🚀 go-pugleaf

Bill Johnston writes:

> To date, my arguments on this point have attracted two types of reply 
> from FSF supporters which are somewhat at odds, in my opinion.

> The first type of reply is "But of course you can sell CopyLefted
> software, that is what we do at the FSF."  The second type of reply,
> which also comes from FSF supporters, is that "No you can't sell
> CopyLefted software;  the software is free, and any fee that you
> pay is a distribution fee, charge for media, etc.

I understand WRI charges $250,000 for the Cray version of Mathematica.
If they want to call that a distribution fee, that's certainly their
right.  It doesn't change the amount of money I have to pay to get the
Cray version of Mathematica.

The FSF charges (I believe) $100 for its tapes.  You can call that a
selling price, or a distribution fee, however you like.  It doesn't
change the fact that, if you want the FSF to make a tape for you,
you have to give them $100 in exchange for the service.

The reason one might consider the FSF's charge to be a distribution
fee is that our usual concept of "selling" implies that you restrict
your customers from obtaining the product without paying the charge.
The FSF is only too happy to see you get a free copy of a program
from some other source; it saves them the trouble of making a tape.
Because this doesn't fit well with our usual concept of "selling,"
we like to invent other words for it.  But in the end they all mean
the same thing.

> It is thus possible to REQUEST payment for CopyLefted software,
> but one cannot REQUIRE payment.  In the business world, very 
> few are willing to pay for what they can get for free.   In the 
> "user world", even fewer will pay for things that are free.

Pragmatically speaking, you are not paying for GNU Emacs when you
buy the Emacs tape from the FSF.  Or if you are, you're a chump.
What you are really paying for is the convenience of getting a
tape of the software in the mail.  If you are on the Internet, you
would be very unlikely to buy an FSF tape.  If you aren't, you
might well buy the tape because it might be worth the $100 to you
not to have to track the softawre down from some other source.

My company has hired a receptionist to answer the phones and greet
visitors.  Before we hired her, we did that sort of thing ourselves.
But it was enough of a nuisance that we eventually decided to pay
considerably more than $100 to get someone else to do it for us.
That's not because we're fools, it's because a good business person
knows when to pay for convenience.

I think what you're really describing is usually called "shareware,"
software that is distributed free but with the request or expectation
that the user will donate a certain amount of money to the author if
the software turns out to be useful.  I don't recall the FSF's
position on shareware offhand, but since shareware is not truly free
I imagine the FSF does not wholeheartedly support it.

The difference is that the FSF is not looking at you with puppy eyes
saying "please help me feed my family by paying for this program";
they've simply provided a way for you to get their software free and
then are asking a fee if you wish to use a different, less convenient
method.

> 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.

> 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.

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 suggest that someone, or some group should anonymously write
> a free Macintosh-like UI to work in conjunction with the GNU OS.
> One assumes that the GNU OS will not impose a standardized
> GUI as does the ROM-based Macintosh ToolBox, but I imagine that
> it will support a plug-in UI.

> This could be done as an act of civil disobedience, and as a test
> of the hypothesis that Apple Computer is out to sue "anyone who
> comes up with a reasonable DeskTop program".  In order to limit
> the work involved, the focus should be on recreating precisely
> those elements of the Mac GUI that Apple claims to own in its
> lawsuit with Microsoft and HP.

I fear that this would accomplish the same thing you (probably
rightly) say the "terrorism" charges are already doing:  It would
just make Apple angry and less willing to be reasonable.  After all,
what you recommend has just as strong a claim to the word "terrorism"
as anything Apple has done---probably more so.

The FSF and LPF want to strike down UI copyrights because of the
principle that building on existing work is healthy and constructive.
If we copy the Mac just out of spite, we're saying that even we don't
believe our own ideals.

								-- Dave