Software in the Public Interest) created a CD containing the Debian distribution in the exact same terms as you are describing Caldera did?
okay, then i completely agree with you, about the facts. i would personally choose BSD, and not because i am an unselfish guy, but because i want as many people to use my stuff as possible. i would actually be happy if MS used a piece of code of mine, because (making the dubious assumption that they made a good choice) everyone benefits. also note that i'm not giving a competitive advantage to MS since everyone has access to my code. i just have no good reason to fight against them.
note, by the way, that my own personal code is probably not good enough now for anyone to really care which licence i use, which makes me a kibitzer not a player. but, someday i plan to play the game, and when i do, i won't GPL.
sh_
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
Sure, *his* goal. My goal too.
I'm not sure that I understood the "illegal acts" part. What were you referring to?
Whatever. Use another license. Go re-write gcc under a bsd license. But don't go around casting aspersions.
No.
You only have the freedom to patch or extend that software, if you have the ability to write the code. Having source code is one thing. Actually being able to do something with it is another.
Dave
> It doesn't try to force a morality on you. If
> you want to use the code, you decide if you
> release your changes back. RedHat is a company
> with a heart and gives back to the community,
> they didn't need the GPL to force them to. The
> same is true for Walnut Creek's support of
> FreeBSD.
Yes, this is true. However, your point assumes that all companies "have a heart" and will give back to the community, even if the code is BSD licensed.
However, I think this is rather large assumption to make. Purely to illustrate my point, another hypothetical: Linux is where it is today, except completely under a BSD license. Can you think of any companies that would jump on that code? Modify it for their own means? And sell it for a profit, the source never to be seen again? I can, and the name starts with "M".
This general scenario, not my specific hypothetical, is to me the danger of the BSD license.
Actually, Richard and Stig are both right, according to their own definitions of "freedom". But at least one of these definitions is wrong.
Stig feels that this particular freedom is "freedom from restrictions". Even though free software licenses all have restrictions to some degree or another, they all have this in common: a level of restrictiveness that is several orders of magnitude lower than that of proprietary licenses. The kinds of restrictions on these licenses are analogous to "you can use my swimming pool with the restriction that you must bathe first".
Richard believes this particular freedom to be "freedom from domination". Freedom from domination, coercion and violence is a very good thing to be for. But who exactly is dominating me when I use proprietary software? No one. I can use Solaris anytime I want of my own choice, and likewise discontinue its use by my own choice at any time. Sun (as an example) does not dominate me when I use Solaris. Would Sun ever attempt to do so I would immediately discontinue its use. Richard Stallman apparently feels that not having full access to someone else's source code it "domination". This is a gross misdefinition. Sure, it may be inconvenient, but keeping control over one's own source code is hardly coercive.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Isn't Webster's generally considered to be a somewhat definitive reference on the definitions of english words?
For most of the english speaking world (ie non North American ) the Oxford English Dictionary is considered the definitive text. American dictionaries are actually quite well known for being tied to archaic definitions, probably due to the isolationist history of the US.
.sig
If software Entrepeneurs are restricted by the GPL, then how does RedHat exist?
If I want to package a bunch of GPL software onto a CD and sell that CD, then that's legal, isn't it? (as long as I include the source) And, if I want to write my own proprietary software using GPLd code, then I'm basically stealing. No different from running a warez site. So, I don't see a problem there. Heck, I plan on making some money with an Idea I have involving free code.
--Me
wales001@my.bomis.com
If your work requires linkage to GPL code to work, then your work is a derivative work from that code, and if your release it, you must do so under GPL.
If your work does not require any GPL code to work, then it is a work independent from any GPL code. Even then, your program might be able to (optionally) make use of GPL code, if it's licensing terms are such that they are not incompatile with the GPL. That is, your program could then be linked with GPL code. You would have to distribute the combination under the terms of the GPL, but anything that does not require GPL may be distributed on its own without complying with these terms.
And there actually is some software like this. Case in point: the Python intepreter. Python has a very liberal license, which allows you to make proprietary modifications to it if you wish. Yet you can build Python with GNU Readline support if you so wish. What you can't do is make a proprietary version of Python linked to Readline. Any time you link Python to Readline, and distribute the resulting binary, you are bound by the GPL. Yet you can always distribute Python without Readline.
This seems to say that when using a large amount(how much?) of code you must either remove the GPL code(probably rendering the program useless) or release it GPL'd. This contradicts his claim that he cannot force you to use the GPL if he uses some GPL code in his own program.
Not true, since there is a third option: do not release. And a fourth option: do not use GPL code in your programs. You know, when you get a GPL program, you get the license terms along with it. You should read them and agree to abide by them before you use the code. (This is not to mean that you should not USE a GPL program unless you agree with the terms; the GPL explicitly states that there are no restrictions on merely running the program or its output, unless the output is a derivative work from the program. It means that you only are allowed to distribute GPL code if you abide by the terms of the GPL.)
Basing your work on GPL code is a voluntary act, so there is zero coercion involved here.
---
RMS is rigt on when he talks about the purpose of the Constitution's provision for the enrichment of authors and inventors. The point is to enrich the public by enriching the inventors -- using money as an inducement to create. The public's good s the important thing. If Disney doesn't have the right to make bucks off Mickey anymore, tough luck.
Switch the . and the @ to email me.
I never really understood how the BSD style license minus the advertising clause is really any different from public domain, is the disclaimer of responsibility really necessary (in other words can you be sued for software you release into the public domain?)
Bradley
Sorry, I'm a vegetarian. Chicken is one of the healthier white meats though. Oh..., you meant penis, not chicken. Well, if you ever pull it out of your mother's ass, someone might take you up on that offer (I am referring to your penis, not your chicken).
Technically, you are right in this. However, there is a fundamental RMS point you are overlooking. He has explicitly said in the past that he does not believe anyone should have that power over software users, and that the GNU project uses it only to protect the rights he believes software users should have. That is, to protect those rights from the institutionalized power to deny them.
In a world where no one has power to make software proprietary, no need would exist for a copyleft.
---
Umm, would it be so horrible if MS did use Linux code? Maybe it would improve their products. If a company is dead set on closed source, the GPL isn't going to change its mind. They will simply implement a (probably inferior) copy of the open source product. One of the BSD advocates main arugments is that good code should be shared and used, even in proprietary products, as it improves software for everyone. The BSD people are not nearly so open vs. closed software. They simply see open source as a way to get good software.
We are the priests
of the temples of RMS (pronounces Re-miss)
our great computers
run Linux and GNU
we are the priests
of the temples of RMS
so hold the Pengiun proudly high in hand
As a commentary note, RMS does a good job of again, getting the revolutionary fires going in your sould by making it SOUND good...ah, on the rush theme...i now hear "Bastille Day"...
See them reboot
as we would reboot
when they would code their lies
(PS lame i know, but i never got any brownie points for be 31337)
However, and I think that this is a fear which is always in RMS's mind: BSD's software can be moved from open to closed source by such entrepreneurs, who profit from the freely available work of other people - it's the apex of freeloading.
Of course it can, that was the origional intent. Bill Joy wanted the code to be available for both closed and open source use. That is not free loading, because to compete the entrepreneur must add value. Adding value means he will make money rather than people getting the free version, so he must do it. Look at Sendmail and Apache, both extremely successful BSD applications. Both have closed source versions that add value.
This claim of freeloading that will destroy the open source version is pure FUD. FreeBSD was attacked numerously on the basis that they would go closed source and exploit they're users, or whatever. The code is always available under the BSDL, but also under other licenses.
This "freeloading" means corperations can spend their time on other aspects of the system, they can reuse code. The GPL allows reuse at its terms, BSD does not. Reuse is the greatest reason for open source! That means developement is cut, bugs are reduced, technology evolves faster, better. BSD does this, the GPL kinda does this. The BSD networking code is used by Linux, Microsoft, and others. Would it be better if neither were able to use it, or just one? Microsoft has a system that already is buggy enough.. yet you would rather they didn't use BSD code, create code that's not proven to be stable and efficent, and spend programming time on that.. not fixing other bugs?
The fear of freeloading is only in the GPL world, because the BSDL embraces it. By code and technological reuse, we evolve. We have for centuries, such as look at all the uses of the steam engine, the tweaks, and the evolution to other engines? If we forced it closed it would have been painful to evolve, and if we force it open it would reduce the incentive of evolution, yet evolution would accure, albiet slower. That is the difference.
Now, there are other issues in freedom, but when you talk about "freeloading," that is only a term relevent in the GPL.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Stallman says that "Your freedom to swing your arms ends at the tip of my nose" -- that's basically what the GPL does. It gives programmers the ability to swing their arms as far as they want, as long as they aren't hitting other people's noses (read: refusing to disclose their source).
But that's not really freedom in the traditional sense, is it? No, in the traditional sense, the BSD license is really much more "free" than the GPL (I don't want to get into a "which is better" argument though).
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
I wonder what other word he thinks I should use. Most languages have a common adjective for free-as-in-freedom which does not also refer to price, but English has none. Various alternatives have been suggested, but they all have problems of their own.
Sure, the phrase 'open source' has taken off with the mainstream press, but it certainly doesn't embody the purpose of the FSF. So, Stallman has clung to the term 'free software', simply because noone has been able to come up with a good replacement. I supose something like libertatious software would work...but that's pretty nasty : )
I've never understood why people come out against the GPL or free software. If you don't like the GPL's terms don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to. If you want to write a commercial software product and sell it and make money, fine, nobody will stop you. If you want to join the free software movement, that's fine too, you're allowed. If you want to take some GPLed software and try to make a million bucks off of it, go ahead. But remember that you didn't write the code, so you have to follow the rules of the person who did, so you'd better stick to the GPL.
-Lokar "Saddle me up and ride me into the future"
Actually I meant to type ESR.. It doesn't make much sense to say RMS is a better speaker than RMS now does it.. you still understood what I was trying to say.
And yes, I am completely aware of what each of them has written and said, as I've read most of their essay's, articles, and manifestos.
-= Making the world a better place =-
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
A dictionary definition of freedom will never tell you all there is to freedom. Who has used the term? What did they mean to use it? Have different people used it in different, or even uncompatible ways? (When a socialist and a libertarian say freedom, they definitely do no mean the same thing by using the same word.) How has its meaning changed across the years?
Since for a good deal many words different people use in different ways at different moments, and since no dictionary definition can be inmensely long, compiling a dictionary becomes much a work of choice and compromise.
---
Sigh. I must have said this like in 4 posts by now. Let me quote the GPL:
Thus, option #4: Make sure your program can be used without linking to any GPL code ("not a derivative work" of GPL code). Then you can distribute versions not linked to any GPL code under any license you choose. Any version that links the GPL code will have to be distributed under GPL.
The Python interpreter, which is not GPL, has a compile-time option to build a binary linked to Readline, which is a GPLed library. Since this is an option, and Python itself can work without using Readline (i.e. it is an independent work), this does not affect the distribution of the Python source by itself, or binaries of that source that don't link any GPL code. However, if you compile a Python with Readline support, you can only give out that binary under the terms of the GPL.
Python itself has a quite liberal license; you can modify Python itself and make it proprietary. But however, you are prevented from simultaneously doing this and linking the proprietary binary to Readline.
You are free to use GPL code in other free software, be it GPL or non-GPL. What you are prevented from doing is releasing software that NEEDS third-party GPL code as non-GPL.
---
You are ignoring the main idea behind the copyleft. From RMS's Pragmatic Idealism essay:
The idea of copyleft is to use software copyrights, which RMS believes should no exist, both as a defensive measure against the efforts of free sowftare authors being exploited by non-cooperators, and to build a collaboratory community of people who create free software.
While it is true that copyleft is a form of copyright, and thus an use of power, this power is used as a means to abolish itself; it is a self-subverting use of power. The world the FSF wants us to live in is one in which this power does not exist. Since the GPL is a means to that end, and not an end in itself, it is about freedom, not power.
---
finally somebody with a clue! :) everybody should read this post and stop arguing about freedom. gpl vs bsd is just personal freedom vs societal freedom. your example of free speech is a great one. obviously it would be great if we could yell "Fire" or say or do anything we want to at anytime, but we must be pragmatic about freedom. an individual's rights don't protect him if she is harming other people.
damn it.. forgot the / on the close bold bracket.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
In my eight years as a professional coder, I've found that a geek in a tie is almost always the international symbol for "ghod help me, I need to impress some dimwit I suspect is so shallow they must think ties are important." I treasure going to work in jeans and a concert tee, because I know I'm among peers capable of seeing the value of my work.
And of course, knowing what the proper question to ask is a sign of intelligence. Too bad you're asking the wrong questions.
Stallman should have stopped at writing code and left the license alone. He has managed to segregate the open source community by GNU/Linux vs Linux GPL vs BSD, etc.
He's a good programmer, has some good idea's -- but I mean.. c'mon -- As he put it in his article the freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose
Same thing with giving me,the author, credit for an application I wrote. That's my right, my freedom -- I'm not imposing on anybody to do anything other than not violate my freedom
And the GPL is not the minimum sets of restrictiosn to guarantee practical freedom. It's an oxymoron itself -- practical freedom? I'm waiting for the gov't to coin that term on it's next round of anti-crypto bill.
Stallman is a programmer IMHO -- RMS (author of fetchmail.. yay 3k lines of perl code) is a much better speaker as well. All this license crap is too beaurocratic, Stallman is turning it into the evil he was trying to fight
-= Making the world a better place =-
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I don't think that I claimed that freeloading would destroy an open version (after all, you can always use the older version), however, by implementing an advanced version in closed-source form, you penalize people who wish to retain access to source.
I should have been more specific during my ramble - you can't remove the original code from circulation, but you can make the original code less relevant (and tending to irrelevance) by releasing closed source versions.
Citing sendmail as an example of successful BSD licensing producing a value-added product is rather disingenuous, since the value-added closed source version of Sendmail is quite a recent innovation. Sendmail grew in popularity when the main development stayed open, and seems to presently be on the wane.
Do take it in context, btw. At the moment that RMS created the GPL, the MIT Lab for Computer Science and MIT Media Lab was being quite literally plundered by DEC, by Symbolics, by Thinking Machines and many others, all of whom took many developers and their accumulated knowledge without offering anything to the academic community in return. Freeloading both code and people is a threat in this situation.
More to the point, allowing freeloading offers no benefit to the available code base, because changes are not returned to it. You can do the same with a GPL'ed work by not releasing or selling it to the public, of course.
This, as you assert, might have been Bill Joy's intention, to allow freeloading. I believe you when you say it was. However, the concept is just as relevant for BSD'ed applications as for GPL'ed; they're just as dependent, for the most part, on collective development.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
RMS = Richard Stallman. Who, btw , didn't write fetchmail. ESR wrote fetchmail. Stallman wrote GCC, Emacs, and others.
Please, if you are going to argue, at least get your facts straight first.
And don't forget, BSD people are quite proud that Microsoft uses BSD code. Proves the point entirely.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
Only one of those things is immoral, so it's OK to only be upset by one.
Take that following case study:
Caldera Systems, Inc... when they choose to redistribute a commerical package they contact the authoring company and assign the company a contact for handling redistribution terms. If the company feels their license is being violated then the company merely has to get in touch with their contact with Caldera to get the situation corrected. For the GPL author it is very different. Caldera does not appear to actually take the GPL or the author of a package under GPL as a serious *license*. If they did then they would not be distributed OpenLinux CDs at trade shows without the source code or a written offer for obtaining the source code. When Caldera is emailed about this they ignore the email. When Caldera is called via phone on this they ignore the call since it wasn't made to the author's Caldera redistributor contact. When called via phone requesting a Caldera contact be assigned to the author, they ignore that request too. And this is from a company that claims to be "friendly" to the Linux community. If even Caldera feels free to blow off redistribution requirements at trade shows then who else is going to equally consider GPL a joke?
RMS states that "protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them. Remember, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose." O.k. I agree with what RMS says--but talk is cheap. Where is the information on actually *protecting* at FSF? Was explaining how to add the GPL document to a software package enough in the Caldera case? Where is the information on *enforcing* GPL?!
If the GPL defines the boundaries of the nose then Caldera fist definately smashed right through and the GPL nose is broken. What is the FSF providing on how to approbately react to the bloody mess left of GPL requirements? Caldera has been contacted but they don't care. They won't even talk to a GPL author since they refuse to supply a contact to even talk too. Does the FSF care? The majority of FSF packages where redistributed without source code or offer of source code at trade shows! What does the FSF do? Nothing.
So, what should other GPL authors who's "noses" got smashed by Caldera do? Easy, get a smaller nose that Caldera's fist will stop at. The BSD license defines a smaller nose with no pretense of offering additional freedoms which aren't actually going to be enforced. The additional fluff that the GPL provides beyond the wording of the BSD license is just meaningless talk, much like the majority of RMS' most recent article.
---- "Free Software movement is idealistic but very 'effective'" (in a different world where licenses don't have to be enforced). Earth calling OpenSource authors--BSD license is written for people living in reality!
> I am not so much twisting Stallman's words but untwisting them. The man really needs to buy a dictionary.
Ya shure, you betcha.
You didn't read the part about "needing to restrict freedom to ensure freedom?" Like, your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose?
The developers of GPLed software are only saying that you are not allowed to make the software un-free. Other than that, have a good time.
But proprietary software says that you can't re-distribute, modify, or really do anything. If you had a lawyer read the EULA from most proprietary software packages, he would probably be able to prove that you aren't even entitled to use the software.
Where are you coming from? Are you a BSD type, or do you believe that the current state of the proprietary software is hunky dory?
copyright only covers significant works. "i++" is not significant because of previous judicial precedent.
The word Geek implies a person who bites the heads off of chickens, as in a Circus Geek. It has other negative connotations, which will not fade completely, no matter how we abuse the English language. Why not think of a better term? You yourself said you don't like the term Geek. Is that because it has negative connotations? I'm just now learning how alot of
As we all are well aware of, proprietary software is a crime against humanity.
Not all of us are "well aware" that proprietary software is a crime against humanity. GPL'd and other software following open source liscenses are great, and are better than proprietary software because of the peer-review process and a whole host of other reasons.... but prorietary software, albiet in some ways inferior, is not a crime against humanity.
If I can't afford Photoshop (and I can't. I'm not a rich-extorting professional. The union checkers at the super market probably earn more than me.) I'll use GIMP. Nobody, as said in other posts, forces me to use proprietary software. (Some would argue that MSoft does force us in some manner, but thats another discussion(?)) Calling proprietary software a crime against humanity may feel like a slap on the face to those who have experienced some form of true crimes against humanity, such as genocide.
On a side note, on all my posts people seem to comment on the side notes of my comments for some reason. Oh well.
BSD's software can be moved from open to closed source by such entrepreneurs, who profit from the freely available work of other people - it's the apex of freeloading.
Will you please stop this FUD. You can not move BSDL software from open to closed source. If I were to start distobuting the closed source SuperBSD and charge $10.000 for it, I couldn't remove FreeBSD from the face of the earth.
Those are terribly flimsy and self-referential definitions. Try proprietary used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right proprietor one who has the legal right or exclusive title to something : OWNER
which describe the very powers the GPL exists to stop. GPL'd software does not and can never have an owner with exclusive powers (though the combined authors have the right to release a non-GPL'd version which would), and I see no other way to invest in a Free work that wouldn't also subsidize proprietary works.
Aargh! Slash eats !
The FSF does not believe ownership of software ought to be possible. But they know perfectly well it currently is, so they take legal action currently available to at least make sure the software they contribute to cannot be owned.
I noticed that RMS made some pokes back at the accusations that are often leveled against him - an off the cuff comment about Marxism and so on.
Results are results! RMS wants you to follow his philosophy, but you don't have to agree with the underlying foundations. Consider the fact that in the supreme court when all the justices vote the same way on a case, there could still be more than one opinion written, because sometimes people agree on things *for differnet reasons*.
I'm guessing that probably the majority of us GNU freaks, (of which I am proud to call myself one although I do not claim to speak for everyone) would say to most "doubters" *Use the software*. If you like it, patronize it in whatever way you think is appropriate. If you don't like it, then feel FREE to go your own way.
MDA
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
moderate the parent past up :) that's 2 votes for moderating up
defending everyone's freedom BUT the freedom of developers to charge for the work they have undertaken
That is untrue -- if I (or a group of people) have developed something and released it under the GPL, I (or the group) can decide to release it under any other license I please, or use it in a proprietary way.
What the GNU license *does* prevent is me releasing source, incorporating a bunch of other developer's patches, and then go off and use it in a propriatary way without getting their permission first.
Actually, the GPL states in Section 0:
This seems to imply that if I copy any of the Emacs code, then the programme I write must be GPLed. Actually, I don't see any of this as a problem, except perhaps to commercial software developers. I like the idea that people can't take some GPLed code and reuse it in proprietary systems.
A final note: how can someone tell if GPLed code is being used in proprietary (i.e., closed-source) software, considering that commercial software doesn't come with any source to look at?
You mean not everything reduces to economics...?
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Since the community can afford to pool their resources and make extensive changes while any one customer cannot, without the right to redistribute the right to modify is just about useless.
Why is there this pathological need to charge for copies of the work, when the labor that went into producing the work is what's really scarce and needs to be compensated?
Isn't Webster's generally considered to be a somewhat definitive reference on the definitions of english words?
just because you dont think the definition is logically consistent doesnt mean its a bad definition. free means what free means, not what you'd like it to mean.
Please? The GNU extensions has made my hair gray. I realize now that GNU doesn't like standards.
E & E.
The real problem here is that labor and bandwidth are scarce but information itself isn't, so stupid things happen when you pretend it is.
When you release something GPL, it is because
you want the software to be open and free for
the community forever. You DON'T want some
big softwarehouse taking the code, modifiying it,
publishing their own proprietary system,
never giving anything back to the community.
If you wanted the software to be able to become
proprietary, you would have chosen a different
license in the first place.
This means.. if developers complain about their
lack of rights to just copy all of your code,
and keep it proprietary, they should look at themselves, and think about what they are complaining about:
"My neighbour is being such an ass about his
new revolutionary open and free cold fusion technology. He won't let me steal it and
lock it up."
If developers don't want to create GPL-code,
they shouldn't use GPL-code. GPL-code was created
for everyone to use, profit from and develop,
as long as the community got something back
(new, better code).
It wasn't created to make developers rich.
"Oh look at all that code I can just call my own,
make proprietary and save me a lot of work". Is
not the responce the people that creates free software is looking for.
I'm not saying that the GPL is something for everything and everyone, far from it.
I'm not against developing GPL software myself,
but right now I feel that doesn't suit me.
But..this also means that I shouldn't go looking
for help from GPL-software. I have to respect
the wishes of the creators.
The GPL is not the General Public Virus. It has no
viral effect whatsoever, if you just keep the _point_ behind the GPL in mind.
"But I can't make my own closedsource version
derived from it". NO! That is the point of the
GPL. It was created with this in mind, now
accept it, or don't use it.
The GPL is criticised because it can `infect' a project when you include GPL'd code into said project. I really don't see that as the problem that it's made out to be, when compared to propriatary software--if anyone says that proprietary pieces of code don't impose rules of use onto a project that they're included in, then they can only say that because the proprietary pieces of code can't be included into any projects that they'd `infect' (at least, not legally;)). If a developer wants to use proprietary code with permission of the author, under a license, then that author can definitely control the under what conditions the code is included.
Can anyone give an example of proprietary software that can be used `non-infectiously'?
-rozzin.
If anyone is free to modify and redistribute the code, obviously anyone is free to hire someone skilled to do it on their behalf, or pool their money and do so as a group. With closed source, I have to convince and pay the vendor (probably at a highly inflated rate) to make changes or do without them.
As I've noted previously, I do not object to the purpose, existance, nor use of the GNU GPL. I find the document to be well written. However, I find Stallman arguments as being contradictory today as they were 15 years ago. I would have though by now that Stallman would have reworded his argument using more clear and consise language so as to be a better advocate for his cause/stand.
And your contribution has been?
More than you'll ever realize...
/ramble ON/
:)
/ramble OFF/
Interesting dilemma: we need laws (restrictions) "to protect" our freedoms.
RMS suggests calls "protection" a propoganda term which views the situation from the point of view of the person or company that owns the monopoly, rather than the millions of others who are restricted by it. Yet he quite effectively protects software freedoms, and wields his GPL as a powerful tool to enforce such protections. Millions of users are affected by his powerful copylefts. Billions will be within a decade. (It's probably a very good thing, but it's a complex thing.. it's a juicy dilemma:)
He suggests we avoid the words "intellectual property" because they fail to distinguish between copyright and patent law. IMO, patent and copyright law are quite similar in that both legalize an artificial scarcity. Temporary monopolies granted by such laws intend to motivate "advancement of the useful arts" by permitting "owners" of such monopolies restrict uses thereof, as in the case of copyright owners "licensing" use of code.
"Copyleft" may advance useful arts much faster by requiring the act of sharing, and thus restricts the reinvention of wheels. If you look at Linux growth, you could might even call the GPL a powerful capitalist tool. It frees trade
Oops! Call it "GNU/Linux" growth..
Trademark Law, OTOH, is a different animal. It doesn't legalize fictional scarcity, rather it identifies a badge or brand or reputation. It helps to give credit where credit is due, supports fair attribution, and grows increasingly valuable as info gluts in growing abundance. Trademarks are a foundation for Trust, the most powerful free trade tool of all.
A weakness of the GPL may be that it doesn't provide for fair attribution. (See Linux vs GNU/Linux) How to work around it without "obnoxious advertising"? [vague idea: maybe attribution can be cross-licensed or accountably arranged between subdomains under root URLs..]Who knows?
"Property"? Outdated word. Ideas aren't things, they're actions. Trade is more about relationships than ownership. Partnership more than domination. What's a good replacement name for "Intellectual Property" Laws? Who knows? Idea Law? Trust Law? "Ethics"? "Accountability"?
In the end, IMO, disclosure, accountability and reputation management will be the most free and powerful means to inhibit parasitic free-riders in the trade of ideas.
Point taken. I insist that people show me the same respect as a potential asset as I showed them. I demand (strong word) that I not be relegated to the position of operating with sub-standard software due to restrictions on the source code. I utterly deride the implication that, by supplying me with the source code to a purchased application, I will automatically prove to be some form of liability instead of an asset.
I refuse (more strong words) to be insulted (woah) by the statement that because of my position as a customer I am somehow less capable of helping to improve the solution of the problem which the software addresses, and I insist that should you give me the respect implied by utilising my software within your solution that you indicate this by helping me help you and all your customers (who by proxy, due to the use of my software are customers of mine) to create a better product.
The only licence available that demands all these things is the GPL.
You can't win a fight.
That depends entirely on which individual you are. You can either mandate that licensees A, B, and C shall have the same rights, or give A more rights, including the power to withhold those rights from B and C. In my view, the GPL is a small limit that forbids nothing except bigger limits, and thus offers more freedom on the whole.
what's wrong with him saying that if you are using Linux you are most likely using GNU? it's true. why set up a Linux is not X/BSD/PD/Artistic/GNU/Linux page when nobody claimed that Linux is all those things? all he said was that Linux is a kernel. what's wrong with that? Linux is a kernel. he doesn't even make an attempt to advocate calling the OS Gnu/Linux, he just calls it Gnu/Linux himself. why does it bother you so much that he calls it Gnu/Linux? i'm not particularly bothered by it, or the fact that you call it Linux. i hope you don't mind that i call it MagicFruit12BounceSock and i encourage everybody else to do so also! i do agree that the ESR thing seemed out of place contextually. it's not a cheap shot unless you are narrow-minded enough to consider Marxian a derogatory term. however, it was probably intended to tick ESR off :) which it will no doubt do, and lead to more soap-opera like public quarreling.
The GPL may well be restrictive in some ways. but it does what is fundamentally the right thing in most cases. The code is there to use and, perhaps more importantly, to learn from. The license also adds value to the software by allowing modifications where necessary or desired.
I believe people are missing the point when they complain about its restrictions on using the code to make something non-free/closed source. The GPL was not designed for this purpose, it simply provides safeguards for the author and the end user. However, the author (as the copyleft holder) has complete freedom to release their code under another license if they wish. They could release their code under another license as a special case if the need arises. This is often done with the Artistic license for example.
Perhaps more interesting, the author could decide to sell a differently licensed copy of the source code. This could be done to allow the code to be included in commercial software where the GPL would normally prevent its use. The original authur benefits by having the freedom to choose how _closed_ source projects use their code, yet the code is still completely free for end users and developers who choose to release their projects under GPL. The author could provide the alternate licenses to closed source projects for free if they so desired. Their intentions remain intact regardless, and when new situations arise they can be dealt with on a per-case basis.
In the end, the GPL is not a virus. It is a powerful document which provides insurance for programmers who wish their code to remain free in the GPL'ed form. It allows the software to grow by encouraging free development, yet maintains ultimate control over aspects where the author's interests might be compromised. As one person has already noted, its reatrictions are very reasonable when compared to those found in most commercial licenses.
GPL: Free as in will
If your rights are being messed with by laws, then you ignore the laws. It doesn't matter if this is your right to life, or your right to freedom of action --- if the law is bullshit, it is your *responsibility* to protest it, and ignoring it is a form of protest.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
Reverse-engineering the GNU Public Virus.
It's odd, really; in other areas of endeavour, people seem to understand perfectly well that fighting for freedom is all about trying to stop people from taking away that freedom.
--
Xenu loves you!
I don't think your arguments are valid. While Stallman's main
principles may be debatable, he does seem to consistently follow his
principles.
One problem is that you seem to be confusing an individuals freedom
with societies freedom. It's perfectly reasonable to restrict what an
individual does, if those actions will trample on the rights of a
large amount of society. The purpose of the GPL isn't to increase an
individuals freedoms when using software; the GPL is a pragmatic tool
to increase societies freedom when using software. For example, if I
allow a commercial developer to use my code, I will allow my code to
be used to restrict the rights of all the people who buy that
software. Stallman wants free software in society, and the GPL is his
tool to get it.
This isn't an uncommon occurrence when protecting rights. For a
stranger example look at Democracy. Is it possible for the people in
a Democracy to vote out of the Democracy? I would claim that the very
nature of a Democracy guarantees certain laws and rights. One such
law is that you can't abolish the Democracy.
As to your complaint against using the word free, Stallman argues that
he just took a word that has a meaning that is closest to the desired
meaning. Either you show there is something intrinsicly wrong with
this procedure (which is what open source does on pragmatic grounds)
or you satisfy the procedure with a better word. To claim that the
common use of the word freedom (as in speech) is not perfect is not an
argument. The common use of words is not rigorously defined and will
never be the same as a more technically defined word. I feel it's
perfectly reasonable to give a new technical definition for a related
common word, as long as you stick to the new definition of the word
and don't equivocate. It's done in science all the time. What I
don't think is honest is, when told the new definition, to argue
against the idea by using equivocation with it's other meanings.
Stallman is the one who is being consistent. Others are dishonest.
Chris Mesterharm
Chris Mesterharm
There are in fact 4 things the user of my GPL'd software can do:
1) release their software under the GPL
2) remove the GPL'd code
3) not release the software
4) Pay me $150,000 so that I release my GPL'd software under a different parallel license that they can use.
Option 4 is allowed under the GPL! The "General Public Virus" whiners want to eliminate this option: they want to deprive me of my rights to make money or do what I want with my code! They want to remove the very rights they pretend to "defend".
PS: I in fact write LGPL library software. The biggest problem with a GPL library is that if there is a proprietary (and probably Windoze-specific) equivalent library, commercial software will use it and probably just say "we can't port to Linux". End-user software should be GPL if possible.
I come from San Francisco. Draw your own conclusions.
Guess I'm of the type that likes clear and consise arguments. It quite obvious to me that Stallman arguments would be much powerful if he utilized the language in a manner consistent with common usage.
>Interesting to see RMS sound almost libertarian there at the end while calling ESR a Marxist!
Does anyone picture RMS and ESR sitting in an room reading the Slashdot comments their articles generate, and then start laughing themselves sick......
Two little points: I think it's important to realize that all of the open source/GPL stuff really only applies to a small minority of computer users (and continually shrinking in percentages) My mom isn't going to care one way or the other whether she gets the source code, she will care whether it works. As a programmer I LOVE to see the source code. To me freedom is, I decide to write a program, I write it, I release it however I want (Closed source, Open Source, GPL'd, BSD, etc). Ideally this would not conflict in any manner with previous licenses regardless of where in a dependancy tree my program ends up. Freedom comes not from how we distribute things but from how we are allowed to USE things. Freedom as GPL would like to have it is a contradiction in terms. Governed freedom is a MUCH more appropriate term. Freedom fudementally means chaos. It is the process of governing and restricting rights (and freedoms) that results in society or a license. Open Source at least seems to be an honest statement. If GPL were FREE software I would be FREE to do whatever I want however I wanted whenever I wanted and with whomever I wanted. That license is currently called public domain. The text for that license follows:
It is not freedom from domination it is the freedom to ask for a recirocial good treatment. In his licence Stalman does not keep you from buying Solaris, does he... You are only asked to return something in exchange for what you took. Works well, makes sense and if you don't like it -stick with Solaris. The distinction between freedom and power was so succintly made only to show that while GPL does not give you much power over other people it also does not restrict your own freedom.
Your assertion is interesting but untrue. Coders who release under GPL always retain the option of releasing under another parallel license, but this is neither unique to GPL, nor prevented in any other "open source" license.
What us "General Public Virus" whiners want RMS and his acolytes to stop denying is the simple fact that the GPL does infect code it is used in. Stop using ad hominym, subterfuge, or misdirection, and call the spade a spade.
RMS used the phrase "Strictly speaking" to qualify a lie, to give himself plausable deniability when deflecting the core criticism of GPL by making a highly misleading and untrue statement.
Us "General Public Virus" whiners merely want the truth to remain the truth, free beer or no free beer. I've used the LGPL too, by the way, its a great license. But GPL has implications far beyond sharing code, and this must be kept clear. Altrustic phrases and hand waving do not change the legal implications of the GPL.
Clearly no one uses these either :P It is funny that 5 out of 6 projects you mentioned are owned by the FSF tho.
giving someone several options means nothing about freedom. this is so obvious that i won't bother to construct you an analogy. it is patently obvious that the GPL removes a very important freedom that, say, the BSD does not.
you may try to (as RMS does) argue that the clause is actually protecting the freedom of the code. please examine this argument. from what are you protecting your code? from people who want to use it in proprietary products, right? what kind of threat is this? what exactly have you lost if MS uses your TCP/IP stack in windows and, *gasp* dosen't release windows under GPL? is anyone less free to use your code if they do?
cheers,
sh_
Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
The point is that we want to encourage others to share their code. If we use something like a BSD license, they can make modifications and keep them closed source. If we use the GPL license, and somebody makes modifications, we get to see them. If a GPL'd app is sufficiently innovative and unique, it can pressure others to open up code that they would otherwise not open. This is a Good Thing(tm).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
The BSD networking code is used by Linux, Microsoft, and others.
Actually, the BSD TCP/IP stack is used as the reference for almost every OS out there. Linux is one of the few exceptions, and as a consequence Linux has a non-standard stack with bugs not present in almost any other implementation.
I've seen "Geeks" (capital G) do wicked, dishonest, crappy, slipshod work before too. The public also saw "geeks" shooting up Columbine. This doesn't make the term any less valid.
I believe the point that the original poster was making, is that not everyone who is technically competent, or even excellent, is a "geek". Perhaps the word "professional" has better conotations? Both words carry a certain notional definition with it. That is all they are, notions...
Each of these comments from our colleagues make a similar point: I'll call it the Spock princple. The good of the many is more important than the good of the few, or the one. Perhaps this is a viable and important social principle. However, this view is antithetical to the notion of freedom, at least in the sense of libre liberty.
The Spock principle, as enforced by another, is not consistent with liberty, at least not in the Enlightenment or Jeffersonian sense that the term "liberty" is understood. Our United States Bill of Rights focuses PRECISELY on protecting the rights of the individual AGAINST a claim of the greater good by a majority (or an individual). This is because, at least here in the USA, we address freedom of an individual. The good of the many cannot ordinarily subvert the good of the few, or the one.
I do not suggest that a communitarian evaluation of social policy is wrong-headed, or that legislating constraints on some freedoms is contrary to the American Way. The Bill of Rights if focused on only a few of the most important individual liberties, leaving society a broad range to limit individuals for the benefit of the Spock principle.
But to abandon that status of liberty on the Spock principle is to abandon the status of Freedom. Stallmans is a "balancing" of freedoms, not a true claim to liberty in itself. This is a different principle. The fact that words such as "pragmatism" or "Machiavellianism" have neutral or negative connotations among we tech-heads, as opposed to "freedom and liberty," is not a reason to refrain from calling a spade a spade. To say that Mr. Stallman's principles described in his response to Stig are focused on an absolute sense of freedom is to apply a logic that defies gravity.
What I am saying is that it is pabulum to speak in freedom language ("that is a Yang word!") by stating that it is OK to constrain liberties of some person for the benefit of another. To use GPL is to concede that Copyright is not an absolute evil, and further that imposing limitations on the freedoms of one group in favor of broadening the privileges of another, for the reasons set forth in my original posting.
This is pragmatic, not libertarian, reasoning.
Stallman's use of Copyright in GPL is absolutely and undeniably (indeed, using his own definitions of power, freedom and GPL) an exercise of a power to limit the freedoms of another. Some suggest that he is a benevolent despot in so doing, and they may well be right.
I have fought a few first amendment battles in the courts and the legislature. I can assure you that EVERY censor makes almost precisely the same Spockian argument. "I am preserving freedoms for the greater good by making only minor impositions on the freedoms of a few." As recently as the Loudon County library censorship case, the library took the position that filtering software preserves the "freedoms" of individuals to use the library without having pornography surrounding them. This is a very, very slippery slope.
But to evade Stig's most reasonable arguments that the particular exercise of power of the fredom of another may not be striking the right balance by quibbling over which redefinition of the word "free" is the official redefinition, well that's just newspeak.
Having conceded that it is OK to "trample" the rights of "the few, or the one" for the benefit of "the many," we have abandoned an absolute sense of right and wrong for a more Machiavellian, totality of the circumstances balancing.
To that end, Stig has it exactly right as to which questions should be asked. As to who has it right as to what balance should be struck, well, that issue simply has yet to be joined.
And this is a shame. So long as the "true believers" insist on finessing the very question with mantras, we will never get to the truth.
The truth-seekers among us should grow impatient with the pabulum. It is time to answer Stig's points on the merits, and not with the raising of nice-sounding principle words, like "freedom," when we ourselves are willing to abandon freedom just as soon as we see a way to rationalize it using a Spock argument.
We do not support GPL on the principle of an absolute appreciation of freedom, but on the thesis that GPL limit of the freedoms of some provides a greater net balance of the greater good. While the mantra of "free software" sounds great and makes us feel good, it is philosphically unsupportable on libertarian grounds, depending more upon a Machiavellian attitude that the end justifies the means.
I stand by my thesis: Sophistry, even by RMS, is bad for the movement.
P.S.: A number of the respondants raised the very objections anticipated in my original reply. I will stand by the answers set forth there.
I could inject some philosophical stuff here, but I'm going to be alittle more simple - So what? Even if RMS is a communist with an attitude and wants to see all software licensed under the GPL.. does it matter? I'm looking at the whole picture here and I see alot of quality software being made, used, reused, and distributed. I don't know what you call it - but I call those results.
--
Greetings,
For once, I pretty much wholeheartedly agree with Stallman. I won't always use the GPL, because I don't always want my code restricted like that, or because I want to work with others who don't (like X, BSD, etc.), but I KNOW what it's there for, and I know WHY it's there, and I agree with it's fundamental purpose.
My only nit would be his referring to ESR's conception of free software being driven by economic good as 'almost Marxian'. He's right, in a particular sense, that the idea that 'the right thing' (as argued by Marx, altough certainly not by me or by ESR or Stallman) will be done because 'it makes economic sense, in the end'. However Stallman also (clearly) knows the power of words and proximity, and he knows ESR will probably be incensed by the implied (but certainly untrue) rest of the comparison. That seemed unnecessary to me, especially as Stallman has been an equal victim of the same word-association games in the past.
The original article was a piece of trash, though. This once I think RMS hit dead on, otherwise.
Cyberfox!
why set up a Linux is not X/BSD/PD/Artistic/GNU/Linux page when nobody claimed that Linux is all those things? all he said was that Linux is a kernel
Go read the document. He's not saying "since we can call it anything why not add GNU in." That would be damn near reasonable. He says "you're running a modified version of the GNU system."
This is doublespeak worthy of Ed Muth, not RMS. There never was a GNU system, and this statement discounts the many large chunks of your average Linux distribution that are not derived from GNU's attempts to create a system (e.g. X, wu-ftpd, tcsh, ftp, rlogin, inn, nvi, vim, etc, etc, etc). If we discount "GNU homages" like GNOME, which are not actually part of the GNU effort, but use the name, very little of your average distribution is GNU. There's the compiler, basic C library, EMACS and a slew of utilities. That's really about it. Wonderful contributions, all, and I respect them. Before RMS started on this rant, I was happily pointing out the importance of GNU to Linux, but now I downplay it because this territorial attitude really turns me off.
I've never been able to think of a reasonable justification for calling Linux GNU/Linux. The only reasonable way to modify what we call it to properly attribute the external efforts that have helped Linux get started would be to call it some silly, long string of names that cited the BSD, Public Domain, MIT/X, Perl/Artistic, GNU and many other contributions. Let's just not go there, Ok. The thing is Linux, and it runs a lot of damn fine programs. If Stallman wants to name Linux, he should create a distribution (which, arguably, he has done, since the Debian folks were happy to take up his re-naming).
I can just see the "next step" where we try to rename "Solaris" to "GNU/Solaris" because so many people install GNU utilities on every Solaris box they touch.... Just scary.
Damn - that's libel for sure :-)
There is a very important point in the article that GPL naysayers should pay attention to: GPL covered code used in another program does not force the rest of the program to be covered by the GPL. It only requires that the GPL portion of the program be made accessible under the standard conditions, etc.
Given this fact, I fail to see how people can view the GPL as a "virus". By my reading even a GPL covered library is fine as long as the library remains available under its original terms. The application does not even have to be open source.
The only time the GPL perpetuates its own license is when a modification is made to the original GPL covered sources. A reasonable limitation as far as I am concerned.
I have considered the phrase "liberated software", but it has somewhat revolutionary or criminal connotations ("Yeah, I 'liberated' that copy of Tomb Raider from Wal-mart"). I also like the fact that "freed" rhymes with "greed".
"Freed software" is how I'll think of it from now on...
Your disagreement with RMS is an example of a fundamental philosophical disagreement about the nature of freedom. I don't expect this disagreement to be resolved here on Slashdot, but it might help to point out what the implicit assumptions are.
You are clearly believe only in negative freedom: the notion that freedom consists only of the absence of constraints on the individual. This is an attractive notion and seems to be particularly popular on Slashdot. Most supporters of this principle will supplement w it with the extra condition that "your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose", but that is about as far as they will go.
There is however, a completely different concept of freedom called, not surpringly, positive freedom, which emphasises the freedom to achieve appropriate goals. Positive freedom requires the establishment of whatever rules or regular behaviours are necessary to achieve those goals. A simple example is the convention that we all drive on the right hand side of the road (or on the left in some countries). This helps us all to get from A to B quickly and in one piece, and therefore increases our freedom.
In this context, the GPL appears to be founded on the principles of positive freedom. The goal is to spread the use of free software. The rule that you are not allowed to take another person's free software and make it non-free is simply there to defend that goal. To criticize the GPL for restricting the actions of developers is to deny the validity of positive freedom.
I though the article was very well written; he didn't take any personal shots at Stig (the author of the previous article). But note the cheap shot at the end of the article: calling ESR's vision "almost Marxian"! Interesting to see RMS sound almost libertarian there at the end while calling ESR a Marxist!
JMC
You are a fool. I see lots of non-hungry programmers at RedHat, Caldera, Corel, Cygnus, SuSE, TrollTech, etc...
Hackvan (cool name) does have a point about the meaning of free software; in a lot of respects it's similar to the 'hack vs crack' debate.
Since I first got my ZX81, 'free software' meant I didn't have to pay for it. Even today, linux-usin' zealot that I am, I'll think of free as meaning 'free beer' unless I'm specifically talking to linux / OSS heads.
As has been argued (extensively) elsewhere, a word's meaning is defined by how it's used; hence a hacker breaks into systems, and free software is stuff you don't pay for.
I should point out at this stage that I'm a big fan of OSS and/or free software, and of Stallman's sterling work. But 'free' is as open to misunderstanding and misinterpretation as 'open source'; in fact, even more so because 'free' already enjoys currency in the context of software, and has done for longer than the free software movement.
So I say Open Source. Stallman says tomayto. If he pushes his case for long enough, I may end up saying tomayto as well. But given the popularity of 'open source' among the mainstream press, I don't think I'll be saying it anytime soon.
If we use a french "word" to express a concept as "deja vú" because there is no other easy way to do that in english, why can't we do the same to reference "free software"? I think we should call it "software libre".
> Umm, would it be so horrible if MS did use Linux
> code?
On a technical level, no. You have a good point here -- everybody would benefit if Windows (and every other OS) was more stable.
However, if Linux was BSD licensed, and if Microsoft adopted the code, it would still be a Bad Thing, overall. They take the stability of the kernel -- and add bells and whistles -- and let's give them the benefit of the doubt -- people would probably want this software. Well, unfortunately I doubt Microsoft would give the OS away for free. The BSD license would let them charge for the software, and I'm sure they would.
In short, I think the BSD license is a bit of a middle ground between proprietary and truly free (read: GPL) software. As we've pointed out, the BSD license has it's benefits. I (as a developer and a user) still prefer the GPL because I know that the software will ALWAYS be free to use and to modify.
Interesting article. I'm not sure what Stallman means here:
Strictly speaking, nothing we free software developers do can legally require others to release their code in any particular way. If someone has used some of my GPL-covered code in a program, and releases the program, I cannot make that person release the program under the GPL. I can, however, deny permission to release my code on any other basis. That is what the GPL does.
So, if you use GPL code, the originator cannot make you release the result under the GPL. They can deny permission to release their own code then. Does this mean that when alls said and done, the GPL code must be removed before the program is released, or that that part of the code must be released?
If he has used a large amount of my code, he might decide to release the whole program under the GNU GPL, rather than taking out my code (which he is always entitled to do). This is how the GPL works, pragmatically, to encourage free software development.
This seems to say that when using a large amount(how much?) of code you must either remove the GPL code(probably rendering the program useless) or release it GPL'd. This contradicts his claim that he cannot force you to use the GPL if he uses some GPL code in his own program. And is this just an example of practicality when you have a large amount of GPL code ot does it mean that there is a cutoff point on code use, if you use less you are clear to not GPL your release and if you are above you must GPL the release?
And what about the issues raised in the original article, that of linking to libraries and other software that is not GPL'd? Anyone else notice RMS did not mention or even refer to those issues?
Whether or not proprietary software is a crime against humanity or not is a very complicated issue. On the one hand, you can just not use the program, and not be bound by the license if you don't like it. On the other hand, (not that i would ever pirate, i use Free Software), if making software proprietary is not a crime, then by the same reasoning isn't pirating not a crime? Proprietary software is viewed as ok because it doesn't affect you if you care to avoid it. Well, copying software you wouldn't have bought anyway doesn't affect anyone in anyway whatsoever, except it helps you. It seems that this whole area is chock full of hypocrisy and contradictions.
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
People who whine that the GPL restricts "their" rights are totally missing the point. The GPL restricts no one's rights. Not the developer, not the user, not the public at large.
US copyright law says that the creator of a work has TOTAL control over it. To start with, no one can make copies of my work without my permission. By default, users do not even have the right to download my binaries. By default, developers do not even have the right to download my source code. Proprietary software grants you the right to the former. Open source (define this by context, OK?) grants you the right to the latter.
Another right that is reserved to the creator is the right to create derivative works. The GPL goes one step further, in that it permits derivative works to be created. Anyone can download my software and modify it. However, I place restrictions on that right. I say that if you create something with my software, you must use it as I see fit.
As far as I can see it, the GPL is much more generous than default copyright laws or typical proprietary licenses.
But then there's the issue of freedom; after all, that's why RMS created the GPL, right? Why did he not simply release his code into the public domain? Why did he maintain his copyright and license it the way he did? If I hear one more whine or complaint about this, I think I might have to hurt someone (perhaps a cacodemon). RMS and the FSF can their works anything any way they please. You and I can license our works anyway we please. Someone grants you more rights than you had before, and you go complaining "NO! I WANT MORE!" What's up with that?
My favorite snippet from the article:
"'To further confound matters, he promotes free software by constraining the freedom of software developers. '
"If this seems paradoxical, it shouldn't. Protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them. Remember, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. "
He clearly states the goal of the GPL: To ensure that software remains free. Sounds like a good goal to me.
The goal of the patent system is to disseminate knowledge of how things work, in order to promote technological progress. In return for revealing all the essential details of an invention (so that every interested person can study the patent and learn the technology), the Constitution grants the inventor a monopoly on the invention for a period of time.
The legal monopoly is an incentive to REVEAL, and only indirectly an incentive to create. One might be financially motivated to invent something, and keep its workings a trade secret: in this case the patent laws are irrelevant.
This bears on the differences between patents and copyrights. A copyrighted creation is obviously what it is. Protection as a trade secret is impossible. There is no internal technology to reveal, only the work itself; and so books and music are copyrighted, not patented. The creation is independent of the particular medium used for its publication. (An intermediate category is the "design patent", which covers particular embodiments of decorative designs, but that doesn't apply to technical software).
Software doesn't exactly fit within the traditional purview of patents (I mean "utility patents" covering physical inventions, not design patents). Like a literary creation, the source code to a program reveals it completely, so is this respect programs should be protectable by copyright. But a program can't be used directly the way a novel can be read. Like a musical score, a program must direct some other process before there is any useful output. In this respect, since music is copyrighted, programs should also be copyrighted.
But, alas, copyrights last for 75 years beyond the creator's death (and Disney is lobbying hard to get Congress to let them renew the monopoly for another 75 years after that! Semper Mickey). The goal of the patent act (promotion of technical progress), would certainly not be served if software received a 75 year copyright monopoly.
Neither the patent system nor the copyright system provides an obviously appropriate legal framework for software.
In view of this complexity, I agree with Stallman that it is misleading to conflate all these categories into the generic term "intellectual property".
Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. -Albert Einstein
It seems to me from my readings and hearings (radio interviews) of RMS that he uses the word(s)
COMPUTER USERS in an inclusive way, such that developers are COMPUTER USERS as are the people that never program that most of us tend to call users. For RMS there are no develpers only COMPUTER USERS that write code.
Understanding this important because what RMS is realy defending is the Rights of Developers. As develpers the tools of are trade are not just compters but the ideas inbodied in code that make computers work. If we are denide access to our tools we can not do our work. I like the GLP because it protects me from being deprived of the tools of my traid. It also protects the tools that I produce from being taken from me.
It is as simple as this. Two men learn to put pipes together and assemble pluming system. One goes to work for a company that provides all the tools he needs to put pipes togeter. The other Goes out and buys the tools and becomes plumber. Which one is mor dependent on the will of others? Which one is a profecinal?
The other way I look at the GPL is in terms of a free market where ideas are put out with a price tage on them for anyone to buy. If I spent 100hours writing a program and put it our in the public domain (BSD is very close to public domain). Someone else could take that program and add 1 hour of work and till me I had to pay 101hours of work for the resulting program. When I put a program out useing the GPL I am not giveing you a gift I am makeing a prepayment on the future aplications of that code. Or to put it a diffrent way when I use GPLed code I am asked to pay for it with my work.
In Service
Charles Puffer
Actually, Webster's isn't considered definitive. I think the OED gets a lot more respect. Actually, a whole lot of different dictionaries call themselves "Websters" these days and some of them are pretty crappy.
Stig makes some powerful and interesting arguments, beginning with an undeniable truth: GPL is more limiting on individual choice as to what can be done with a work than, say, dedication of a work to the public domain.
While it is undoubtedly true that there may be good reasons for the GPL limitations (and there are), it is undeniable that there are limits, and in this sense, GPL software is less "free" than public domain or BSD licensing.
I think the issue has never been whether one form of licensure (or non-licensing dedication to the public domain) is more "free," but rather the very question posed by Stig:
If we take freedom as an absolute good, and any infringement of freedom as a wrongful limitation, then we must turn away from all licensure, and simply dedicate our works to the public domain. To the extent we are redefining the meaning of these words to suit our case, we are engaging in tautology, marketing or sophistry.
I believe RMS has done so here. The gaffeometer pins immediately upon the occurence of phraseology such as "the official definition." Even worse, the suggestion that one should avoid legitimizing copyright by using the nominally salutory phrase "intellectual property," however legally accurate the phrase might be, proves too much, and suggests that RMS statements may have focused too much more on the form than substance.[1]
But moreover, look what happens when we start adopting the pabulum as truth. RMS' definition of freedom would surprise many of the nation's founders, notwithstanding the quotation of populist cliches:
But just a few paragraphs later, we see the true nature of GPL:
In other words, at the end of the day, "what the GPL does" is to grant an author the right to "control activities that mainly affect other people." In other words, even accepting RMS statements on their face, what GPL does is about power, and not freedom.
Any exercise of a copyright pursuant to a license is the exercise of a power to exclude others from the exercise of certain enumerated rights, subject to the limitations of the Copyright Act.
Two anticipated objections to this analysis seem apparent:
But to accept either of these responses is to abandon the strongest arguments against intellectual property generally, namely, that:
It is one thing to say that Copyleft is a necessary defense in a world of proprietary software. It is another thing to claim that the assertion of a copyleft is consistent with freedom while insisting that an assertion of a copyright is inconsistent with freedom. The very argument RMS makes in one case would defeat the argument advanced by him and others against IP rights in the first place.
In short, the truth of the matter lies somewhere between the stark "my way or no way" response of RMS and the straw man he imputed to Stig. The truth is rather more interesting. I don't know what the truth is, but I belive, at least, that Stig asked the right question:
Are the particular choices we are making "striking the right balance?"
The issue isn't freedom versus power. Neither absolute is contemplated in any of the strategies advocated here -- the question is whether we are making the right choices?
To pretend otherwise is sophistry. We should not permit ourselves, or each other, to engage in convenient redefinitions of common words to advance a cause. We begin to sound to the unconvinced like rambling, pabulum spouting, true believers. And they would be right to write us off for advancing such nonarguments.
Let us accept the weaknesses and inconsistencies of our assumptions, and argue why they are better in an imperfect world, or let us abandon the weaknesses entirely, notwithstanding such good derived therefrom.
Stig raised some very important questions. It would be a mistake to ignore them, simply because they challenge many of our core assumptions. I do not suggest by any of this that Stig is correct in his conclusions; I am inclined instead to listen and learn. There may be a great response to Stig's essay somewhere, but regrettably, that answer will not be found in RMS' statement.
[1] The suggestion that "intellectual property" (IP) is "too big a generalization" because it lumps together disparate bodies of law such as copyright and trademark is logically indefensible. Certainly the phrase is broad (despite the fact that lawyers who practice it are deemed to practice a narrow specialty), encompassing far more disparate issues, such as right to publicity, moral rights and the right to be free from unfair competition.
But the law adequately characterizes a body of intengible personal property and related rights to exclude others from the freedom to perform certain acts unrelated to any particular object. Just as the phrase "programming language" reasonably distinguishes LOGO, C and Smalltalk from, say, a European Swallow, so can the phrase intellectual property distinguishes copyright and trademark from the both of those things.
With all due respect, the "my way or the highway" view that any phrase phrase with a salutory connotation for a thing one deems "bad" is incorrect, and any pejorative phrase for a thing one deems "good" is perfect tends to prove my point that Sophistry is in the air.
Let us not try to win the "newspeak" word wars, its well past 1984. Let us instead return to the real world, and fight the real fights. There is much to be done, and this pettiness just gets in the way and discredits us all.
Amen. If they don't like the GPL, they should write their own code.
Would you want to run your business on software made only by good looking people? Or fly a plane only made by non geeks? Then go right ahead, and when they crash and burn you'll be outta the gene pool and I won't have to listen to your trollish garbage anymore! :)
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
Don't forget the programmer, he who create the code. He has to eat too. The programmer is the one who gets to choose the license. If he doesn't like the GPL, why would he choose it? Kent
Stig Hackvan is the author of the upcoming O'Reiley and Associates title Open Source Licensing : Building Business and Cooperation With Open Source. I'll be interested to see what he has to say about the "GPL virus" in his book.
I'm sure RMS will have a response to the book eventually. If nothing else, it certianly makes for an interesting debate to follow.
As for the first comment... work on GPL software is usually done by individuals, who can then re-publish the work with their new features. Another person can then take that code, and add there own bit, etc. How is this different than the original proposal, except for the fact that the original developer wants some control over the source?
What do you mean by "traditional sense"? The traditional sense of the word "Free", or traditional sense of the word "Freedom"? Because, the "Free" meaning doesnt make sense in the context of the GPL or the BSD license. So, if it is freedom that you are referring to, there really is nothing confusing about this term.
I would really like to understand the point of view of the BSD license advocates who state that the BSD license provides more freedom than the GPL. From what I see, Stallman is right : the BSD license actually sacrifices the freedom of the programmer to give some freedom to the entrepreneur. I dont have a problem with entrepreneurs - they do have an important place in society. But if I spend time on writing software, I do not want to sacrifice my freedoms to provide the entrepeneur some freedom. He is free to use software that I write - but on the same freedom footing. And this is exactly what the GPL provides.
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
As for making money off of it... its GPL'd. How can a hacker make any money off of it?
My favorite snippet from the article:
"'To further confound matters, he promotes free software by constraining the freedom of software developers. '
"If this seems paradoxical, it shouldn't. Protecting essential freedoms is always a matter of restricting the actions that would deny them. Remember, your freedom to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. "
He clearly states the goal of the GPL: To ensure that software remains free. Sounds like a good goal to me.
Another great quote:
I find the distinction between freedom and power useful for thinking about the ethics of political issues. Freedom is when you control activities that affect you most closely; to control activities that mainly affect other people is power, power to dominate others. When software users can change and share a program, that is exercising freedom. When software developers make a program proprietary, and place restrictions on the users, that is exercising power.
This quote is brilliant! It really draws the distiction of free vs. proprietary, and explains why I don't really care for some of the other licenses (BSD).
Stallman's vocal critics are always insisting that the GPL is an inferior license which prevents people from using the software covered by it.
...
There's only one good answer to this nonsense: Linux, GCC, bash, emacs, gimp, gzip, gnome,
Clearly nobody uses these things.
Well there's freedom for users and freedom for developers. I think BSD increases freedom for both. With BSD users have 2 choices-the completely open source version or the proprietary version. With GPL you only have one choice. With BSD, developers can do whatever they wish with the code. They now have the option to incorporate 3rd party code such as OpenGL or Quicktime or whatever. If the developer wants to make money off the code, there's nothing standing in their way. They have a right to privacy which is an important aspect of freedom that many here seem to have forgotten. Freedom doesn't mean you have a right to enter my house/property without my permission
---
JMC
Do take it in context, btw. At the moment that RMS created the GPL, the MIT Lab for Computer Science and MIT Media Lab was being quite literally plundered by DEC, by Symbolics, by Thinking Machines and many others, all of whom took many developers and their accumulated knowledge without offering anything to the academic community in return. Freeloading both code and people is a threat in this situation.
For the community, that is/was the problem. In most cases colleges/universities make their findings public, either public domain or a very light license (BSD, MIT, CMU). However, it has generally been customary that the students who do the work that the companies take and develop from, are highered at those companies. Thus, the work is meant for the community, but to the student himself, its for both knowledge and a better/secure job.
Citing sendmail as an example of successful BSD licensing producing a value-added product is rather disingenuous, since the value-added closed source version of Sendmail is quite a recent innovation.
But the closed source version of Apache is not new, which I also cited. You will also find many companies adding value to a BSD operating system, or other BSD tools. A company I briefly worked for, NetScaler, based their product off of FreeBSD. The general idea here, like with the colleges, is that the public code is then taken by businesses and improved / added value. As this has grown past starting and ending public research in academic study, the origional developers are not trying to entice job hunters. However, they still have a reference, and prove their skill (as well as GPL developers).
This, as you assert, might have been Bill Joy's intention, to allow freeloading. I believe you when you say it was.
I began believing it was when he went to Sun and never touted a word towards open source for years. In the recent article where he, ESR, and RMS battle a bit, he says this flat out.
However, the concept is just as relevant for BSD'ed applications as for GPL'ed; they're just as dependent, for the most part, on collective development.
Yep, they are. GPL forces the developement to return to the community, while BSD does not. Both recieve lots of development, thugh BSD does recieve support by businesses using their code. Not as much as one would hope, but it exists and is truly a gift (and is extremely appreciated by the developers/community). These do it because the more the BSD product succeeds, the better their product is, but nonetheless the gift was not forced. Often, I've heard people say the GPL's spirit is "here's a gift, now where's mine?' That doesn't make either bad, but the gift does seem to loose meaning.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
so they take legal action currently available to at least make sure the software they contribute to cannot be owned.
Not quite. What they do is provide a legal model that software authors (starting with themselves) can use to enforce something like "Rather than abusing my 'ownership' of this code, I am allowing you to have it, too, as long as you are willing to do the same for others."
Berlin-- http://www.berlin-consortium.org
DNA just wants to be free...
At one point I found myself writing a small application, the use of which many people could potentially enjoy, and it occured to me as this small application was nearing completion, that I hadn't the faintest idea what licence would be the best for it.
I pondered the concept of charging for it. Certainly it was a useful little application, with great potential, however I already had a job, was making a decent amount of money, and had no real desire to go to the lengths necessary to collect money from potential buyers.
So I looked at the open licences, at the time, there were only really two, GPL and BSD. I'd like to tell you why I chose the GPL.
The GPL has a special place in my heart, for one particular reason. I love source. I really do, source code makes me feel all gooey. It is like being handed a book by a favorite author, in HTML. You have the chance, the opportunity to to take the story, and more properly the whole concept details by the story, and mould it as you will, it is as if the author has given you a gift, the gift of allowing you to contribute as an equal to their art.
I appreciate the giving of this gift. Certainly in technical terms it is nice to have the source code, to be able to fix bugs or add little features, but more properly it is a sign that the author believes that you have something worthy of contribution, something worth knowing, and having, something that may be of use to many people.
To provide a program only in binary form objectifies the relationship between you and the author into "User" and "Developer". You use the features I provide, the author adds more features if you request. To provide a program in source form makes every user a potential developer, and more importantly, every developer a potential user. They get the other end of the stick, you may come up with a feature they hadn't thought of, but find incredibly useful, everyone ends up on the same level.
So, therein is my justification of an Open Source licence, but why the GPL? Because it represents my belief in this paradigm. If I were to release under BSD, I would be saying:
"This program is provided, open source, to solve a problem. If you are developing a proprietry app, and you have this problem, I believe I have done a good job of solving it, and you would do well to use my code"
On a technical level, this gives us all better code, whether open source or not, we end up with that problem solved better. I chose the GPL because it says:
"This program is provided, open source, as a gift to the community, I wish you to be able to contribute to this source, to improve it, and I wish that others who choose to make use of the collaborative efforts of myself and the contributers would give the same gift in return"
In simpler terms, you want my source? I want your source. Gooey feelings all around.
You can't win a fight.
First and Foremost, let me say that I admire Richard Stallman. His idealism and uncompromising principles make me believe that there might be a better world ahead of us.
Now, on to the meat of this post.
Power is defined as the ability of one actor make another actor do something that they would not normally do.
Freedom is defined as the exemption or liberation frpm the control of some other person or some other power.
Think about these definitions for a bit.
The GPL does not represent the good of the individiual, it represents the good of the masses. The human race is powerful because of it's ability to use available tools to the best of it's ability. When those tools are not flexible enough or do not do the job, then they are worthless to us. Is it more productive to use a hammer or a nail to drive a nail?
The GPL gives the masses the ability to take the tools that are almost right for the job and make them right. It promotes the free exchange of ideas and information. Innovation rarely comes from brand new ideas, it comes from combinations of existing ideas to solve different problems.
This is the reason why I *like* Linux. I can take a program that does *almost* what I need and be assured that I can modify to do *exactly* what I need. I release my program out to the world and the world benefits from my knowledge and my ideas. I benefit from that also, indirectly. I see different peoples styles of programming, I see different algorithms, I see how my computer works, and I improve my abilities by seeing those things.
This is Freedom that RMS has dedicated his life to.
Idealistic? Yes. But then again, I was always an idealist rather then a realist.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
Often, I've heard people say the GPL's spirit is "here's a gift, now where's mine?' That doesn't make either bad, but the gift does seem to loose meaning.
:).
That's an excellent way of putting it, but I wouldn't characterize a GPL'ed work as a gift. There's no basis for a exchange as equals, especially between the individual and the corporation.
The BSD development paradigm, with a centralized core team, either within or without the academy, probably lends itself better to a BSD license, because the core team can represent themselves collectively to a corporation; it becomes an exchange between equals in an environment of mutual expect.
The BSD license is probably also better suited for think-tanks and academic work for the above reasons, and also because in many cases they are not subject to the freeloader dilemna since the teams are self-contained.
The Linux development paradigm, with no centralized authority directing and controlling development (other than Linux Torvalds, but he's more a moderator or mediator than an architect), is probably better suited for the GPL because there is no exchange between equals. Given that even Linus cannot represent the entire developer community, there can be no such relationship. In the absence of the relationship, formal or informal, between corporation and development team, it becomes attractive indeed to cut and run.
The GPL, by posing restrictions on freeloading, formalizes the relationship between entrepreneur and developer where they are not peers. You get mine, and I get yours; one enforces sharing where there is no motivation to share.
(That isn't to say that there aren't entrepreneurs who would freely share their code, but that entrepreneurs, by definition, do not easily give up their intellectual property).
I've really enjoyed this back-and-forth in this thread; it may well be the first sane discussion of BSD and GPL ever
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
..precisely makes you think that ``open source'' as a term did not have a set definition before ESR and others decided upon using it to describe free software? The word free was already overloaded, and is the only correct term for describing the kind of software RMS promotes. ESR and others consciously overloaded the term open source, which already had a set definition. So, how, then, is open source a better term, precisely?
Free software could of course be taken to mean gratis, but you know what? Once you make the leap of free speech vs. free beer, you've got a good handle of what the hell is going on. However, with open source, a term so wildly corrupted by Big Business (which is who the term was catered to to begin with), and already overloaded (now wildly so).. you're basically screwed.
~ Kish
I fly on airplanes "made" by professionals, not geeks. I'm tired of being called a geek or a nerd just because I have computer related skills. I'm not a geek. I'm a professional.
I think for once, a regligious war type discussion actually came to a good agreement. Both work for different purposes, depending the relationship of the developer and entrepreneur. I wish people would just state this from the beginning, because all the other fuss is useless until you decide where you're fitting in. Both are good at their tasks, and neither will die. My single fear is that the GPL model (where the developer and businesses are mostly seperate) will become the de-facto, which unless businesses themselves go GPL, means developers have a rough time making money on their code, or also write closed code for income. Seems if there's a nice mix of GPL, BSD, and closed code (or 'published code' in SCSL's case) would be the best.
"Open Source?" - Press any key to continue
(see subject line. Damn typos.)
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
The article on LinuxWorld shows quite well how the majority of the world sees the Linux (== GNU for them) effort.
They focus on Linux simply being somethin other than Windoze rather than accepting that a there are quite a few people who try to enhance their personal freedom by creating software which doesn't somehow strangle the users by forcing them to have an exact look on the number of needed licenses or by forcing them to wait patiently for the publisher until he decides to produce a badly needed patch.
But there is also too few information on that subject provided by 'standard' media (like NY Times etc.) There should really be an effort to make it clear how we see that the software industry (and possibly other ones) should work, namely by giving every user the chance to use whatever tool they like best in the way they like the best (while still protecting the rights of others) rather than focusing on how to get as much money as possible as fast as possible to the managers and shareholders.
Why don't you read the two pieces of text you cite?
- RMS is speaking of being in control of yourself.
- Webster is speaking of not being controled by another.
This is saying the same thing, when you are in control of yourself, you are not being controled by another, when you are being controled by another, you are not in control of yourself.
Licenses in their very existence are evil!
As he says so many times it's about free software (free speech) so use the GPL/LGPL.
WTF? Is it me, or does the very act of *using* a license prohibit freedom to a certain extent. Stall/m/in has good points -- but he is way to gestapo about how he wants things done.
The whole tyrade about GPL is a contradictory in and of itself. Next code I release will have one statement. "This is mine, you can copy it, use it, molest it, as long as my name remains here "
That's freedom damnit.
-= Making the world a better place =-
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
It is not misleading, is is refuting a common scare tactic from the anti-GPL crowd, namely that the GPL is somehow "forcing" developers to release their own code under the GPL. It doesn't. Like all other code (under any license that allows redistribution), it offers developers a choice they hadn't before: Distribute our code under the conditions in our license. This is a *new choice* developers get, and thus it *increases* their freedom.
What the anti-GPL crowd could say, and stay honest, is that by releasing the code under the GPL you do not increase other developers freedom as much as if you e.g. released it under the MIT X11 license. Had the anti-GPL crowd been that honest, it would not have been necessary to explain basics like RMS does here.
You seemed to have failed to grasp any of the basic points RMS made. Or perhaps you disagree with them, but instead of attacking his points you attack his style.
1. You have totally misunderstood the point about freedom and power. The freedom to deny other their freedom is not a freedom RMS wants to protect. It is a freedom he uses himself for pragmatic purposes, but it is not a freedom he wants to defend.
2. Newspeak is a powerful word. Apart from its semantic meaning, it has some strong ties which makes it have a build in conclusion. Namely that it is evil. Interlectual property is another such phrase. It is not quite as powerful, but it still leads to a build in conclusion. Being aware of what words means on multiple levels isn't "newsspeak", it is basic rhetoric (another negative word) necessary to communicate efficiencely (ah, finally a good positive word).
To a computer geek it would be nice if words in natural languages were like in programming languages, devoid of any meaning than the apparent. If you believe this, you have already lost the argument. Like other who knows how to debate, RMS knows how to select his words. Unlike others, he makes his choices openly.
Sure, that's your choice, and perfectly acceptable. You're correct that it doesn't give MS a competitive advantage. What it does do, however, is pass up the opportunity to give a competitive advantage to Free Software, by denying non-free software the right to use your code. You're not required to do this, of course, but many of us feel it's a desirable thing to do.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
not being cleanly shaven
How many executives at major corporations have facial hair? Quite a few that I can think of, and I don't watch all that closely. I don't think that having facial hair makes you some kind of wierdo. I also think that there are plenty of clean shaven people who are total wierdos (I've seen plenty of pictures of Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy and other certifiable nuts with clean shaven faces).
Seriously, there is little merit in judging Richard Stallman (or anyone else) strictly on appearances. You could bathe him, shave him and put him in a 3-piece blue suit, but I seriously doubt it is going to change him or his message. Would you suddenly take him seriously if he started conforming to your anal-retentive standards? Do you really believe or trust someone just because they look like they just stepped off the pages of GQ?
If Sun releases a Unix-like system built entirely from Free Software and depending on Project GNU's system-building tools, calling it a GNU system would be appropriate. They haven't released such a system, but damn near every distribution maintainer using Linus' kernel has.
I was actually arguing against the QPL, under which I doubt outsiders will add any major innovations to Qt - modified versions of Qt can't be practically distributed, shared on a large scale, and used as a basis for further work without closely-coordinated participation from Troll Tech.
Up until now, I've used "free software" rather than "open source" because I felt that the latter was a rather awkward and inelegant phrasing. But after reading this article, I've changed my mind -- I'm going to call it open-source from now on.
The reason is that rms's article was incredibly ungenerous of spirit. While Stig Hackvan's article was not particularly well-written, Richard Stallman's response shows a breathtaking lack of awareness of the possibility of legitimate dissent.
An accusation that another person does not value freedom is a very serious insult, and should not be levelled lightly and without the awareness that reasonable people may disagree on fundamental points. Unfortunately, RMS uses this accusation as a rhetorical battering ram and I find it very ugly to watch. (Eg, the insinuation that Eric Raymond doesn't care about freedom because he doesn't like the term free software: whatever his other faults, it's pretty clear that esr is passionate about liberty.)
As a result, I can no longer in good conscience continue using the term "free software" -- it would mark me as condoning tactics that I find repugnant.
Stallman has been sticking to the exact same message, consistently, for a decade or so. He makes intelligent, clear points, and sticks to the same issues.
Despite numerous attempts to get him to waiver or dilute his position, he's sticking to it.
That makes him a good advocate.
Get hired to create or maintain and customize it. Or to learn from it, then teach or document it. Or to configure, test, and support it. Demanding an inflated fee for the simple right to posess a copy is about the only thing you can't do (at least not successfully).
Don't get me wrong. I have the utmost respect for the guy. I've even talked face to face with him a few times, and I believe that people get his ideas totally screwed. But he is very very opinionated.
He states in the article about the compromised LGPL. Originally the Library GPL then renamed to the Lesser GPL. This is why I called him a little extreme, is the reason for it. He was upset that people were using the LGPL more than the GPL, so he renamed the LGPL. He wants those that develop GPL code to have an "advantage" from a GPL library. But to me, I don't care if you use GPL with my LGPL library or have a proprietary app.
All I care about for my code is that one, if you use it, you must always supply the source and freedom with it. And two, if you make changes or add code that makes the library dependant on it, then that code too must be under the LGPL. If your code is dependant on my code, then I say, do what you want with it. If you make my code dependant on your code, then I want that code freely available too.
Simple, enough said, that's all, case in point!!
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Most of the free programs we use were really paid for by student loans far in excess of the amount of money it would have cost just to install Win 95 and buy something off the shelf so really most of our software is owned by banks. We would have far less people to write free software if Stafford and Educaid didn't exist. Those people would be flipping hamburgers or cleaning toilets instead of coding. The banks have increadible power over what software we actually get.
The above poster made me think that Stallman is relatively hypocritical.
*Waits for it*
He advocates breaking the law when it comes to software theft (Don't get me started on "ooh, but it's not theft. show me what the writers lost when i copied it" - that argument doesn't wash and is an utter copout. I work in the software industry myself and I can tell you in no uncertain terms). "The law doesn't correlate with what I agree, so let's break it, and perhaps even 'rename' it into something that might make you a little more comfortable at the thought".
*Jump forward to accusations on Slashdot of GPL violation*
Sue! Sue! They broke the law! What right do they have to do this! Take them to court and tear them a new asshole!
I can see the possible words forming in the heads now... words like ideology, and how sometimes people need to disobey laws to get their ideology across and make the world A Better Place(tm). I've even seen comparisons to Mahatma Gandhi, et al. Problem is, there is no reasonable comparison. It's not something threatening anyone's basic lives.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Hopefully the point got across in all that without me resorting to my usual facetious vitriole. Anyway, it probably won't change anyone's mind. I don't expect it to. But at least have a think.
Open Source. Closed Minds. We are Slashdot.
And as for the rest of scientists - well they're just as bad. How many different technologies, discovered by scientists, are patented or trade-secrets? The number is huge - it's hardly a CS issue.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
You cant be that stupid, this is obviously trolling. "But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." So you would have to put the code in a dynamic link library and distribute it seperately before that flies... well its an option, but hardly a good one.
Is there a way to moderate down at -10 with "stinky asshole" as a comment ?
> But that's not really freedom in the traditional
> sense, is it? No, in the traditional sense, the
> BSD license is really much more "free" than the
> GPL.
The BSD license reduces the freedom of *users* of software -- specifically by allowing developers to take BSD code, add their changes, and sell it under proprietary terms. I then have to pay for the software if I wish to use it, even if 99% of the code was contributed by others.
In this manner, the BSD license is less free for users -- hence Stallman's comment about developers swinging a fist but stopping at his nose. To use his metaphor, if you are a user:
The GPL stops the developer's fist at your nose.
The BSD license lets the developer bash their fist into your face.
Stallman's on the nail with his characterization of ESR's work. He is speaking not of Raymond's political views (decidedly libertarian if I am any judge) but of the tone and tenor of his analysis of Open Source, the movement. ESR consistently uses economic terms and arguments to characterize the value of open source development, probably because the thrust of his writing is directed at legitimating this model for the suits. This emphasis on the economic over the social, that social structures are essentially economically determined is, ironically, a hallmark of "Socialist" thought.
ESR's emphasis on the economics of open source development deflects attention from the really radical inflection point the open source community represents: the model of a directed, yet non-hierarchical social structure. It is the first truly radical social form to have emerged from the new communications matrices. ESR's characterization of the Open Source community as a post-scarcity gift culture, which he presents as a reification of that anthropological notion, misses the crucial point that gift cultures have relatively little to do with wealth, in fact exist within economies of crushing dearth. The fact that wealth changes hands is a result of the assignment wealth==power common to all cultures; precisely the assignment that the open source community so radically redirects.
The principal rationale of a gift culture is not some function of wealth distribution, but rather the affirmation of social status, q.v. George Bataille The Accursed Share. He is greatest who gives the most and in this crowd, unique, it seems, the source is the coin of the realm.
illegitimii non ingravare
I do believe, however, that software should be open in some level, and that free software will win in the end because its writers make it so. However, it doesn't have to be only on the level that RMS advocates - it can fall to either side of the line. Free/Open/NetBSD have been far more successful in the long run than have any other modification of the BSD kernel.
Just my 2 nibbles...
Visit
If he has used a large amount of my code, he might decide to release the whole program under the GNU GPL, rather than taking out my code (which he is always entitled to do). This is how the GPL works, pragmatically, to encourage free software development.
So essentially it is ok to rip out almost all the code, change a little then release it as BSD licensed code ? This is good! My previous understanding was that it would then _have_ to be released under the GPL [and hence my preference for BSD].
I suspect the big deal with GPL vs BSD is that the two groups don't agree on the definition of free, or that disagree about which freedom is the more important.
GPL - The source, and all subsequent changes, must be now and forever freely available to anyone.
BSD - The source as is must be now and forever freely available and you or anyone else are permitted the freedom to make changes and not publish source
GPL is code freedom; BSD is personal freedom. They are not the same, and not everyone sees them with the same priority.
I agree that licensing terms involve a trade-off between freedoms; that's a very insightful comment. Now, if I might add my 0.02$ worth:
The GPL is a license by and for developers: you get the priviledge of code reuse, you grant the priviledge of code reuse, you contribute to the body of code available for reuse. It is what would happen in a large corporation or think tank (or, in RMS's case, the MIT Laboratory for Computer Science) where all researchers can borrow code and ideas from each other.
I can understand why critics call RMS a flaming communist. For what it's worth, he probably is a flaming communist. If you subscribe to RMS-as-Marx, however, you have to admit that he, with the GPL, treats his proletariat (developers) very well. Exploiters of the proletariat (entrepreneurs) do less well.
The BSD license is an excellent compromise if you feel like compromising; entrepreneurs can use it with only the requirement to give credit for credit due. It's entirely legitimate for a developer to adopt a dual role as entrepreneur, or envision a dual role as entrepreneur, which is an excellent reason to use the BSD.
However, and I think that this is a fear which is always in RMS's mind: BSD's software can be moved from open to closed source by such entrepreneurs, who profit from the freely available work of other people - it's the apex of freeloading.
Most companies prevent freeloading by closing their source. The GPL prevents it in another way; the code becomes totally open so long as it stays out of the hands of entrepreneurs who would close it off.
You will see something like this in wills; some will have a clause which reads something like this: if (so and so) challenges the legitimacy of this will, this bequest to them is withdrawn. It's an entirely valid tactic; after all, as the estate belongs (or belonged) to the deceased, the code belongs to the copyright holder and not the licensee.
The freeloading problem's an interesting one and it strikes to the heart of copyright and licensing dilemnas (not to mention patent law or any other kind of intellectual property law). I'd willingly listen to someone who had another take on it.
--
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
These GPL detractors - many of them self-titled "entrepreneurs" - are looking to make lots of money off of someone else's hard work without any form of agreed-upon compensation. Are these people simply advocating further software freedoms?
I don't think so. I think these people are advocating stealing someone's copyright... or should I say "intellectual property". Or should I say "Hard Work". Maybe that's standard practice in some circles of the "new" economy, but it shouldn't be.
I say that these GPL detractors are not entrepreneurs. And they're not morally savvy business people. They're leeches, wishing they could freely acquire someone else's efforts for a $0 investment.
They should step up to the plate and invest time, effort, and money. Like real entrepreneurs do.
I for one (and I'm guessing I'm not the only one) am growing a little tired with all this petty bickering between more or less likeminded people whom we all seem to respect. Now, I don't have particular respect for Stig Hackvan (the author of the original article to which RMS is responding) because personally I've never heard of him. That and his article is entitled "Reverse-engineering the GNU Public Virus." Um, sounds kind of sensational and malevolant to me.
But the point I've strayed from is larger than this. What I'm trying to say is that I'm tired of the respected and revered advocates of "Open Source" or "Free Software" poking at each other due to little more than differences in semantics. We're all after basically the same thing; just because many of us have different ideas of how to get there or what's slowing us down, doesn't mean there needs to be such animosity.
Actually, I feel a bit sorry for RMS. He took the initiative when there was no real strategy or conception of how to go about freeing the world of software. He came up with a useful and (although dubious) long-lasting strategy in the GPL, and to be honest none of us would be using any "free" or "open" software without it. People, however, feel they can come along and take quick shots at him and his GPL for it's shortcomings (which it does have) completely disregarding the good things that stem from exactly the same parts of the GPL as the bad. Sure, it's viral nature might make it unattractive to corporations, but had it not been, they would have snatched whatever parts they wanted from free software long ago, neither releasing the extensions and fixes they added nor considered open source as a business model, viable or not. Without GPL-like licenses, opening your source helps your competitors more than yourself.
But I digress. As I was saying, I feel a little sorry for RMS. He is in an unenviable position of having founded something good that is not ideal. Everyone has a license to criticize him, and his responses seem generally knee-jerk. Intelligent, but seemingly whispering "ingrate." Which he has the right to. When ESR says "Shut Up and Show Them the Code," I think he has a right to be hurt.
As a Linux user and an Open Source advocate, I tend to look at the ways we (people like myself) our hurting ourselves probably more closely than the ways we are being attacked from the outside. People talk and talk about the Linux flamers with spelling deficiencies, those advocates who make us look like a bunch of raving paranoid extremists. Personally, I think if our high profile advocates (our leaders, if you will) can't act civilly and more importantly somewhat compassionately (the ESR/Bruce Perens bickering comes to mind) we're all going to be seen as nuts.
------
Jose M. Weeks
He makes a LOT of sense, especially when it comes to the whole freedom issue. I like his analogy of the swinging fist. I'd quibble with him on two issues, though. The GPL is not parasitic -at all- for small extracts, which he failed to note, when he talked about the claim the GPL was parasitic. The GPL states very clearly that it only transfers when using -significant- portions of the code. You could copy routines wholesale out of GCC, to make a new C compiler, provided -in total-, you didn't copy a significant amount. The other issue is the LGPL. There's nothing wrong with a GPLish licence which allows code to be subsumed into larger pieces of work, without impacting the licence of that larger piece. This has nothing to do with freedom, as the library is not the program. This, I think, is a VITAL distinction I make that I think RMS does not. To me, libraries are seperate, distinct units of code, seperate from a program, no matter how compiled. You can ALWAYS splice out a library and insert a new one, which performs the same function. (Though, this is easier with dynamic linking.) As such, the library and the program are two seperate pieces of code. Why, then, should one carry the licence of the other? That's plain silly.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
What is the threshold for calling it GPL code though?
I've used the line "i++;" many times, and I'm sure it shows up in a few GPL programs. Clearly we are not talking about single lines here, right? What about simple loops and sorts that are common knowledge, but also found in some GPL source that you are familiar with. Are you infected then? Does it need to be a whole C function or code for a nonobvious algorithm? I can guarantee that a lot of lines of code will match some GPL code if you substitute for different variable names. Maybe you saw some GPL code and something a lot like it elsewhere (after all, much of the GPL code has been inspired by other code) and your code closely resembles them both. Are you infected? How closely does it have to resemble the GPL code for the license to be effective? What if it also resembles some non GPL example public domain code from a textbook, etc.?
But,
1) I don't want them to be able to give the source or binaries to others.
2) I want them to be able modify source for thier own use.
3) I want them to return any mods to me, for possible inclusion into the next release.
In return,
1) I promise to never charge for an upgrade that they contributed to.
2) will list them as contributors.
3) If I 'go under' the software becomes GPL.
4) will continue to give source.
I also want he software to be free for 'Open Source' projects, and $$$ for 'Closed Source' projects.
What type of license would cover this?
Does this make me scum for not going GPL (or otherwise)?
Next question?
The GPL is a legal document. If someone uses some GPL code and releases under a non-GPL license, you can sue them. The "Strictly speaking" sentence is technically true, but wholly inaccurate, misleading, and I would consider it an unethical assertion.
Yes, "strictly speaking", anyone can post anything they want under any license, and without time travel this cannot be prevented. That is not the point, and he knows it.
The GPL requires code it is linked against to become GPL'd. RMS's word games do his movement and the open source community a disservice. He needs to acknowledge this simple, basic element of the GPL, and stop playing FUD games around it.
Which is exactly how you guarentee freedom: by limiting the the ability of those in power to abuse it. Notice how many of the freedoms guarenteed in the Bill of Rights are basicly restriction on the government. "Congress shall make now law restricting X" Where X=Gun ownership, press, religion, speech, etc...
I like "autonomous" best. . . thats how i've always felt about the Open Source community. So let's all call it "Autoware" or start forcing people to refer to freeware as "gratisware" at large, loose, unloosed, escaped, fancy-free, uncommitted, unattatched, foot-loose, uninhibited, expansive, unrepressed, unsuppressed, unreserved, exempt, immune, privileged, special, excused, released, unrestrained, unrestricted, unlimited, unqualified, unconstrained, dissoluted, libertine, licentious, licentiate, profligate, loose, lax, unprincipled, unconscionable, unscrupulous, wanton, wild, rampant, riotous, abandoned, uncontrolled, ungoverned, madcap, wildcat, reinless, unreined, unchecked, uncurbed, unbridled, uncircumscribed, unconfined, unbound, uncontained, unconstricted, independent, autonomous, self-governing, soverign, absolute, substantive, undominated, unregulated, ungoverned, autonomous, unencumbered, unburdened, unhampered, unhindered, unimpeded, unobsructed, unstemmed, unsupressed, unstifled, untrammeled, disburdened, disencumbered, rid, unblocked, unclogged, unplugged, unstopped.
- Is a country with strict child-abuse laws more or less free than a country where parents may whip their children?
- Is a country where children cannot get a high-risk, high-potential-reward medical treatment more or less free than a country where parents may authorize such treatments?
- Is a country where a 15-year-old can legally consent to have sex with a 30-year-old more or less free than a country where that relationship would be called "statutory rape"?
- Is a country with high taxes and a strong welfare state more or less free than a country with low taxes and a laissez-faire economy?
- Is a country with strict gun-control laws and a low crime rate more or less free than a country with lenient gun control and a high crime rate?
- Is a slave whose master has a legal obligation to provide food and housing more or less free than a factory worker who can be fired at the owner's whim?
- Is a Christian more or less free than an atheist?
Some people will find the answers to all these questions intuitively obvious, and speak as if anyone who would answer differently is a fool. This behavior is not a sign of intelligence. Sometimes, people who act this way have never seriously considered the arguments for alternative points of view, because study would actually exercises their brains, and it wouldn't be as much fun as staying in their current circle-j^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmutual admiration society.send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
We should all hail and worship that idiot with a peanut for a brain and an ego the size of Russia.
GPL is a virus and a stupid idea. BSD all the way. BSD is TRUE freedom.
So, he wants Linux to be called GNU/Linux when GNU has nothing to do with Linux. Why? Does he have no sense of reality? GNU wrote tools that run on top of an operating system. They did not write the kernel/OS itself. And GNU software works on other operating systems. It's like the guys who wrote HyperTerminal insisting that Windows should really be called "HyperTerminal/Windows".
By the way, he's a communist. Joseph McCarthy told me so.
Well, I've always called software made available under the GNU GPL, GNU software. Seems quite unambiguous to me.
All truely free (as in freedom) software is in public domain.
Okay, I'm a moron. I put in hard breaks in "Plain Old Text" mode, plus put in paragraph HTML tags.
The word professional implies that you are doing it for money. Most of the software written for money is proprietary. As we all are well aware of, proprietary software is a crime against humanity. Would you like to associate yourself with a criminal of the worst order? I don't think so. Though I hate the word geek, it implies that you do something because you love it and are good at. Professional just means you can commit extortion and call it business.
Hamsters are at least as feathery as penguins. HamLix
On closer inspection, no.
I'm glad you think that most /. readers are normal.
Frankly, I don't care what the coder looks like, I care what the *code* looks like.
So I refuse to cede any important freedom to make them feel comfortable. (I do try to make them comfortable about using and developing free software, but not by sacrificing the ultimate goal.) Stig would willingly do so, because the freedom of people in general is not such a priority for him -- that is his basic disagreement with the Free Software movement.
You want to know why I like the idea of Free Software? Because of stuff like this. RMS isn't on anybody's side, except ours. He doesn't have the best interests AT&TCIMSTimeWarnerGEWaterhouse inc. in mind. He's not pushing a license designed to extract free development labor whilst pocketing all the profits himself. No - he wants what's best for the people - what will give them (us) the most amount of control. There are so few people in the world that are talking sincerely about the fundemental freedom of individuals, it makes me just that much more sure that GNU and the GPL are good ideas.
If this free-speech-vs-free-beer deficiency in the English language gets tiresome to explain again and again, why not move on to the word "freed"? As far as I can tell, once code is GPL'd, it is freed, liberated, opened and can't return to closed proprietary secrecy and hiding. Done deal. Past tense. "Freed Software". In the future, you can still charge money for it, or you can give the Freed Software away for free.
m-w: FREE implies a usually permanent removal from whatever binds, confines, entangles, or oppresses [FREED the animals from their cages]
Don't forget the programmer, he who create the code. He has to eat too.
But to treat intellectual discoveries as property (as our courts do today) was not the original goal. For if this had been the case, the wording would not have included the "limited times" phrase. After all, if someone truly owns something, he or she doesn't just control it for a "limited time," but rather until that person freely relinquishes ownership. Thus source code is not property. I find it remarkable that the current view of code as property has resulted in overpriced and unstable software (Windows), and society as a whole has lost out. Why is it that the Free Software Foundation produces software that is significantly more useful and reliable than the "proprietary only" software companies? The answer is simple - the very nature of open source and peer review of one's code encourages developers to write better code than they would otherwise. Treating source code as property has only kept the vast majority of the world in WindowsLand, where program quality, functionality, and stability are notoriously below even the academic standards. I could not turn in Microsoft-quality code and pass my CS courses....
I just hope the courts come to their senses before things get worse...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
You know it's a sad day when even Stallman starts sounding like a cheap politician. I guess the article is only usefule as an example on how to write a 1700 words article without any tangible content.
Yes, an awful lot of free software is developed at educational instutions (by both students and faculty), which can get funded because students can get loans and scolarships. However, these are investments in and contrubutions to the education of students, not the developement of software. If that were the intent, they'd lend (or give) to software companies.
I do think an argument can be made that students and faculty that develop software in an academic setting should license it for the maximum benefit to the academic community. After all, most of the scolarships and grants that help support it are meant to improve education and human knowledge.
The banks, however, are entirely irrelevant to ones moral obligation with respect to ones code. It seems a little like saying the bank that financed your car should get your pay check, because you use it to drive to work. Yes, if nobody could borrow money to buy cars, the economy would suffer, but banks hardly deserve credit for the work done by everyone who borrowed money to buy the car with which they drive to work.
-Hil
There are some exceptions - such as the library license. But these have flaws.
The library license lets you distribute objects that only uses the library routines by linking to them. But fix a bug in one of the library routines and your code catches the GNU Flu.
And then there's Bison - the GNU replacement for YACC. Bison emits a parser consisting of a table interpreter and a table it generates from the grammar. Last time I looked the table interpreter was under the full copyleft, NOT the library version, and it becomes the core code of your compiler, command language interpreter, or what-have-you.
Net result is that it's hazardous to use certain GNU tools for some steps of the development of a proprietary software product. This reduces the number of people using the tools.
Worse, it reduces the number of people who might otherwise be fixing up bugs in the tools, especially the compiler and the library.
One slogan I heard from a developer of proprietary software, on why he didn't use GNU:
Copyleft: More expensive than money!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Why do people think that they have a 'right' to use GPL code? They have the right to *NOT* use the code or to use the code *UNDER THE TERMS OF THE GPL*. What is the problem? How does this restrict the freedoms of the programmer? I mean you could look at the MacOS and say "Hey, thats a pretty good looking interface, I want to sell my own version", but Apple would not provide you with the source. Same effect as the GPL except under the GPL the code is distributed. Well we of the GPL refuse to licence the code to you under other terms. Write your own. Period.
As he says so many times it's about free software (free speech) so use the GPL/LGPL.
WTF? Is it me, or does the very act of *using* a license prohibit freedom to a certain extent.
You're exactly right. I what I suspect would be Stallman's ideal world, software licenses would not exist. People would write code and rewrite other people's code and share that code with their friends and no one would try to sue to keep you from using their "property" in ways they don't approve of.
But, since that doesn't happen, RMS advocates the GPL instead. The GPL is an attempt to subvert the power of software licenses -- to deny others the freedom to do whatever they want with a product that they possess. In this case, instead of eroding the end users' rights in favor of the vendor, the GPL erodes the rights of the vendor in favor of the end user. If I don't like your product, I can take it apart, figure out how to make it better and sell it myself. At the same time, my users can do the same thing to me.
On a side note, maybe I don't have enough of a technical background, but I fail to see why linking a binary against a GPL library means the binary has to be GPLed to avoid licensing conflicts (the so-called "viral nature" of the GPL, if I understand correctly).
They're still two different products, right? Could I not link it agsinst, say, Microsoft's "Visual C" library (if such a thing exists) as opposed to the GNU C library? If I link GPLed software against a non-GPL library, is _that_ a violation of the GPL?
Jay (=
Fine. Yer a professional. I'm a (capital "G") Geek.
It's my experiance that "professionals" are those willing to charge $5k for an IBM System 36 "PC", if the customer doesn't know enough not to get taken.
I've seen "professionals" sell folks a 486-66DX2 to upgrade their 486-DX50 (33Mhz motherboard speed vs. 50Mhz motherboard speed for those who don't know, guess which one wins everywhere but numeric benchmarks?)
I've seen "professionals" blithely assuring customers that there wouldn't be a problem with using a "loaned" copy of Netware for their couple hundred server upgrade. Nobody'd say anything about the splash screen that had some other big outfit's name on it.
I've seen "professionals" charge $20,000 (no kidding!) to set up a 3 page web site on a Win95 box. That included the hardware and everything, a machine from their retail shop configured identically was selling for $1,995 at the time. They were charging $100/mo for a static IP via 33.6 modem, too.
And on, and on, ad nauseum. I'm sure others have seen the same and worse. That's why I'm a Geek. In our industry, the "professionals" have given professionalism a bad name. The majority of self styled computer professionals I've met, well, I imagine they'd be reckoned far to dishonest to sell used cars for the Mafia.
I don't mean to imply that the Duke of URL (cool handle BTW) or anybody else who calls themselves a professional isn't an honest, moral business-person. I just felt moved by his comment to express my feelings about the pollution of the word I've seen.
Actually, I would rather run my business on software written by people who don't look like dirty hippies.
It isn't a matter of being "born good looking" it's just a matter of doing a bit more to look presentable than rolling out of bed in the same t-shirt, pulling on the pants you threw on the floor the night before, and heading in to work.
Personal appearance is a signifier of a lot of things. Ugly people who are born that way are different from slobs who make no effort.
What hogwash.
"Your freedom to throw your fist ends at the tip of my nose."
[and hence my preference for GPL]
***Beginning*of*Signiture***
Linux? That's GNU/Linux to you mister!
I actually had to do a double-take through the document to see if he'd prefaced this at all. Nope, this is just a random, unexplained cheap-shot at ESR, who is not mentioned anywhere else in the document.
This is getting very old. I'm tempted to set up a "Linux is not X/BSD/PD/Artistic/GNU/Linux" page and just post the URL in every forum that refers to yet another Stallman article. I'll not go into it more, here, though. I assume people have better things to do.
In the end, it's classic Stallman. The man can write damn fine code, but I wish he'd stop trying to talk to people. Others such as ESR, Larry Wall and Linus Torvalds really do do a much better job of getting the points across. Overall, though the early points in the article were fair. Stallman does get a lot of flack over the GPL, which is quite a reasonable document when you consider things like the MS EULA (which I will never agree to, even though I use their software as an end-user at work) define the rest of the playing field.