🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C0Bq4B.C9E@news.udel.edu> 
johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>In article <1993Jan3.232427.18974@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>In article <C0B6qq.B2F@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:

BJ:
>>>It is still free for your use under the terms of the GPL - the terms 
>>>set by the owner and copyright holder, which is not Mikhail Zeleny
>>>unless I've missed the name of a major contributor.

MZ:
>>I am willing to wager that my volunteered contribution to the founding
>>of the Free Software Foundation exceeds your own by an arbitrary factor
>>of your choice.  How much are you willing to bet?

BJ:
>And I am willing to wager that the sun will rise tomorrow.  
>
>I don't give a damn who contributed to the *founding* of FSF.  
>I expect that everyone who played a part sees himself as 
>Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky.  You're Marx, the philosopher, right?
>Or is it Trotsky because you now whine about betrayal?
>
>What matters is whether or not you are a major contributor to 
>FSF code - the intellectual property that is covered by the GPL.
>
>If you are, you would have the right to dictate the terms under 
>which your contribution can be used.  If not, you are just one of 
>many observers, like me, who have expressed an opinion on the the GPL.

Sorry, I do not buy the implications of this syllogism.  Any observer,
and _a fortiori_, any taxpayer, has the right to point out the extent to
which the practices of an allegedly charitable organization conform to
its motto, or the degree to which its charter is inconsistent with the
moral claims made by its principals.  This is a fact of life in a
democratic society; learn to live with it.

BJ:
>Some of your ideas have merit.
>
>The question of strict "public-virus" restrictions versus a "fair use"
>clause is a tough call.  Without these restrictions, I think that the 
>code would be used in a way that does not advance the cause of "free" 
>software as well as it has done under the GPL.  Your opinion differs.

My opinion is also based on the principle of the thing, before any
pragmatic considerations.  If you believe in the cause of freedom, it
is incumbent upon you to make a total commitment to its nature.  The
bean-counting ought to be done afterwards, if at all.  If, on the
other hand, you are interested mainly in maximizing the efficiency of
your distribution, it is both counterproductive and extremely
dishonest to set yourself up as the sole moral force in an ocean of
evil self-interest.

BJ:
>I don't give a damn about semantics or word usage.  I am more 
>impressed by results.  For example one might compare the recent 
>rate of development of GPL'd Linux with that of Mach 3.0 and 
>Net2-derived 386BSD which have been slowed by various non-technical 
>(mostly legal, I assume) hassles.  It is also my opinion that
>recent progress on GPL'd projects has been better than recent 
>progress in TeX and X-Windows, which have been cited as examples
>of better-licensed software.  My impression is that this progress
>is due to the fact that the programmers who choose to work under
>the GPL are strongly motivated by it.  I don't know why exactly,
>but I'm impressed by the results.
>
>I am also impressed by the number of programmers who have 
>recently contributed copylefted versions of work that formerly 
>was released under other more-or-less "free" licensing schemes.  
>From my position as mere observer, it appears that Stallman has 
>been increasingly successful in convincing others to use the GPL.

And Mussolini made Italian trains run on time.  Much to his credit, he
did so while dissociating himself from any moral motivation.  Will you
kindly get it through your thick skull that I am simply appalled by the
things that so impress you?  If I see programmers who have "copylefted"
updated versions of work that formerly was released under genuinely free
licensing schemes, I have no reason to regard it as a victory for truth,
justice, and the American way, rather than as yet another sordid example
of abject degradation of the human spirit.  If the degree of Stallman's
success in convincing others to use his ideas is to be regarded as the
sole measure of his moral worth, how are we to judge Microsoft?

BJ:
>If you want to make a case for changing the direction of FSF, 
>or for promoting an better licensing scheme for "more-or-less free" 
>software, you'll have to be very convincing given recent trends.

Irrelevant to the principle of the thing.

BJ:
>In the discourse thus far, you have not made any points that 
>haven't been advanced previously in gnu.misc.discuss, and you 
>haven't succeeded in making them more convincingly than others 
>have in the past -- this despite the fact that you write well.

Suppose that the others may have been right.

BJ:
>I'm sorry, but I find it suspicious that in your recent tirade 
>you choose to attack the policies of one organization and x-ref 
>to half a dozen that traditionally host arguments conducted 
>primarily for sport.

You are entitled to your suspicions.

BJ:
>In some articles you lean toward semantics and cast yourself 
>as defender of the English language;  in others you make more 
>specific points about software licensing and attack individuals
>associated with FSF;  in others you claim to champion the idea 
>of freedom.  The aggregate reads more like the work of one who 
>enjoys flame wars than someone who is making a genuine effort 
>to advance a serious argument. 

The meaning of certain words is of the utmost importance to me; if you
choose to regard it as a mere conveyance of inconsequentia, rather than
as a matter of principle to live by, that, again, is entirely your
prerogative.

BJ:
>Despite its increasingly hostile tone, this article managed
>to include most of Mr. Zeleny's worthwhile points in a single 
>paragraph which is worth repeating for those who keep Zeleny
>is their kill files:

The hostilities were initiated by you, Mr Bill.  Kindly go back and
review your words; if you expect your interlocutor to abstain from
responding in kind, I suggest that you limit yourself to abusing Mother
Theresa.

>MZ writes:
>>I had shared my idea, as well as a great deal of personal effort and
>>expenses, with Stallman and company seven and a half years ago; my
>>sole reward was an underhanded exclusion from the promised seat on the
>>Foundation's board of directors.  Just for you, my little pigeon, I will
>>repeat the gist of it: make the bloody "copyleft" a request, rather than
>>a demand.  Ask that people limit their proprietary code borrowing to
>>conventionally defined "fair use".  Do not attempt to bind anyone's
>>action, except by appealing to his conscience.  Ignore the inevitable
>>cheaters; nothing can stop a determined thief.  Offer your paying
>>customers warranty support; give people a genuine incentive to pay you
>>for copies, rather than offload them from an archive.  There is no real
>>need to copyright the programs, but if you must do it, whilst reserving
>>the right to call the resulting software free, make the terms as
>>non-restrictive as possible.  I adduce Knuth's TeX as exibit A.

BJ:
>Ignoring the insults, this is well-written and concise.  Your problem 
>is that the readers who matter -- ie, those who are currently engaged
>in producing intellectual property and thus have to decide under what
>terms to distribute it -- are probably intelligent people who have
>considered these points before.  Many evidentally disagree with you.

And many others feel essentially the same way.  But more to the point,
by posing the question in terms of production of intellectual property,
you have already prejudiced the outcome.  I regard the need for free
software, and other forms of free information, as conditioned by the
social necessity of having a venue for unrestricted exchange of ideas.
The restrictions attached to GNU mean that its popular success detracts
from, rather than contributes to, the freedom of such exchange.  Most
importantly, it promulgates the patently false thesis that coersion is
the best way towards freedom.  One would like to think that the dire
failure of the authoritarian Marxist regimes should have taught certain
self-professed freedom-lovers a lesson or two.  Not so.

MZ:
>>Son, I don't give a cold fuck whether you take my allegations at face
>>value; it is quite enough for me that the principals know that I speak
>>the truth.  More than seven years of silence is enough; from now on, I
>>shall call it as I see it.  If I see hypocrisy, I identify it as such;
>>if I know that the self-professed defenders of freedom and Kantian
>>virtue had no qualms about using my work and breaking their commitment,
>>I make a public statement.  Likewise, I have absolutely no interest in
>>your opinion of the quality of my concern; if you wish to put your money
>>where your mouth is, just take my bet.

BJ:
>Frankly, I don't see how your "allegations" were in any way relevant;
>my opinion of the GPL would not be based on the personalities of those
>who wrote it or now advocate it, just as my opinion of Kant would not
>be affected by his hairstyle.  I look at the text of the document
>and compare its merits to alternative licensing schemes.

You got it backwards, my lad, -- the claims I make are relevant to me
and other principals in the affair, insofar as they help to set the
record straight.  Since my disagreement with Stallman and Co was based
on a matter of philosophical and political principle, I chose to address
the latter as part and parcel of my plaint.  Observe that my original
article was addressed in response to the current self-justification of
RMS.  And note well that the personality issue is relevant here in a way
that it is not relevant in conventional politics, insofar as the GNU
Manifesto makes an *explicit* appeal to Kantian ethics and the Golden
Rule, and repudiates the Machiavellian _Realpolitik_ of "software
hoarders"; it is relevant in the same way as Kant's publicly expressed
racism and antisemitism is to the understanding of the ramifications of
his moral doctrine, or the history of the religious wars and the
persecution of heretics and unbelievers -- to the understanding of the
ramifications of the Golden Rule.  Would that I knew that much eight
years ago.

BJ:
>So there were disagreements when you worked with FSF and you failed to 
>convince the others that you were right.  This doesn't surprise me.  
>Now you attack their behavior as part of an effort to discredit 
>their ideas?  You'd have done well in the Bush administration.

See above.  Unlike a professional politician, whose efficiency is in no
way impeded by his opportunism, a self-professed moralist deserves all
the moral scrutiny he can get.  I refer you to Max Weber's "Politics as
a Vocation", and the "Heidegger controversy" for further philosophical
considerations relevant to this matter.

BJ:
>Your wager challenge is ridiculous.  I made no effort to cast 
>myself as anything but an interested observer;  nor would my 
>status affect the merit of my arguments.  

Sorry, I don't buy that.  You were the one to impugn my credibility by
dismissing me as somehow less relevant than the "do-ers".  Your
about-face is all too common in this venue, but rest assured that it
only fools the irremediably gullible.

BJ:
>If you want to get your money's worth for your efforts made thus 
>far, I suggest that you expand your one gem of a paragraph above 
>into a fully-developed "Zeleny Public License", and then work to 
>convince programmers that your way is better.  It might help your 
>credibility with some readers if you didn't simultaneously x-ref 
>to alt.society.anarchy and alt.usage, but again, opinions vary.

Agreed on the latter.  As for my "gem of a paragraph", I would do as you
suggest, except that I've yet to hear any reasons why public domain will
not do even better.

>-- 
>-- 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."