Novell and SuSE

On Jan 19, 2004, at 1:23 AM, der.hans wrote:

> Am 18. Jan, 2004 schw=E4tzte Chris Gehlker so:
>
>> On Jan 18, 2004, at 3:07 PM, der.hans wrote:
>
>> If they are just using it 'as is' then what they could provide to the
>> community is no more than what I have already provided.
>
> Well, they could go to some effort and help improve it. If they're=20
> expected
> to give back, then it shouldn't matter if they've needed to make=20
> changes.

I'm afraid I simply don't understand here. To 'give back' you must have=20=

something to give. What are you suggesting?

>
>>> Also, what changes have to be given back? Do the configuration=20
>>> 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
>>> problematic
>>> to me.
>>
>> Nope. I don't know of any license that requires anything but source
>> code to be given back.
>
> Well, the MySQL guys think that distributing MySQL ( binary and source=20=

> )
> along with proprietary programs that 'connect' to MySQL using network=20=

> or
> socket connections is a violation of the GPL because those programs =
are
> modifying the program. The guy I talked to at LISA claims RMS has =
given
> MySQL his blessing on this interpretation.

There is a real issue here that merits its own discussion. Both the GPL=20=

and the RPL, as well as most of the other languages were formulated in=20=

a world where the distinction between integration and mere aggregation=20=

was fairly easy to make. That world is rapidly disappearing. I love to=20=

listen to people who think they understand the difference between the=20
GPL and the LGPL and then ask "What happens if all the code is Ruby?"
>
>> Well, it's an extreme example but it makes a point. If I come up with
>> pace-maker software that extends someone's life for a couple of years
>> and during that time one of the beneficiaries develops a modification
>> that extends people's lives another couple of years he certainly does
>> have an obligation to release that modification. He simply can't say
>> "No I think the world is too crowded so I'm going to keep this
>> modification to myself." That would be unethical and also illegal in
>> most (maybe all) countries.
>
> Why would it be illegal? Under the RPL it would be, I think. Under the=20=

> GPL,
> though, that would be legal. What if he was extending his life only so=20=

> that
> he could watch "Soylent Green" over and over again? :)

I don't think it would be illegal under the RPL either because it would=20=

be personal use. But it would be illegal under all the laws that=20
require people give aid in life threatening situations if they can do=20
so without endangering themselves. There was a great article by some=20
philosopher, which I can't find right now, where he pointed out that=20
geeks tend to go off in their hermetic little world when they get into=20=

discussions of software distribution. I think some of that's happening=20=

here.

Hoarding life saving technology is very bad karma. Trust me on this.=20
The fact that it is not a GPL violation is not evidence that it is good=20=

karma. It is merely evidence that the GPL is very flawed as a guide to=20=

ethical behavior.

>
> The RPL also has problems because manufacturers usually can't limit=20
> what
> customers do with products. Can TiVo sue everyone for all the TiVo=20
> mods that
> happen?

Actually in the case of something like TiVo the GPL and the RPL have=20
the same effect. There is no requirement for flesh and blood persons to=20=

release their code under the RPL. That requirement falls only on=20
organizations. So you would need some very artificial situation such as=20=

a hotel chain advertising "Stay with us and watch TV on our specially=20
modified TiVos" to have a case where the license would make a=20
difference.
>
> I agree that it would be good for those who've modified Free Software=20=

> to
> release their changes. =46rom whom are they taking freedoms, though, =
if=20
> they
> hoard them? The point of Free Software is that the person getting the=20=

> code
> is given the rights described in the 4 freedoms. There are no=20
> obligations
> other than to extend those freedoms to whomever the code might be=20
> given.

Try looking at it this way. If I release code under a BSD style license=20=

the community gets the benefit of my code. This is great and I really=20
admire people who use the BSD license.

But not everybody thinks that BSD style is the best. Some argue for a=20
GPL style and their argument has nothing to do with freedom for the=20
user because the user gets even more freedoms under BSD. The argument=20
for the GPL over BSD is simply that the community gets more. It gets my=20=

original code plus future modifications.

Now when the GPL was written, almost all code was actually produced by=20=

schools or hardware vendors. Schools weren't in bed with corporations=20
to the extent that they are now and they tended to release everything=20
under a BSD style license. Hardware vendors distributed software with=20
their hardware. So the notion that the community gets more under the=20
GPL has merit.

Fast forward to the present. Studies show that around 80% of the code=20
is written inside corporations by their internal IT departments. They=20
are never going to distribute this code in any form because they don't=20=

want their competitors to get the binaries. So for 80% of the time, GPL=20=

=3D=3D BSD. Of the remaining 20% about half is academic/hobby[1] and =
about=20
half is shrink-wrap. The shrink-wrap vendor must distribute its code to=20=

profit from it so for 10% of the time GPL =3D=3D RPL.

So the way I see it is a good argument, maximum user freedom, can be=20
made for BSD and a good argument, maximum community benefit, can be=20
made for RPL [2]. What I can't see is a good argument for GPL. Sure=20
shrink-wrap vendors contain some convicted monopolists but non-shrink=20
wrap vendors contain companies that are convicted monopolists and=20
environmentally damaging and war profiteers u.s.v.

[1] The academic/hobby stuff is divided between BSD style, GPL style=20
and shrink-wrap style in some proportion that I don't know so I'll=20
ignore it.
[2] I'll concede that the argument that the GPL is GPL compatible and=20=

a lot of code already GPL is sort of a good argument. It is also a good=20=

argument to stop releasing GPL code because of the lock-in to a=20
suboptimal license.=