🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

> Particularly to aboid 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.

> >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.

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

> >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.

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.

> 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.

> >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.

> >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.

>                                              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.

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.

Who's for a Truly Free Software Foundation?


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