🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C09qwG.8no@news.udel.edu> 
johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>[ ... extraneous x-refs removed ... ]

So you judge; I beg to differ.

MZ:
>>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.

BJ:
>Okay, I'll bite ... how would a pricing differential prevent FSF 
>from using a "distribution fee" explanation, if that was indeed
>the only way to "explain" a fee?   

Surely you can answer this question yourself.

BJ:
>The FSF have clearly advocated that the software industry make money
>by charging for "services" instead of selling the right to use or 
>copy software.  Offering a CD-ROM as an alternative to downloading 
>and archiving many megabytes of source code seems a reasonable service.

Agreed.

BJ:
>Charging a higher price for businesses strikes me as unenforceable
>and possibly a bit naive as a marketing strategy;  after all, 
>businesses are collections of individuals who would presumably 
>be clever enough to figure out a cheaper way to obtain a CD-ROM 
>that contains freely re-distributable software -- if simply obtaining 
>the CD-ROM were the sole motive for paying.

Here our intuitions diverge.  If your argument is correct, I see the
price differential as a way of offering a $300 reward for lying.

BJ:
>I expect that the reason for having a price differential is  
>to offer businesses a convenient way to donate to FSF that: 
>
>1) brings in more money than an individual's contribution  
>2) is still easier to explain to the bean-counters than 
>   conventional charitable contributions.

Since I come from a tradition that stipulates that the best sort of
charity is anonymous, I tend to find any sort of coersion towards
charity to be self-refuting.  I also note that you've yet to suggest
any reason why the service of delivering a CD-ROM to a business is 4
times more valuable than doing the same to an individual.

BJ:
>Past solicitations by FSF for tape sales (which were mainly
>aimed at businesses and organizations) have clearly suggested 
>that buying tapes is a good way to support FSF, and the recent 
>CD-ROM offer was not much different in that respect.  The CD-ROM
>offers for the first time a way of distributing the product that 
>is convenient and accessible for individual users.

Correct.

BJ:
>For those who see something sinister in offering essentially the 
>same product with different pricing for different target customers:
>all that one need do to differentiate the "individual" and "business" 
>versions of the CD-ROM would be to change the package label.  With a 
>$300 price difference, FSF might be clever enough to include some 
>added value in the form of documentation targeted at business needs;
>otherwise, they may risk alienating a business customer who pays $400 
>and later feels cheated.  If this is the case, FSF can and will
>be undersold by someone else with a better grasp of marketing and 
>customer service.  I think it's more likely that business customers
>will understand that the CD-ROM is more useful than a coffee mug or
>a tote bag, and justify the price differential as a donation.

On your idea of donation, see above.  On including the extra value for
business customers, I see no merit in embarking upon a refutation of a
counterfactual claim.

>Mr. Zeleny concludes:

MZ:
>>                                       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.  

BJ:
>The first point might be true if amended to read "always distributed 
>at no cost", but I can't imagine a scenario in which there is no way
>for people to obtain GNU software at no cost;  free distribution 
>can't be forbidden under the GPL, and there seem to be plenty of 
>enthusiasts willing to donate time, effort, and equipment.

Irrelevant to the activities of FSF.  There is no shortage of
enthusiasts willing to donate time, effort, and equipment to make
copies of any kind of software, legally or otherwise; this, however,
is most decidedly not the case with the organization in question.  As
to whether free distribution is forbidden under the GPL, that is just
what the argument is about.

BJ:
>As for the second point:  what obligation does the GPL impose 
>on "recipients" of copylefted software?  None.  How could it?

Read the text.

BJ:
>The GPL also places no obligation on those who simply 
>compile and/or use copylefted software.  That is most of us.

Irrelevant.  An obligation exists, regardless of whether "most of us"
ever come to satisfy its antecedent conditions, insofar as the latter
are formulated as binding everyone without exception.

BJ:
>It does place restrictions on those would like to distribute 
>revised versions of copylefted software under a different 
>license (without the permission of the copyright holders).  

You got it.

BJ:
>This is an "obligation" of sorts, but it clearly affects a 
>narrow group of individuals (ie, professional developers who
>want to use GPL'd source code as a short-cut to a new product) 
>as opposed to simple users or "recipients" of GNU software.  

Nonsense.  The GPL affects and binds everyone, just like the criminal
laws affect and bind even the naturally law-abiding citizens.

MZ:
>>No more needs to be said.

BJ:
>Hopefully.

Likewise.

>-- 
>-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
>-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Les beaulx bastisseurs nouveaulx de pierres mortes ne sont escriptz
en mon livre de vie.  Je ne bastis que pierres vives: ce sont hommes."