--=-pfYw6ZgBCD778ad2n3fb
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> So all these people who work in your company are being required to use=20
> a program without:
> "The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs=20
> (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
> The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor=20
> (freedom 2).
> The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to=20
> the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to=20
> the source code is a precondition for this."
It is unfortunate that employees don't have rights, but that is not the
FSF's fault. For example if I develop something on the company clock
that is worth money, the company "owns" it. Not me. I am not an
individual when I am at work, I am property of the corporation so to
speak. Many employers even extend their iron fist beyond work hours.
> I absolutely agree that the GPL allows you to put the software on the=20
> desks of all your employees without granting them these "freedoms." I'm=20
> merely pointing out that the GPL is therefor not a free software=20
> license by the FSF's own definition.=20
We can agree to disagree. It is a matter of definition of what a user
is. The FSF uses the legal entity as a user, you chose not to. I am
torn as to which is more correct.
> After all they say "Free software=20
> is a matter of the *users'* freedom to run, copy, distribute, study,=20
> change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four=20
> kinds of freedom, for the *users* of the software:"(emphasis added).=20
> Now we seem to agree that the GPL isn't really about *users'* freedom=20
> at all but rather about corporate "freedom." Apparently you are OK with=20
> that. I'm not.
Their vocabulary also directly express that a corporation is a user in
the same way an individual at home is a user. That in their legal
opinion an employee is leaving their individuality at the door and
becoming part of the corporation while at work.
> > Tim O'Reilly is not respected by many. Personally I find him neither
> > laudible nor offensive, but rather somewhere in the middle.
>=20
> He is not a fool and his observations on the disconnect between what=20
> the stated goals of the FSF and what the GPL actually achieves is=20
> pretty evident.
I never said he was a fool. He certainly has his own agendas. Remember
the FSF publishes books as well. There is a lot of history you are not
privy to. One thing is that the FSF pretty much also makes their books
free. Tim does not. Many people have called Tim on the carpet over
this. It has been the cause of many sour grapes. That however is a
different discussion.
> I agree that they are very sharp people. But merely asserting that the=20
> position they favor represents "Freedom" is not argument at all: it is=20
> mere sloganeering. It's ironic that when some right wing politician=20
> starts spouting off about "Freedom" most of the geek community is first=20
> in line to point out that he's not really saying anything. But FSF can=20
> use precisely the same trick and many geeks just sit still for it.
I don't think so. The FSF is probably more scruntinized by the geek
community than any other organization. Read the Debian Legal list
sometime about they GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). They
certainly took the FSF to task over invariant sections.
> > 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.
>=20
> I'm not the one who identified the conflict, RMS is. If you don't see=20
> it, your quarrel is with him.
I don't understand the conflict so I can't argue with him about it.=20
Believe me I have no qualms with arguing with RMS. I disagree with a
ton of his viewpoints and behaviors. You might not believe that, but
believe me disagree on much more than we agree. The beauty is I can
still respect him for the things he has done that I agree with.
> > 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. :)
>=20
> You've really confused me. Above you seemed to approve of the this=20
> kind of behavior. You said "There is not a problem with this." Now you=20
> say "THAT IS THE PROBLEM" Which is it?
I am not sure where you are confused. I don't see the above that was
contradictory, but I think it goes back to you interpreting internal
distribution as a violation of freedom.
> In any event, don't count on the GPL to keep others from appropriating=20
> your work for their profit. It may prevent then from actually selling=20
> software derived from your work but there are plenty of other ways that=20
> they can use programs derived from your work for their profit that are=20
> perfectly compatible with the GPL. If you care, use the RPL.
I am happy with the agreement and terms of the GPL. The dissertation
you gave on why you have sour grapes is unfortunate, but I would be okay
with someone taking my code and modifying it for internal use and not
giving it back. As long as they were not distributing it to others. =20
> I guess we just have to disagree here. I think that using an=20
I certainly willing to take positions of agreeing to disagree.
> although you try to resist it. I think the YaST license is a case in=20
> point. Go back the the definition as ask yourself "Does the YaST=20
> license comply? Can I use the program for any purpose, study the source=20
> code, modify the program to improve it and distribute the program back=20
> to the community?" The answer to these questions is clearly 'Yes'. So=20
The answer is clearly "NO".=20
*can i use the program for any purpose..* NO. I can not use it to
profit through redistribution.
> we have to conclude that from the point of view of an actual human=20
> user, the YaST License and the GPL are pretty much the same. The big=20
They are similar yes, but not the same.
> difference is that from the corporate viewpoint, the GPL allows resale=20
> for a profit and the YaST license doesn't.
Even for an individual. What if I am a consultant and I take something
under a YaST license and modify it. I want to sell it to the company I
did the work for. I can't.
> So if you want to say "From the point of view of the individual user=20
> the YaST license and the GPL are pretty much identical but from the=20
> corporate viewpoint the YaST license sucks." I'll have to agree that=20
> you hit the nail on the head. If you talk about Freedom you just=20
> confuse the issue unless you specify that you mean "Corporate Freedom".
I think individuals can profit as well. You need not be some megalith
corporation. So I will agree if you have no interest in ever
distributing for profit that yes they are pretty similar. However, if
you have any intention of distributing for profit whether corporation or
individual they are vastly different.
> > 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.
>=20
> As an actual human user, I get the same rights under the YaST license=20
> as I would under the GPL.=20
This is not true. As an individual you can not sell your changes.
> Now if you want to say: "Red Hat puts out=20
> Anaconda under the GPL so SUSE can use it but SUSE won't reciprocate by=20
> putting YaST under the GPL so Red Hat can use it; therefor Red Hat is a=20
> better member of the community than SUSE." I'll agree with you. I have=20
Great. This was my PRIMARY argument to why they are a bad candidate to
be a "leader" as the article submission was wanting joy for.
> been convinced that RH, Debian et al do hold the ethical high ground=20
> here. But to try to characterize SUSE as some kind of opponent of=20
> 'Freedom' just wont wash.
Certainly no one claimed the Bush'ism of "Either you are for us or
against us". =20
--=20
Derek Neighbors
GNU Enterprise
http://www.gnuenterprise.org
derek@gnue.org
Was I helpful? Let others know:
http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=3Ddneighbo
--=-pfYw6ZgBCD778ad2n3fb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQBACcKmHb99+vQX/88RAifsAJ4s8505MWK9Q+0ONSLUK2Zfyu6lTgCeOkqx
vJeAPGzBnvtuf3h0ZjtjDSo=
=i8y9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-pfYw6ZgBCD778ad2n3fb--
(text/plain)