🚀 go-pugleaf

mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D.) writes:
>> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>> >In <BURLEY.92Jan27133449@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
>> >burley@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:
>> >> The "problem" with the GPL does not specifically have to do with any
>> >> restrictions on code protected by it.  The GPL exists specifically to
>> >> _ensure_ the "freedom" of the code, its source, and those using it to have
>> >> access to said code.
>> >Rubbish.  It exists specifically to ensure the "freedom" (of duplication)
>> >of *derivative works* based on the code, and to ensure that those using
>> >*derivative works* get source.
>> 
>> Not _specifically_, but _as well as_ the FSF code itself.
>No.  The GPL is not in any way necessary to ensure the "freedom" of the
>code itself.  If someone makes a non-"free" copy of Emacs, that in no way
>limits the user's ability to get a "free" copy of Emacs.

Mathew, please read what I said, rather than interpreting it
'incorrectly'.  What you said (above, after "Rubbish.") was that the
GPL exists to ensure freedom of duplication of "derivative works" and
I said that it also ensures freedom (in whatever sense the GPL covers)
of the FSF code.

>> Particularly to avoid in the case where someone uses FSF code
>> (libraries, compiler, etc.) to write a program which he or she then
>> goes on to sell & limit distribution.
>That's a derivative work, which is covered by what I said above.

What's your point?  You can sell it if you can find a buyer, but must
provide the source and allow the source to be redistributed.

>> >It also requires that code protected by it cannot later be protected by
>> >a LESS stringent/restrictive license, or by no license.  That restriction
>> >serves primarily to reduce the freedom of the code (freedom in its
>> >conventional sense).
>> Exactly...  But for the purpose of this discussion, and I am not an
>> expert on the GPL, isn't the only 'problem' here that you are required
>> to redistribute the source code if you use code covered by the GPL?
>No.  The only 'problem' I am currently facing is that I want to write a
>program which calls a GPL-restricted program, and I'm unsure whether I can
>do it without my program suddenly falling under the GPL.

You can't.  If you use a GPL-restricted program, your code, as a
derivative work, falls under the GPL.  Which means you can sell it if
you want, but you must provide the source code and allow redistribution.

>However, I am also considering setting up some sort of Truly Free Software
>Foundation.

Enjoy it!  I hope you find supporters in word and deed.

>> >What about the people who want to release software LESS restricted than
>> >permitted by the GPL?
>> Can you give an example of this?  The only "less" restrictive license
>> I can think of would be one which said that anyone who redistributes
>> the code can do so under any circumstances, including selling it as
>> their own work.
>Or "public domain", as it is more commonly known.

Exactly.  Personally, if I were writing a program which was of general
use, I would either copyright it if it was a "big deal," and release
it as Shareware/Freeware, or have it covered under the GPL; if it were
a 5-minute hack, I would probably just release it as PD and not care
if anyone claimed it as their own.

>Actually, if that's the only less restrictive license you can think of you
>must be slightly lacking in imagination, but it's a perfectly good example.

Ok, the only useful example I could think of at that moment.  :)

>> Does this benefit anyone?  Why would anyone do this?
>As to whether PD software benefits anyone, I would say that it does.  As
>to why anyone does it, I suggest you ask the millions of people who have
>released PD software.

Does it benefit anyone to release software that someone else can claim
as their own, and re-sell for their own benefit?

>> >The GPL isn't at all unique in that respect.  Software released as public
>> >domain is just as freely duplicatable by the users, and they're every bit
>> >as guaranteed to be able to get source.
>> Sorry, nope.  I have many megabytes of PD software around, and only
>> have the source code for some small portion of it (under 100 compared
>> to 1000's of programs), and couldn't get the source without a lot of
>> time and effort.

>We're talking about FSF code here, remember.  If the FSF released their
>code as PD, you would be able to get a copy of any of it for minimal effort
>-- by simply ordering a copy from the FSF.

No, you were talking about "Software released as public domain" (See
1st line of 2nd paragraph above).  FSF software is not released as PD.

>> >What the GPL does uniquely is offer/ensure "freedom" (of duplication) of
>> >*derivative* works.
>> Is this a _BAD_ thing?  I don't think so...

>It depends.  It's a moral issue.  Specifically, if you don't think it's
>wrong for you to restrict what other people may do with code they write,
>then there's no reason why you should object to the GPL.

There's the problem.  If you object to the GPL, don't use software
covered by it.

>>                                              If I want to restrict
>> usage of something I write, I will purchase, at my own expense,
>> software which will allow me to do so;

>Or you'll release your software under the GPL, which will also restrict
>usage of what you have written.

It will restrict other people's ability to profit from my work, which
is not something I have a problem with it.  If I write a program and
give you the source code, and you make a few, minor (or even major)
modifications to it, and you profit from it, and I don't, then what do
I get out of it?

>That's the funny thing.  The GNU supporters complain that commercial
>software developers are restricting usage of their software.  They then
>go and do exactly the same thing themselves.

Only sort of.  They aren't restricting usage, they're setting
restrictions on the distribution.  Their restrictions are that people
have to continue to distribute the source.  This is overall a positive
thing to anyone who is interested in the industry rather than in their
own profits.

	-=Alan