🚀 go-pugleaf

johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>
>...[T]he use of CopyLefted source code in a new software 
>project *does* require that the CopyLeft be carried forward into 
>the new project.  This means that many programmers will not
>be able to use this code as the basis for new work;  not just
>those whose want to write commercial software, but any programmer
>whose client requires clear copyright in the finished project.
>For example, many academics have grants that require that the 
>product of the funded project be placeable in the public domain.

Yes, precisely.  "Free" software is not "free" in the sense that most
people understand the term.  "Free," when applied to a product, means
that the product is without cost.  "Public domain" means it's without
any strings attached (i.e. "free" in the sense of being "unrestricted").
The meaning attached to "free" by FSF radicals is actually a highly
idiosyncratic one - a kind of doublespeak which allows them to alter
the socioeconomic basis for software development and distribution, and
at the same time call up the kinds of warm feelings usually associated
with truly free and unrestricted (i.e. PD) software.  As we all know,
simply publishing PD software makes it impossible for others to copy-
right it or patent algorithms used in it.  FSF software is hardly "free"
in this or any other commonly accepted sense.

It's a ruse, and although I have a lot of sympathy with the FSF's goals,
I don't appreciate being duped.  Whether the duping is done through ig-
norance on the part of dupers (who really don't understand common Eng-
lish uses of the term "free," when applied to products), or whether it
is actually a deliberate act of deception, it makes me feel very, very
uncomfortable.

>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.

This makes so much sense.  But you see, the FSF seems not to have the
production of good, unrestricted software as its goal.  As you point
out, the FSF is actually using property rights to transform the soft-
ware industry.

I find Richard Stallman and cohorts to be a very clever bunch, and in
the long run what they are doing will benefit us all.  I just find it
disconcerting to watch people here swallow up this stuff as if it were
God's truth.  It's a ruse we're all participating in here.  A calculated
ruse.  FSF software is no more "free" than my copy of WordPerfect, and
in fact is far more insidious in many ways.

Unless people believe that most people are fundamentally altruistic, it
might be good for naive readers of this newsgroup to quaff a few potions
of cynicism, or at least realism.  It's only when you acknowledge the
pet peeves, prejudices, and hidden agendas that you can actually see the
real altruisms that may be present.  The way I see it, people who are
interested in pure research and software development are annoyed at re-
strictions the industry places on them.  In general, they don't understand
economics very well, and tend to view others through the lens of their
own CRT.  It is good, though, for them to balance out the power structure
in the software industry, and prevent it from being taken over by the big
evil corporations.  Whether or not their motives are fundamentally altru-
istic really isn't at issue.  They are having a good effect on the indus-
try right now.

I still don't like this doublespeak with the word "free," though.  I can't
use FSF code in PD projects, so it's clearly not "free" in the sense of
being "unrestricted."  The FSF says there's nothing wrong with charging
people for it, so it's not costless.  What is it then?  Put your thinking
caps on, everyone:  It's doublespeak.  Understand that, and maybe you'll
get a glimpse of what is *really* going on.

I expect I'll get flamed for divulging this secret knowledge.  What radi-
cal will be the first to stand up and deny the truth :-)?

-- 

   -Richard L. Goerwitz              goer%sophist@uchicago.bitnet
   goer@sophist.uchicago.edu         rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer