🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Jan15.054742.16385@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd Davidson) writes:
>mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
>>with some of my own code, *I* would like to be able to make
>>the decision about whether *my* code should be restricted or not.  
>>They can choose whether *their* code is restricted or not.
>
>FSF is not making any decisions about your code, you are.  FSF
>seems to have made only a decision about their code:  They are
>restricting theirs from you (because you restrict yours from me)...
>*You* are the one who is restricting *your* code.

This is double-talk. FSF demands a certain behavior with regards to
code which it hasn't written. How is this FSF not restricting?

>>If I take some of my code and some GNU code
>>and build a program, the GPL tells me that *my* code suddenly has to 
>>be under the GPL. This is what I object to. If all it said was that 
>>the GNU code had to stay under the GPL, that would be fine.
>
>You are objecting to them restricting their code from you!  Your
>code does not "suddenly" need to be under GPL.  You do NOT have to
>put your code under GPL, and they do NOT have to let you use their
>code that is under GPL.  They don't seem to want you using their
>code because of your action reference sharing/non-sharing!  They seem
>to have a right to that attitude, even if it offends you.  You
>said above they could restrict it if they wanted to.  They wanted
>to.

Certainly. The FSF has the right to put every restriction that it wants
on its source code. But then (in my humble opinion) the FSF shouldn't
claim that its software is "free". Claiming a special GNU/FSF definition
of "free" is specious. This is a very positively loaded word, with certain
meanings, and I don't think the FSF should get away with this redefinition
just like that. See my earlier article.

>>with restrictive copyrights and licenses like the GPL, preventing it from
>>being "free" in any conventional sense.
>
>I don't agree with two things here.  What I understand you to be
>saying is that you do not think FSF policy is an effective way to
>encourage free software.  I think it is working, and working
>well, because it happens to fit the particular talents and
>resources of those who are implementing it.  It might not be the
>best policy for your talents (and I certainly couldn't make an
>ounce of difference myself doing it that way), but RMS has
>definitely put a mark on the world doing it.  It is effective, for
>him.

As a counterexample of another way of doing it I would like to mention
TeX, which is available (for free, not "gnu-free"), but which can
still be sold commercially, without source. TeX seems to be doing
rather well, even to the extent that GNU uses it itself :-)

>The second point of disagreement is that you are arguing that FSF
>policy should be a match for *your* talents and resources instead
>of *theirs*.  If you want to go about it your way, fine.  Do it.
>Why all the noise because they have a different way.  Perhaps
>comparing the effect that RMS has had with his policy to the
>effect that you have had with yours is a way to resolve which is
>more effective.  How much effect have you had on the world with
>your policy??  And you want FSF to switch from theirs to yours???

Oh, piffle. With all the noise of "evil software hoarders"? With RMS
officially stating that you shouldn't help an individual because he
works for Apple? With representatives for the FSF having a
condescending attitude towards those who want to program (and sell
programs) for a living? Saying (paraphrased) that "it's unfortunate
that you haven't seen the light yet"?

Live and let live indeed.

Bengt Larsson.
-- 
Bengt Larsson - bengtl@maths.lth.se