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
|