🚀 go-pugleaf

In <aland.696871459@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
(Alan D.) writes:
> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
> >aland@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Alan D.) writes:
> >> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
> >> >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.

When you say "the GPL ensures the freedom of the FSF code" you imply that
the restrictions of the GPL are necessary to ensure that freedom.  This
is not the case.  The statement is therefore as misleading as saying
"prohibiting people from copying software ensures that there will be no
software piracy".  Whilst it is literally true, it is not a valid justification
for imposing the restrictions proposed.

> >> 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.

Right, so nobody will buy the restricted version, so the GPL restrictions
won't be necessary.  Market forces will kill off the non-"free" product.
That is assuming, of course, that the majority of people give a damn about
getting source code and being allowed to copy stuff freely.

> >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.

I see.  Perhaps you had better tell Sun and NeXT that their OSs are
now under the GPL.  After all, they call gcc don't they?  In fact, with
both platforms using gcc as the preferred compiler, their development kits
are useless without gcc.  That makes them derivative works, surely?

> >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?

Obviously it benefits those who do the re-selling.  Whether this is a good
thing depends on whether you believe that it is reasonable that people should
be able to do work on something created by someone else and profit from
the results.

> >> >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.

Yes, very good, I was talking about a *hypothetical* situation where the
FSF realised that the GPL provided no more protection for the software itself
than PD release does.

> >> >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.

*Yawn*.  I wonder how many times I've read that lame excuse during the past
week or two?

"If you object to Apple monopolizing the industry, don't use their machines."
"If you object to people pissing in the swimming pool, swim down the other
end."

> >>                                              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.

It will also restrict their ability to release their own work for free,
and will restrict their ability to profit from their own work which uses
yours.

Why do you not have a problem with it?  Just because you don't want to make
money, you don't think anybody else should be allowed to?

>                                             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?

The same thing you get out of it if I don't make the modifications.  So
why stop me?

> >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.

No!  That is NOT the primary restriction of the GPL.  If that were the only
restriction there would be no problem.  The major restriction of the GPL
is that people have to continue to make all derivative works 
freely-redistributable.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices