🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Oct18.080301.23907@rpi.edu> tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
> [GNU copyright questions]
> I will answer these questions as I understand them

I know (or think I know) the by-the-lawbook answers to some of the
"GNU copyright confusion" questions but the answers are really not the
point.

What I was trying to say with "GNU copyright confusion" was (I still
can't explain it simply):

	* If you contributed you fave Emacs lisp package to FSF and
	someone violated the Emacs copyright, who would decide whether
	to sue / blacklist the violator?  You, FSF, your lawyer or
	FSF's lawyer?  (If your answer is "FSF because they wrote most
	of the code" replace "Emacs" and "lisp" with something else
	where the concept of "wrote most of the code" is not so
	apparent.)

	* Why should I let someone else decide that I can't make my
	Emacs lisp package public domain like I want to?  (Again,
	replace "Emacs lisp" with "gcc front-end" if needed.)

	* Most importantly: *I* don't want to make ethical decisions
	for others.  If I put my work under the GNU copyright I am
	saying, via clause 2b of the copyright, that I want to decide
	for them.  (I don't value clause 2b very higly and I rant
	about it a lot.)

	If you say "fine, don't contibute to GNU then", remember the
	title of this article.  I don't; the original "why I don't..."
	gave some of the reasons explaining why.

Some of the questions were ethical questions and judgement calls ("to
blacklist or not to blacklist?").  So the point is: *who* decides for
me?  If I contribute to GNU, I am telling (clause 2b!) people that the
same someone else should decide for them as well.

An interesting thing to note is that someone else sent me his answers
to these questions by mail.  He did not entirely agree with your
answers.  The GNU copyright still appears to cause confusion, even
among people who seem to have studied it in detail, like Mr. Lawrence
and the person who sent me his views via mail.

How can I put my work under the GNU copyright if I am not even sure
what it means?  How can I do it when the users are not sure what it
means?  Hiring a lawyer to find out is not an option to me.  Trusting
FSF's or someone else's lawyer is not very tempting, considering the
several opinions that the GNU copyright (license) might not be
enforceable (some say a copyright can't demand that I surrender my
rights to work I have not yet done; general muttering of disbelief
against enforceability of shrink-wrap licenses; the new "I'll buy that
for a dollar" rumor.)

*** (context switch)

One point you did not comment on was:

sja> See the copyright laws of your country: FSF has little say to
sja> whether they sue you or not; they will *have* to or their
sja> copyright expires immediately!

I've been suggested this is not the case.  Does anyone *know* about
this?  Like chapter and verse in a (US) law book, courtroom precedent,
international copyright agreement?  If this is not true, can anyone
guess at a reasonable explanation as to where this rumor comes from;
I've seen it several times.

***

> 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).

The point is, I am changing someone else's a copyright because the
patch contains changes to the copyright.  Nit-picking, yes, I know.

Here is a GNU copyright question that is not nit-picking: can I link
the g++ library with other copyrighted C++ libraries such as
InterViews?  If I use the FSF-proprietary interfaces of libg++,
doesn't the GNU copyright say I must put the entire source of the
program under GNU copyright -- including InterViews source?  Are
libraries exempt from the rule?  Where is that said?

> Tell me, is IBM about democracy?  And Apple?

No, IBM and Apple are not about politics.  It is FSF that is trying to
distribute politics with "free" software.

> 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.

Better mention it is copyrighted, this may read "public domain, use
GNU License if you want that instead."  Maybe it is supposed to say
that, or maybe this is not the entire header from the code.  With all
the meanings of "free" floating around one should be careful.

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

Have you read etc/INTERVIEW in the GNU Emacs distribution?  Where does
it mention Apple?  ("grep -i apple etc/INTERVIEW" does not show it; I
tried "macintosh", "look", "feel", "politic", "boycott", and
"blacklist" as well (actually, the interviewee was asked a question
about the MacIntosh but he did not comment.))  How can FSF advertise
themselves as makers of a UNIX-compatible software system and then
only later, when someone has ordered his Emacs, tell about the
politics?  How does the person sending his money to FSF insure it is
not used for a political purpose he was not even aware of?

(It just occurred to me: was the interview made before the Apple
suit/boycott?)

I'd venture to guess that there are lots of people who don't know
about or think of FSF's politics when they send bug reports to
gnu.gcc.bugs.

> 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.

Book burning does have a symbolic value beyond just bringing paper
with little black dots on it to the temperature Fahrenheit 451.  It
usually implies that the author's opinions are considered so harmful
to someone that he is discouraged from expressing them.  In my
understanding, book burning often also seems to imply willingness to
use violence against the authors (and maybe others who think
similarly.)

There are other seemingly innocent acts that, for better or worse,
have been attached with symbolism, such as burning two pieces of wood
that have been attached to each other to form a cross; making your
hand into a fist and extending the middle finger ("honestly, officer,
I wasn't giving you the finger, I was just exercising muscle control
in my hand"); rubbing your thumb and index finger together; and many
others.  The flag business I do not know much about; apparently a
burning issue in the US.

If I saw someone in a public place smashing a computer with an axe I
would assume he was trying to allude to the same things a book burner
does.  If he denied any symbolism in his act I would *not* call him a
liar.

Not as long as he was holding the axe, that is.

> SJA> 	FSF proposes to censor any messages from Apple employees
>
> This was addressed in my previous message.  It is a false notion.

I addressed this in my previous message as well.  Then again, maybe it
isn't a false notion.  The proposal (the one I have) is not clear
whether ALL messages from Apple should be censored or just the ones
considered harmful by someone.

> SJA> 	A member of FSF has stated that he is "willing to go to jail"
> SJA> 	if the law is against his convictions.
>
> Whee.  Okay, let's look some more at the past.  Specifically, Mohandas
> Gandhi and HD Thoreau.

Very true, I stand corrected.

(Any sci.philosophy.people around?  I find this a frightening idea.
Because not only did Gandhi break the law for his beliefs, so did his
murderer.  How am I to know which laws to obey?  Does it make a
difference if I live in a country where I have a legal way to propose
changes to laws I find ill-formed?)

> [A]s with the rest of my life, I will re-evaluate my position
> when the need arises.

Quite; I have been doing that.  I used to think GNU was the best thing
on Earth when all the information I had about them was the manifesto
and talk of a free operating system.  When I started finding out about
their politics I gradually changed my opinion.

One problem is that if I like their policies now, contribute software
to them and *afterwards* they do something ugly, my work will still be
used by them to power the new policies I did not know of.  Could I
still use my own work or the operating system without feelings of
guilt?

> SJA> 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.

Oops...sorry, that comes across the wrong way.  When I wrote the "why
I do not..." monster I was looking at GNU from two different vantage
points: as a software user and as a potential contributor to GNU.
This applies to the latter: if I wrote something and distributed it
under the GNU copyright I would feel I was saying the "we'll sue you
if you don't agree with us" bit to the users of my software.
Definitely a message I do not want to send.

Actually, what is the the difference between the GNU copyright and a
well-written, well-argued suggestion to leave the software free?  (I'd
say the difference is "we'll sue you if you don't do as we say" but
I'd get flamed for it.)

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

Absolutely right; this is a private conclusion I made from the GNU
copyright, GNU manifesto and other, mostly informal, statements
(mainly in gnu.newsgroups); I've been known to make wrong conclusions.
Later you say:

> The aims of the FSF are to change that overall environment

So, FSF, if you had the power, would you make all software "gnufree"?
Illegalize "hoarding"?

  sja> FSF is getting support from people who don't know what
  sja> they are really supporting.
> 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?

I'd venture to suggest there are people who do not use GNU software
because they GNU does things such as boycotting.  I'd also suggest
there are contributors to GNU who only want to share their work and
work on a free operating system but do not completely agree with FSF's
policies such as boycotting.  Maybe some of the latter are not
entirely happy that everyone can't use their software and can't help
them with their software.

I could be wrong.  Then again, I feel I belong in both of these
groups: users and potential contributors.  I would feel like I was
wasting my time if I wrote a program and then heard that someone can't
use it because he doesn't agree with my or someone else's political
views.
								   Mmh...Yes!
									++sja