🚀 go-pugleaf

In <9111060242.AA06235@thymus.synaptics> daveg@thymus.synaptics.COM writes:
> Bill Johnston writes:
> > For example, many academics have grants that require that the 
> > product of the funded project be placeable in the public domain.
> 
> If you are contractually required to release your work in the public
> domain, you could probably do something along the lines of releasing
> diffs of your software against GNU base software into the public
> domain.  Since the law that required you to use PD had its heart in
> the right place, FSF-wise, I don't think they'd mind this much.
> 
> Perhaps the FSF should investigate this.  Would government agencies
> be willing to allow grant recipients to use the GPL?  This might be
> a tall order, requiring legislation and such, but it can't hurt to
> ask.

I think that would be a very bad idea.  The purpose of forcing grant
recipients to release work into the public domain is surely to ensure that
everyone can make use of their work, since it was publicly funded.  If
grant recipients were able to release their work under the GPL, they would
be able to prevent some people from making use of that work -- people
who only write public domain or non-freely-redistributable work. In short,
you would be reducing the number of people able to benefit from the publicly
funded work.

Specifically, if we categorize people writing code as:

a) People writing "free" software under the GPL,
b) People writing free software, and
c) People writing limited-distribution software,

then if grant recipients' work is PD it can be used by all three categories
of programmer, whereas if it's GPLed it can only be used by people in
category a).

You may believe that all people should be in category a), but it's not up
to you to force your opinion on everyone else.

> 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.

Why do you view this as a "problem"?

If you don't like the fact that product X, descended from some PD product,
is being distributed on a "less-than-free" basis, then just produce a
free version of product X.

[ Of course, this assumes that you can; i.e. it assumes that we don't have
  software patents and UI copyrights.  And I'm all for getting rid of those. ]

> 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.

So go back to the raw MIT distribution and create a specially-tuned version
from that.  Distribute it under the GPL.  Compete by BEING BETTER, not by
forcing other people to do what you want using legal threats.

Yes, there will be duplication of effort going on.  So what?  Companies
run to make a profit.  If they see that they're duplicating effort when
they could be using GNU stuff, they'll do what NeXT have done and use the
GNU products.

If the GNU way is so great, how come HP can get away with selling an HP
version of X? Why isn't there already an HP version of X available for
free? Could it be that (*gasp*) the GNU way isn't as good at producing
special limited-market versions of software as we have been led to 
believe?

> 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.

Here we see the hidden agenda of the GPL.  It's not about *encouraging
by example*, it's about forcing other people to do what you want them
to do.

If free software works, let's see you develop a free software version of
X for HPs and supply it with source.  Then I'll agree that the non-free
HP version is unnecessary.  Until then, stop bitching and trying to force
HP to release source.  Nobody's stopping you from out-competing them.


mathew

-- 
Another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices.