🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan2.201747.28886@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
bogstad@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.122330.18937@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <1i3ooqINNlt8@ftp.UU.NET> 
>>sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

SEF:
>>>I personally don't see what the problem is.  "Free" *does* have more than
>>>one definition in English.

MZ:
>>I personally do not see the relevance of your analogies with freedom
>>to carry guns, or freedom from incarceration.  However, I clearly see
>>that you misunderstand my point.  There exists a clear meaning
>>conventionally associated with the term "free software", as distinct
>>from public domain software.

BB:
>	I would dispute you on this.  If you talk to people in the PC world
>you will find most of them have never heard of FSF, Copylefting, or the GNU
>Manifesto.  You would also find them using the term "free software" fairly
>interchangeably to refer to public domain, beggarware, shareware or any
>number of other variants used for distribution of software.  Most of them
>have an understanding of what "public domain" is with which I (and I expect
>you) would agree.  This is because "public domain" is essentially a legal
>term with a precise definition.  "Shareware" is defined as being software
>which you can copy without immediate renumeration and can be used for a
>trial period before payment is required.  Even this definition is a little
>hazzy though because some people see "shareware" as encompassing any
>distribution that allows the copying and use of software without payment;
>but includes a request for compensation from the author.  The actual
>licensing terms may or may not actually require someone to make payment
>before continuing use of the software.  (I'ld like to avoid getting into
>whether or not such terms are in fact legally binding.  Let's stick with the
>intentions of the authors for now.)  In between(?) the two extremes of
>public domain and shareware; you can find beggarware or more unusual
>licenses such as restricting the organizations/agencies that may use the
>software.  I've seen packages that allow anyone except military
>organizations to use the the software.  "Free software" is used to cover all
>of these forms as a way of referring to software for which it is possible to
>obtain copies without pre-payment to the authors or the authors agents.  The
>GNU license easily fits this definition (which is the one that I normally
>use).

Well then, it is just this use that I find objectionable.  To put it
crudely for the time being, the salient meaning of "free" is either
gratis, or unrestricted, at least in the sense of) not imposing an+++y obligation); in
the case of the Free Software Foundation, neither of these applies.

MZ:
>> 				In order to appreciate the difference,
>>you may refer to TeX, which is made available gratis, and without a
>>reciprocal obligation.  When I want a new release of TeX, I have the
>>option of ftp'ing it from an Internet node, paying the AMS or somebody
>>else for the distribution medium, or asking someone to make me a copy.

BB:
>	You can do this for FSF software as well.

I am not contesting that.

MZ:
>>If I were to hatch a scheme to port TeX to Sinclair Z80, and copyright
>>the result, the only force capable of stopping me from doing so, would
>>be my conscience.

BB:
>	With some restrictions yes (see below)...

MZ:
>> 		     By contrast, the products of the Free Software
>>Foundation place their users under a reciprocal obligation to their
>>maker.  If the company's name were "Free to Redistribute or Change, As
>>Long As the Changes Are Shared With Us Software Foundation", there
>>would be nothing for me or anyone else to complain about.  But in the
>>present situation, the only way to justify the current short name, is
>>to resort to a linguistic trick.

BB:
>	The version of tex.web that I have on my system has the following 
>copyright notice at the top:
>
>% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
>% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
>% (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides
>% for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.)
>
>	So even the TeX distribution has "funny" restrictions on what you
>can do with it.  Using the auxiliary files described may be a way to avoid
>the ramifications of this restriction; but it is a restriction.  So TeX is
>"free software as long as any source distributions that you make don't
>involve making direct changes to certain files".  (Note: It is possible that
>Knuth has removed that restriction as we haven't updated our base TeX files
>in a while.)

Surely you understand that Knuth's restriction is in no way comparable
to that of the GNU General Public License.  Should this not be the
case, I shall be happy to elaborate; for now, I will limit myself to
suggesting that you consider the legal ramifications of including an
unmodified part of the source code of either program in a proprietary
product.  But most importantly, if you use TeX, Knuth does not require
that you implicitly accept a legal obligation, allegedly intended "to
protect your rights".  If this be freedom, it rightly belongs with the
nefarious demand of Jean-Jacques, that the refractory citizens of his
contractual utopia be "forced to be free".

MZ:
>>Semantic drift happens all the time, and it would be foolish for
>>anyone to attempt to countervail its natural forces.  However, I see
>>nothing wrong with objecting to a certain form of semantic reform,
>>which is being promulgated on hypocritically self-serving grounds of
>>protecting "my" rights.  I happen to have a vested interest in the
>>current meaning of the adjective "free"; if you happen to feel
>>otherwise, that is entirely your prerogative, and your problem.

BB:
>	My problem is that I can't figure out what your definition of "free"
>is in the context of software.  You example of TeX fits inside of my
>definition; but it does have some restrictions beyond public domain.  GNU
>software also has restrictions and still fits into my definition; but
>apparently not yours.  Personally, I have problems with the use of "free
>software" to refer to shareware; but I don't think I'm going to be able to
>change the minds of the thousands of people who do so.  Their definition
>which allows me to give demo copies of software who like what they see on my
>machine is still useful.  When I need a more precise term I use it if it is
>available or I describe the specific licensing terms for the package in
>question.

Allow me to elaborate.  The identity of software may be owned and
controlled according to three criteria: type, token, and algorithm.
The first and the second can be further subdivided into source and
object; however the distinction between the source and the object code
can be safely ignored at the moment, insofar as source licenses are
more or less universally available for all forms of software.  To
start with the last, the issues of ownership are resolved via such
questionable devices as patents and "look and feel" lawsuits.  Let us
agree that neither form of algorithm ownership is compatible with any
claim of freedom; presumably, Stallman can be said to feel likewise.
Regarding the ownership of program tokens, the issue becomes more
complicated.  FSF does not give away its CD-ROM or distribution tapes;
but up until this time, it has been able to explain charging for them
as "distribution fees"; with the introduction of the differential
pricing scheme for individuals and businesses, this explanation no
longer holds any water.  As for the program type ownership, the GNU
license very explicitly assigns all rights to the same to the Free
Software Foundation, and furthermore stipulates that the same obtains
with all of its derivatives, regardless of the ratio or extent of the
participation of GNU modules therein.  In short, GNU is neither free
in the sense of being distributed at no cost, nor free in the sense of
being distributed without imposing an obligation of its recipient.  No
more needs to be said.

>				Bill Bogstad
>				bogstad@cs.jhu.edu
>
>P.S.  I can live without understanding you....

So you can.

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."