[OT] Re: GPL - freedom versus restriction

Jecel Assumpcao Jr jecel at merlintec.com
Mon Nov 12 21:05:06 UTC 2001


On Sunday 11 November 2001 12:58,  Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
> On Saturday, November 10, 2001, at 10:20  PM, Jecel Assumpcao Jr 
wrote:
> > So if you can come up with a new license that is as protective of
> > Apple as SqueakL and include the terms of GPLv2 it seems you could
> > release the bundle containing Squeak and GPLed software. Unless
> > "under the terms of this License" == "this License". Not that I
> > would ever do such a thing myself, however... and this should not
> > be take as legal advice outside the Antartic continent.
>
> This has been hashed out in great depth in prior threads.  No license
> can be as protective of Apple and retain GPL-compatible.  The
> analysis is non-trivial and complex, and was vetted with FSF before
> we arrived at the nihilistic conclusion that there is no way to
> resolve it.  I won't review the analysis here, but rather refer Lex
> to the prior threads and remind him that GPL also says:

Actually, it was me rather than Lex who made the above proposal. I was 
totally unaware of the discussions with FSF and thought that previous 
threads had focussed mainly on the font problem.

> 6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
> Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
> original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject
> to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further
> restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted
> herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third
> parties to this License.
>
> Thus, we must be AS protective of Apple and cannot add terms.  Nobody
> who hasn't negotiated a finding of GPL-compatibility with FSF can
> appreciate how unlikely finding a solution would be.

My confusion was due to the notion that Apple's terms were a "burden" 
but not a "restriction". But I'll admit it is a practical restriction - 
if I can't afford to pay Apple's legal bills if somebody sues them then 
I shouldn't promise to do so. On the other hand, it isn't a restriction 
for everybody since I see people posting Squeak to ftp sites....

> But that really isn't the biggest problem -- the biggest problem is
> that a GPL'd Squeak would preclude the creation of original,
> non-derived software in Smalltalk, and its subsequent distribution,
> unless the program was also GPL'd.

Very true, and while this seems like a very bad idea to me it is 
actually what some people want. Just an example: Self was released by 
Sun under a very BSD-like license. Several projects, like JSelf and 
OpenSelf, have taken part of that and released it under the GPL. Gordon 
Cichon did a partial port to Linux/386 and also put the result under 
the GPL (http://www.cichon.de/self/). Since he borrowed code from GAS I 
don't think he had a choice, but this did mean I couldn't simply finish 
from where he left off and use the original Sun license for the result.

A pity, but each person has to decide for themselves what to do.

> This is unworkable.  Even FSF doesn't pretend otherwise.  If gcc and
> the GNU C libraries were arranged so that all programs generated and
> using them had to be GPL'd, nobody would use the tools. 

Nobody? That seems unlikely.

> If you
> couldn't run any proprietary software on a Unix machine that
> incidentally includes GPL'd software, nobody would use the system. 

Well, RMS probably would. But even he had no choice but to run his 
software on non-GPL Unixes for many years before Linux came along.

> This is why FSF has not abandoned the LGPL, and why the GPL has a
> program permitting distribution of GPL software side-by-side with
> independent non-GPL software.
>
> GPL cannot work with a monolithic image, unless you were to dictate
> that all Smalltalk code thereby developed was also GPL'd.  This is
> why for Smalltalk, GPL cannot be considered free, or even practical.

It is free and practical for those who want a GPL world. I am not one 
of them, so there is no need to try to make me change my mind. But I 
can understand RMS and friends. Imagine you write a neat program in 
VisualBasic and give it away for free. Your program won't run on its 
own, but needs the whole Win32 OS and a certain version of VBRUN.DLL, 
both of which are available under non free licenses. Depending on what 
Microsoft does in the future, having your sources might not be enough 
for people to be able to run your program. Only by having *everything* 
your program depends on also be free can you avoid this problem.

Since we are on the subject of licenses, I was wondering if there is 
any practical difference between the "fixed" BSD license (no 
advertising clause) and simply putting the software in the public 
domain? If there isn't, then I think I will do the latter for most of 
my own software.

-- Jecel




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list