Am 18. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Chris Gehlker so:
> Exactly. If companies were really people, they might be capable of
> feeling some shame.
Might be, I guess, but I think most of those execs aren't feeling any shame=
,
so I wouldn't expect the humanized embodiment of a company to do so.
> A company simply can't want to not release something. A company doesn't
> have likes, dislikes or emotions of any kind. The people who own the
> company probably do want to keep their modifications to my code
> private. So does Bill Gates. I simply don't see an ethical distinction
> between the school district administrator who 'stole' my code and Bill
> Gates. Well on second thought I do. Bill Gates isn't paid by the
> taxpayers and he doesn't pretend to be an educator.
Those administrators were using it internally. I think they should have bee=
n
able to do so. They might well have made mods they can't release due to
privacy issues.
I understand your frustration with this particular instance, but I think
there are instances where not being forced to provide changes is a valuable
feature.
It's similar to the "freedom to run the program, for any purpose". There
are lots of bad purposes, but in order to keep out personal vendettas and
political issues we need to say there are no limitations. It's just not
feasable to put in things like "you may not use the software to rape,
pillage and burn" even though I think most people would agree that that
would be a good restriction.
> I do understand, now, that the GPL is using the
> distributed/not-distributed distinction as the trigger for the
> obligation to give improvements back to the community. It just doesn't
> make sense to me when I try to apply it. Years ago I released a little
> game under the GPL. You will know how many years ago when I tell you
> 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
> to her friend without offering source code. Is that a GPL violation?
> Sure, technically. Is the programmer taking from the community and not
> giving back? I think it's clear that she isn't.
She doesn't have to provide the source code if it's not asked for.
"You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code."
http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html
I presume, however, you meant that she intends not to make it available.
I'll presume her friend is a he, so pronouns work out :).
At that point she's not providing him with the same freedoms that she
received, so she's taking away from him ( even as she's giving him somethin=
g
). In the end that might be 'not giving back' as he might wish to return th=
e
changes to the community.
> Now suppose instead that I had distributed some tax software. Suppose
> further that H & R Block took my software, made some improvements, and
> used it as the basis of their nationwide business. Is that a GPL
> violation? Nope, only H & R Block employees are actually running the
> software. Is H & R Block in this example taking from the community and
> not giving anything back? I think it's clear that they are.
You're right, but that's allowed. If it weren't Free Software would be no
better than proprietary software. How is the H&R Block example different
from them just using the software 'as is'? What if a company uses a
GNU/Linux box as a fileserver taking advantage of the kernel and the OS and
all the work that has gone into them, but doesn't give anything back?
Also, what changes have to be given back? Do the configuration changes have
to be given back? Do the changes to a db such as the records stored have to
be given back? Requiring entities to give back all changes seems problemati=
c
to me.
> So it seems to me that what we are trying to get at with all these
> forms of 'free' licenses is the notion that if you use software
> provided by the community as to basis of your works you have some
> obligation to return your work to the community. We can discuss how
There is no obligation to return anything to the community. There is no
price exacted for using Free Software.
The requirement is that subsequent recipients of the code be given the same
four rights. This generally results in giving back to the community, but
that's a result not a cause.
> much benefit you should be able to receive before you have an actual
> legal requirement to give something back but I think maybe we can agree
> that there is *some* level that triggers the obligation.
There is none. No amount of benefit should require giving back. People and
other sorts of legal entities should be encouraged to give back, but not
required to give back.
> Now the problem with the distributed/not-distributed dichotomy is that
> it's just not very well correlated with the amount of benefit that one
> originally took from the community. What seems more relevant is the
> level of deployment of your product and maybe the amount and
> significance of the community code that you started with.
Amount of benefit is irrelevant. Should someone whose pacemaker is running
GNU/Linux have to pay millions of dollars because his continued life is of
great value? Should he have to dedicate the rest of his life to Free
Software because it's Free Software that enables him to stay alive? What
about the doctors that take care of him? What about the company that makes
the pacemaker?
No, I do not know of any GNU/Linux-based pacemakers, it's just an example
used for illustration of my point :).
> I note that even the FSF now admits that the example of a web server
> getting millions of hits that is based on modified GPL code taken
> private gives them a problem. I hadn't seen that page before and I am
> very encouraged.
I have talked to rms about this. He was upset about people hiding behind
'server-side is not distribution'. Thus far I tend to agree with that point
of view, though.
I think more important battles for something like that are:
* making sure the data the service has is available in an Open Format
* making sure that the service has a good privacy policy and abides by it
* making sure that the service is secure
* getting people to realize what they're turning over and getting them to
use their own services rather than remote services
I'm glad you have given back to the community. I'm glad you've actually
thought about licensing and have put thought into it. I'm pissed that we
need to waste effort on things like licensing and wish people/entities woul=
d
just do the right thing, but I suppose documentation is required to get a
semblance of an agreement as to what the implied 'right thing' is :).
ciao,
der.hans
--=20
# https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.AZOTO.org/
# Science is magic explained. - der.hans
(text/plain)