🚀 go-pugleaf

In <SJA.89Oct16125938@sirius.hut.fi> sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara):
SJA> Here are some questions concerning the GNU copyright.  Do you think
SJA> that I, you, FSF, your lawyer and FSF's lawyer would answer these
SJA> questions identically?  If not, maybe the GNU copyright is confusing.

The law is confusing; legislators have perfected that aspect of
society with years and years of practise.  I will answer these
questions as I understand them; if I am wrong I will most likely be
corrected here to avoid dissemination of erroneous information.

SJA> Maybe you or someone else will go to jail because they "thought is was
SJA> OK to copy GNU software freely."

Jail?  I rather suspect that is about the last alternative to this
all.  My own question: is jail one of the penalties for copyright
infringement?  Even if it is not, and Sakari's question is change to
"will face a penalty", it is still not quite right.  It _is_ okay to
copy GNU software freely.

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

Neither of you are.  The GPL is a distribution license.  You weren't
distributing nor were you asked for the code.

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

So what?  The person did not ask for anything more than that and the
GPL does not mandate that more be taken.  Section 3 subsection C of
the GPL also applies here.

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

You can print whatever you want for your own use.  Regarding someone
taking it without your knowledge, I do not believe that the GPL covers
such situations.  Not many things in this world do.  If my housemate
takes my gun without my knowing it and goes out on a mad murdering
spree, I am not responsible.  The middle question is more tricky,
because I think the spirit of the GPL and what it says (sections 1 and
4) seem to be in conflict.  The important thing is that the person
receiving the page know that the source of it and where copying
conditions, disclaimer of warranty and the GPL can be found.  I _am_
confused by the legal implications regarding whether you have to
distribute the entire source code to the programme, but it does seem
pretty clear in the wording that the other pieces of information needs
to conspicuously appear with what has been copied.  Seems rather silly
if you just want to show a page of GNU alloca.c to a friend.

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

You can apply whatever you like, but if you don't apply it all you
will not have Emacs 18.53 (or so).

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

Not according to the recent agreement with NeXT.  I am very confused
about what exactly that agree was.

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

A double-edged sword indeed.  Morality is a personal thing and cannot
be dictated by licenses, laws or other external mandates.  Overlooking
for the moment that this is somewhat a trick question and that that
the wording of the GPL isn't really be question here, but its spirit:

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

Actually, I need more information to make my moralistic judgments
about it.  I've just realized that now as I pondered my answers to
this question and the next three.  One of the important variables to
me is whether it is necessarily a derivative work; that is, if it will
work at all if not being created non-GNU.  If its usability and
effectiveness is derived from the necessary presence of GNU code then
I am very strongly opposed to keeping the source private.  The
corporation is taking benefit from freely given software without
providing the same benefits itself.

SJA> Even if you can afford a lawyer (I certainly can't) ...

Neither can I; one of those people who hopes I never have to.

SJA> Even if you like SOME aspects of GNU (I'd like to have the source code
SJA> of all the programs I use and I don't mind giving my source code to
SJA> others) are you certain that you want to support ALL the GNU goals?

Actually, I'm not.  It is very rarely the case that I am certain I
want to support all of the goals of any organisation.  I do, however,
support enough of the goals of the GNU project that I would work for
the FSF.

SJA> Do you even know the complete GNU policy?

Once again, I don't think I ever know anything of more than trivial
nature completely, but I do know the GNU policy to the best of my
ability for now.  I expect I will be even further enlightened as time
goes on, but I am comfortable with the knowledge I have about the FSF.

SJA> GNU never was about democracy.

Why should it be?  Capitalism (the socio-economic ideology you
carefully detailed earlier) != democracy.  Tell me, is IBM about
democracy?  And Apple?

SJA> As long as FSF owns (holds copyright on) my program they can change
SJA> the copyright.

True, but you can hold your own copyright on it.  The header from some
code I am distributing:

;;  This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
;;  modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
;;  version 1 as published by the Free Software Foundation.

The FSF can change the GPL as much as they want, including making it
something I am completely opposed to, but my software will still be
distributed under terms I agreed to put on it.

SJA> 	FSF has the opinion that some of the Apple Computers'
SJA> 	corporate policies are bad, so they are "boycotting" Apple.

Great!  So am I.  You are saying that boycotting an organisation for
some of the things it does is not acceptable?  How very peculiar.
Does it comfort you any to know that some people do just that with GNU
software? 

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

What is wrong with this manifesto?  The FSF can distribute any
literature it desires.

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

I see a lot of difference.  Some people feel very strongly about their
books, their flags, their computers; I think that is a little dumb.
If I burn my copy of Roget's Thesaurus, yours is still fine.  I rather
admired the comment made by someone regarding this bullshit about a
law against flag-burning.  (Yes, I don't want a law against it.  More
forced freedom for people to swallow.)  Roughly paraphrased, "I saw a
flag burned today.  When I got home, I opened my drawer and took out
my flag.  There it was, same as it ever was.  What it meant to me had
not been changed."  If I get thoroughly disgusted with my MacIntoaster
[a hypothetical ownership] and take it out to the center of campus,
loudly proclaiming that Apple as gone too far, and then cleave it with
a fire axe, it is my right.  No one has said that we should go into
our neighbours offices and take their property, busting it up too.
This is an important distinction between the proposed demonstration
and the book-burning of the past.

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

This was addressed in my previous message.  It is a false notion.

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

Whee.  Okay, let's look some more at the past.  Specifically, Mohandas
Gandhi and HD Thoreau.  Or even Mr Bumble from _Oliver_Twist_, though
he hardly is a figure to look up to for moral and ethical guidance.  I
don't think there is much need to expound on this, but suffice to say
that the law does not always reflect the beliefs of the majority of
the people in a community, and even when it does that doesn't make it
right. 

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

No.  And, as with the rest of my life, I will re-evaluate my position
when the need arises.

SJA> There are no easy answers to some questions.  FSF claims that GNU is
SJA> the ultimate truth - the whole FSF methodology is based on that
SJA> principle. 

Major organisations pursuing a political end have to take strong
stands.  The FSF is much like the ACLU in this regard, an organisation
which gets its own share of heat.  I'm more on your side as far as
this summary goes:

SJA> 	*  I   do  not have the complete answers
SJA> 	* FSF does not have the complete answers

SJA> The difference is that I am willing to let the search for the answers
SJA> to go on, whereas FSF wants to chain everyone to their ideas with their
SJA> copyrights and bullying.

They think they have the right answer and need to pursue that.  I
can't fault them for that, especially since I don't think they are far
off the mark at all.

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

Don't quote that.  It is a very misleading, inflammatory paraphrase
which does not accurately summarize GPL section 2b.  The only time the
GPL forces people to do what the FSF thinks is right is when the
people are distributing derivative works.

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

I don't recall seeing making commercial software illegal mentioned as
an objective in any FSF literature.

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

Okay.  I've got a great copy of GNU Emacs I'll sell you; you can even
have source code.

SJA> I often heard people refer to "public domain GNU software" - even some
SJA> that are actually contributing software to FSF.  This makes me feel
SJA> quite sad - FSF is getting support from people who don't know what
SJA> they are really supporting.

This is indeed sad.  It would be much better if they understood it.

SJA> People are wasting their effort writing software that many people
SJA> can't use either because of their "capitalist #1" beliefs or for
SJA> fear of FSF blacklisting and lawsuits.

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Who are these people and
what are they writing?  Could you please elaborate on this sentence?

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

This is something only time will tell.  The aims of the FSF are to
change that overall environment; the aims of corporations are to keep
the status quo.  Which will win out is not a clear-cut call.  Many,
many people respect the quality of the software provided by the GNU
project.

SJA> Think about it.  Don't take GNU people's word for it and don't take my
SJA> word for it.

You can take my word for it, though.  I've never been wrong in my
life.  (Argh, I suppose this is necessary for the humour impaired,
especially given that the rest of this didn't even hint at humour.
"Don't take my word for it either.")

SJA> Read the GNU copyright and think what it really means to
SJA> your programming effort and the whole future of computers.

Very important.

SJA> Think about it.

I have, and I encourage others to do so too.  Thank you for your input.

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