🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan3.213759.18973@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>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?  
>MZ:
>>>The obligation is not to use any part of GNU in a proprietary manner.
>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". 
MZ:
>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.  
MZ:
>Tough or not, that is what makes it non-free.

If that is what you mean be free in this instance, I agree.

>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".

Wrong.  The source that you wrote is still yours.  You can still 
use it in any way that you see fit, including later replacing the 
GNU code that you used with code that you have written on your own 
or or even re-implemented based on the ideas rather than on their 
specific expression in the text of the GNU source.  You can then
release "your" program under whatever terms you choose.

If you want to use the text of the GNU source verbatim as part
of the source for your program, yes, you are obligated to release
all your source under the GPL.  This does not make the portions
that you wrote the property of FSF;  it merely forces you to use
their license if you distribute an aggregation that includes 
their source.  

If you don't like this, don't engage in "proprietary use of GNU
source code".  Few commercial software companies use GNU source 
in this way, although many use GNU tools and even read GNU source 
as a way of getting ideas (not verbatim copies) for their own work.

>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".  

That might be nice if people agreed on the meaning of fair use,
and if it was easy to evaluate such "fairness".  With proprietary
software it is often difficult to judge the extent of "borrowing"
because software is often distributed in compiled binary form.  It's
not easy to judge fair use even when comparing complete source trees.

A fair use clause sounds nice;  similar suggestions were made
in a previous debate/flamewar that centered on the efficacy of 
various licensing schemes (mostly PD vs. GPL) for those who 
"just want to cut code" without worrying about the legalese.

Two things changed my mind on this point.  Unlike Mr. Zeleny, 
I was not concerned with semantics, but I was worried that
the self-perpertuating aspect of the GPL would delay or impede 
the porting of GNU software to new platforms - that it would 
in a broader sense impede the application of existing knowledge
to new problems.

The practical difficulty is that other forces in our society
already act as impediments;  among these are our current 
muddled software copyright and patent laws.  As I see it, 
the GPL merely attempts to counter one nasty set of impediments 
by substituting a lesser impediment that unfortunately seems 
to bother lazy programmers and semanticists. 

It's not a perfect world, but when faced with a choice I prefer 
rules that bother the lazy to those that hinder the productive.

I was also concerned that no one would invest $$$ to port GNU 
code if the results were required to be released under the GPL.  

Two cases in point were the recent ports of GNU software to 
Sun's Solaris operating system and to the DEC Alpha CPU.
In both cases the work was nearly completed before the flamewars 
fed by skeptics like me died down.  The desirability of using 
the code evidentally outweighed the impediments.

Others with a better sense of history can probably point to other 
examples in which a strict interpretation of the GPL forced release 
of source code that ultimately benefitted in good measure both users 
and "coerced" developers who were willing to accept the GPL's terms 
for using "free" GNU source.  I'm sure there have been many ...

>Anything else is coersion, and as such, does not
>deserve to be called free.

Says you.  It is free-er in every sense of the word than any other 
software I've worked with, including stuff that I was either paid 
to use or forced to use and ultimately wasted my time.

>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.

Mea culpa.  I meant "verbatim use of GPL'd code snippets".
Your point, whatever it is, can use buttressing anyway.

A "fair use" clause would be nice, but I can't imagine a scenario 
in which I'd use just a portion of a GNU program in my own work 
without ultimately having to understand it well enough to re-express 
it on my own in a way that would satisfy FSF.  FSF does not support
ownership of algorithms, so any incorporation of a snippet that would
qualify as "fair use" in the sense that we judge quotations (typically 
a paragraph or less culled from a many-page book or article) would not 
be likely to upset either the FSF or its way-part-time lawyer.

When FSF enforces its copyright in such a way that it changes
my opinion of its essential reasonableness or fairness, I won't 
hesitate to complain.  Until such time, you'll forgive me if I 
express a greater respect for do-ers and workers than blowhards.

And yes, I realize that Mr. Zeleny is concerned principally
with semantics and his defense of the "sorely abused" English
language.  It is a good thing that he focusses his efforts 
on such ends, because he shows no evidence of genuine concern
about issues that matter, like finding better ways to communicate
and share human knowledge, which is in the broadest sense is the 
issue that matters to the organization and people that Mr. Zeleny
has chosen to attack.

One could easily ignore his unprovoked tirade, but the problem 
with this is that some people mistake clever writing for good 
ideas.  Some give credence to attacks that are not countered,
even when they are done only to illustrate important points made 
in Mr. Zeleny's noble defense of the English language, and 
not out of some petty concern that it is Mr. Stallman who is 
generally well-regarded for his contributions to the computing 
and net.connected communities, and his self-described former 
colleague Mr.Zeleny who is considered a net.pest without portfolio.

Mr. Zeleny is a talented writer, in approximately the same way 
that Ronald Reagan is a talented orator.  Pity that neither 
learned to use the gift for a useful end.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949