Re: Social Contract
%% Mike McCarty <Mike.McCarty@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>> What the GPL is all about is maximizing the amount of available free
>> software (where "free" is defined by the traditional freedoms to
>> examine, modify, and redistribute, as discussed on the FSF's web site).
>> That goal means that some individual freedoms are not available, but
>> this isn't uncommon: there is often a trade-off between individual
>> freedoms, and freedom of the group in general.
mm> We certainly agree there, except I would omit the phrase "traditional
mm> freedoms" and substitute "privilege" and add "restricted privilege"
mm> before "redistribute".
I do not agree at all with those changes. I suspect the fact that we
disagree on this wording is an excellent indicator of our respective
positions.
>> The people who choose the GPL are doing so for a very specific reason:
>> They are not totally altruistic. They want something in return for
mm> I'm leery of imputing motives to people I don't know.
And I'm leery of imputing stupidity and/or laziness to people _I_ don't
know.
mm> Oh, and I've got to assign the rights to the Free Software
mm> Foundation. That's a primary point in the GPL. Because otherwise
mm> the FSF and you and whoever cannot get standing. You might
mm> investigate that part of it.
>> That's totally, absolutely untrue. Not even close to being true.
mm> No, no, it is.
It is not. Please quote one sentence of the GPL, or even the rationale,
that supports your position. If it is indeed a "primary point in the
GPL", it should not be difficult to find.
>> IF you modify a program where the FSF is the copyright holder (and
>> there is far more software under the GPL where the FSF is not the
>> copyright holder than otherwise--the Linux kernel for example), and
>> you want to contribute your changes back to the FSF, then yes, the
>> FSF will ask you to assign your copyrights before they accept the
>> changes. This is so there is one unambiguous copyright holder for
>> the entire software package.
mm> And that's what I meant.
The only person who can know what you meant is you. What you actually
WROTE, however, was quite inaccurate, to the point where I can only
consider it FUD. Unintentional perhaps, but FUD nonetheless.
>> You are looking at this incorrectly. The FSF isn't against anyone
>> making money. There are many ways to make money on software that
>> does NOT involve using a proprietary license.
mm> Umm, do you presume to speak for the FSF? In private e-mail back in
mm> 1986 or so I discussed Richard Stallman's goals with him, and his
mm> goal, AIUI, is that people should *not* make money off of writing
mm> software.
I can say with certainty that your understanding of FSF's goals is
incorrect. I can't say what RMS's goals may or may not have been back
in 1986, but I'm personally quite confident that he never intended to
keep everyone from make money writing software.
I don't speak for the FSF, obviously. However, I have read the many
statements of their goals posted on the fsf.org website and their
position on this subject is quite clear. Perhaps you could point to a
statement which supports your claim?
mm> If I understand him properly, he disbelieves in any form of
mm> intellectual property. But, since he lives in a world which is not
mm> to his liking, he uses the intellectual property laws to try to
mm> reshape it as closely as he can to a world where people cannot
mm> make money merely by writing and selling software.
No. Again, you assume that selling software under proprietary license
is the only way to make money writing software. This is a false
assumption.
>> The GPL can actually _HELP_ you make money. Why do you think the
>> MySQL folks, the Qt folks, etc., release their stuff under the GPL?
mm> Huh. You like to speak for others, I guess. I don't have any idea
mm> why they do that. Have you had conversations with them? How would
mm> you know?
Because I've read their mailing lists and their web sites, where they
explain it.
They release the fully-featured version of their code under the GPL.
This allows any other software that is released under the GPL or a
GPL-compatible license to use it.
They also say, if you want to develop a proprietary program using our
software, come to us and we'll sell you a license to use it in ways that
the GPL does not allow.
If they released their code as public domain, or using a license such as
BSD or even the LGPL, they obviously would not be able to do that: those
companies could use their code in their proprietary products and would
not need to pay for it at all.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psmith@gnu.org> Find some GNU make tips at:
http://www.gnu.org http://make.paulandlesley.org
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
Reply to: