🚀 go-pugleaf

johnston@me.udel.edu wrote:
> One example of an "acceptable compromise", in my view, would be
> for FSF to officially offer a mechanism for licensing code for
> derivative works that could be released without GPL.

In a sense they do, because they clearly state you can discuss such
things with them and they will act in accordance with their goal of
making more software free.

> A typical scenario:  a company would like to hire a programmer
> or programmers to develop a text editor or database to their
> own specifications.  It would clearly be an advantage to use
> emacs as a starting point, but the self-perpetuating aspect of 
> the GPL entails a "long-term" commitment.  If the investment of 
> time and effort is going to be considerable and the end result
> very different from the starting code, most companies will prefer
> to begin with code that can be licensed outright.

> This is a waste of effort for the company and a wasted opportunity
> for FSF, which could make money to fund on-going development in 
> other areas.  FSF would still have the option to refuse to license
> code for purposes that clearly run counter to its interests, and 
> they can choose to clearly limit the conditions under which the
> licensed code can be re-used outside GPL.

You must not understand the FSF goal.  They are not just trying to write
software which is free (they already do this), they are trying to
encourage a new model that says all software should be free.  They are
non-profit.  They do not want to make money by slighting their reasons
for existence, which is exactly what you are talking about.

> Another example would be the case of an academic whose grant
> is contingent on producing code that can be placed in the 
> public domain, or be otherwise available to be modified 
> according to the needs of the sponsor.

It is a pretty sad day when academics, the people who are supposed to
create and disseminate knowledge, succumb to demands from sponsors which
say you cannot produce outputs which everyone is allowed to use and
disseminate freely.  Of course this happens, but it is something to work
against, not to hold up as a utilitarian example.  Requiring that the
academic give up all rights, as in public domain work, is an even
stranger request.

> FSF could choose to
> permit the academic to use FSF code in a derivative work in
> exchange for a fair share of the grant money and perhaps
> some kind of "no commercial use without permission" clause.

Hmm...You want the FSF to require payment from the academic or grant
source in order to gain access to their software and then it seems later
provide permission for commercial use assumedly for some royalty
payment.  Read the GNU Manifesto.  You are not even close to discussing
anything that the FSF would want to be involved in.

> I'm not suggesting that FSF compromise on projects like 
> non-redistributable ports of current software, but flexibility
> on the use of FSF code for entirely new projects

It is precisely entirely new projects that they are trying to influence
by getting their software out to the world.

> would get
> more people working with FSF code and perhaps provide an
> alternate source of income for FSF.

I come from New Orleans.  At Mardi Gras (the yearly decadence fest),
revelers throw stamped coin-like objects called doubloons.  I remember
as a child having a rather disheveled passerby asking me if I wanted
some free doubloons.  I said ok.  He said, "Free for a dollar."  I
walked on.  It seems you would have the FSF engage in such dealings.
They won't.

You may have seen some of their software and said, "This would be really
useful to build a regular commercial product from."  They want people to
see that free software can be better than commercial products because of
the open environment in which it is created and shaped over time.  This
is a forest through the trees issue.  Without the philosophy behind the
software, it wouldn't be what it is.  Thus, closed derivatives
promote neither the quality ethic nor the availability one and thus
are not compatible with the life force, you might say, of the effort.


I must say that I don't represent official FSF positions but I do read
and interpret their position statements, from which I have drawn the
preceding views.

--
Bob Weiner				   rsw@cs.brown.edu
"We came here with nothing but our dreams and investment capital."
					      -- Maurice Minnefield