slacker.com

GPL Notes and Thoughts

/ about code credits legal lists mail people photos places shop things

Hi, How Are You?

GPL Notes and Thoughts

From: toor@y.jdyson.com (John S. Dyson)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
            comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Re: The End of Free Software (was: BSD vs. GPL)
Date: 21 Jun 1999 05:04:18 GMT
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 112
Message-ID: <7kkh4j$ltg@enews1.newsguy.com>

In article ,
	mast@holly.arl.psu.edu (Doug Mast) writes:
> On 20 Jun 1999 18:41:05 -0700, Tom Christiansen  wrote:
>> Just yesterday, I was asked by a regular person, not even a kid, whether
>> [random software] was `freeware, or just shareware'. See that? Here's a
>> simple test.  Go out and ask 20 teenagers whether free software (which
>> they'll call freeware) ever costs anything, and you'll find that 100%
>> of them say, `What, are you crazy?'
> 
> And this is how the FSF misguides people?  If so, the BSD camp 
> misguides just as much by calling its software "free."  BSD-licensed
> software is not necessarily gratis either, and it can form a basis
> for closed commercial products that are neither gratis nor libre.
> 
The BSD camp doesn't consider the usage of the word "free" interesting,
except that a more restrictive license is trying to coin a definition
of the word, and the BSD-style license is relatively more so in
most ways.  Free probably describes the BSD-style license more
accurately than GPL-style, but whenever I try to give advice to
people, where they are trying to make a decision, I also try to
explain how the BSD license isn't totally free.  When talking about
GPLed software, the conditions are more complex.

There is little general interest in PHILOSOPHICAL issues in the BSD
world, and there are few manifestos or rationalizations associated
with the BSD license.  The BSD world is probably more interested
in the practical issues of use and reuse, and is interested in profit
and propagating the ability to make profit to others in creative
programming endeavors.  In no way does the term 'free' in some
manifesto need to be explained, because the BSD license is pretty
close to a common-sense definition of the normal usage of the
word.  (The biggest thing non-free about the BSD license, given
copyrighted works is that there are some advertising issues, and
requirements for display of credits.)  Frankly, it only seems
gentlemanly to give credit where credit is due when money is
being made, but I freely waive my advertising requirements upon
request.

Back when licenses like the GPL were created, it was sometimes
kind of special to have source code available.  I guess,
as a young programmer, I also confused the ability to look
at source with the notion of free.  There are also other limitations
as to the use of source and binaries, and being able to look
at source isn't the be-all and end-all of the ability to use or
redistributed it.  (I normally got the source for the early DEC
OSes that I used and developed code for, and just having legal
access to the source certainly didn't automagically give me the
right to redistribute the compiled binary or source code.)  GPLed
works are certainly relatively more free than the RSX11M source code
that I received from DEC.  However, the restriction that I have
to give the source code of my work to my customer, when providing
a VMR'ed kernel (or special kernel module) simply didn't exist
given the license from DEC; while under the GPL constraints, as
a developer I would loose that freedom to choose.

In commercial libraries, it is often necessary to purchase a license
to redistribute them (in fact alot of commercial code requires
such licensing.)  In this case, you could have easy access to source
code, but you don't have the freedom to redistribute the binary code,
without some kind of restriction.  Such commercial code is not
often considered 'free.'  If you look at GPLed code, there are also
significant, and potentially costly conditions that you have to
comply with before you are allowed to redistribute binary code...  The
fact is, you have to offer to effectively distribute the additional
work that you have provided (and as a developer, that can be the
vast majority of your own investment.)  That is often a very high
cost, relative to a $5-$10 or some small percentage fee for a
commercial library.  In this way, the costs can be quite considerable,
and the opportunity cost of using GPLed works as a base can also be
considerable.

Licenses associated with free software don't impose significant
costs on the value added developer him/her self.  There might be
advertising issues, or display of license/copyright issues, but
those don't encumber the significant works (software) of the
developer with a requirement that those 'family jewels' be given
away.  There are market side-effects that do encourage the release
of source code, and the cost of maintaining seperate source trees,
very often is adequately motivating for the re-contribution of
significant additions to BSDLed works.  These side-effects aren't
really BSDL specific, but successful software under reasonably
free licenses has this attribute, and given the software is
free in the common sense way, there is not a significant need for
the license to be any way inflexible about redistribution issues.

One common confusion is that there are some cases where GPL can
be of strategic advantage.  This can happen when there is fear
of a competing project, and leveraging the license is used as
a tool by the original or controlling developers to mitigate
problems with compatibility, or to maintain a competitive
advantage for the original or controlling developers.  In this
case, GPLed works are being distributed in a pseudo-commercial
way...  This can be a valuable tool to maintain control, and
can be a positive aspect of the GPL , but this does not argue
for the GPL describing 'free' terms.

If the GPL is just taken as a license, without a manifesto or
agenda, common usage of the word 'free' associated with GPL would
quickly be corrected, and other allusions that the license is somehow
special by some 'special' rights bestowed would be put aside, the
GPL community would be playing much more fairly with the free
software world.  (I hate the term 'fair', but couldn't think
of a better way of saying this.)  GPL is a different animal than
purely commercial, purely proprietary, free, or shareware (in the
sense of common usage.)  It should not be described as 'free'.  It
really appears to be misleading that an organization called 'Free
Software Foundation' promotes GPL...

-- 
John                  | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dyson@iquest.net      | it makes one look stupid
jdyson@nc.com         | and it irritates the pig.
   
From: Mark Summerfield 
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
            comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc
Subject: Understand the politics = understand the license (Re: The End of Free Software)
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 18:42:01 +1000
Organization: Member, Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers
Lines: 78
Message-ID: <37773559.3677F15B@ieee.org>

Leslie Mikesell wrote:

> >You could also say that the non-GPL licenses are imposing this
> >restriction on you -- by requiring that their source code remain
> >unpublished or be distributed with restrictions.
> 
> Hmmm, you are attacking the principle of owning anything if you
> go this route...

That's hardly surprising.  The GPL itself is essentially all about
attacking the principle of ownership, at least inasmuch as copyright
serves to equate authorship with ownership.

I can see why people are confused.  It helps to hear Richard Stallman
speak, if you want to understand what the GPL is really about.  The
written word is so much less effective than watching him demolish, in
front of an auditorium full of people, anyone who questions his beliefs.

Stallman is a political idealist (which is fine and good) who sees
himself as something os a revolutionary (which is often dangerous).
He wants nothing less that the complete abolition of copyright on
software, and the GPL is expressly a legal tool which USES existing
copyright laws to create the effect of an absence of such laws with
regard to any software touched by the GPL.  So if you actually believe
that there is such a thing as software which deserves protection as
a valuable form of intellectual property, you should be opposed to
Stallman, the GPL and the FSF (to some degree).

Stallman makes arbitrary distinctions (he, of course, claims that they
are not arbitrary).  He claims that different creative works can, and
should, be differently protected under copyright.  He points out that
the present copyright laws do not encourage progress, and he argues
ideologically that this is what they *should* in fact do.  Examples
are obvious -- how does the protection that Microsoft has from copyright
laws serve to help citizens in general to contribute to the overall
progress of society?  I happen to agree with him on all of this (although 
I don't claim that my opinion carries much weight -- and I'm well aware
that placing such importance on "social progress" opens me up to
accusations of being some sort of communist!).

Stallman argues that films, for example, as one of the most expensive 
forms of production, should have the longest term of protection.  Books
should perhaps be protected for one or two print runs.  So far, so good.

And all software should be completely unprotected.  This, to me, is
completely arbitrary.  Software has many uses in many different 
environments.  What is embodied in "scientific" software (such as CAD
tools, or scientific computing systems, for example) can be very different
from what is embodied in "general purpose" software (such as editors,
word processors, compilers and other "mass-market" applications).
The costs of development of different types of software can, in practice,
vary by orders of magnitude, depending upon the types of knowledge they
embody and apply, and how that knowledge is acquired.  To claim that
all of these different types of software should be treated identically
on the basis of some principle of "freedom" is naive.  To claim that
the overriding principle of "progress" is best served by lumping ALL
software into the same category in this way is simply paradoxical.
Sometimes the best way to support progress is to provide some commercially
and legally enforcable protection.  Sometimes it isn't.  Those people
who believe that there *are* applications that deserve the legal 
protection of copyright are the ones who are being forced to jump through
hoops by the GPL.  For some of us, those people are the *real* heroes!

Stallman and the FSF have done great things.  They have proven that free
software (in their sense) is viable.  They have given many of us the
tools to do our jobs more efficiently, and MUCH more cheaply!  But I'm
sue (and this discussion seems to support this) that many supporters
of the GPL do not fully appreciate what it implies, and what its
political goals are.  And that, I think, is what people are getting at
when they say that the FSF "twists" the meaning of the word "free".

If we learn the lessons of history, we shouldn't be surprised.  
Revolutionaries usually employ propaganda, and they usually deny that it's
propaganda.  And the followers of revolutionaries often include many 
people who don't fully understand what it is that they are supporting.  
It was ever thus... yawn!

Mark

This is a transcript of Hiroo Yamagata's interview with Richard Stallman. Hiroo Yamagata kindly granted permission to to display it here. Background information on this interview is available here. Hirro is a member of the Tokyo Linux Users Group.

Better Society through Free Software:
Richard M. Stallman Interview

by Hiroo Yamagata

HY: With your OS kernel HURD coming into the beta stage, it has finally become possible to create a complete system based on the GNU product lineup. Now how does GNU development work?

RMS: Umm, first, please be careful with that word "product". Product implies that something is made to be sold. Now, software companies develop software to sell copies. So that's a product. Whereas the aim of the GNU project is to create a better community. We sell copies to develop software. So there is a fundamental difference.

FSF has four full time programmers, and they write the software. However, there are many volunteers involved. By the way, I'm a volunteer, too. I don't get paid from FSF. As the president of FSF, I want to encourage people to donate and volunteer, so I want to set an example myself.

HY: So this HURD, do you feel that it is as advanced as you aimed to be in the first place?

RMS: "In the first place", that's not the "reason" that we set out to write HURD. We didn't do it for any technical advancements. That's a very common misunderstanding. The aim of GNU is _social_ advance, that is to expand the freedom of the users. Of course, being a hacker, I would like to see technical advancement. But GNU started out to be able to use a computer without using any proprietary software. Because that way, you can lead a better life. I mean, you can cooperate with people. Proprietary software doesn't let you do that, because it forbids copying and cooperation.

Having said that, in the case of HURD, there is quite a technical advance in it. The underlying design is more clean and powerful, and that hasn't been surpassed by any other existing system.

HY: What do you mainly work on? Do you still write the actual code?

RMS: Yes. I'm still maintaining Emacs, and that involves coding (but mainly debugging). Emacs20, which incorporates some of the Mule code by Mr. Handa, will be released soon.

HY: OK. I'd like to move on to the issue about proprietary commercial software and free...

RMS: You have to be very careful there. Commercial software and Proprietary software are totally different concepts. "Commercial" refers to the financial arrangement of the software. "Proprietary" refers to what the users are permitted to do. Free software must have the freedom to copy, to modify, and have the source code. So proprietary software is mutually exclusive with free software, but there can be commercial software that are free software.

HY: I don't understand. Like what?

RMS: Like GNU Ada. The development is done by a commercial company. But it is released under GPL. The company makes money through support and service contracts. And FSF sells software, too.

HY: In those cases, I'd say that it's not the software that is commercial. The users will be paying for the distribution and the support, aren't they?.

RMS: That's not even an interesting question. It's not a useful way to understand the distinction. It is more useful to focus on the factual consequences of the various alternatives. When you pay for a CD-ROM, you can say you're paying for this part or that part, but in reality, unless you pay the whole amount for the CD-ROM, you're not going to get it. And what you've paid for is not the issue. The issue is what you are allowed to do with it once you got it.

HY: And you argue that all software should be freeware. But is this a realistic argument? Aren't there software that won't be written without financial incentives that being proprietary would provide?

RMS: That question assumes that the software is a good thing, regardless whether it is free or proprietary. I don't think so, because I care about how much freedom I have in my life, not just technical features. I don't think a powerful program makes my life better if I have to wear chains to use it, if using it means I lose my freedom to share. So if these proprietary programs were not written at all...so what? I'd rather have my freedom, than have lot's of software.

HY: Hmmm. Then...how far do you think you can extend the idea of free software? Music, writing, or maybe as far as material goods in certain cases?

RMS: It does not apply to material goods, because (1) we don't have a way to copy them, and (2) in most cases, if you own them, you are allowed to modify them.

This issue does apply to other kinds of information; but since other kinds of information are not used the same way as software, they don't necessary need to be treated exactly like software.

What we need to think of, as a society, is to increase the number of people that can support themselves writing and playing music. Copyright is one way of doing that. But you need to realize that copyright does it badly. Lots of musicians doesn't make a lot of money, even if their records sell tens of thousand copies. Meanwhile, it takes away the user's freedom to copy. Recently some musicians started to distribute their music on the Internet, and encourage copying, and sell their records directly. Like a GPL'd music. They may sell less records, but they make more money.

The same with books. People recently wrote a computer text book, made it freely available and asked readers to send in money if they liked it. And they got a substantial amount of money. Maybe we don't need any system that forces people to pay, such as copyright. Voluntary payments may do the job.

HY: But that system, and the free software system, relies on people's honesty and good will. However, most successful social systems are based on suspicion and mistrust.

RMS: That's total nonsense. All society is based on trust and good will, except maybe for some extreme police states. Most people don't kill and steal, not because they are afraid of the law or police. They don't because its just wrong, and they just don't want to do it!! Trust and good will is the norm, and everything else is an exception.

Proprietary software aggravates selfishness. Of course, people do have a selfish side, but that's not the full story, although business will tell you otherwise. Free software doesn't ask you to be unselfish. It asks you to be selfish in a non-harmful way. It never forces you to be kind and altruistic. It _allows_ you to be kind and altruistic. Most people will want to help friends once in a while, and free software allows it. Proprietary software doesn't, and that's not a good thing for cooperation in society.

HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software.

RMS: I don't call this copying "piracy", because that is a propaganda word. I don't think it is wrong to copy and share information. Governments can pass laws against it, but that does not make it wrong, just illegal.

An unauthorized copy of a proprietary program has the same drawbacks as an authorized copy. If you want to make more copies and share them, you have to do it in secret; and you cannot get the source code.

So I think that unauthorized copies are not much better than authorized copies. The only good thing about the unauthorized copy is that you avoid giving money to the owner. This is good, because the owner does not deserve a reward for making software proprietary.

However, I can achieve the same thing by 'not using the program at all'. I use free software instead.

HY: (!! Wow!!) Umm... now, you're ideas are really far-fetched. How do you evaluate your succe....

RMS: (cuts in) I don't understand what you're saying. Far fetched? How can you say it's far fetched? Far fetched means that it can't be done, but I have been doing it for the last 15 years, which proves that it can be done. And the users of free software are increasing.

HY: But...isn't that because you occupy just a very small fringe of the society? It can't be generalized, can it?

RMS: You know, that's basically bull shit. Sheer speculation masquerading its knowledge. It's a cheap shot that someone may make. Of course, I don't have a time machine, so I can't tell if it's going to take over the world. But the free software movement was often claimed to be totally impossible, and yet we managed to continue and grow. This is positive evidence. And what do you have on the negative?

HY: Hmmmmmmmmmm.....I guess you've went through this sort of conversation, and you've no doubt encountered skeptics and people who have a hard time understanding. Where do people stumble?

RMS: First, the meaning of the word "free". This is "jiyuu" in Japanese, and it doesn't refer to money.

Also, people have lots of assumptions that they unconsciously make. Some people assume everyone is either a Capitalist or a Communist. Since I'm against proprietary software, they think I must be communist. Or people assume I'm jealous of people making a lot of money from software. People are so used to thinking that the important issue is money, it is hard to understand someone with a different priority.

I've never opposed making money, and I'm not against selling copies of software. I'm opposed to taking away users' freedom. That's the issue.

HY: In a lecture, you mentioned that you didn't use passwords, and had no security for your computer.

RMS: Uh-huh. Security might make sense with banks and military facilities, but in a computer lab, that is a sign of a social breakdown.

HY: (!!!) Social Breakdown?!?!!

RMS: Yes. It's like curing the symptom and worsening the disease. The disease here are the young people who are cut off from warmth and anything really worthwhile, who have nothing on their hands that to rebel and get attention by sneaking into other peoples system. But then the attention that they get from this is one of total hate and hostility. Security sends out that message of hostility, and I don't want to be on either side of it.

HY: So, you still don't have security?

RMS: I regret to say that we had to. There was this one person who repeatedly erased our files and there was no choice. So we made a gateway, a login server. But since I thought that this was such a sad thing, I thought I should suffer more from it so I can't log in on that server.

HY: But on the other hand, FSF supports some encryption scheme, doesn't it?

RMS: Well, that's an interesting point. I don't like people who keeps secret from their neighbors, but you should be able to protect yourself from the government. That's where encryption comes in.

HY: But governments are, in a sense, an expanded form of a neighborhood, aren't they?

RMS: Um, no, I don't think of the United States government in that way. No.

HY: OK, we're running out of space. Anything that you'd like to add?

RMS: About Linux. I am requesting people to call systems using the Linux kernel, "GNU/Linux" or "GNU system using the Linux kernel". This is because the so-called "Linux" system are mostly the GNU system. And another concern is that there is a growing misunderstanding that these systems have little to do with the GNU project, which is creating a split in the free software movement.

HY: But that's rather hard to swallow. I, for one thing, learned much about GNU through Linux, and started to make donations because of that. So there should be a substantial recognition and expansion of the free software world without the name change. And I'd say the kernel is the most central part of a system, so there's nothing wrong to refer to the whole system by its kernel.

RMS: That's another huge misconception. Kernel is only one of the major essential components. I'd say that the compiler is more important.

HY:But non-programmers hardly ever use the compiler

RMS: But as you say, Linux did contribute a lot to the expansion of the free software world. And I don't have anything against the system, I use it myself and if anyone asks me what system they should use, I say GNU/Linux because its the best system available. I'm concerned about proper credit, and the very real and unnecessary split in the free software world.

And lastly, I'd like to encourage CD-ROM vendors to increase their sales price by a dollar or two and donate that to FSF or some other free software project. That would be advantageous for the society in the long run, because that would lead to more free software. And then they should express how much they are donating for each CD-ROM, so that the users can judge their contribution to the free software movement.

OK, that's it. Happy hacking! (97.8.8)


slacker.com © Copyright 1995-2008 David McNett. All Rights Reserved.