On Jan 18, 2004, at 1:52 AM, der.hans wrote:

> Am 17. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Chris Gehlker so:
>
>> I'm not really as anti-corporate as all that. My agenda is simply to
>> warn people that the GPL doesn't work the way one would think it does
>> after reading the FSF's Free Software Definition or listening to the
>
> It works just as I'd expect. Maybe I've just been unlucky enough to
> understand the 'corporation' or 'business entity' as a 'person' legal=20=

> stance
> in the .us. Wouldn't it be cool if they'd do it for real and lock up=20=

> MCI and
> Enron for 25 years?

Exactly. If companies were really people, they might be capable of=20
feeling some shame.
>
>> public pronouncements of its leading members. My personal stake is=20
>> just
>> that my friend and I were burned by a school district in the way that=20=

>> I
>> have previously related. I want to warn others so that they may avoid
>> my fate. It never occurred to me that the 'users' to whom I was
>> granting right could be anyone other that the students and teachers.
>
> I understand your frustration with that situation. I understand your=20=

> seeing
> this as a weakness in the GPL. I also see that it's good to not =
require
> people/organizations release something that they're only using=20
> internally.

I agree about not requiring *people* to release something that they are=20=

only using personally.
>
> I don't want to be told I have to release something I'm only using for
> myself, though, so I can understand a company having the same =
attitude.

A company simply can't want to not release something. A company doesn't=20=

have likes, dislikes or emotions of any kind. The people who own the=20
company probably do want to keep their modifications to my code=20
private. So does Bill Gates. I simply don't see an ethical distinction=20=

between the school district administrator who 'stole' my code and Bill=20=

Gates. Well on second thought I do. Bill Gates isn't paid by the=20
taxpayers and he doesn't pretend to be an educator.
>
>> When the Free Software Definition uses the term 'user' it is as =
likely
>> to refer to an organization as a human being. Don't let phrases in =
the
>> Free Software Definition such as "so you can help your neighbor",
>> "release your improvements to the public" and "so that the whole
>> community benefits" mislead you into thinking that by using the GPL=20=

>> you
>> are actually granting any rights to flesh and blood human beings.
>
> I think it's already been agreed that rights are indeed being granted=20=

> to
> flesh and blood human beings. Yes, you're correct though, rights are=20=

> also
> being granted to other forms of legal entities.

I do understand, now, that the GPL is using the=20
distributed/not-distributed distinction as the trigger for the=20
obligation to give improvements back to the community. It just doesn't=20=

make sense to me when I try to apply it. Years ago I released a little=20=

game under  the GPL. You will know how many years ago when I tell you=20
that I was proud that it was the #1 download on Compuserve one month.

Now suppose a programmer made an improvement to my game and gave a copy=20=

to her friend without offering source code. Is that a GPL violation?=20
Sure, technically. Is the programmer taking from the community and not=20=

giving back? I think it's clear that she isn't.

Now suppose instead that I had distributed some tax software. Suppose=20
further that H & R Block took my software, made some improvements, and=20=

used it as the basis of their nationwide business. Is that a GPL=20
violation? Nope, only H & R Block employees are actually running the=20
software. Is H & R Block in this example taking from the community and=20=

not giving anything back? I think it's clear that they are.

So it seems to me that what we are trying to get at with all these=20
forms of 'free' licenses is the notion that if you use software=20
provided by the community as to basis of your works you have some=20
obligation to return your work to the community. We can discuss how=20
much benefit you should be able to receive before you have an actual=20
legal requirement to give something back but I think maybe we can agree=20=

that there is *some* level that triggers the obligation.

Now the problem with the distributed/not-distributed dichotomy is that=20=

it's just not very well correlated with the amount of benefit that one=20=

originally took from the community. What seems more relevant is the=20
level of deployment of your product and maybe the amount and=20
significance of the community code that you started with.

I note that even the FSF now admits that the example of a web server=20
getting millions of hits that is based on modified GPL code taken=20
private gives them a problem. I hadn't seen that page before and I am=20
very encouraged.