Is a person really free if they aren't free to enslave others ?

G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl G.J.Tielemans at dinkel.utwente.nl
Thu Nov 8 21:43:03 UTC 2001


Andrew, I don't know anything from this subject, therfor some questions:

1. Is it correct that I first have to claim copyright before I can give it
free?
2. Is it correct that my boss never can force me - even if I agree with him
- to give him the complete rights of my products? (I only can give away the
right to use/market it?)
3. Aren't there laws that forbid to violate copyright, so if I want to allow
it i must explicit say: please change?... But doesn't question 2 forbid
that?
4. Is it true that Aplle has a sleeping copyright for Squeak?
5. If so, what if someone in Seattle wants to buy it  for .Net?(every person
has his price)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew C. Greenberg [mailto:werdna at mucow.com]
> Sent: donderdag 8 november 2001 14:27
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Subject: Re: Is a person really free if they aren't free to enslave
> others?
> 
> 
> On Thursday, November 1, 2001, at 12:31  PM, Ed Heil wrote:
> 
> > The only thing the GPL prevents you from doing is *LIMITING OTHER
> > PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO USE AND MODIFY THE SOFTWARE*.
> 
> Patently false.  GPL is full of limitations, obvious on the 
> face of the 
> license.  Significantly, perhaps ironically, as an example, 
> GPL prevents 
> me from using and modifying GPL'd software with Squeak and 
> distributing 
> the result.
> 
> I feel so free.  Not.
> 
> > It's equivalent to a philosophical argument over which 
> country is more
> > free -- a country which has laws against slavery, or a country which
> > has no laws against slavery?  The latter is more limiting, but the
> > former, many would say, is "freer."
> 
> And others complain about the references to socialism!   In 
> the war of 
> analogies, I abstain -- each has so many holes as to defy reasonable 
> discussion, particularly with a true believer.  This one (the 
> analogy, 
> of course, not my honorable colleague the true believer) is a joke.
> 
> Quite frankly, the proposition suggesting that Smalltalkers 
> who import 
> GPL code into the monolithic image of an open source system 
> are engaging 
> in conduct credibly analogous to slavery needs greater 
> support before it 
> can be taken seriously.
> 
> But let's assume he is right.  Let's take as true the 
> proposition that 
> GPL is "freer" or more free than a license that says you can 
> do anything 
> you want with the software except make me liable for your screwing 
> something up or pretending I didn't have a hand in writing it.  Let's 
> assume that I am a code-slaver dedicated to back-ending all 
> GPL code to 
> make it available for incorporation into Windows XP v.2, by 
> placing it 
> into a monolithic image and distributing the code.
> 
> Weird, but let's go with it.
> 
> It is RMS and the GPL true believers here who have adopted and are 
> defending to the end of the earth the proposition that their 
> software, 
> that their notion of the word "free" is correct, and that 
> nothing else 
> is free software,
> 
> By changing from an absolute to a relative posture, it is the 
> GPL crew 
> who has now conceded the point.  GPL is not free, in any English 
> language sense of the word.  That this is so is apparent, we 
> can't even 
> use the code in connection with Squeak.
> 
> > Sorry to bring yet another "government analogy" into play.  I agree
> > that the initial government analogy wasn't particularly useful.  I
> > just find attacks on the GPL as not being "really free" because it
> > doesn't allow you to remove people's freedom to use and modify the
> > software by slapping a proprietary license on it to be sophistical.
> 
> Straw man.  The argument is that GPL isn't free because I 
> cannot use it 
> FOR ANY PURPOSE, PROPRIETARY OR OTHERWISE, with Squeak and distribute 
> the result.  GPL impedes monolithic image-based software, such as a 
> Smalltalk system, when ANY CODE AT ALL in the image is not 
> "GPL-compatible," whatever that means in a given week.
> 
> > But as I said before, the GPL is really designed for c/unixlike
> > code, and its application to something like a Smalltalk image is
> > problematic;
> 
> Because it is not free.
> 
> > that's a known issue to the FSF and something they want
> > to try to fix in a future version.
> 
> Just listen to yourself.  You argue at the same time:
> 
> 	1. GPL is freer, hence free.
> 	2. We know GPL doesn't permit certain reasonable uses, such as 
> mixed use with Smalltalk code, and that's a problem we hope they will 
> fix.
> 
> My argument seems much simpler:
> 
> 	1. GPL doesn't permit certain reasonable uses, such as 
> mixed use 
> with Smalltalk code, hence
> 	2. GPL is not free
> 
> The proposed --forgive me, I think its ludicrous-- comparison with 
> slavery is inapposite.  Slavery isn't a reasonable use, and 
> permitting 
> Smalltalk code in Squeak to call a GPL'd method isn't Slavery.
> 
> Moreover, there is almost zero likelihood that the GPL will 
> be changed 
> to accomodate Smalltalk and monolithic images:  RMS told me 
> he doesn't 
> see it as a problem.  The next version of the GPL as 
> presently drafted 
> is even worse with respect to this problem than the existing license.
> 
> > You're quite right that the GPL is all about trying to bring about
> > a world of non-proprietary software, and if you do not share that
> > vision, you should not be using the license.
> 
> The mistaken assumption here is the proposition that only GPL can be 
> deemed non-proprietary.  Clearly Squeak is non-proprietary in every 
> meaningful sense (using the meaning of the word, which I 
> acknowledge may 
> be different from the FSF definition-of-the-week).  Many open-source 
> products may be likewise deemed non-proprietary, though they 
> don't have 
> GPL licenses and may have incompatible licenses.
> 
> GPL is not about making a world of non-proprietary software, but for 
> defining a narrow, proper subset of such code, and making the world 
> comply with that narrow, proper subset.  The problem with GPL is not 
> that it isn't viral, we know that it is, but that it is viral in a 
> manner that requires changing to GPL.  It is TOO restrictive, too 
> constraining, and not free enough.
> 
> An aside for those who criticize the allusions to socialism.  
> Read the 
> quoted sentence above, and think it through.  In the face of the 
> relativistic quibbling about which is "freeer," consider 
> which analogy 
> is more apt:
> 
> 	1. Squeak is analogous to slavery; or
> 
> 	2. "trying to bring about a world of non-proprietary 
> software" is 
> analogous to socialism
> 
> I do this not to suggest that either analogy is terribly 
> useful, but to 
> ask true believers to step back and actually think about what 
> they are 
> saying.
> 
> The problem with GPL is not whether or not it is free, but 
> whether it is 
> useful.  The problem with GPL is that for software founded on a 
> late-bound monolithic image, it is not useful.
> 
> Regardless of ideological propositions, GPL is useless for monolithic 
> image worlds.  If GPL insisted that GPL software must not co-exist on 
> the same operating system as non-GPL software on Unix, it would have 
> quickly become irrelevant.  For precisely that reason, GPL is 
> irrelevant 
> to the world of Smalltalk, at least for so long as we retain 
> the notion 
> of an image.
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list