🚀 go-pugleaf

In <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara):
SJA> So it *is* OK to disagree with FSF in gnu.misc.discuss after all.  Wow.

It has been right from day one; the FSF has not ever claimed otherwise.

SJA> "Gnufree" is used to refer to the meaning given to the word
SJA> "free" by FSF.

Note that the FSF is not the only one to use the term as it does; even
lexicographers find this usage acceptable.  I'm not saying you were
claiming otherwise, but that point should be clarified.  The use of
the word "free" by the FSF is not an attempt to equivocate.

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

SJA> Note especially the purpose of the GNU project [is politics].
SJA> What will he do to "FSF stuff" to force its users to deal with his
SJA> politics?

He will do what he thinks is right in the pursuit of his goals.  No
one forces people to use FSF code.  If the users find the terms
unacceptable, they will not be users any longer.  It is their right.

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

You (or perhaps I, but I think the former) have misunderstood the
[now defunct?] proposal to filter traffic on the GNU lists.  It was
not to block messages from people working at Apple, but to block
messages which would counter the FSF's position regarding Apple.

SJA> FSF's Bison (yacc replacement) output, G++ libraries, GNU dbm and
SJA> other libraries can not be linked to free programs.

Right; derivative works.  More on this soon.

SJA> This can bite in unexpected places:
SJA> 	* If a student compiles his programming assignment with Bison
SJA> 	or any of the libraries he will have to enforce GNU copyright
SJA> 	on his program or he won't be able to return his program to
SJA> 	his instructor.

First of all, the student will have to turn in source code anyway.
Perhaps there is some odd example where only the binary is expected,
but it is _extremely_ rare, at least in these parts.  If the source
code _necessitates_ compiling or linking with FSF code then it is the
student's own problem for writing it that way.  If the terms of the
FSF were unacceptable then it should have been done differently.

SJA>    At least in the university I attend to, students own the code
SJA>    they write; it would be illegal for the instructors to force
SJA>    the students use Bison, GNU C++ libraries or other GNU libraries.

The policy of the university does not determine the policy of external
organizations.  If while attending school I wrote code for research
which was sponsored by the DoD, I could be bound by their terms.
Regardless, it would not be illegal for the instructor to assign a
project which required linking with G++ libraries.  The terms are not
that anybody must be able to get any derivative work, only that if
you do give it to someone then they should have access to the source.

SJA> 	* You gave a compiled "rn" program to a friend - with GNU
SJA> 	libraries linked in?  Sorry buddy, see you in court.

This is completely faulty.  My friend need only ask where he can get
source and it will be his.  If I refuse to tell him that is another
matter entirely.

SJA> You can do anything with public domain code, including sell it.

Strangely enough, you can sell Richard's code too.

SJA> Suppose an "evil software hoarder" (aka the bogey man) grabs your
SJA> program, makes proprietary modifications to it and sells it for money.
SJA> I can see several possibilities:

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

I agree.  (Just so you don't think I disagree with everything you say,
but in general it can waste a lot of space just to agree.)

SJA> 	* The modifications are complex but still someone duplicates [...]

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

I disagree with the conclusion you draw in the middle of this
paragraph.  It is not necessarily at all the case that without
competition they would have only one choice.  There is a lot of
excellent free software development which goes on which has absolutely
nothing to do with competition.

SJA> To get completely off track: this reminds me of the opening of
SJA> the Hungary-West Germany border, with tens thousands of East
SJA> Germans escaping to the capitalist west from a country where they
SJA> were _forced_ to live under a _political_system_ they did not
SJA> believe in.  Maybe we will live to see an exodus from the
SJA> GNU-type forced socialism to capitalism as well.

This is a very interesting point but it should be noted that a)
everyone in the world lives under a political system of some form and
b) the people in East Germany didn't have the option to leave.  Once
again, no one is forcing anyone to live with the ideals of the FSF;
the "forced socialism" is only in play at all when someone derives
their product from that of the FSF.

SJA> Most software is not "fun hacks" like compilers and re-writes of
SJA> "awk," but rather programs like accounting systems, factory stock
SJA> accounting systems and control programs for VCRs.  Are YOU going to
SJA> write these programs if you don't get paid for them?  

Sure, someone is going to write them.  I don't really see what the
distinction is between writing a compiler and writing a programme to
control my VCR.  Both result in a tool which is useful to me.  Maybe
"fun hacks" has more to do with it for other people.  Not for me.

SJA> If people are not allowed to sell the software they have written (like
SJA> they are allowed to sell books they have written and potatoes they
SJA> have grown) will they bother to learn programming in the first place?

Once again the misconception is presented here that software covered
by the GPL can't be sold.  False.  There just isn't a heck of a lot of
point to it.  And you know what?  Some wonderful books have been
written by people who were not seeking monetary compensation.  I also
have never sold any of the food I have grown but I have enjoyed it
very much.

SJA> Are enough people (besides those who like writing "fun hacks") ready
SJA> to pay $NNN.NNN for a university education if all they learn is a
SJA> skill that can't be sold?

There is more to Richard's argument than this.  He has never said
money could not be made in computing, but that hoarding software
hinders development and does not provide for healthy environments.  He
himself makes his livelihood from computing.

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

Intelligent people do not have an insecure future in computing.

[This is getting lengthy; the next section (scenarios involving the
copyright) is dealt with in the next posting.]

Dave
-- 
 (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))