🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0B34q.Ax0@news.udel.edu> 
johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>In article <1993Jan3.170815.18962@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>>In article <C0Ap5A.A4v@news.udel.edu> 
>>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>>>In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>>>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
>>>>the FSF [...]

BJ:
>>>What legal obligation is placed upon the USER of GNU software?  
>>>Be specific;  I use GNU software every day.  I have yet to pay
>>>any money for it;  it works better than the commercial software 
>>>it replaced, but I don't want to expose myself to unnecessary 
>>>legal hassles.  What am I missing?  Am I a victim of brain-washing?

MZ:
>>You are a victim of something, but I shan't speculate on its causes.
>>The obligation is not to use any part of GNU in a proprietary manner.
>>Chew on that; it might allow you to shut up for a while.

BJ:
>You could have saved time by making it clear that what you meant 
>in repeated assertions about the "use" of GNU software is really
>"proprietary use of the source code".  Most computer folk employ
>the term "use" in the same sense as "user", namely, someone who
>"uses" the software tools.  Similarly, a driver is more apt to be
>thought of as the "user" of a car than is the mechanic.

The use of any text encompasses quotation and paraphrase, as well as
any other form of consumption; programs are no exception.

BJ:
>If you are complaining that the GPL does not grant you the right
>to "proprietary use of the source code", well, that's tough.  

Tough or not, that is what makes it non-free.

BJ:
>The only sense of the word "proprietary" that is applicable here
>would be "made and marketed by by one having the exclusive right
>to manufacture and sell" (Webster's 7th Collegiate).

Not so.  Read the GPL.  Any inclusion of GNU code into a piece of
software legally causes the latter to fall under the provision of the
former's licensing.  In other words, it's the Foundation's way of
saying "use me in what you make, and it becomes mine".

BJ:
>So how can you complain that you cannot assert an exclusive right to 
>manufacture and sell copyrighted work that has been "made" by others?

Listen, nitwit, try to get it straight: I am not complaining on my own
behalf, but on behalf of the sorely abused English language.  There's
free and there's proprietary; some programs, like TeX, get close
enough to the former for all intents and purposes, without trumpeting
the moral superiority of their creators.  With the GNU programs, in
many important ways, it's just the opposite: not only are they
proprietary by any reasonable standard, but they also have the effect
of appropriating any program they participate in, regardless of the
extent or ratio of such participation.

BJ:
>Who grants such rights to their own intellectual property?  Not those
>who publish public domain software;  one cannot claim an "exclusive" 
>rights to sell PD software.  It is true that one can incorporate 
>PD source code in a proprietary work and claim an exclusive right 
>to distribute a particular executable, or the portions of its source
>that you have written.  Still, you cannot prevent others from doing 
>the same thing with the public domain source code, therefore the use
>of the PD code is not "exclusive".

What I would like to see, is programs like GNU distributed with a
copyright notice containing a supererogatory (look it up) *request*
that their proprietory employment not exceed the conventional limits
of "fair use".  Anything else is coersion, and as such, does not
deserve to be called free.  I invite you to meditate on the meaning of
this word, before you continue with the content-free blather you
evidently intend as a rebuttal.

BJ:
>The only way to assert a truly proprietary interest in someone 
>else's work is to buy the rights to it from a copyright owner, ie,
>someone who has not given up his/her intellectual property rights 
>by placing the source into the public domain.  I doubt that FSF
>would consider selling the rights to an entire package, but at
>least it is possible to call FSF or other author/copyright holder 
>of a GPL'ed product and request permission to "use" an algorithm
>or two without giving up your proprietary interest in a larger work.
>They own it;  therefore they have the right to refuse your request.

Huh? are you suggesting that they own the *algorithms*?  In any case,
your suggestion only buttresses my point.

BJ:
>It is also possible to structure a proprietary work such
>that it can invoke user-written sub-programs, much as emacs can 
>be extended with ".el" files.  	In this case the GNU code can
>be used directly;  the only "obligation" placed on the author
>of the proprietary work is to release the source code that 
>implements call-backs to the proprietary application, along 
>with the source for any "sub-program" based on GNU code.

This is far too much to ask, in the context of allegedly free software.

Free = free from obligation, pure and simple.

BJ:
>Finally, if what you are asking for is permission to take
>emacs (for free, naturally), make minor changes, and then 
>assert an exclusive right to sell your version under your
>own non-GPL licensing terms -- well, good luck finding 
>someone else who is willing to do it your way.  

Straw man.  My point is that, in case of truly free software, such
behavior should be restrained by morals, not by lawyers.

BJ:
>This from the person who complained that FSF volunteers 
>had unwittingly sold themselves into slavery ... sheesh!

Try borrowing a mind, and read more carefully before you reply.

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

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