On Jan 16, 2004, at 8:52 PM, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-01-16 at 19:13, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> Actually buy that definition the GPL isn't free software either. Large
>
> Then you didn't read the definition. I posted a very specific
> definition. If you wish to post a different one and say that it
> doesn't
> meet that, I can live with that.
On the contrary, I did read the definition you posted. I have seen it
many times.
>
>> multinational corporations have taken GPL software, modified it
>> internally and mandated that their employees use it without giving
>> them
>> any access to the source code or any redistribution rights. When this
>
> There is not a problem with this. The GPL clearly states you may
> modify
> as you like and not release the code as long as you do not DISTRIBUTE
> it. If I am a corporation (a single entity) and I put on all the
> desktops of all my employees. I have not distributed it. All of those
> employees are part of my company which is a single entity.
So all these people who work in your company are being required to use
a program without:
"The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
(freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to
the source code is a precondition for this."
I absolutely agree that the GPL allows you to put the software on the
desks of all your employees without granting them these "freedoms." I'm
merely pointing out that the GPL is therefor not a free software
license by the FSF's own definition. After all they say "Free software
is a matter of the *users'* freedom to run, copy, distribute, study,
change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the *users* of the software:"(emphasis added).
Now we seem to agree that the GPL isn't really about *users'* freedom
at all but rather about corporate "freedom." Apparently you are OK with
that. I'm not.
>
>> was pointed out by some well respected observers of the software scene
>> like Tim O'Reilly, FSF responded with a bunch of flameage. FSF has not
>
> Tim O'Reilly is not respected by many. Personally I find him neither
> laudible nor offensive, but rather somewhere in the middle.
He is not a fool and his observations on the disconnect between what
the stated goals of the FSF and what the GPL actually achieves is
pretty evident.
>
>> hesitated to criticize other licenses that went a little farther in
>> promoting "freedom 1" and "freedom 2" as disrespectful of the privacy
>> rights of software authors.
>
> The FSF tries sometimes too hard to be a moral absolute and many of
> their members are not personable. This doesn't make them idiots or
> their arguments less valid. Just makes them harder to like.
I agree that they are very sharp people. But merely asserting that the
position they favor represents "Freedom" is not argument at all: it is
mere sloganeering. It's ironic that when some right wing politician
starts spouting off about "Freedom" most of the geek community is first
in line to point out that he's not really saying anything. But FSF can
use precisely the same trick and many geeks just sit still for it.
>
>> The problem is there is *always* a conflict between the four points
>> that you quoted above and the privacy rights of software authors. A
>> balance needs to be struck and who is to say that the SUSE license
>> doesn't come closer than the GPL?
>
> I don't see the conflict. I am not sure what privacy rights you speak
> of or the relevance. You haven't taken the time to explain them.
I'm not the one who identified the conflict, RMS is. If you don't see
it, your quarrel is with him.
>
>> As developer of GPL software, I refuse to call if 'Free Software' for
>> reasons that that I hope to make plain, I can assure you that the GPL
>> does not prevent your software from being hijacked for commercial
>> gain.
>> If that's what you want, I strongly recommend the RPL.
>
> Exactly. My complaint was that I allow SuSE to use my code for
> commercial gain. However, they will not let me use theirs for
> commercial gain. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. I am more than happy they can
> make money off my hard work. If I wasn't I wouldn't write GPL
> software. However, I don't want kids in my sandbox that don't feel the
> same way. I share my toys, I expect them too as well. :)
You've really confused me. Above you seemed to approve of the this
kind of behavior. You said "There is not a problem with this." Now you
say "THAT IS THE PROBLEM" Which is it?
In any event, don't count on the GPL to keep others from appropriating
your work for their profit. It may prevent then from actually selling
software derived from your work but there are plenty of other ways that
they can use programs derived from your work for their profit that are
perfectly compatible with the GPL. If you care, use the RPL.
>> Please don't take this as a personal attack, Derek, but I find
>
> I never take philosophy debates personally. Call my mom fat and ugly,
> I
> might take it personally. Disagree with me on politics, I consider it
> a
> compliment that you are willing to engage in intellectual debate.
Wonderful.
>
>> discussing differences in software licenses in terms of 'freedom' to
>> be
>> incredibly slimy. It's like when real estate salesmen always say
>> 'home'
>> when talking about houses. This is a world where people are still
>> imprisoned, beaten and killed for their religious and political
>> beliefs. Those people are being denied Freedom. To try to make some
>> compare their situation to that of someone who is presented with a
>> less than optimally open software license is cynical and manipulative.
>
> I think you are taking it to far the other extreme. I think it is
> important to emphasis freedom because it is important to propagate
> innovation and stimulate intellect. I never equated it to world peace,
> spiritual nirvana or world hunger.
>
> If I was making claims that freedom in software was more important than
> feeding a hungry child. Yes that is slimy. Yes that is wrong.
> However, I never did such a thing. If this was a politics list or a
> humanitarian list I would talk about those issues as well. However,
> that is not the debate.
I guess we just have to disagree here. I think that using an
emotionally loaded word like 'freedom' is inherently an attempt to
present the issue as if it had ethical significance comparable to
feeding a hungry child. I think it even gets to you a little bit
although you try to resist it. I think the YaST license is a case in
point. Go back the the definition as ask yourself "Does the YaST
license comply? Can I use the program for any purpose, study the source
code, modify the program to improve it and distribute the program back
to the community?" The answer to these questions is clearly 'Yes'. So
we have to conclude that from the point of view of an actual human
user, the YaST License and the GPL are pretty much the same. The big
difference is that from the corporate viewpoint, the GPL allows resale
for a profit and the YaST license doesn't.
So if you want to say "From the point of view of the individual user
the YaST license and the GPL are pretty much identical but from the
corporate viewpoint the YaST license sucks." I'll have to agree that
you hit the nail on the head. If you talk about Freedom you just
confuse the issue unless you specify that you mean "Corporate Freedom".
>
> I could say I find it underhanded that companies like SuSE (and many
> others) play to the community in menial ways to try to bait them that
> they are not like their proprietary counterparts. The very companies
> that many users are trying to flee. When in actuality they are almost
> pulling a bait and switch.
>
> That said, I do not find SuSE repulsive, useless or downright evil. I
> simply stated that it was not heart warming to see them via for top
> position in the Linux distribution market.
As an actual human user, I get the same rights under the YaST license
as I would under the GPL. Now if you want to say: "Red Hat puts out
Anaconda under the GPL so SUSE can use it but SUSE won't reciprocate by
putting YaST under the GPL so Red Hat can use it; therefor Red Hat is a
better member of the community than SUSE." I'll agree with you. I have
been convinced that RH, Debian et al do hold the ethical high ground
here. But to try to characterize SUSE as some kind of opponent of
'Freedom' just wont wash.
(text/plain)