🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0BEFv.BJr@news.udel.edu> 
johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

>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.

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

That is what I meant all along.  Why not concede the argument at this
point and cut your losses?  Anything else you might say, will inevitably
amount to a futile search for an escape hatch.

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).

MZ:
>>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:
>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.

You are changing the conditions of my example, instead of addressing it.
How brave of you!  How especially poignant that you happen to be
prevaricating!

BJ:
>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.

You are lying.  The GPL specifically requires the distributor to

	cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
	that in whole or in part contains the Program or any part
	thereof, either with or without modifications, to be licensed
	at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this
	General Public License (except that you may choose to grant
	warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your
	option).

This is another good point for you to apologize, conceding defeat.

BJ:
>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.

You are still not addressing my point.  Not only are you a liar, but a
weaseling, cowardly one at that.

MZ:
>>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".  

BJ:
>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.

Fair enough.  If you are uncomfortable with "fair use", put everything
in the public domain.  If you are uncomfortable with the public
domain, just copy the X copyright notice.

BJ:
>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. 

If you believe that my concern with the meaning of freedom should be
relegated to the provenance of semanticists, I offer you my condolences
and withdraw from this exchange.  For you, freedom might be just a word;
I see the matter very differently.

BJ:
>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.

That the choice exists only in your own mind is borne out by the
example of X.

BJ:
>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 ...

You are arguing that coersion can have beneficial effects for the
society.  So can slavery, -- just ask Aristotle.

If you do not wish to address my argument, kindly do the decent thing
and admit that you are wrong.  Either shit or get off the pot.

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

BJ:
>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.

The limitations of your life experience have absolutely no bearing on
the facts of the matter.

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.

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

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

Not that you have managed to vitiate it by anything you said so far.

BJ:
>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.

Your putative programming ability is likewise irrelevant to the issue of
freedom.

BJ:
>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.

Please note that I am not soliciting your respect.

BJ:
>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.

You do not realize jack shit, my lad.  Least of all you realize that by
interpreting a matter of principle as just another banal language game,
you are only exposing the pitiful smallness of your mind, and the abject
degradation of your spirit.  As for communication and the sharing of
knowledge, kindly take note that your own position in this debate
presents you as nothing more than a cavilling coward, determined at all
costs to avoid confronting the simplest truth:

Freedom is incompatible with restriction or obligation to another.

BJ:
>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.

Well, I claim a small distinction from Mr Stallman, in that I have never
broken a personal obligation, nor, to resort to his charming idiom,
"stabbed anyone in the back"; furthermore, I claim a small distinction
from yourself, in that I have never lied for the sake of winning an
argument, nor refused to squarely address my opponent's point.  Having
said that, I confess belonging to the ancient tradition, which regards
the merits of a man's argument as wholly independent from his character,
and _a fortiori_, the size of his portfolio.  Thus, notwithstanding your
demonstrable lack of intellectual integrity, I remain open to any
rebuttal you might choose to attempt.

BJ:
>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.

You are really withering me with your witty opprobrium, Mr Bill.  Pity
that you happen to lack the courage required for admitting your defeat.

>-- 
>-- 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."