🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0AsFJ.AnF@mtholyoke.edu> 
jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:

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

MZ:
>>>>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.

MZ:
>>I am not contesting that.

JB:
>Yes you are!

How dumb.  You are deliberately refusing to understand what I am
saying, by automatically gainsaying my claim.

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.  No
>>more needs to be said.

JB:
>It /is/ free in the sense of being distributed at no cost---as you stated
>above, like TeX you an ftp it from a number of Internet nodes.  Furthermore,
>anybody can redistribute GNU software (in its original form).  Similarly,
>the AMS could redistribute TeX (if I understand the terms of TeX's copyright
>correctly) and charge a fee which they could use to (help) finance work on
>AMSTeX, for example.  The FSF charges a fee if-and-only-if you ask /them/ to
>provide you with a copy on physical media.  But since they simultaneously
>make all their software available at no cost via computer networks (and since
>the GNU archive is mirrored by archives which are accessible via all 
>conceivable methods of computer networking this is not even restricted to
>the Internet) you simply can't claim that GNU software is not "free in the
>sense of being distributed at no cost."

Insofar as no Internet node can function as the final destination of
any program, the fact that GNU is made so available, does not amount
to free distribution.  Again, I have no ready access to a tape drive
at my email site.  Nor do billions of other potential beneficiaries of
the Foundation's munificence.  Get it through your head, -- most
people have no option, but to pay for distribution in one way or
another.  Again, this is not what I find objectionable, except in
conjunction with the following.

JB:
>It also /is/ free "in the sense of being distributed without imposing an
>obligation of its /recipient/" (emphasis mine).  The obligation imposed
>by the GNU public license applies only to those who wish to /redistribute/
>GNU software in some form or another.  As a recipient I have *no* obligations
>to the FSF until I wish to redistribute GNU or GNU-derived software.  To put
>it another way, if you read the GNU public license carefully, YOU DO NOT HAVE
>TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE, only to redistribute
>it.  I quote from the GNU Public License, version 2:
>
>	Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
>	are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
>	The act of running the Program is not restricted [...]
>
>Since you're such a stickler for terms (the semantics of "free" apparently
>set you off on your tirade), at least get this right... the recipient has /no/
>obligations.  Period.

Please try to understand my position.  As a sometime programmer, I am
placed under an automatic obligation to attach the GPL license to any
piece of my code that contains the most minute fraction of GNU, quite
regardless of whether I wish to redistribute it.  The fact that a user
who never copies, distributes, or modifies GNU, is not placed under
restriction in any *remaining* activities, does not imply that he is
not placed under a legal *obligation* to FSF.  An obligation is a
moral or legal bond that restricts or eliminates the possibility of
action; my difference from Stallman, now as it was over seven years
ago, is that I regard his imposition of a *legal* bond as wholly
incompatible with the billing of "Free Software".

>--
>Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
>Northampton, MA, USA

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