From: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 18:03:02 GMT

In <1993Jan3.213759.18973@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

>In article <C0B34q.Ax0@news.udel.edu> johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston) writes:

[ ... and so on, back and forth ... ]

>MZ:
>>>>>The way I see it, the use of GNU places me under a legal obligation to
>>>>>the FSF [...]

[ ... ]

>BJ:
>>You could have saved time by making it clear that what you meant 
>>in repeated assertions about the "use" of GNU software is really
>>"proprietary use of the source code".  Most computer folk employ
>>the term "use" in the same sense as "user", namely, someone who
>>"uses" the software tools.  Similarly, a driver is more apt to be
>>thought of as the "user" of a car than is the mechanic.
>
>The use of any text encompasses quotation and paraphrase, as well as
>any other form of consumption; programs are no exception.

I believe the CopyLeft places no restrictions on "paraphrasing" -- so
feel free to go ahead to your heart's content.


>BJ:
>>If you are complaining that the GPL does not grant you the right
>>to "proprietary use of the source code", well, that's tough.  
>
>Tough or not, that is what makes it non-free.

So, what you're basically saying is that since you are not free to
make it non-free, it is not "free" (as has already been mentioned in
this thread, all these "free"s are not referring to cost, but rather
to freedom of use).

This comment comes up from time to time in the GNU newsgroups, and it
is really indicative of a catch-22 situation involved with making
software free: if people were free to use the software proprietarily,
then this might ultimately lead to software that is not free.  Since
freedom of all software is the FSF's goal, they impose a limitation on
using their software in proprietary products -- while this places an
immediate restriction on the freedom of their product, it helps their
larger goal of freedom of all software.

Your objection that this makes the GNU products not "free" is not
compelling.  For example, analogies have been made in this thread to
people's freedom; however, people's freedom is not without
restrictions -- consider stealing and killing, for example.


>BJ:
>>The only sense of the word "proprietary" that is applicable here
>>would be "made and marketed by by one having the exclusive right
>>to manufacture and sell" (Webster's 7th Collegiate).
>
>Not so.  Read the GPL.  Any inclusion of GNU code into a piece of
>software legally causes the latter to fall under the provision of the
>former's licensing.  In other words, it's the Foundation's way of
>saying "use me in what you make, and it becomes mine".

"..., and it becomes everybody's" would be more accurate.  You make it
sound like they are interested in having possession of every
modification made to their products, and using it to their benefit --
very unlikely propositions.


>BJ:
>>So how can you complain that you cannot assert an exclusive right to 
>>manufacture and sell copyrighted work that has been "made" by others?
>
>Listen, nitwit, try to get it straight: I am not complaining on my own
>behalf, but on behalf of the sorely abused English language.  There's
>free and there's proprietary; some programs, like TeX, get close
>enough to the former for all intents and purposes, without trumpeting
>the moral superiority of their creators.

Gee, a little namecalling never hurt an argument, eh?  And you seem to
be expending a lot of effort arguing on behalf of the poor English
language.  (Don't you think it can stand up for itself?  I have a
feeling it will be around a lot longer than either you or I.)  Tell
us, if you were walking down the street and heard someone "abuse" some
English, would you stop and correct them?  In any case, it sounds like
you do have something personal involved in this thread (if it wasn't
clear previously, that last sentence above certainly makes it so).


>With the GNU programs, in
>many important ways, it's just the opposite: not only are they
>proprietary by any reasonable standard, but they also have the effect
>of appropriating any program they participate in, regardless of the
>extent or ratio of such participation.

Using the sense of "proprietary" offered up above, GNU products would
certainly not seem proprietary.  What other sense(s) are you thinking
of?  And it's interesting how you say "... they paticipate in" -- as
if it was up to them!  Hey, anyone is free to not use the GNU
products, you know.  Besides, the CopyLeft only restricts the
licensing that resulting programs can be distributed with -- it
doesn't affect the ownership (unless you are using a pretty broad
definition of ownership).


>BJ:
>>Who grants such rights to their own intellectual property?  Not those
>>who publish public domain software;  one cannot claim an "exclusive" 
>>rights to sell PD software.  It is true that one can incorporate 
>>PD source code in a proprietary work and claim an exclusive right 
>>to distribute a particular executable, or the portions of its source
>>that you have written.  Still, you cannot prevent others from doing 
>>the same thing with the public domain source code, therefore the use
>>of the PD code is not "exclusive".
>
>What I would like to see, is programs like GNU distributed with a
>copyright notice containing a supererogatory (look it up) *request*
>that their proprietory employment not exceed the conventional limits
>of "fair use".  Anything else is coersion, and as such, does not
>deserve to be called free.  I invite you to meditate on the meaning of
>this word, before you continue with the content-free blather you
>evidently intend as a rebuttal.

As I see it, the FSF is more concerned with freedom of all software in
general, not with releasing software totally without restrictions.
Unfortunately, these conflct, as I explained above, and the
restrictions in the CopyLeft make sense when looked at this way.
Further, the issue of "fair use" doesn't arise.

(Now, whether the FSF's goal is a good goal is a totally separate
issue.  Here the issue seems to be the FSF's policies in the light of
their use of the word "free".)

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu