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@mucow.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 04:00 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
I do understand your observation but honestly - all these comparisons between FSF/GNU/Richard Stallman and Communism/Soviet Union are:
- Quite boring because we have heard them oh so many times...
- Often rather unenlightened (not always, but often)
- 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
On Thu, 1 Nov 2001 goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
Hi Andrew and all!
[Throwing myself back into the fray discussing licenses with a lawyer (ex?) - am I suicidal or what! :-)]
Yes, but don't let *that* stop you! :0
"Andrew C. Greenberg" werdna@mucow.com wrote:
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 04:00 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
[snip]
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.
Actually, there seems to be *plenty* of doubt :) One thing that, IMHO, that tends to get lost in these discussions generally, but that is of special interest to users of monolithic images, is that ordinarily the GPL tends to restrict *modification* and *distribution* type uses of software. For something like a word processor, that's a very small minority use. For programmers, that's a pretty bit use. Even then, using GCC to write your programs doesn't push the GPL onto those programs.
As you, Andrew, have pointed out, monolithic images present a rather big difficulty, since modification uses and "end user" use are not separate categories (at least, in the eyes of the GPL).
This is, depending on your views, unfortunate.
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.
Hmm. While RMS gets in folks face, I don't think it's sheer newspeak, nor do I think that there's a general lack of English and reason supporting his uses. To my casual observation, he doesn't seem to be actively revisiting that English and reasons in current disputes, but that's a somewhat different problem.
With all due respect, the authoritarian regime of the GPL,
Authoritarian *regime*? Andrew, clearly this is a bit of hyperbole at best, and perhaps more likely it's own bit of newspeak.
RMS is certainly insistent, domineering, etc. but he doesn't always insist on the GPL (though he strongly insists on GPL compatibility, sometimes that amounts to the same thing). But RMS and the FSF don't exert much more than moral/rhetorical force (plus, of course, the legal provisions of the GPL). Compared with the monopoly force exerted by Microsoft (and the standard licencing provisions of many many companies), this is hardly *authoritarian*.
whose function is to constrain and limit what may be done with the software,
Well, *ideally* constrain and limit by preventing other constraints and limits. If right to modify programs in my possession trumps right to distribute without source, then a licence that preserves the latter is preserving the *right* freedom. (Perhaps harder for the GPL, one might say that the right to modify programs in my possession trumps the right redistribute under an open source (ah, now *that's* newspeak :)) licence of my choosing. That seems less appealing.)
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.
No, not really. Again, it depends a lot on which freedoms are valued and how the net effect is calculated. And freedom isn't the only measure as one might want to calculate overall good. I *do* think that RMS is a bit more focused on public good than on (libertarian style, at least) freedom, so, in that sense, the use of Free often misleads.
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.
No, it doesn't. It proves, at the very most, that the GPL is broken with regard to monolithic images. That RMS may well be *happy* with this brokenness is a slightly different issue. Personally, I don't think there *is* a true inherent notion of "derive" for software that one can satisfactory put all the derivations on one side and all the "mere uses" on the other. The linking criterion is espeically tendentious, imho. But that seems to be a bug, not a matter of the intent or "purpose" of the GPL.
Of course, I'm confused, in your arguments, as to whether we evaluate intent or consequence when judging a licence "free". (I'm curious as to this notion of *fuction*. I.e., the "function" of the GPL is... vs. the "fuction" of the BSD is...) I think the distinction between a "buggy" free licence and a non-free licence is significant.
Anyhoo.
Cheers, Bijan Parsia.
On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 10:07 AM, goran.hultgren@bluefish.se wrote:
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 usually rely upon the dictionary definitions. Last time I looked, none of the definitions of free suggested or implied the notion of "constrained" or "limited."
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.
Indeed, Goran, who accused others of engaging in propagandizing, proves too much. Clearly the use of the term "free" for GPL is itself a form of propaganda. As I noted, there is not a single dictionary definition of free consistent with GPL's viral nature.
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...
Sounds to me more like they are trying to appropriate the word "free" more than they are trying to keep software "free." As Goran has so skillfully observed, GPL does not require that the software be "free" as in "free beer," and by its own terms, the software isn't free as in liberty. The fact that I can't incorporate a GPL program in Squeak proves the point.
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:
- I HAVE heard this comparison over and over and it is boring TO ME at
least.
So? Why would that have any relevance to the validity of the analogy.
- Those making the comparison have often not read anything about the
argument behind the GPL or the ideas of FSF.
Evidence?
- Microsoft has clearly also been going after GPL/FSF calling it names
thus trying to throw dirt on the "free/opensource community".
Quote the Microsoft press release making the analogy.
- And yes, I still think it is totally wrong comparing it with
communism.
And the reasons?
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. ;-)
I'll stand by my remark, for reasons previously stated. I believe it was apt.
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.
And what, specifically, in your view, are those purposes?
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.
We are waiting for you to swing, then. What has he misunderstood. Can you explain, without the platitudes, why it is inapposite?
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?
Sorry, I misunderstood your meaning earlier, when you said they wanted it to be free. Indeed, they just wanted it to be GPL.
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?
Exactly this: I am not free to use it. The software is not free.
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. ;-)
Absolutely. But the software isn't free -- it is constrained.
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.
Webster's New International, actually.
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.
Little old Andy isn't free to use it with Squeak. It ain't free for me. But hey, there's always a bigger fish.
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).
Nonsense. Every line of the code is still BSD-licensed and available. Their improvements aren't part of that code. (And, in case you haven't noticed, they didn't make any improvements -- although they have already introduced some bugs.)
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.
Every line of the original BSD code remains available. Nobody is obliged to use microsoft's version. However, i still can't use GPL code with Squeak.
The thing I always found odd about "free software" dogma was that very phrase. I would think that freedom of *people* is what's important, not of software. The word "free", when applied to artifacts, just seems to be too strongly associated with price and the artifact itself to be a useful cue for any sort of human liberty. I think "open source" was an improvement.
I think the FSF's notion of transitively preserving recipients' rights to create derived works is compelling, but words like "free" and "freedom" are too broad to describe it. They want to support a specific liberty, it seems. At the same time, calling the idea "viral" always sounds unconstructively derogatory to me.
It'd be nice to orient the discussion toward the people involved, or at least the activity in which they're engaged, rather than the artifacts they create. I always liked the term "copyleft" ("the right to copy is left"). It induces the audience, via a novel word, to consider the people to whom the right to copy is left, and why, instead of invoking a broad and familiar concept in an unfamiliar way. And it seems more evocative of the attributes its opponents don't like. :)
-C
-- Craig Latta composer and computer scientist craig.latta@netjam.org www.netjam.org crl@watson.ibm.com Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
Fair points all. nicely put, Craig.
On Friday, November 2, 2001, at 12:48 AM, Craig Latta wrote:
The thing I always found odd about "free software" dogma was that very phrase. I would think that freedom of *people* is what's important, not of software. The word "free", when applied to artifacts, just seems to be too strongly associated with price and the artifact itself to be a useful cue for any sort of human liberty. I think "open source" was an improvement.
I think the FSF's notion of transitively preserving recipients' rights to create derived works is compelling, but words like "free" and "freedom" are too broad to describe it. They want to support a specific liberty, it seems. At the same time, calling the idea "viral" always sounds unconstructively derogatory to me.
It'd be nice to orient the discussion toward the people involved, or at least the activity in which they're engaged, rather than the artifacts they create. I always liked the term "copyleft" ("the right to copy is left"). It induces the audience, via a novel word, to consider the people to whom the right to copy is left, and why, instead of invoking a broad and familiar concept in an unfamiliar way. And it seems more evocative of the attributes its opponents don't like. :)
-C
-- Craig Latta composer and computer scientist craig.latta@netjam.org www.netjam.org crl@watson.ibm.com Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Andrew C. Greenberg -
Bijan Parsia -
Craig Latta -
goran.hultgren＠bluefish.se