From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Copyleft vs Public Domain
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:24:28 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan11.032430.19184
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <6119@comton.airs.com> 
ian@airs.com (Ian Lance Taylor) writes:

>zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

MZ:
>>Only the newly introduced additions and amendments may be so
>>appropriated; the original irrevocably belongs to everybody.  However,
>>we have observed that Stallman's definition of freedom "to study and
>>change programs, and to cooperate with each other by sharing programs"
>>both depends on and involves, its enforcement by the terms of the GPL.
>>In this peculiar sense, it becomes trivially true that the GPL prevents
>>the "freedom" from being stripped off when the program is distributed,
>>by preventing itself from being stripped off when the program is
>>distributed.  But of course, this efficiency of self-serving does not
>>yield a justification for its superiority to public domain software.
>>Thus, the first reason fails to withstand rational scrutiny.

ILT:
>This is incorrect.  If you believe, as I believe, that all programs
>should be distributed with source code, then the ``efficiency of
>self-serving'' is a clear advantage over public domain software.

Huh? in what sense is the PD source not readily available?

ILT:
>(This is not to say that these are the only two alternatives).

Correct.

MZ:
>>Consider the most likely beneficiary of the FSF's munificence, an
>>anonymous UNIX hacker, who is likely to be employed in other people's
>>proprietary projects.

ILT:
>This does not describe the beneficiary I have in mind when I write
>programs.  It does not describe the beneficiary of the FSF's
>munificence in distributing Emacs.

I shan't presume to speak for you or your programs, but for anyone
*but* a skilled programmer, Emacs is *far* inferior to any generic
(WYSIWYG, graphical) word processor.

RMS:
>>>If not for the GPL, most users of our software would not have the
>>>freedom to redistribute and change it.  That is not just speculation;
>>>the examples of X Windows, TeX, and Berkeley's Unix extensions show
>>>that most users of these programs have only proprietary versions and
>>>do not have the freedom to share or change them.  The first authors of
>>>these programs did not themselves take away those freedoms, but did
>>>not defend them either.  Where that path leads was clear when the GNU
>>>project was started, and therefore we chose another path.

MZ:
>>This is a straw man argument, which establishes its conclusion only by
>>glossing over legitimate alternatives to legal restrictions.  It is very
>>likely that, were the GNU programs placed into the public domain, with
>>but its current resources, the FSF could easily match, and even surpass,
>>any proprietary enhancements to their programs, in the same way as the
>>same is done by commercial companies striving to keep ahead of their
>>competitors.  Furthermore, in doing so, the FSF would attract a great
>>deal of additional support from those, who are currently put off by the
>>strictures of the GPL.  By contrast, in choosing its present strategy,
>>the FSF chooses convenience over principle.

ILT:
>I find this very implausible.  The FSF is a very small software
>company, and already uses a great deal of outside help.  If gcc were
>public domain, it would splinter into many different compilers as
>different companies produced proprietary extensions.  I do not believe
>the FSF would be able to keep up.  Certainly there have been many
>extensions to the programs Stallman cites, X, TeX, and BSD, that have
>never been duplicated in any free form.  Why not?

The difference is, no single, dedicated agency has ever tried to
maintain and develop the PD extensions of X, TeX, or BSD.

MZ:
>>Everyone who has spent any time in textual research, is aware of the
>>immense boon to scholarship, precipitated by each occasion of passing of
>>the body of work of an important artist or writer into the public
>>domain.  The same could be expected of software.  Why not give yourself
>>a chance to find out?

ILT:
>This will happen to FSF software too.  Never fear.  I would, in any
>case, be quite surprised if removing all restrictions on FSF software
>led to any great boon to scholarship.  What sort of thing did you have
>in mind?

Generally speaking, this happens to software only when it becomes
obsolete.  What I have in mind may be imagined as a planned and
coordinated counterpart to piecemeal PD software development currently
undertaken by the US government and universities.

>-- 
>Ian Taylor | ian@airs.com | First to identify quote wins free e-mail message:
>`` `The world can grow into an ordered place where all are equal before
>    the law.  And the law is just.  Honest.  Without graft.'
>   `Is that so important if you are starving?' ''

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