🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan4.033849.18981@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>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".
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       
           
Read your paragraph again.  The GPL requires that aggregrations 
of your code and GPL'd code must be released under the GPL.  Period.  
The phrase "use me in what you make, and it becomes mine" implies a 
mandated transfer of OWNERSHIP.  The GPL does not transfer ownership.

Even if you fiddle with the definition of the word "ownership",
the most that one could say about "ownership" of this particular
is aggregrate is that in some sense it is being granted to 
"everybody".  In no way does your contribution become the 
exclusive PROPERTY of FSF.

As I wrote:

>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!

I changed no conditions of your "example".  You stated that aggregration
of your code with GPL'd code places a restriction on the distribution
of the aggregrate, and I agreed.  

You then proceeded to implied that the restriction includes a change 
of "ownership", and I pointed out your error.  No one "prevaricated",
unless you knew in advance that your implication re "it becomes mine" 
was in error.

>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).

Again, this says nothing about ownership.  If I contribute 
something to the next version of emacs, I am forbidden by the 
GPL from attaching my own conditions to the use of that code
as it exists in aggregration with emacs.

I still OWN my code.  I can publish the text that I contributed 
separately and attach a different license to it.  I can sell it.
I can build a different text editor around my code and distribute 
it as I see fit.  What I cannot do is use someone else's GPL'd
code in my work and release the aggregate under my own terms. 

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

Besides teaching me a few new ways to accuse others of lying,
the main thing that you have accomplished is to assert that GPL'd
software is not free if one uses Mikhail Zeleny's definition of free. 
So what?  Others obviously use the word differently.

[ ... many insults;  much blather ...]

MZ:
>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.

[ ... more deletions ... still looking for an argument to address ...]

>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.  

This is rich.  Of all the newsgroups to which Mr. Zeleny insists upon
addressing his comments, I read only gnu.misc.discuss -- precisely 
because I am interested in principle rather than language games.

More specifically I am interested in the application of "principle"
to real life, a task that is intellectually messier and spiritually
more demanding than debating ideas in the abstract.

If you assert that X license is more "free" than the GNU license, 
I am somewhat interested in your reasoning but I'm more interested
in arguments that also address the question of whether the X license 
is *better* than the GPL.  This is messier, but more useful.

It is not obvious that more "free" = better, even if we agree
(as we must) that the X license comes closer to the one true 
Zeleny definition of "free" than the license used by the 
thus-necessarily-hypocritical "Free" Software Foundation.  

>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.

This I think is Mr. Zeleny's "point".  This use of the term freedom 
is precise and probably appealing to anarchists.  It is also nearly
useless to people who are interested in using the important and 
valuable principle of freedom as (one of many) possible criteria 
for making choices in life.  

Any discussion of "freedom" with regard to real societies would 
have to be restricted to obvious and boring circumstances if
one insisted that "freedom" be understood in a way that doesn't
admit commonly accepted notions of extent or degrees of freedom.

I freely admit that when I talk about "free" software versus
not-free software what I am really doing is comparing the nature 
and extent of the restrictions and obligations associated with 
the use of software under various licensing terms, none of which 
are free in the Zeleny sense.

Still, I am satisfied/comfortable with the way that "free" 
and "freedom" are used in the GNU docs just as I am comfortable
with the fact that my dictionary gives 15 separate definitions
of the word "free" and 10 definitions of the word "freedom".

Somehow this makes me a liar and a coward.  It also means,
according to Mr. Zeleny, that I must concede defeat.  
I do this freely as well;  I am tired.

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