🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Feb10.214928.17382@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>, gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes...
>In article <1992Feb10.065321.24815@uunet.uu.net> kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes:
> 
>>I'm happy that there are two distinct classes of software.  I
>>think there's room in the market for both of them.  However, I
>>think turning free code into proprietary code is needless predation.
> 
>Ditto for me. Is it my imagination, or are the most vocal posters to
>this group *still* talking past each other?

Ditto for me too.  But I don't think that people are talking past 
one another;  the underlying philosophical disputes are real, even 
if the specific examples we've used have been less than perfect.

The problem is that many in FSF _do_ hold a fundamentally 
anti-intellectual-property-rights position that the anti-copyleft 
contigent is arguing against.  I think that most of us assume 
that some of the USENET rhetoric of pro- and anti-GPL folks are
at least a bit political;  we don't necessarily state a full position
when we are trying influence those of a sharply different viewpoints.

It is also clear that the written terms of the GPL represent compromises
between those who are more radical and those who are concerned with not 
alienating the professional computing community who must get behind FSF 
(as users at least) in order for it to succeed.  The GLPL is a good 
example of this -- it is clearly labelled as a compromise.  What is
most bothersome about the GPL as a copyright tactic is that it 
leaves so little room for other views.

My objection is simple.  I think that the use of GPL wastes much of 
the value of code contributed to FSF, and the usual justifications
for GPL don't make much sense to me.

The FSF-copyrighted programs are in little danger of being taken 
"proprietary" by a corporate hoarder -- the best version of emacs is 
GNUemacs;  anyone who thinks to make a pile of money from a proprietary 
version based on GNU source would be crazy!  How could a company compete 
with a free emacs maintained by an army of enthusiastic users with free 
access to the GNU version of the source code?

In fact, one of the smartest things in the gnu-standards is the emphasis 
on making sure that FSF has clear title to the code they distribute.
This further guarantees that the _FSF version_ of the code remains free.

The main reason that commercial programmers object to GPL is that they 
would like to be able to use _bits and pieces_ of FSF source without 
having to place their entire work under the CopyLeft.  This is the kind
of decision which very few programmers -- outside academia -- have the 
power to make.  For such programmers, even _reading_ CopyLefted source 
places them in a moral dilemma:  suppose that he/she stumbles onto a 
really clever search algorithm while I'm browsing through GNU grep?  

With a public domain or freeware source code, the honorable thing to do 
would be to cite the author of the routine in one's source code and add 
an acknowledgement in the documentation.  Alternatively, one could talk
to the author(s);  9 times out of 10 they'll be flattered and tell you 
to go ahead and use the routine, happy to be of assistance to a fellow
programmer.

This kind of courtesy is commonplace for authors, composers, programmers, 
academic researchers, and creative people in many fields -- and the 
re-synthesis of bits and pieces of the ideas of others is far more common 
than outright plagiarism, be it artistic or commercial.

This traditional option for sharing the fruits of creative effort is 
effectively closed when the code is placed under a highly restrictive -- 
and inflexible -- copyright such as the GPL.  It doesn't matter whether 
I'd like to use the search algorithm in a public domain hack or the
next crummy commercial PC database -- the GPL only permits re-distribution
of GPL-derived work by those who are willing (and able) to agree to its
terms *entirely*.  

The FSF has undertaken to convince many of our best programmers 
to contribute their products in the name of preserving the right 
of hackers to use and share code, but one of the side effects has 
been to build a fence around some of the best source code ever 
published.  If you find yourself _totally_ in agreement with the
terms and implications of the GPL, no problem.  Otherwise, there
seems to be no middle ground for those who really stand to benefit
most from the availability of "free" software and source, ie,
programmers.

-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu) 
-- 38 Chambers Street;  Newark, DE  19711;  (302) 368-1949