Howdy all!

"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 10:07  AM, goran.hultgren at 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."

The meaning of the word "free" (as being used opposed to what the
dictionary says)
in all these areas is not clear, I agree.

English is not native to me so my view of the word might be clouded
indeed.
Bijan wrote about this in another reply and I agree with what he said.

Hmm, ok, one silly little take on this - perhaps the notion of the word
reflects a fundamental difference between our different societies where
we live. I for example do not consider words like
"freedom" and "free" to automatically mean "no restrictions" or "no
constraints".

A silly example I know, but nevertheless you have all heard these words:

"Your freedom ends where the other person's freedom begins. Your rights
end where the other guy's nose begins." (I searched on google for "your
freedom ends" because I didn't remember where I had heard it)

So in short, if we had no restrictions in society a person could take
away "freedom" from another person.
Or something like that.

Anyway, efter using webster a bit to look these words up you could very
well argue that "freedom" is someting completely different than "free"
or actually the other way too. :-)

For example about freedom we find both:

"the quality or state of being free" (which would more or less
"equalize" meaning between the words) and then "FREEDOM has a broad
range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense
of not being unduly hampered or frustrated " (which implies to me that
it is a range more or less constrained)

Since the word "free" says:

"having the legal and political rights of a citizen" (obviously
constrained by law) and then also "stresses the complete absence of
external rule and the full right to make all of one's own decisions"
(ok, he, no constraints at all imlied here...)

So using Webster I personally came up sortof empty here but one thing I
can say - it sure doesn't *without a doubt* equalize "free" or "freedom"
with "total absence of constraints".

Anyway this is beside my original point so I will let others debate 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.
> 
> Indeed, Goran, who accused others of engaging in propagandizing, proves 

BTW - I have actually just apologized for coming on too hard in my first
post. :-)

> 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.

Regarding my findings above I don't think it is that clear cut.
 
> > 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 

Well, obviously we hear different things. I would say that FSF is quite
clear
on their part, there are numerous explanations on their site about what
they
mean. Whatever, we can agree to disagree on that.

> 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.

Well, here we go again - do you mean "liberty 1a: the power to do as one
pleases" or
let's say "liberty 2a: a right or immunity enjoyed by prescription or by
grant" or
"liberty 2b: permission especially to go freely within specified
limits"?

Or perhaps meaning 4? ;-)

My point: Saying "free as in liberty" does not really make it more clear
cut to me.

But I guess you are still implying "free" as in "having no constraints
whatsoever" and
in short:

- You are perfectly right if that is what you mean by free.
- Not all of us agree on that definition of free, especially not in this
context (which is important).

>  The fact that I can't incorporate a GPL program in Squeak 
> proves the point.

Well. It proves to me that SqueakL is not GPL compatible.
It doesn't prove to me that GPL is "not free".

> >> 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.
> 
> So?  Why would that have any relevance to the validity of the analogy.

I said exactly: 

"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..."

etc. In short - I said that the comparison is boring and that I did
understand
his observation. I did not say that the observation is invalid because
it is boring. Right?

This is mere wordplay.

> > 2. Those making the comparison have often not read anything about the
> > argument behind the GPL or the ideas of FSF.
> 
> Evidence?

Again, I don't think I am in court! :-) But that is still my impression.

> > 3. 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.

Come on, where have you been? :-)
Sure there has not been (that I know of) a press release of that kind,
but just use google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=communism+GPL+microsoft&hl=sv&lr=

or why not:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=sv&q=communism+Steve+Ballmer&lr=

Among the hits do read:
http://w6.weblogs.com/2001/01/04/communismAndOpenSourceSoftware


> > 4. And yes, I still think it is totally wrong comparing it with
> > communism.
> 
> And the reasons?

For the simple reason that communism is something completely different,
there
are tons of differences and just minor values that are common. IMO.

> >> 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.

Well, I don't understand what you mean by that. I didn't say it. Period.

> > 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, trying to be short - the BSD/MIT/SqueakL (and more) is about
sharing
with as few constraints as possible. If that is what you want, fine.

GPL is about preserving a number of freedoms for all users of the
software.
"Keeping it free" so to speak by constraining those actions that would
take away
those freedoms from other users. Of course it may have "holes" and
"bugs" but the
ideas are pretty clear to me and anyone else who bothers to read on
www.gnu.org.

Well, that is my clumsy way of describing the different purposes of the
licenses.
Of course you could probably describe it much better.

> > 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?

Unfortunately I have to run now (have to be somewhere in a few minutes)
- I will get back with more on this one though, promise.

> > 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.

And again we are back at definitions of freedom and free... The rest of
the
posting seemed to be focused on that are too so I snipped it to get this
one
a bit shorter! ;-)

regards, Göran