🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
> We also have a "letter column" (gnu.misc.discuss) where other people
> can send letters on the relevant social issues, including letters of
> disagreement.

So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all.  Wow.
You asked for it; here is something I wrote a couple of months ago.







		       Why I Do Not Support GNU

				  -

		  A Statement Against Forced Freedom








		 Sakari Jalovaara (sja@sirius.hut.fi)

			     Version 1.00















All opinions expressed here are those of the author and not, as far as
he knows, those of any organization.

I would like to apologize in advance for any possible confusion caused
by bad grammar and ill-chosen words in this document; English is not
my native language.

Corrections to any errors in facts in this document are welcome; send
them via electronic mail to sja@sirius.hut.fi.

This document is free (public domain.)

			     Terminology
			     ===========


"Free" is used to mean unrestricted, no licenses, no lawyers needed,
no threats of lawsuits made, no political or religious ideology
attached, Public Domain.

"Gnufree" is used to refer to the meaning given to the word "free" by
FSF.

		 Some Comments from Supporters of GNU
		 ====================================


A member of FSF comments in the newsgroup gnu.gcc:

	    wouldn't it be great if we could use fsf stuff without having
	    to deal with fsf politics?

	It is my firm intention to make this as difficult as possible.
	The GNU project's purpose is politics.

Note especially the purpose of the GNU project.

What will he do to "FSF stuff" to force its users to deal with his
politics?

Another comment from the same person:

	We all know that some people (many people) disagree with me.  Some of
	them have already said so.  If you are another one of these people,
	please spare the readers another message to this effect.  Your opinion
	has already been expressed--saying it again won't help anyone.

Does this say: "shut up if you disagree with me"?

Again, the same person proposes to block messages from anyone working
for Apple to the newsgroup gnu.gcc:

	However, if you wish to argue against monitoring, you should use
	arguments other than "Apple's freedom of speech", since (as explained
	above) I think that is not valid.

	However, if you do disapprove of us for considering "censorship", I do
	wish to hear from you.  Even though I think you are mistaken, I still
	want to know how many of you there are.  Likewise, if you disapprove
	more of Apple than you did two weeks ago, then I wish to hear from
	you.

Note the attitude "I know you are wrong, I don't care what you think,
I just want to count how many of you there are."

			    Free Software
			    =============


If I am proud of the function I just wrote, I can allow you to
cut-and-paste it to your own work by making it public domain.  If I
copyright my work you can only use it by copyrighting that portion of
the code to me.  You can't easily mix someone else's copyrighted code
and my copyrighted code (whose copying conditions should you put on
the result?)  The only way I see out of this is true freedom - public
domain programs.

FSF's Bison (yacc replacement) output, G++ libraries, GNU dbm and
other libraries can not be linked to free programs.  This can bite in
unexpected places:

	* If a student compiles his programming assignment with Bison
	or any of the libraries he will have to enforce GNU copyright
	on his program or he won't be able to return his program to
	his instructor.  At least in the university I attend to,
	students own the code they write; it would be illegal for the
	instructors to force the students use Bison, GNU C++ libraries
	or other GNU libraries.

	* You gave a compiled "rn" program to a friend - with GNU
	libraries linked in?  Sorry buddy, see you in court.  (See the
	copyright laws of your country: FSF has little say to whether
	they sue you or not; they will *have* to or their copyright
	expires immediately!)

			 Proprietary Software
			 ====================


You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it.
Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your
program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money.
I can see several possibilities:

	* The modifications are trivial and you (or someone else) can
	duplicate them, driving the "hoarder" out of business.  The
	users of the software benefit because they get the improvement
	you didn't spot yourself.

	* The modifications are complex but still someone duplicates
	them and makes them freely available.  The "hoarder" will
	either be driven out of business or will have to make even
	more changes, leading to competition between you, the
	"hoarder" and other software developers (including other
	"hoarders.")  All the time, the program is improved and the
	users get better and better programs.

	* The modifications are so complex you can't duplicate them.
	In this case, the users can choose between your free but
	not-so-great program and the New and Improved commercial
	version.  Without competition, they only would have one choice
	- the incomplete version.  The more competitors there are, the
	better (and cheaper, etc) programs they have to make to
	stay in the competition.

Competition is what some supporters of FSF call "standard argument #1"
- and what is more commonly known as "capitalism" in the western
world.  The dictionary definition of capitalism is roughly: "a system
where prices, production and distribution of goods are determined by
competition in a free market."

As far as I have seen, the "capitalist #1 argument" has resulted in
better products (from shoes to software) than any other system.
(Geography/political lesson for today: I live in Finland.  Find out
the name of the country east of Finland.  Find out whether the country
I live in has a capitalist system or not.  If I wanted my life to be
based on forced freedom I would move 200 km to the east and live on a
sovkhoz.)  (To get completely off track: this reminds me of the
opening of the Hungary-West Germany border, with tens thousands of
East Germans escaping to the capitalist west from a country where they
were _forced_ to live under a _political_system_ they did not believe
in.  Maybe we will live to see an exodus from the GNU-type forced
socialism to capitalism as well.)

Most software is not "fun hacks" like compilers and re-writes of
"awk," but rather programs like accounting systems, factory stock
accounting systems and control programs for VCRs.  Are YOU going to
write these programs if you don't get paid for them?  Do you think a
company will hire people to write them if the company doesn't get
something out of it (e.g. a "competitive edge")?  Will VCR buyers be
happy if nobody spends money on the development of VCR software?

If people are not allowed to sell the software they have written (like
they are allowed to sell books they have written and potatoes they
have grown) will they bother to learn programming in the first place?
Are enough people (besides those who like writing "fun hacks") ready
to pay $NNN.NNN for a university education if all they learn is a
skill that can't be sold?

In the ideological GNU world, programming is a hobby.  In the real
world, programming is a profession.  Good programmers are a scarce
resource.  Intelligent people will study to be stock brokers instead
of programmers if programming means an insecure future (financially
and otherwise.)

		       GNU Copyright Confusion
		       =======================


Here are some questions concerning the GNU copyright.  Do you think
that I, you, FSF, your lawyer and FSF's lawyer would answer these
questions identically?  If not, maybe the GNU copyright is confusing.
Maybe you or someone else will go to jail because they "thought is was
OK to copy GNU software freely."

I know the answers to some of these questions; the point is: are you
absolutely certain *you* know them.  Copyright laws and international
copyright agreements are definitely not simple.

Now for the quiz:

	Suppose someone wanted a GNU program and, without my
	knowledge, copied the executable from /usr/local/bin where I
	installed it.  I never gave him the source or the file called
	COPYING (which I earlier deleted to save disk space.)  Am I
	breaking the law?  Is the person who copied the program
	breaking the law?

	Same as above but I know the other person is copying the
	program and I OK it?

	If you print (make a paper copy of) a GNU source file do you
	have to print the file called COPYING as well?  Can you give
	one page of the print to someone?  What if that someone takes
	a page from the printer without your knowledge?

	FSF has distributed a patch file that contains modifications
	to the copyright on the source code.  Can you legally apply
	the patch?  Can you apply just the patches that don't change
	the copyright?  (This happened with Emacs 18.53 (or so.))

	A company ships a GNU program but, to avoid having to give the
	source to their run-time system library, they require the user
	of the program to link it with the library.  The company is
	benefiting from GNU but contributing nothing and "hoarding"
	the library source code.  Should the company be blacklisted
	and boycotted?  Sued?

	It has been said that the "user does the link" trick described
	above is quite legal and permits (in the eyes of the law, at
	least) shipping non-GNU software which uses GNU software.
	Which of the following are "moral" and which should lead to
	actions (lawsuits and/or blacklisting) against the
	company/person who does them:

		The user does the link (like the company mentioned
		above)

		The system administrator does the link

		The system administrator does the link and then
		demands money from the users before they can use the
		program (say, a university where the system
		administrator gets his salary from tuition fees paid
		by the users (students))

		Same as above, but the GNU software requires so much
		maintenance that extra personnel have to be hired to
		take care of it and subsequently tuition fees have to
		be raised to pay their salary (effectively making GNU
		software cost real money)

Even if you can afford a lawyer (I certainly can't) and obey the law
one major point remains: if the opinions of FSF clashes with your
opinions they can (and seem quite willing to) blacklist you and hold
demonstrations against you (like they are doing to one computer
manufacturer.)  There are lots of people that just won't trust
fanatics enough to take the chance.

The clearest copying condition I can think of is "public domain" - you
can do anything with public domain work!  That is what *I* call free.

			   FSF Methodology
			   ===============


If I work on GNU software my work will be used to promote FSF
political ideology - not just the parts I agree with.

Even if you like SOME aspects of GNU (I'd like to have the source code
of all the programs I use and I don't mind giving my source code to
others) are you certain that you want to support ALL the GNU goals?
Do you even know the complete GNU policy?  If a political party
(remember, in the words of a member of FSF, "[t]he GNU project's
purpose is politics") has some mother-and-apple-pie policies, are you
ready to give your future - and maybe the future of everyone else - to
their hands?

Remember the attitude "even though I think you are mistaken" in "Some
Comments from Supporters of GNU" above?  GNU never was about
democracy.

As long as FSF owns (holds copyright on) my program they can change
the copyright.  I just won't trust fanatics that don't listen but say
"you are mistaken."  Remember, in the words of an FSF member: "It is
my firm intention to make [using FSF stuff without having to deal with
FSF politics] as difficult as possible."  Just *what* are they going
to do to my work to make it difficult for some people to use it?

Here are some methods used by FSF to promote their policies:

	FSF has the opinion that some of the Apple Computers'
	corporate policies are bad, so they are "boycotting" Apple.
	(Please note: I am not commenting on Apple policies, I am just
	commenting on FSF methodology.  One can oppose the
	"look-and-feel" suit without believing in other GNU policies
	but the reverse is not true - if you support GNU, you are
	supporting all the goals GNU has or ever will have.)

	FSF also distributes a political manifesto that urges people
	against the Apple corporation and its employees.  So far
	there is only one company on this blacklist.

	FSF proposes a public smashing of Apple computers to promote
	their opinions.  I see very little difference between this and
	burning of books.  I will not help a group that does things like
	this, whether I believe in their ideology or not.

	FSF proposes to censor any messages from Apple employees in
	the "gnu" newsgroups.  I don't happen to believe in
	censorship, whatever the reasons for it are.  Ban the
	thought police!

	A member of FSF has stated that he is "willing to go to jail"
	if the law is against his convictions.  I find it amazing how
	someone can place his own beliefs above those expressed by the
	community he lives in - so much so that he is ready to break
	any law he doesn't happen to like!  I seem to be missing
	something here: why is it that pro-socialist movements tend to
	be anti-democracy?

Okay, you have studied all the cases mentioned above and agree with
FSF methods.  Are you certain that you approve of the methods FSF
adopts *tomorrow*?

Your *programming* support for GNU will be regarded as support for FSF
*ideology* and will be used to promote it using any methods FSF seems
fit.

		  Life, the Universe and Everything
		  =================================


There are no easy answers to some questions.  FSF claims that GNU is
the ultimate truth - the whole FSF methodology is based on that
principle (boycotts, the "my opinion is better than the law" and "I
don't care what you say, you are wrong anyway" philosophies, the
Perfect Truth on what kind of copying restrictions to impose on all
software.)

I think the score is more like this:

	*  I   do  not have the complete answers

	* FSF does not have the complete answers

The difference is that I am willing to let the search for the answers
to go on, whereas FSF wants to chain everyone to their ideas with their
copyrights and bullying.

	To Oppose or Not To Oppose (or, Why Am I Writing This)
	======================================================


Should I just sit back and ignore GNU?  Should I use GNU software even
if I don't support the political ideology of GNU?

"Why I don't just shut up if you don't like GNU?  Nobody is forcing
you to use GNU software."

Because that is EXACTLY the business FSF is in.  Forcing people to do
what *they* think is right.  Remember software tax?  Remember the GNU
"license" clause 2b ("give YOUR work to promote OUR ideology or we'll
sue you.")

What FSF proposes to do is not ONLY to write gnufree software but ALSO
make any other kind of software either illegal (commercial software)
or extinct (public domain software.)

I want to be able to sell software.  More importantly, I want to be
able to *BUY* software.

I often heard people refer to "public domain GNU software" - even some
that are actually contributing software to FSF.  This makes me feel
quite sad - FSF is getting support from people who don't know what
they are really supporting.  People are wasting their effort writing
software that many people can't use either because of their
"capitalist #1" beliefs or for fear of FSF blacklisting and lawsuits.

It seems to me that many people who support GNU and contribute to GNU
do it because they like the idea of a no-cost operating system with
source code.  They haven't given much thought to the political goals
and methods of FSF.  Many would probably accept suitably covered-up
nazism if it came with so-called "free" software...

FSF will create a huge gap between universities and the "real world":
companies will no longer be able to invest in university software
projects in fear of GNU copyright contamination and lawsuits.  This
hurts not only commercial programmers, students and researchers but
everyone whose standard of living is affected by computers and high
technology -- in the long run everyone living in the "western world."

I will - at least until my conscience really gets upset - continue to
use GNU Emacs and the GNU debugger (other GNU programs being currently
too buggy to warrant the trouble.)  My sore conscience gets some
consolation from the fact that FSF uses software written by
non-GNU-supporters (TeX, X, hack, scheme, ...) to advocate their
political ideology.

I guess that when it comes to matters of conscience I am more a human
being than a programmer.

			       So What?
			       ========


Think about it.  Don't take GNU people's word for it and don't take my
word for it.  Read the GNU copyright and think what it really means to
your programming effort and the whole future of computers.

If you are about to contribute a program to GNU, consider making it
totally free: then both the GNU people and the less politically-minded
among us can use it.  There might even be a truly free collection of
software one day for use by everyone regardless of their religion,
political views and employer.

Think about it.