🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan11.144521.19192@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

   Although I prefer not to bother with philippics, the meager substantive
   content of this particular effort can be dispensed with in less than five
   minutes.

Nothing philippic about my post, but yours have had substantial amounts
of bitter condemnation of many people, now including myself.  I didn't do
anything to deserve that, except (obviously) to disagree with you.  If
this is how you treat people doing volunteer work, I hardly wish to support
any vision you have concerning free software.

   In article <BURLEY.93Jan9171820@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
   burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:

   >In article <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu>
   >zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

   MZ:
   >>This is correct, but you could still restrict the GPL, and follow by
   >>licensing subsequent releases under the new version thereof, leaving
   >>the dreaded software hoarders with nought but obsolete "free" software.

   CB:
   >Yes, and the US Government could redefine "public domain" as now meaning
   >"owned and licensable by Greenpeace", which would have far worse consequences,
   >but is more likely now that Al Gore is in the White House.

   Ha ha.

Are you conceding that it is unlikely that the FSF could ever succeed at
restricting the GPL, and therefore is very unlikely to try?

   CB:
   >Even if the FSF was somehow taken over and the new "owners" released a new
   >version of the GPL that further restricted rights, several things would
   >happen:
   >
   >1.  Significant legal challenges would be threatened (and probably
   >    succeed) regarding whether the new version of the GPL maintained
   >    the "spirit" of the previous version, as required in the GPL itself.

   Yes, just like the Coca-Cola Company was challenged in court by its
   irate customers, for betraying the "spirit" of Coke by decocainizing
   it.

To my knowledge, the cocaine-laden Coke never came with a license agreement
specifying that future changes would not affect the "spirit" of the product.

But you seem to have difficulty picking comparisons here, which is
understandable at least because, perhaps, there are so few such
ensurances in products with which we are all familiar.

So, again: the GPL itself specifies that subsequent versions will _not_
change the spirit of the GPL.  A new GPL that allowed classic proprietary
software-release mechanisms would _clearly_ violate the wording in the
current version.  I doubt a judge would have any problem with rendering
the new version invalid.

Nevertheless, there is a basic thread in common here: just as one should
be concerned about becoming effectively addicted to a product (such as
cocaine-laden Coke) that might be suddenly withdrawn, one should be
careful about how one writes and releases precious software, making sure
that the method of release doesn't possibly lead to free access to ones
own software being withdrawn.  That is a legitimate concern, and is the
basis for these arguments -- some people are concerned the GPL represents
such an addiction, others think PD does.  This analogy breaks down
pretty quickly after this, however.

   CB:
   >2.  The existing code, protected by the previous version of the GPL, would
   >    not be obsolete simply because its GPL was an older version; and,
   >    since the source code would still be freely copyable according to the
   >    GPL, people would have the same ability to continue to enhance
   >    the software as they do now.

   Apply this argument to public domain software, and you will summarily
   refute every claim made by Stallman to the effect of the putative
   superiority of "copyleft".

No I won't.  People will have the same ability to continue to receive
changes to the source code to support releases of works derived from
older-GPL-protected software.  That's not true for public domain software.

But I suspect you know this, and are simply enjoying playing a game
of debating vs. trying to resolve or understand anything, especially
those of us contributing towards our best understanding of free software.

Of course, insulting people who are supporting an implementation with
which you disagree, even when the implementation can be objectively seen
as a legitimate one for a design (free software) with which you claim
to agree, is nothing new in politics or debate.  It's the old "you're
either with us or against us" concept.  If I don't support affirmative
action and quotas, you accuse me of being a racist; if I don't support
Colorado Amendment Two, you accuse me of encouraging homosexual behavior;
whatever.

Early on, your arguments appeared to have merit due to your writing style
and your initial avoidance of name-calling and insults (something which
I know some GNU supporters engage in quite frequently), but you rapidly
resorted to those methods when certain individuals posted disagreements.

I thought I'd give a shot at indicating why someone who, like myself,
is ultimately in favor of total individual freedom as you, yourself,
claim, writes software for GPL release instead of PD even though PD
places fewer restrictions on the actions of others, but apparently you're
so busy attacking anyone who doesn't just fall down and worship every
word you right that you don't have room for an open mind.

And it seems your past interpersonal difficulties with rms are causing
you to take it out on anyone you see at all supportive of him or his
policies, much as some women take out their frustrations with a few
previous heterosexual relationships on pretty much any man they meet.
(Of course, some men do the same thing, but I've personally experienced
women doing this, and had apologies and explanations offered afterwards.)

   CB:
   >3.  The FSF would lose most or all of its support, especially given how
   >    many people scream and moan about how FSF software is not "Truly Free"
   >    today (and somehow still have time to write truly free software?).

   By the same token, should they release their programs into the public
   domain, the FSF would *gain* the support of many people currently
   disagreeing with the GPL.

Obviously.  But of the people I've seen who currently so disagree, I find
few of them seem to remain in permanent disagreement (i.e. some become
converts) _and_ seem to have something to offer besides constant insults
(i.e. I'd rather _not_ have them in the GNU camp, personally; we have enough
people who invect rather than invent, I think).

And I do encounter many people who come from a different perspective in
disagreeing with the FSF's GPL, for whom the saving grace of the GPL is
the fact that they can at least assure that competitors won't be able
to snarf their code, touch it up a bit, and release it as a proprietary
program, if the code is GPL-protected.

So I think we'd lose far more people by taking the FSF down the PD or
PD-like route -- people who actually write code instead of abusive and
insulting netnews posts.

   CB:
   >I cannot think of a better way to release my Fortran compiler than by
   >not only GPL-protected it, but signing copyright over to the FSF...

   While some of these reasons may be subjectively justified by your
   irrational fear of lawsuits, none of them justifies the GPL.  The
   ability of the FSF to protect your rights against frivolous and
   arbitrary lawsuits does not in any way depend on the restrictive terms
   and conditions of its software licensing.

My fear of lawsuits is not nearly as irrational as your above-stated fear
that the FSF might someday revise the GPL to make it significantly more
restrictive.  Further, if I release my code to the public domain, I am
(presumably) much more liable in the view of the courts for patent
infringement than if I sign an assignment of copyright over to the FSF.

Someone recently wrote and released a free program that implements RSA
in some useful form.  He was forced by the patent holder (RSA, Inc., I
believe), somehow, to withdraw the program and promise not to support it.
How do you think that force was accomplished?  What threats can be used
against someone writing and distributing software entirely without receiving
remuneration?  Logically, the threat of a serious patent-infringement
lawsuit asking for damages based on some plaintiff-determined per-copy
fee multiplied by the number of copies estimated in circulation (which
the author could no longer control), tripled because the author knew the
algorithm was patented.  (I don't know the details of the situation,
but it stands to reason that a patent holder like RSA or Cadtrak indeed
would be willing to threaten, and take, legal action against a volunteer
author of free software, since they make money primarily or exclusively
from patent-license fees.)

Now, since that author had the advantage of knowing the algorithm was
patented, _and_ having the potential plaintiff know just by looking at
the description of the program that their patent was being infringed,
_and_ having not distributed the program for very long before being
threatened, presumably no lawsuit ever was filed.

On the other hand, the RSA program probably was not over 100,000 lines of
code (my portion of GNU Fortran is); I'm unaware of any patents I might
be infringing; patent holders won't discover I'm infringing any patents
until, potentially, years after I release the source via the GPL (PD would
offer no solution, of course); and the number of copies in circulation
will be far greater by the time an infringement accusation is made (given
the popularity of Fortran).

The upshot is, the probability of a patent-infringement accusation being
directed at GNU Fortran is probably 1% or greater.  Presumably I could have
my house and other assets awarded to the plaintiff -- or, again, what
threat caused an author of another free program to hastily withdraw it?

But if you wish to back up your claim that my fear (which isn't a fear,
merely an informed awareness) is irrational, simply agree to sign a
document stating that you personally will fund any and all defenses and
awards involving patent-infringement accusations brought against GNU Fortran.

First, though, I suggest you look into software-patent issues and, in
particular, the successes had so far for even the most obvious patents
(the "+++" command for modems; exclusive-ORing of a cursor to a screen;
and so on).

   CB:
   >Releasing code via the GPL and/or the FSF isn't perfect.  But then, nothing
   >is.  People looking for perfection in the material, human realm will always
   >be disappointed unless they are easily misled.  Same for people expecting
   >Richard M. Stallman to be the ideal leader of the free-software
   >movement.  I fit none of these descriptions, and feel sorry for anyone
   >who fits any of them.

   Most categorical generalizations are stupid.

   CB:
   >But, instead of bitching and moaning about rms, the FSF, or the GPL,
   >which I suppose I could do, I just keep writing code that, for all
   >practical and useful purposes, will be free.  I don't particularly care
   >that some people will restrict themselves such that they can't use
   >my code in the way I'd like them to and will permit them to.  And I
   >have no use for extremists who claim my 2.5+ years of volunteer effort
   >to write a free Fortran compiler isn't genuine because I don't release
   >it under _their_ terms (PD, or some other license agreement).  This is
   >the best way I've found so far (using both theoretical analysis and
   >practical experience) to do what I'm doing and have it benefit the
   >people most ready to be benefitted.  I'm not one to cast pearls before
   >swine, though I occasionally make mistakes in that direction when posting
   >to newsgroups, perhaps.  :-)

   I have addressed this sort of reasoning in my replies to other people.

Perhaps, but it is entirely unconvincing, especially the manner in which
you've presented your arguments.

   CB:
   >Ultimately, the GPL and the FSF way have advantages and disadvantages
   >that correspond pretty much to a radically new computer language or
   >operating system: it might seem ideal when one stays within the system,
   >but have (or appear to have) shortcomings when it comes to interfacing
   >to the outside world or, more specifically, being backwards compatible.
   >
   >I've seen a .signature that said something like:
   >
   >    "In response to the 5/2/2014 announcement by FooBar Computer Corp.
   >     of a new computer that fits in a shirt pocket, runs entirely on
   >     solar and thermal energy, and has the compute power and storage
   >     capacity roughly equivalent to a Connection Machine 10 or Cray
   >     Z-2, reporters quickly asked: 'Does it run MS-DOS programs?'"
   >
   >The equivalent for the FSF might be:
   >
   >    "In response to the announcement of a new software licensing scheme
   >     called the GPL that, if widely followed, would promote software reuse,
   >     increase innovation, cooperation, and useful competition, thus leading
   >     to better utilization of society's resources and improve the level of
   >     service provided to users of computers, reporters quickly asked:
   >     'Can I copy the GPL software and call it my own?' and 'Will an average
   >     computer software company be able to earn $1B using the GPL in 1Q92?'"
   >
   >Not that these aren't valid questions, but it seems to me that people
   >who find that GPL too restrictive don't appreciate or consider the vision
   >of having software that you can _always_ fix or hire someone to fix because
   >you _always_ have access to the source code, not just because someone's
   >been nice enough to follow protocol and provide it (the pre-1975 standard
   >in some pockets of the industry).

   None of these arguments demonstrate the superiority of the GPL over
   public domain.

Nor were they intended to.  Apparently you thought you read something where
I said "the GPL is superior to public domain because...".  I did not.  I've
been specifying why I'm choosing the GPL over public domain and am willing
to let time and tide show which is best, and suspend judgement until then.
I don't claim public-domain release is bad or stupid or immoral, just that
I'd like to try the GPL way and, so far, it seems to have demonstrated
substantial (to me, anyway) advantages in its short lifetime.

But, I'm curious -- you've never actually responded to this aspect, as
far as I can see -- do you actually believe it is undesirable for people
to always have access to the source code for programs they run?  Or do
you just feel that it is less important than having the freedom to not
provide others with that access?

If the former, fine, our ideas of freedom just diverge too much; I see
release of executables without source (and without adequate and efficient
means of disassembly) as somewhat like hooking someone on an addictive
substance for which you remain the only source.

If the latter, then you probably are in violent agreement with the goals
and designs of many GNU supporters, including probably those you've
been insulting in this forum.  After all, ultimately nobody is forced
to swallow software without access to source, it's just that in today's
society, they think they have to (and they do have to to meet their
own goals in many instances).

But while you insist that all actions must be 100% in line with the goals,
some of us believe that the best way to demonstrate the practicality,
usefulness, and effectiveness of refusing to accept non-source-available
software as a tool on which one must depend is to develop what might be
called a microcosm in which source availability is ubiquitous and yet the
programs themselves do not make it trivially easy to tatter that microcosm
in the workaday world of competition.  The success or failure of the
microcosm should serve, at some point, as a fair guide to how successful
people can really be at exercising their freedom to use only source-
available software even while permitting others to release their own
software however they see fit.  But unless the microcosm has a fair chance
at competing with the other macrocosms (PD and proprietary software), the
critical mass might never be reached (PD itself is proof of that, else
people would today be generally demanding source-available software).

   CB:
   >But, then, some people think source code contains all the programmer's
   >knowledge of the problem (it doesn't, or else the problem is trivially
   >solved), so they somehow think there are moral reasons to withhold it
   >from people.  Fine.  My vision of where the computer industry will, or
   >could, go, includes technologies and capabilities far greater than what
   >we have today without necessarily requiring much better hardware (though
   >it would take much better advantage of better hardware than our present,
   >feeble conceptions), but is basically unachievable without vastly greater
   >cost _unless_ LPF and FSF concepts become more widely adopted.  In
   >particular, I believe software patents, look-and-feel copyright, and
   >even widespread release of binary images without corresponding source
   >code already unnecessarily hampers the industry today, and the degree
   >to which it does so will increase as computer-related technologies
   >(software, hardware, communications) increase.  (E.g. you'd be amazed
   >at how much we accept as "normal" in the way we use computers that
   >has come about partly because we _don't_ share source code; I'm more
   >aware of that since I'm one of the old fogies who was using computers
   >back when source code was much more ubiquitous.  It scares me to think
   >what kinds of ludicrous new approaches we'll have to invent and have
   >become "part of software engineering" to deal with look-and-feel
   >copyrights and software patents, but that's another issue.)

   This visionary outburst is wholly irrelevant to the argument.

You mistake me for someone who wants to waste time arguing with you.
Instead, as I pointed out above, and feel was obvious from the nature
of my post, I'm trying to indicate that not all actions must be
carried out from the absolute highest level of morality imagined by
the actor, to the point of condemning those who disagree either with
what subtle points represent said highest level or how practical and
achievable that highest level is in a given arena.

Even Jesus Christ, who generally instituted no forms of religion or
worship, said "Suffer it to be so now" when, early in his career, he
consented to being baptized by John the Baptist.  Whether you regard
Jesus as real or fictitious, he is a character recognizable as one
who followed and represented a very high, absolute level of morals,
yet he not only permitted the occasional allowance for the prevailing
modes of thought of his time (including not only being baptized when
his own statements encouraged no form of ritualism, but also "Render
under Caesar the things that are Caesar's" and, perhaps, even avoiding
ever referring to God as Mother or having feminine attributes, something
that would have been unthinkable even to his closest followers
at the time but which has been increasingly recognized as legitimate
in the past 100 years or so by some Christian denominations); he also
generally avoided condemning others simply because their conceptions
of morality fell somewhat short of his or their allowances for the present
day were greater than he was prepared to accept.

He did, of course, whip the moneychangers out of the temple, people who
were probably making an honest attempt at a living performing a task
many appreciated.

Do you really see rms and the FSF and all its supporters as, due to the
GPL, worthy of being whipped out of the temple, as it were?  You act as if
you do.

Yet, if we are to accept your claims of a higher understanding of morality
(specifically, freedom), those of us who regard the example of Jesus
as a useful way to determine the legitimacy of your claim have several
ways of doing so:

    1.  Do you demonstrate your higher understanding with practical works
	rather than simply flowery words?

    2.  Do you forgive sinners?

    3.  Do you encourage others to go out and preach the gospel, even
	those who understand it imperfectly, and does their success
	testify to the clarity of your vision?

#1: Jesus healed people of illnesses that even today we can't.  (Again,
you can dispute this; I'm referring to the story.  Substitute Tolkien or
some such story if you must, though I'm unaware of any story with an
example I find higher than Jesus.)  The corresponding element in this
argument is: do you create lots of wonderful, free software?  rms has,
and the software _itself_ is "going forth", unsullied, reaching those
who are prepared to use it, and (of course) being met with great hostility
by those who are not.  I'm unaware of any great PD works you've done,
but I look forward to being enlightened.

#2: Jesus forgave even those who willfully and knowingly broke the
Ten Commandments when he saw they were prepared to change their ways.
I can't say rms seems particularly good at this, though perhaps he is;
sometimes I think he might not be good at this.  But you've clearly
prejudged several people as "sinners" or other such things, including
myself, so you've completely missed the boat here.  If you were truly
convinced of the efficacy of your arguments, you'd be far more inclined
to expect that those with whom you disagree will likely come around on
their own and thus need not be attacked in public.

#3: Jesus taught and sent out disciples who had all sorts of problems
understanding his message, and graciously dealt with those problems.
You attack someone who, though clearly disagreeing with implementation,
has basically the same goals as you, by making a fairly important
choice of implementation into a massive mountain of difference in goals.
Jesus knew many, if not all, of his disciples had motives such as
personal adulation and selfishness and that these motives caused them
to behave in ways with which he disagreed; nevertheless, he continued
to encourage them, and rebuked them lovingly, no matter how many times
they needed it.  rms, again, is nowhere near 100% perfect here, but
has definitely willingly tolerated those with whom he has disagreements
(e.g. my objection to boycotts and, therefore, continued use of two
Macintoshes in my home, including even an occasional purchase of a 3rd-
party item).  You, on the other hand, have been viciously attacking,
in this public forum, a group of people who are basically in 99% agreement
with you, only because you can't stand a 1% disagreement, and seem to
prefer vicious attack over Jesus' (and many others') approach of simply
setting an example.

So, your claims of moral high ground (that you have such a high regard
for freedom you can't possibly accept the GPL) are pretty much wasted
because you simply aren't backing them up in what I, and probably many
others, consider to be crucial ways.  rms has done this quite well,
though I personally wish he'd write more code and delegate politics
to those better able to handle it.  (At least he's not wasting lots of time
posting to netnews.  I still have much to learn from him, I guess.)

Of course, you might well choose to respond to my observations with an
all-out assault on my integrity, my character as a Christian, my
interpretation of the story of Jesus, and so on.  It wouldn't be the
first time; I've spent all my life as someone whose personal integrity
and striving for higher ideals leaves him open for vicious, uncalled-for
personal or general attack (has _your_ mother recently been the target
of a blanket attack in a large-city newspaper as a child-abusing witch
who deserves to be tortured? mine has, simply because of our religion).

Your words are thus powerless to change my approach, something that
you do seem unable to understand (though I hope I've helped you in this
regard with the above explanations), claiming as you often have that
only idiots don't do an about-face of their principles and their beliefs
in the presence of a fine writer who knows what is absolutely right for
himself and everyone else.

But nevertheless I suggest for your benefit (which seems to have a remote
chance of succeeding) and for the benefit of others (especially those
who find your writing style at all persuasive) that you continue your
crusade by setting an example rather than attacking those who are not
truly your enemy.

Given your (clearly self-perceived, and perhaps justifiabily so) ability
at writing (and perhaps generally communicating) persuasively, something
rms, IMHO, lacks to a degree typical of a dedicated hacker, you should
be able to easily surpass his accomplishments (which includes the
accomplishments of all those who've enhanced, for public use, GPL-
protected software, of course) in, say, 10 years or less.  After all,
opponents of the GPL are even now joyously pointing out all the wonderful
software that can never be effectively written and released under the
GPL (games; end-user software; vertical apps; user-friendly sysadmin
tools; and so on), so it's not as if the FSF has already cornered the
market.  (Of course, several years ago, the list of no-GPL-success-possible
included things like compilers, debuggers, text editors, and operating
systems.)

As you begin to succeed at that, your claim that PD is demonstrably
superior to GPL (at least in its freedoms; but many others, as you
point out, claim it is superior in other practical ways) will be far
more effective, and you won't even have to insult people in public.

Then, you can sit back and enjoy being viciously attacked by someone
new who, rather than contributing freely towards his/her idea of a
better society, chooses to publicly tear down those who've already
done so, gotten accolades for doing so, but have a slightly different
idea of a better society.

   CB:
   >But that is just my vision, one I have cultivated and reality-checked for
   >over 20 years, and is worthless to anyone who is bent on whining about the
   >GPL and attacking those who, rather selflessly, help out the FSF in its
   >quest in making software freely copyable (not unnaturally restricted)
   >for everybody who wants freely copyable software (and many, apparently,
   >do not).  So I will not share my vision here.  After all, it's probably
   >pretty blurry anyway, and could turn out to be very wrong (though the
   >past 20 years suggest I've had pretty good vision so far).

   I prefer not to dignify this piece of narcissistic, self-righteous
   claptrap with a reasoned answer.

I have little reason to believe any answer you could be capable of giving
would have any aspect of dignity.  If you aren't able to provide a
counterexample in the form of a reply to this post, I doubt you are
able at all.

Further, if the paragraph of mine you quote is narcissitic and/or
self-righteous, then there are simply no words to describe many of yours
posted here in the recent past.  I don't think I'm the Jesus Christ
or Gandhi or Jesse Jackson of Free Software or anything else, and readily
admit (as the paragraph shows) that I don't see things clearly much of the
time, and that I'm always willing to learn from others.  You've
consistently posted material showing you do view yourself as possessing
an ultimate authority or understanding, that you couldn't possibly see
things more clearly, and that you have nothing to learn from others.
(It has become clear that when you ask a question like "Why do you think
some apples are red?", you are not trying to learn anything new other
than a new way to attack your opponents.)

   cordially,

That .signature has got to be the biggest joke I've ever seen on the
net in the two years I've been reading net news!  Do you really
think you're being cordial when you spend so much time prejudging
people based on an interpretation of their writings skewed radically
by the degree to which they agree with you?
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) lpf@uunet.uu.net