Hi Andrew and all!

[Throwing myself back into the fray discussing licenses with a lawyer
(ex?) - am I suicidal or what! :-)]

"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 04:00  AM, goran.hultgren at bluefish.se 
> wrote:
> 
> > I do understand your observation but honestly - all these comparisons
> > between FSF/GNU/Richard Stallman and Communism/Soviet Union are:
> >
> > 1. Quite boring because we have heard them oh so many times...
> > 2. Often rather unenlightened (not always, but often)
> > 3. Often pure propaganda (see Microsoft trying to pull the EXACT same
> > stunt)
> > 4. IMHO just totally wrong
> >
> > The GPL is engineered on purpose to foster free software in favour of
> > "closed proprietary software" (pick your own words if those sound
> > wrong). SqueakL and MIT are not.
> 
> Well, not to support the analogy, but there is little doubt that "free 
> software" engineered so you can't do things with it isn't particularly 
> free.  The use, indeed pedantic insistence by RMS, on using newspeak in 
> lieu of English and reason to describe things proves this more clearly 
> than anything else.  With all due respect, the authoritarian regime of 
> the GPL, whose function is to constrain and limit what may be done with 
> the software, as opposed to the Berkeley license, whose primary function 
> is to pass the software along, shifting risk to the licensee, reserving 
> the bare bones minimum obligation of acknowledgment, makes clear to all 
> which is the free license.
> 
> The fact that you can't use GPL in a monolithic image, unless you can 
> relicense EVERYTHING ELSE IN THE IMAGE under GPL proves this clearly.

It all comes down to how you define "free" and I also like the BSD/MIT
variant mostly in favour of GPL.
But I can still understand the mechanics behind GPL and the reasoning
behind it.

I would say that GPL is more like "free, and it bloody well should stay
free"-license than
the MIT/BSD - "free, and you can do what you want with it including
making it nonfree"-license.

To then liken FSF/GPL (etc) with the Soviet when FSF in fact are trying
hard to keep
software free, sounds really strange to me...

> As to Goran's points, none of them are substantive.  1 and 2 amount to 
> name-calling, proving nothing.  3 is also name-calling and silly, 
> presuming that references to Microsoft somehow marginalizes an argument, 
> and ignores the fact that a substantial contingent of the Slashdot crowd 
> make the same arguments.  And 4 simply states a conclusion.  In short, 
> none of the four points constitute argument.  Interestingly, the 

I didn't realize that I was in court! ;-) It was just a bunch of
subjective statements
but I still stand by them:

1. I HAVE heard this comparison over and over and it is boring TO ME at
least.
2. Those making the comparison have often not read anything about the
argument behind the GPL or the ideas of FSF.
3. Microsoft has clearly also been going after GPL/FSF calling it names
thus trying to throw dirt on the "free/opensource community".
4. And yes, I still think it is totally wrong comparing it with
communism.

> paragraph after the numbered points proves too much -- the "engineering" 
> of a society of software users seems, to me, to make the original 
> poster's point more than otherwise.

I said that the LICENSE is engineered, not the users. Don't put words in
my mouth, please. ;-)

My point is that the GPL has a different purpose than the
BSD/MIT/SqueakL-like
licenses and if you like that purpose then there is nothing "wrong" in
it.

> For me, the main problem with the government analogies is that they are 
> not useful.  Even if perfectly descriptive, they are not prescriptive in 

Agree.

> any meaningful sense, and thus, quibbling about their applicability is 
> nothing more than empty wordplay, leading to arguments such as the above 
> listing "points" that prove nothing.

Well, since the author thought GPL was like communism (I know, that
wasn't his exact words)
I think he has grossly misunderstood it, and that is why I stepped up to
the plate.

And the list wasn't trying to prove anything, that was why I asked the
question:

> > I have a question here: What do you dislike about the GPL? (assuming
> > that you do dislike the system of old Soviet Union)
> 
> The fact that it ultimately limits what I can do with the software in a 
> manner that can rarely be repaired without substantial expense.  I can't 
> use GPL software in a monolithic image, and that's very bad for 

I would say that you can't use it it a NON GPLd monolithic image. And
that
is exactly what the author of the GPLd licensed code wants, right?

Since he chose GPL he has given you a license to use his code in a
certain way
and that does not include mixing it with non GPL software - so be it. It
is what
the author wants, what is your problem more exactly?

Do you want to be able to do exactly what you want with the software
including
closing it up? Ok, then ask the author if you can get such a license
then!

And if he says "No, I don't want that.", then respect his wish and let
it go. ;-)

> Smalltalk coders.  And, in practice, it is impossible to renegotiate a 
> significant term for a proprietary license.

What did you mean by that? "significant term"? My swedish english parser
didn't
grok that part. :-)

> I do a lot of open source compliance advise, and can freely attest that 
> the GPL raises far more problems for promoting the free use of 
> software.  Happily, I am nerd as much as lawyer, and can frequently 
> point clients to corresponding free software they can use in its stead.
> 
> GPL doesn't promote the propagation of free software (again, using the 
> english denotation of the word "free" rather than the FSF appropriation 
> thereof) so much as it promotes the propagation of GPL'd software.  RMS 

True - using your view of "free", which is more or less the BSD-view I
think.

In short, one of the most crucial things to understand with the GPL is
the fact
that it tries to "protect" software from being turned "non free". Thus
it protects
"the next guy" in the foodchain.

A common example:

Microsoft grabbed the BSD-licensed TCP/IP stack and stuffed it in NT (I
think it was NT).
They turned it "non free" and they sure don't share any of their
improvements of it
back to the BSD camp (afaik).

This means that the "next guy" - the NT user - has no source and can't
improve upon the
software. He got the "closed up" version from Microsoft.

Ok, now even if you (and I) like "free" as in BSD, it is quite obvious
that GPL tries hard to
KEEP software free for the "next guy" too.

Now tell me, where is the "communism" in this?

> is pleased to admit the truth of this, and to defend it.  Not all of us 
> share all of his "vision."

True again. But some of us at least understands the vision (you do
probably too) and respect it.

Remember - nothing forces you to use GPL - it is a choice like any other
license.

regards, Göran

PS. I hope I am not upsetting anyone here - it is NOT my intention... I
like the discussion. DS