🚀 go-pugleaf

In <Pmq7DB12w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:

>jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes:
>> Why are you trying to vilify the FSF when at _worst_ they are
>> not doing anything more than commercial outfits?  If you're
>> saying that all software should be PD, then you're being even
>> more dogmatic than the FSF... if not, then what's wrong with
>> their license vs. Generic Machine Corporation's, or Macrosoft's?
>
>With Microsoft and other commercial licenses, I can use the sample source
>code provided in any way I like, and I can do whatever I want with programs
>which I have written and linked using their libraries.

Is the first part of this statement really true?  For example, can you
take bits of their source code and put them into a program that you
are going to sell (without the need to make retribution to them in any
way)?  That doesn't sound right to me.  If so, why is the FSF going to
the trouble of rewriting all of the UNIX(TM) utilities so that there
is no AT&T source code in them?


>With GNU licenses, I can't use the source code provided in any way I like,
>and I can't do whatever I want with programs which I have written and linked
>using their libraries.

From a quick read of some files on COPYING GNU stuff I picked up from
prep.ai.mit.edu, it looks like any restrictions placed on programs
written independently but linked using their libraries have to do with
making the libraries available so that the program can be recompiled
-- the source for the independently written programs need not be
provided. 

Further, they are providing you with the source code and the libraries
-- why can't they tell you how you can use code they have written?

I don't see how you have answered Jurgen Botz' questions, i.e.
basically, how is the GNU license worse than other companies'
licenses?  If you want/need to use their products so much, then you
must put up with their license.  And if you don't like their license,
can't you just not use their code?  Surely there must be some other
compiler out there you can use.  How is it any different from any
product that doesn't meet your requirements in some way?  Or are you
saying it's wrong in principle for them to have such a license? (oops,
don't think I want to open up that can of worms :-).


>The FSF tries to get me to overlook these restrictions by bribing me with
>the source code for the whole package, and by telling me I can give
>away copies of the whole package.

But many people may not consider these to be restrictions.  In some
sense, it's just like any license -- "here's what we're offering, and
here are the conditions for your using it".  Why is it worse?


>Whether you think this is a good deal depends upon how much you value being
>allowed to fiddle with other people's source code and copy other people's
>software, measured against how much you value being allowed to do what you
>want with software you have written (even if you've included bits from
>other people's code).

Ahh, but that parenthetical comment makes a big difference -- others    
have contributed, so you must accept their conditions for using their
contributions.  If you want full control over it, shouldn't you have
written it completely yourself?


>Obviously those who contribute nothing of worth are going to like the GNU
>license, because it means they get to copy all kinds of neat stuff without
>having to pay for it in any way.
>
>Also obviously, those who enjoy fiddling with poorly-documented source code
>in an attempt to fix bugs are going to like the GNU license, because it
>means you get to fix bugs yourself or pay other people to do it, rather
>than having bugs fixed by people who already know and understand how the
>program works.
>
>And of course, those who enjoy giving software to friends at no personal cost
>are going to like the GNU license.

OK, you've given several examples of types of people that will like
the GNU license -- now what types of people will not like it?  One
would be someone who wants to use others' work in something that they
intend to restrict in some way.


>> I really don't understand the people who keep jumping on the
>> FSF... it totally puzzles me.  What is their motivation?
>
>I'd much rather that the effort being spent on developing FSF software got
>spent on developing software that's truly free, so everyone can benefit.

So, who is not benefitting from this setup?

(I mean these questions seriously.)

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu