From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 11 Jan 93 19:45:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan11.144521.19192
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

Although I prefer not to bother with philippics, the meager substantive
content of this particular effort can be dispensed with in less than five
minutes.

In article <BURLEY.93Jan9171820@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
burley@apple-gunkies.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Craig Burley) writes:

>In article <1993Jan9.025025.19137@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>This is correct, but you could still restrict the GPL, and follow by
>>licensing subsequent releases under the new version thereof, leaving
>>the dreaded software hoarders with nought but obsolete "free" software.

CB:
>Yes, and the US Government could redefine "public domain" as now meaning
>"owned and licensable by Greenpeace", which would have far worse consequences,
>but is more likely now that Al Gore is in the White House.

Ha ha.

CB:
>Even if the FSF was somehow taken over and the new "owners" released a new
>version of the GPL that further restricted rights, several things would
>happen:
>
>1.  Significant legal challenges would be threatened (and probably
>    succeed) regarding whether the new version of the GPL maintained
>    the "spirit" of the previous version, as required in the GPL itself.

Yes, just like the Coca-Cola Company was challenged in court by its
irate customers, for betraying the "spirit" of Coke by decocainizing
it.

CB:
>2.  The existing code, protected by the previous version of the GPL, would
>    not be obsolete simply because its GPL was an older version; and,
>    since the source code would still be freely copyable according to the
>    GPL, people would have the same ability to continue to enhance
>    the software as they do now.

Apply this argument to public domain software, and you will summarily
refute every claim made by Stallman to the effect of the putative
superiority of "copyleft".

CB:
>3.  The FSF would lose most or all of its support, especially given how
>    many people scream and moan about how FSF software is not "Truly Free"
>    today (and somehow still have time to write truly free software?).

By the same token, should they release their programs into the public
domain, the FSF would *gain* the support of many people currently
disagreeing with the GPL.

CB:
>I cannot think of a better way to release my Fortran compiler than by
>not only GPL-protected it, but signing copyright over to the FSF.  Sure,
>bad things _might_ happen if the FSF mismanages things (they're no big
>fans of Fortran, believe me :-), but the alternatives are generally
>worse and more risky:
>
>-  If I release the whole thing (source code and all) to public domain,
>   then unquestionably I will end up having neighbors (in the Christian
>   sense of the term :-) who ask me to help them fix or enhance their
>   compiler derived even 99% from my code, and I won't be able to do so
>   practically.  Further, I could lose everything I have to software-patent-
>   infringement lawsuits, a danger I have no way to protect myself against.
>
>-  If I simply GPL-protect the thing but don't sign copyright ownership
>   over to someone like the FSF, I'm still open to patent-infringement
>   lawsuits against which I can have no defense.
>
>-  If I use other licensing terms that are more free than the GPL but not
>   quite PD, I still have patent-infringement problems unless I can find an
>   organization like the FSF that is willing to take the risk, which seems
>   unlikely.  Meanwhile, some of the licenses I've seen considered "more
>   free" than the GPL are unsatisfactory: those that restrict military use,
>   distribution for commercial gain, use on Apple products (I just made that
>   one up, actually :-), don't require source code to be available, and so
>   on.
 
While some of these reasons may be subjectively justified by your
irrational fear of lawsuits, none of them justifies the GPL.  The
ability of the FSF to protect your rights against frivolous and
arbitrary lawsuits does not in any way depend on the restrictive terms
and conditions of its software licensing.

CB:
>Releasing code via the GPL and/or the FSF isn't perfect.  But then, nothing
>is.  People looking for perfection in the material, human realm will always
>be disappointed unless they are easily misled.  Same for people expecting
>Richard M. Stallman to be the ideal leader of the free-software
>movement.  I fit none of these descriptions, and feel sorry for anyone
>who fits any of them.

Most categorical generalizations are stupid.

CB:
>But, instead of bitching and moaning about rms, the FSF, or the GPL,
>which I suppose I could do, I just keep writing code that, for all
>practical and useful purposes, will be free.  I don't particularly care
>that some people will restrict themselves such that they can't use
>my code in the way I'd like them to and will permit them to.  And I
>have no use for extremists who claim my 2.5+ years of volunteer effort
>to write a free Fortran compiler isn't genuine because I don't release
>it under _their_ terms (PD, or some other license agreement).  This is
>the best way I've found so far (using both theoretical analysis and
>practical experience) to do what I'm doing and have it benefit the
>people most ready to be benefitted.  I'm not one to cast pearls before
>swine, though I occasionally make mistakes in that direction when posting
>to newsgroups, perhaps.  :-)

I have addressed this sort of reasoning in my replies to other people.

CB:
>Ultimately, the GPL and the FSF way have advantages and disadvantages
>that correspond pretty much to a radically new computer language or
>operating system: it might seem ideal when one stays within the system,
>but have (or appear to have) shortcomings when it comes to interfacing
>to the outside world or, more specifically, being backwards compatible.
>
>I've seen a .signature that said something like:
>
>    "In response to the 5/2/2014 announcement by FooBar Computer Corp.
>     of a new computer that fits in a shirt pocket, runs entirely on
>     solar and thermal energy, and has the compute power and storage
>     capacity roughly equivalent to a Connection Machine 10 or Cray
>     Z-2, reporters quickly asked: 'Does it run MS-DOS programs?'"
>
>The equivalent for the FSF might be:
>
>    "In response to the announcement of a new software licensing scheme
>     called the GPL that, if widely followed, would promote software reuse,
>     increase innovation, cooperation, and useful competition, thus leading
>     to better utilization of society's resources and improve the level of
>     service provided to users of computers, reporters quickly asked:
>     'Can I copy the GPL software and call it my own?' and 'Will an average
>     computer software company be able to earn $1B using the GPL in 1Q92?'"
>
>Not that these aren't valid questions, but it seems to me that people
>who find that GPL too restrictive don't appreciate or consider the vision
>of having software that you can _always_ fix or hire someone to fix because
>you _always_ have access to the source code, not just because someone's
>been nice enough to follow protocol and provide it (the pre-1975 standard
>in some pockets of the industry).

None of these arguments demonstrate the superiority of the GPL over
public domain.

CB:
>But, then, some people think source code contains all the programmer's
>knowledge of the problem (it doesn't, or else the problem is trivially
>solved), so they somehow think there are moral reasons to withhold it
>from people.  Fine.  My vision of where the computer industry will, or
>could, go, includes technologies and capabilities far greater than what
>we have today without necessarily requiring much better hardware (though
>it would take much better advantage of better hardware than our present,
>feeble conceptions), but is basically unachievable without vastly greater
>cost _unless_ LPF and FSF concepts become more widely adopted.  In
>particular, I believe software patents, look-and-feel copyright, and
>even widespread release of binary images without corresponding source
>code already unnecessarily hampers the industry today, and the degree
>to which it does so will increase as computer-related technologies
>(software, hardware, communications) increase.  (E.g. you'd be amazed
>at how much we accept as "normal" in the way we use computers that
>has come about partly because we _don't_ share source code; I'm more
>aware of that since I'm one of the old fogies who was using computers
>back when source code was much more ubiquitous.  It scares me to think
>what kinds of ludicrous new approaches we'll have to invent and have
>become "part of software engineering" to deal with look-and-feel
>copyrights and software patents, but that's another issue.)

This visionary outburst is wholly irrelevant to the argument.

CB:
>But that is just my vision, one I have cultivated and reality-checked for
>over 20 years, and is worthless to anyone who is bent on whining about the
>GPL and attacking those who, rather selflessly, help out the FSF in its
>quest in making software freely copyable (not unnaturally restricted)
>for everybody who wants freely copyable software (and many, apparently,
>do not).  So I will not share my vision here.  After all, it's probably
>pretty blurry anyway, and could turn out to be very wrong (though the
>past 20 years suggest I've had pretty good vision so far).

I prefer not to dignify this piece of narcissistic, self-righteous
claptrap with a reasoned answer.

>--
>
>James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu
>Member of the League for Programming Freedom (LPF) lpf@uunet.uu.net

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss