🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9111060242.AA06235@thymus.synaptics>, daveg@synaptics.com writes...
>Bill Johnston writes:

>> If one opposes the notion of software intellectual property,
>> the logical response is to refuse to assert rights accruing 
>> from intellectual property;  one can place one's work in the 
>> public domain.  This means that EVERYBODY can use it, not just
>> those whose employers are enlightened enough to permit them to
>> work on projects that can be CopyLefted.

I should have also mentioned that is possible to release code as
copyrighted freeware.  "Public domain" implies (to me, anyway) that 
one does not claim any copyright at all.  Many works are copyrighted
but still free for everyone to use.  You might have to footnote or
include acknowledgements, but there are many possibilities short 
of the CopyLeft which mandates its own perpetuation.

>The GPL is indeed an interim measure.  The problem, and the reason
>the GPL was invented, is that pure PD distribution leaves itself
>open for later development by other parties to be less-than-free.
>The usual example is the X window system, which is available free
>from MIT.  But many manufacturers create specially-tuned versions
>of X for their own machines, which they then sell for a significant
>price, and distribute without source code.  I remember using X on
>HP machines, when we found a serious bug in the server.  Since HP
>didn't ship sources, we had no way to fix the bug short of going
>back to the raw MIT distribution.
> 
>If X had been distributed under the GPL, HP would have been forced
>to ship sources and we would have been able to fix the bug.  If HP
>and other companies were more "enlightened" and released the sources
>to their versions of X, there would be no reason to use the GPL for
>X, but since those companies are not in fact so generous, the GPL
>remains meaningful and relevant.

I didn't follow up this article when it first appeared, because the
replies that it suggested to me at the time were just restatements
of points made previously.  However, in subsequent discussion of the
HP X Windows discussion a few new points emerged so I've suggested
that we take it back to the net.  I'll try to stick to new stuff,
with a minimum of rehash.

My initial response to the HP question was to ask "What's so bad
about the fact that HP chose to base a windowing system on X?".

The discussion later got into the question of whether we should 
_force_ companies like HP to release software with source, 
comparing such a mandate to other forms of trade regulation such
as emissions control requirements for automobiles ...


The difference between pollution regulations and mandating CopyLeft
is that in the case of automobiles, everyone is forced to experience
the bad effects of pollution whether they buy and use cars or not.

In such a case, simply saying "If you don't like it, don't buy the car."
doesn't solve the problem.  Pollution is an "externality" that affects
everyone, not just the person who purchases the car.

In the case of HPs X window adaptation, no one was forced to buy it or
to use it in preference to the open version of X.  One can still 
choose to do the port from the open source in the traditional way.

Moreover, the motive for not distributing source is not always that the 
company wants to prevent others from using their additions.  In this 
case HP wanted to do some hardware-specific modifications, but often
the rationale is simply that the company intends to provide support 
for the product and wants to maintain version control in order to have 
a reasonable chance of diagnosing customer problems.  

This kind of paternalism is anathema to the "expert" user, but not 
everyone has the time or inclination to hack the user interface of 
their own computer.

I agree that it it would be NICE for HP to release its modifications
to X windows;  it would make it easier for users to keep up with 
(and contribute to) the ongoing improvements to the X Windows project. 

What I disagree with vehemently is the idea that HP should be 
FORCED to release source code with its implement of X-Windows,
or worse, forced to permit customers the right to copy the HP X 
for their friends who may not have paid HP's license fee.

If this were the case, it would increase the likelihood that
HP would decide either not to use X as the basis for its UI,
or not to make as many improvements to the code.  Either way,
the vast majority of _users_ suffer, and diversity suffers.

Now it is perfectly reasonable for customers (and prospective
customers) to lobby HP to release source code with its product.
If enough people felt that this was an indispensable feature of
commercial software, I think that this could happen -- but probably
only for software on workstation-type platforms for which a significant 
percentage of users actively engage in programming.  Open source for
a user-oriented package like 'WordPerfect' might create more 
problems than it would solve.  Anyone who has tried to teach 
novices the fundamentals can appreciate how much more difficult
it would become to provide support if we had to deal with
"Joe's Own Version of 1-2-3".

As an advocacy group set up to promote the distribution of
software with source (without eliminating single-user license)
GNU could be very effective indeed.  Not only would it be asking
the industry to give us more for our money (you can always ask!),
but more importantly it would be setting a powerful example by
distributing great software-with-source that gives the commercial
stuff real competition.

I would sincerely like to see this happen.

-- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)

"But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao,
 you ain't gonna make it with anyone, anyhow."     -- John Lennon