From: johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 09:52:59 GMT

In article <1993Jan3.232427.18974@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <C0B6qq.B2F@news.udel.edu> 
>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan3.170815.18962@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>>>In article <C0Ap5A.A4v@news.udel.edu> 
>>>johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:
>>>>In article <1993Jan2.221526.18943@husc3.harvard.edu>
>>>>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

BJ:
>>It is still free for your use under the terms of the GPL - the terms 
>>set by the owner and copyright holder, which is not Mikhail Zeleny
>>unless I've missed the name of a major contributor.
>
>I am willing to wager that my volunteered contribution to the founding
>of the Free Software Foundation exceeds your own by an arbitrary factor
>of your choice.  How much are you willing to bet?

And I am willing to wager that the sun will rise tomorrow.  

I don't give a damn who contributed to the *founding* of FSF.  
I expect that everyone who played a part sees himself as 
Marx, Lenin, or Trotsky.  You're Marx, the philosopher, right?
Or is it Trotsky because you now whine about betrayal?

What matters is whether or not you are a major contributor to 
FSF code - the intellectual property that is covered by the GPL.

If you are, you would have the right to dictate the terms under 
which your contribution can be used.  If not, you are just one of 
many observers, like me, who have expressed an opinion on the the GPL.

Some of your ideas have merit.

The question of strict "public-virus" restrictions versus a "fair use"
clause is a tough call.  Without these restrictions, I think that the 
code would be used in a way that does not advance the cause of "free" 
software as well as it has done under the GPL.  Your opinion differs.

I don't give a damn about semantics or word usage.  I am more 
impressed by results.  For example one might compare the recent 
rate of development of GPL'd Linux with that of Mach 3.0 and 
Net2-derived 386BSD which have been slowed by various non-technical 
(mostly legal, I assume) hassles.  It is also my opinion that
recent progress on GPL'd projects has been better than recent 
progress in TeX and X-Windows, which have been cited as examples
of better-licensed software.  My impression is that this progress
is due to the fact that the programmers who choose to work under
the GPL are strongly motivated by it.  I don't know why exactly,
but I'm impressed by the results.

I am also impressed by the number of programmers who have 
recently contributed copylefted versions of work that formerly 
was released under other more-or-less "free" licensing schemes.  
From my position as mere observer, it appears that Stallman has 
been increasingly successful in convincing others to use the GPL.

If you want to make a case for changing the direction of FSF, 
or for promoting an better licensing scheme for "more-or-less free" 
software, you'll have to be very convincing given recent trends.

In the discourse thus far, you have not made any points that 
haven't been advanced previously in gnu.misc.discuss, and you 
haven't succeeded in making them more convincingly than others 
have in the past -- this despite the fact that you write well.

I'm sorry, but I find it suspicious that in your recent tirade 
you choose to attack the policies of one organization and x-ref 
to half a dozen that traditionally host arguments conducted 
primarily for sport.

In some articles you lean toward semantics and cast yourself 
as defender of the English language;  in others you make more 
specific points about software licensing and attack individuals
associated with FSF;  in others you claim to champion the idea 
of freedom.  The aggregate reads more like the work of one who 
enjoys flame wars than someone who is making a genuine effort 
to advance a serious argument. 

Despite its increasingly hostile tone, this article managed
to include most of Mr. Zeleny's worthwhile points in a single 
paragraph which is worth repeating for those who keep Zeleny
is their kill files:

MZ writes:
>I had shared my idea, as well as a great deal of personal effort and
>expenses, with Stallman and company seven and a half years ago; my
>sole reward was an underhanded exclusion from the promised seat on the
>Foundation's board of directors.  Just for you, my little pigeon, I will
>repeat the gist of it: make the bloody "copyleft" a request, rather than
>a demand.  Ask that people limit their proprietary code borrowing to
>conventionally defined "fair use".  Do not attempt to bind anyone's
>action, except by appealing to his conscience.  Ignore the inevitable
>cheaters; nothing can stop a determined thief.  Offer your paying
>customers warranty support; give people a genuine incentive to pay you
>for copies, rather than offload them from an archive.  There is no real
>need to copyright the programs, but if you must do it, whilst reserving
>the right to call the resulting software free, make the terms as
>non-restrictive as possible.  I adduce Knuth's TeX as exibit A.

Ignoring the insults, this is well-written and concise.  Your problem 
is that the readers who matter -- ie, those who are currently engaged
in producing intellectual property and thus have to decide under what
terms to distribute it -- are probably intelligent people who have
considered these points before.  Many evidentally disagree with you.

MZ:
>Son, I don't give a cold fuck whether you take my allegations at face
>value; it is quite enough for me that the principals know that I speak
>the truth.  More than seven years of silence is enough; from now on, I
>shall call it as I see it.  If I see hypocrisy, I identify it as such;
>if I know that the self-professed defenders of freedom and Kantian
>virtue had no qualms about using my work and breaking their commitment,
>I make a public statement.  Likewise, I have absolutely no interest in
>your opinion of the quality of my concern; if you wish to put your money
>where your mouth is, just take my bet.

Frankly, I don't see how your "allegations" were in any way relevant;
my opinion of the GPL would not be based on the personalities of those
who wrote it or now advocate it, just as my opinion of Kant would not
be affected by his hairstyle.  I look at the text of the document
and compare its merits to alternative licensing schemes.

So there were disagreements when you worked with FSF and you failed to 
convince the others that you were right.  This doesn't surprise me.  
Now you attack their behavior as part of an effort to discredit 
their ideas?  You'd have done well in the Bush administration.

Your wager challenge is ridiculous.  I made no effort to cast 
myself as anything but an interested observer;  nor would my 
status affect the merit of my arguments.  

If you want to get your money's worth for your efforts made thus 
far, I suggest that you expand your one gem of a paragraph above 
into a fully-developed "Zeleny Public License", and then work to 
convince programmers that your way is better.  It might help your 
credibility with some readers if you didn't simultaneously x-ref 
to alt.society.anarchy and alt.usage, but again, opinions vary.

-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4188 talk.philosophy.misc:3148