Picking a license
in [Python]
|
Prev: 2to3 issues with execfile on python 3.0 on files with encoding
Next: Extract a bordered, skewed rectangle from an image
From: Ed Keith on 13 May 2010 09:04 --- On Wed, 5/12/10, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo(a)geek-central.gen.new_zealand> > Subject: Re: Picking a license > To: python-list(a)python.org > Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 11:48 PM > In message <mailman.121.1273693278.32709.python-list(a)python.org>, > Ed Keith > wrote: > > > ... but to claim that putting more restrictions on > someone give them more > > freedom is pure Orwellian double speak. > > What about the freedom to take away other peopleâs > freedom? What tuple of > speak would that be? > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > Assertion I: If person A is free to do more than person B, then person A has more freedom then person B. Assertion II: If person A is free do perform an action person B is not free to perform then person A is free to do more than person B. Assertion III: If person B is restricted in some way that person A is not them Person A is free to do something Person B is not free to do. Conclusion: If person B is more resticted than Peston A, Person A has mor freedom than person B. Which step in this reasoning do you disagree with? -EdK Ed Keith e_d_k(a)yahoo.com Blog: edkeith.blogspot..com
From: Paul Boddie on 13 May 2010 12:19 On 13 Mai, 01:58, Patrick Maupin <pmau...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 12, 6:15 pm, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > > Right. The "full cost" of software that probably cost them nothing > > monetarily and which comes with all the sources, some through a chain > > of distribution and improvement which could have led to proprietary > > software had the earliest stages in the chain involved permissive > > licensing. And that they can't sell a binary-only Ubuntu derivative. > > Who's talking about selling a binary-only version -- there is a good > chance they can't even give away a binary CD without violating > copyright. People only have to honour requests for the corresponding source if asked for it. They are not violating copyright by default. If you think Ubuntu are exposing people to legal peril by advocating that people make copies of Ubuntu for their friends, why don't you tell Mark Shuttleworth about it? [...] > > So, the "negative consequences" are that people can't make proprietary > > editions of some software. When that's a deliberate choice in the > > design of a licence, there's no pretending that the consequences > > aren't there, just that they aren't perceived by everyone to be > > negative. > > I gave an example earlier of svglib and rst2pdf. Negative > consequences. Nothing proprietary involved. Negative consequences for people who don't want to touch GPL-licensed software and who reserve the right to make proprietary versions of rst2pdf. [...] > > Well, you effectively said that you didn't like being asked to "share > > alike", which is what the GPL achieves. > > I give away lots of software. Free to all comers. Come and get some.. Yes, but you don't insist that people "share alike". I don't demand that you insist that, either, but you clearly object to other people putting that condition on their own works. > > so why should I not assume > > that you generally object to other, more obviously labelled licences > > like the CC-*-SA licences which make it clear what is expected of that > > hapless recipient of a work who doesn't bother reading the licence? > > Your assumptions are so far away from reality that there is really no > good reason why you shouldn't assume that I'm a 10 foot tall purple > monster. Then you've done a very bad job communicating them. Laying off the bizarre imagery might help remedy that somewhat. [...] > > Yes, but you have to choose to do something ("X") to start with. Which > > is actually what you wrote later in that exchange: > > > "Again, the force is applied once you choose to do a particular thing > > with the software -- is is really that hard to understand that > > concept?" > > I didn't just write that later. I wrote it in my very first post, > which you just quoted a few lines up, apparently without even > bothering to read it closely. I did read it closely. Now read your own comment closely and take particular notice of the word "choose". [...] > So, the FSF, which so carefully provides the most legalese-ish license > on the planet, which was in development for god-knows-how-long, which Have you read the Mozilla Public License? Have you read through Sun's JDK licence? You were complaining about Microsoft licensing earlier: have you read those licences through to the end? (There are people who refuse to accept them, incidentally, and are then refused any kind of refund for the product. Next you'll be claiming that the FSF's indiscretions are on the same level as this particular Microsoft-plus- vendor scam, and yet accuse me of a lack of a sense of perspective.) > maintains a carefully parsed FAQ of what you can and can't do, which > engages in all sorts of advocacy, can't find the time to explain to > Ubuntu that they really ought to explain how the licensing works on > their download page? I think Ubuntu can maybe see the case for moving their notice on their "legal" page to the download page if you can make it successfully. Or is your point that people have to be "warned" about that inconvenient GPL licence? > What have you been smoking and where can I get some? Yes, always ready with a pertinent response, I see. [...] > > I never said there was. I said that if you don't like the licence, > > don't incorporate works which use it into your own projects. > > No, you said "If you don't like them, don't use GPL-licensed > software." In the context of developing and redistributing it. If you hate the GPL so much, you might not feel comfortable even using the software, either, but that's up to you. You're the one with the problem with the GPL. > > But don't > > say that it's not fair that people are releasing stuff under terms you > > don't like, or say that they're being "pathetic" or petty or > > ridiculous by doing so, or are imposing their agenda on you. > > The only time I mentioned pathetic and petty were for really small > libraries, which probably wouldn't merit copyright protection in any > case. And for you, libraries like readline are apparently not really worth anything, either. It's always interesting to see the case made for incorporating something into another system because it apparently has little value relative to the entire system, but should the request be made that the incorporated work be dropped and replaced by something rewritten to do the same job, it is suddenly far too much work. > > More name-calling and finger-pointing. Great stuff, there. Anything > > else? > > Yes, just that you keep selectively quoting both of us, and twisting > what we both said to meet your agenda. But I'm done. I think there > are enough pointers to original material here for others to go and do > whatever level of research they deem appropriate for their own > situations. All my position has ever been is this: A copyrighted work denies recipients virtually all rights to do stuff with that work, such as modify and redistribute it. Copyleft licences grant some privileges and uphold some obligations in order to ensure that these privileges are universally maintained in all forms and extensions of the work. Permissive licences grant more privileges to immediate recipients but do not uphold as many obligations. You rejected the suggestion that people using permissive licences afford users fewer privileges than those using copyleft licences, yet on balance when considering all forms and extensions of the work, they do. And the only such privilege that the copyleft licences withholds from recipients is that of withholding any other privilege from others who receive the work. You objected to the suggestion that people using permissive licences do not care about maintaining such privileges ("an uncaring bunch"), yet it can be said that they surely do not actively care about the matter of such privileges being maintained: I have encountered proprietary variants of Apache technologies, and proprietary editions of Python have been released from some vendors. If they had considered it important enough, they would not have chosen licences which permitted the delivery of their work (or extended versions thereof) to people where many of the privileges normally afforded to users have been withheld. You made the point that some people don't want to touch GPL-licensed software because it might affect the permissively licensed software that they are writing. Since the only effect of combining both forms of software occurs when offering that to a user, and that effect is to uphold the copyleft obligations and maintain the corresponding set of privileges, withholding only the privilege to deny recipients the other privileges, this means that it becomes impossible to make the combined work a proprietary one. You then tried to sow uncertainty about the validity and effectiveness of the GPL to achieve its objectives. I can see why some people don't like the GPL. When the only notable privilege it withholds is precisely that of taking the work of others and making a proprietary product from it, all the claims about coercion and ideology should be considered against this very function of the licence. Then, the motivations of a number of its critics are plain for all to see. That some of those critics appeal to public outrage by using references to terrorists, criminals and fundamentalists should hardly be surprising, and I have come to expect no better in discussions of this kind. Anything to accuse others of having an agenda - even better if that agenda can be blended in the popular imagination with those aforementioned kinds of undesirable people - while doing as much as they can to conceal their own. Paul
From: Patrick Maupin on 13 May 2010 16:10 On May 13, 11:19 am, Paul Boddie <p...(a)boddie.org.uk> wrote: > People only have to honour requests for the corresponding source if > asked for it. They are not violating copyright by default. Well, the gospel according to the FSF says otherwise: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary > If you > think Ubuntu are exposing people to legal peril by advocating that > people make copies of Ubuntu for their friends, why don't you tell > Mark Shuttleworth about it? Because I don't really think the peril is real -- a) nobody's going to sue because of the negative PR consequences; and b) fair use would nip the lawsuit in the bud. In fact, the very *lack* of warning on the Ubuntu site would help the end user in the lawsuit. > Negative consequences for people who don't want to touch GPL-licensed > software and who reserve the right to make proprietary versions of > rst2pdf. Negative consequences for people who don't want to tell other people what to do. > > > Well, you effectively said that you didn't like being asked to "share > > > alike", which is what the GPL achieves. > > > I give away lots of software. Free to all comers. Come and get some. > > Yes, but you don't insist that people "share alike". I don't demand > that you insist that, either, but you clearly object to other people > putting that condition on their own works. You're still not paying attention. I think it's fine if people want to do that, but I still think there is "force" involved, and that it is not the best solution for all situations. I also believe that legally, the GPL license tries to overreach in its control of other people's software, but that morally that may not matter, because the intentions of the license's author are clear. > > Your assumptions are so far away from reality that there is really no > > good reason why you shouldn't assume that I'm a 10 foot tall purple > > monster. > > Then you've done a very bad job communicating them. Laying off the > bizarre imagery might help remedy that somewhat. I didn't start off with bizarre imagery. That only came about when people started trying to use really lame excuses about why my initial statement was wrong. > > [...] > > > > Yes, but you have to choose to do something ("X") to start with. Which > > > is actually what you wrote later in that exchange: > > > > "Again, the force is applied once you choose to do a particular thing > > > with the software -- is is really that hard to understand that > > > concept?" > > > I didn't just write that later. I wrote it in my very first post, > > which you just quoted a few lines up, apparently without even > > bothering to read it closely. > > I did read it closely. Now read your own comment closely and take > particular notice of the word "choose". In my initial post, I mentioned that the force kicks in "once the decision is made..." That implies a choice. Knowingly or not, you have finally acknowledged that my initial post on this issue is reasonably accurate, but even in so doing, you keep pointing to specific words there to try to show that I'm contradicting myself. Which, if I am, is only because I'm overreaching to try to combat the overreaching on the other side. I fully stand by my first post on this issue, and most of the posting since then has been to correct misunderstandings and apparently willful misinterpretations of that. > I think Ubuntu can maybe see the case for moving their notice on their > "legal" page to the download page if you can make it successfully. The point, which I have made in another post, is that a fairly normal way of acquiring Ubuntu -- giving a friend a CD -- violates the GPL as written, and this is by design. The goal is to get more free software users even if they are abusing the license, and only punish those who are abusing the license in particular ways. BTW, there is nothing even on Ubuntu's legal page warning about this possible consequence for sharing a CD, or at least not in a very clear fashion. > Or > is your point that people have to be "warned" about that inconvenient > GPL licence? I don't think that would be a bad idea at all. Say what you want about Microsoft; if you install Windows, their software is quick to explain all the licensing terms in gory detail. Mind you, even that's not really in English, but they get more points for the attempt than Ubuntu. > > What have you been smoking and where can I get some? > > Yes, always ready with a pertinent response, I see. I am ready with pertinent responses to well thought-out arguments, and with impertinent responses to silly arguments. From a practical perspective, Microsoft turning a blind eye to increase market share, and GPL authors turning a blind eye to increase market share and/or goodwill are identical. The fact that money is involved in one instance and not in the other is immaterial. The fact that you believe in the goals of one and not the goals of the other is immaterial. The true fact is that, in both cases, copyright law in conjunction with the license would allow the author to go after several individuals for license violations, and (IMHO) a deliberate decision has been made not to do so. There have been numerous well- publicized instances of people giving away copies they burned of Ubuntu without corresponding source or a written offer, and no negative consequences that I can see. > [...] > > > > I never said there was. I said that if you don't like the licence, > > > don't incorporate works which use it into your own projects. > > > No, you said "If you don't like them, don't use GPL-licensed > > software." > > In the context of developing and redistributing it. If you hate the > GPL so much, you might not feel comfortable even using the software, > either, but that's up to you. You're the one with the problem with the > GPL. The context was right after talking about Mepis getting slapped, and how all the clauses of the GPL were there for a reason, and if you don't like the clauses, don't use the software. I did not read it with the contextual limitations you are now claiming for it. You, either deliberately or carelessly, have written several thing like this that could easily be misconstrued, and this sometimes exasperates me to the point where I write impertinent responses. > > > But don't > > > say that it's not fair that people are releasing stuff under terms you > > > don't like, or say that they're being "pathetic" or petty or > > > ridiculous by doing so, or are imposing their agenda on you. > > > The only time I mentioned pathetic and petty were for really small > > libraries, which probably wouldn't merit copyright protection in any > > case. > > And for you, libraries like readline are apparently not really worth > anything, either. It's always interesting to see the case made for > incorporating something into another system because it apparently has > little value relative to the entire system, but should the request be > made that the incorporated work be dropped and replaced by something > rewritten to do the same job, it is suddenly far too much work. No, you are absolutely misreading. The case is for *not* incorporating something into another system, because it's really *not* that much work, even though the replicated effort is a bit of a shame in some cases. > > > More name-calling and finger-pointing. Great stuff, there. Anything > > > else? > > > Yes, just that you keep selectively quoting both of us, and twisting > > what we both said to meet your agenda. But I'm done. I think there > > are enough pointers to original material here for others to go and do > > whatever level of research they deem appropriate for their own > > situations. > > All my position has ever been is this: > > A copyrighted work denies recipients virtually all rights to do stuff > with that work, such as modify and redistribute it. Translation: Copyright law gives the author a monopoly on distribution and derivative works, and absent an explicit license to make a derivative work or distribute a copy, the author can sue you for making the derivative work or distributing the copy. Nobody forces the author to do that; it is his choice alone, but if he makes it, government might back him up in his attempt to damage you. Also, in choosing a commercial license such as the GPL, the author is making clear his intent to assert his rights, so you should take this very seriously. > Copyleft licences > grant some privileges and uphold some obligations in order to ensure > that these privileges are universally maintained in all forms and > extensions of the work. Translation: Copyleft licences are a way for the author to communicate that he will not sue you for making a derivative work or distributing a copy as long as you distribute source code. In reality, the author probably will not sue you even if you don't distribute source code with that Ubuntu CD, but you really can't be sure about that, because he has made it clear that he *really* wants you to give out the source code. In fact, on the FSF website, they make it clear in several places that the author really wants you to give away your *own* source code if it could interoperate with the author's source code, *even if* you're not actually giving away the author's source code. > Permissive licences grant more privileges to > immediate recipients but do not uphold as many obligations. Translation: Software with a permissive license is more of a gift. No quid-pro-quo required, and the license does not attempt to claim rights over anything except the actual licensed work. > You rejected the suggestion that people using permissive licences > afford users fewer privileges than those using copyleft licences, That is correct. All "privileges" as you put it are merely things that a user can do with the code without fear of a lawsuit by the author, and when an author uses a permissive license, he indicates that the things that he could possibly find egregious enough to sue over are very few. For example, if you give an Ubuntu CD to your friend without giving source code or a written offer of source code, you have violated the license on quite a few of the programs on the CD, but not, for example, on Python or Apache, because these licenses do not attempt to forbid you from doing this. > yet on balance when considering all forms and > extensions of the work, they do. Translation: An author using the GPL is using the threat of lawsuits against *other authors* to force the other authors to make their work also available under the GPL. Some authors attempt use this threat even against the authors of works which a user could conveniently link against a GPLed work, even when the authors of these other works have not copied or distributed the GPL work themselves. Some people, including Mr. Boddie, feel that the public benefits of this license pyramid scheme greatly outweigh any negative consequences of this scheme, in part by equating the scheme itself with freedom and morality, and then using the tautological logic that anybody who feels the negative consequences must be immorally against freedom. > And the only such privilege that the copyleft licences withholds > from recipients is that of withholding any other privilege from others > who receive the work. Translation: We really are serious about suing people who violate the license in some cases. Even though the stated purpose of the license is to encourage sharing, the only really safe thing to do is to not share that Ubuntu CD, because if you don't give out the exact source to the exact object on the CD to everybody you give the CD to, you could be a target. Well, not really. That would be bad PR. But to protect your rights, we have to design the license in such a way that we do reserve the right to sue you under these conditions. Just so you know. > You objected to the suggestion that people using permissive licences > do not care about maintaining such privileges ("an uncaring bunch"), > yet it can be said that they surely do not actively care about the > matter of such privileges being maintained: Oh? They take down their source archives on a whim? > I have encountered > proprietary variants of Apache technologies, and proprietary editions > of Python have been released from some vendors. Oh, I see. Once someone releases a proprietary version of Python, it's game over -- the PSF people realize they're outnumbered and that's when take down their repository, so that's how privileges disappear. Seriously, to the extent there is nothing new in the proprietary version, it's no big deal -- get it from the original source (probably fewer viruses anyway). To the extent there are additional features in the proprietary version, guess what? They were written by somebody else and they don't belong to the PSF people. To the extent there are bug fixes in the proprietary version that aren't in the mainline Python distribution -- hah! that's extremely unlikely. > If they had considered > it important enough, they would not have chosen licences which > permitted the delivery of their work (or extended versions thereof) to > people where many of the privileges normally afforded to users have > been withheld. "Normally afforded to users." Normalcy, in the software world, is what Microsoft does. Sure, that's changing, and that's good, but I don't think that word means what you think it does. But in any case, you're right -- they didn't consider it important enough. Hint: that doesn't make them uncaring. > You made the point that some people don't want to touch GPL-licensed > software because it might affect the permissively licensed software > that they are writing. Correct. > Since the only effect of combining both forms > of software occurs when offering that to a user, No, according to the FSF, the effect can happen even before the software is combined, when non-GPLed software is offered to the user, if that non-GPLed software can interact in certain ways with GPLed software. > and that effect is to > uphold the copyleft obligations and maintain the corresponding set of > privileges, withholding only the privilege to deny recipients the > other privileges, Translation: The effect is to try to force licensing terms on software that the author didn't write. > this means that it becomes impossible to make the > combined work a proprietary one. That's obviously the strongly desired effect. > You then tried to sow uncertainty > about the validity and effectiveness of the GPL to achieve its > objectives. The GPL is certainly effective in achieving some of its objectives. I disagree how useful some of those are to society, sure. In terms of the validity of the license, I believe that the selective enforcement of the GPL will only target those actors who everybody can agree is bad, but that the literal writing of the GPL and, especially the FSF's FAQ about the GPL, is unsupportably overbroad. For example, a literal reading really does require you to give grandma source or a written offer if you install Ubuntu on her computer, but fair use would decimate that claim in a heartbeat. Nonetheless, on a few of the overbroad claims, the FSF prefers to promulgate FUD about how, for example, it would not be possible for a proprietary program to dynamically link to readline. The wouldn't actually file a lawsuit on that issue, because the possibility they would lose is too great. > I can see why some people don't like the GPL. Yes, you see, but you don't understand. > When the only notable > privilege it withholds is precisely that of taking the work of others > and making a proprietary product from it. No, it theoretically keeps me from burning a Ubuntu CD and then putting it on my grandmother's computer without also downloading a bunch of source code. A literal reading of the license shows that the restrictions really are that onerous. > all the claims about > coercion and ideology should be considered against this very function > of the licence. Then, the motivations of a number of its critics are > plain for all to see. Here, we absolutely agree. Just want to be sure that we also agree that the GPL license is *so* picky about how it goes about its business that you can't even link GPL v2-only code with GPL v3 code without incurring a license violation. It's really tough to innovate on licensing when one of the major functions of the license is to propagate exact copies of itself. > That some of those critics appeal to public outrage by using > references to terrorists, criminals and fundamentalists should hardly > be surprising, and I have come to expect no better in discussions of > this kind. When the leader of your religion bandies terms like "freedom" and "evil" about, what do you expect? Seriously? > Anything to accuse others of having an agenda So now you're claiming RMS doesn't have an agenda? That's really interesting. I think even he would disagree. > - even better > if that agenda can be blended in the popular imagination with those > aforementioned kinds of undesirable people - while doing as much as > they can to conceal their own. My primary agenda is to explain that RMS does, in fact, have an agenda, and the GPL was designed as a tool in furtherance of that agenda, and that while the agenda does have some arguably noble goals, before using the GPL people should understand its consequences both for good and bad, and make their own determination about whether it's the right license for their project. Regards, Pat
From: Brendan Abel on 13 May 2010 19:30 While I think most of the disagreement in this long thread results from different beliefs in what "freedom" means, I wanted to add, that most of the responses that argue that the MIT license permits the user more freedom than the GPL, suffer from the broken window fallacy. This fallacy results from the short-sided-ness of the user base, as it is only considering the first generation of derivative works. I agree, that under an MIT license, the first generation of derivative works have more freedom. But any extra freedom gained here comes at the direct expense of all future generations of derivative software. Under a GPL license, it is true that the first generation will have less freedom to distribute their software as they would like. But it also ensures that all subsequent generations of derivative works have the freedom to access all previous derivative works. I also want to add that I think the GPL v3 has exceeded this fundamental concept. GPL v2 really embodies this meaning of "freedom".
From: Steven D'Aprano on 13 May 2010 19:39
On Thu, 13 May 2010 08:06:52 -0700, Patrick Maupin wrote: > If I download an Ubuntu > ISO, burn it and give it away (let's say I give away 100 copies, just to > remove the fair use defense), then I have violated the GPL. I provided > chapter and verse on this; go look it up. I'm sorry, I can't see where you have provided "chapter and verse", or even a URL. >> If you compiled the CD yourself, and failed to provide a written offer >> on the CD, then yes absolutely you would be in violation of the licence >> terms, and shame on you. > > Not relevant. You didn't specify whether the "Linux CD" you were distributing was a mere copy of an existing CD , or one you created yourself, so you will pardon me for covering both possibilities. >> The GPL doesn't require you to force source code on those who don't >> want it, but it does require you to make it available if they ask, and >> for you to notify them appropriately of this fact. You don't even have >> to explicitly tell your friend he can have the source code. You just >> have to make sure that the written offer is available on the disk you >> give him. > > There is no written offer on the disk, because I burned it from Ubuntu's > repository. It really is that simple -- if I give away copies I've made > of Ubuntu, I've violated the GPL. No, I think this use-case would count as "propagation without conveying", since you are merely acting as a mechanical proxy between your friend(s) and Ubuntu. I will admit that the GPL FAQs are not as clear about this matter as they should be. > Unless you can cite some authority > that tells me I'm wrong and gives real reasons. I actually quoted > chapter and verse from the license, but you chose to ignore that and > make unsubstantiated claims. I'm sorry, I can't find where you have quoted "chapter and verse" from the licence, so I can't comment. [snip] >> but imagine if everyone did it, if Red Hat and Debian and Ubuntu etc >> didn't bother passing on the source code (or a written offer). > > Then somebody else would. How does Apache work? Apache is niche software, and sadly its popularity is falling significantly. (~200 million webservers is a large niche, but it's still a niche.) The scales on the Netcraft graph are useless, so I can't read accurate numbers, but it looks like it has fallen from approximately a 75% market share to under 55%. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html Perhaps the Apache model doesn't work quite as well as you think? As far as not-so-niche software goes, the GPLed Linux OS is far more popular on the desktop than FreeBSD and OpenBSD together, and about equal in popularity to Mac OS. I'm not suggesting that the popularity of an OS is *entirely* dependent on the licence, but it may be a factor. >> Only a >> tiny proportion of people would discover by their own efforts that the >> source code was available > > No, I tell my friends that source is available, and they can come and > see me if they want to know more. That doesn't scale to distributing hundreds of copies of the CD, let alone tens of thousands. If you're handing over a single copy to a friend (which is the example you gave earlier) then a verbal offer works well, and is only a technical breach of the GPL. If you're distributing hundreds of copies, I don't believe any such verbal offer is practical. > This may have been a viable argument > in 1989 (doubtful) but it's extremely silly today. So you say. >>, and only a proportion of them would learn >> where it was available from. The result in practical terms would be a >> major decrease in the number of people granted the freedom to modify >> the source code, and a correspondingly larger decrease in the number of >> people both free and able to modify the source code. > > I sincerely doubt your dystopian vision, which, like the GPL and many > laws, is predicated on some outmoded views about how humans interact. > > The reason some people say that the GPL protects the "freedom of the > code" is because the GPL assumes that code needs to be nurtured, instead > of taking the viewpoint that, while there may be some freeloaders, > sharing code is obviously so valuable to most of humanity that it will > just happen. We don't live in medieval Europe any more where the rules > of glassmaking are so secret that you'll be hunted down like a dog if > you try to leave. We live in a world where "co- opetition" has been > shown to be so valuable we had to make up a word for it, and even for > those secrets that people are willing to kill to keep, we have > wikileaks. I admire your optimism, but don't share it. > Let's face it -- a software freeloader is not the most evil thing in the > world. *A* software freeloader certainly isn't a big problem. Cutting down *a* tree is no big deal either, but consider what happened to the people of Easter Island, Ethiopia and Haiti when *everyone* did so. The terms of the GPL exist to discourage freeloaders, lest everyone does so. The obligations it imposes are not onerous by any stretch of the exaggeration. >> It's not enough to be granted freedom to modify source code in theory, >> if you know about it, if you can find some hard-to-locate website which >> may or may not be running. The practicalities are equally important. > > That's another thing. Even if I downloaded all the source from Ubuntu, > what assurances do I really have that I have all the source? I could be > in technical violation of the GPL without even knowing it, even after > wasting an extra two days grabbing the source. Best to use Gentoo to be > sure, and even then, I need to build it twice running strace just to > make sure that I really built everything. That's a silly objection to the GPL. When you include an MIT-licenced library in your project, you can't be sure that the library wasn't stolen from Microsoft and you've therefore accidentally infringed Microsoft's copyright. This isn't an argument against the MIT licence any more than your hypothetical is an argument against the GPL. >> In >> theoretical terms, everyone has the freedom to legally modify and >> distribute the source code to Microsoft Windows. All you have to do is >> buy 51% of the stock so as to become majority shareholder, then make >> sufficient changes to the board of directors so that the new board >> grants you a licence to do so, then fight off the lawsuits from the >> rest of the shareholders. Anyone could do it! Not. > > So "everyone" could own 51% of Microsoft? That means 100% of the shares > would be around 350,000,000,000%. Wait, that can't be right, what? :-) Obviously not all at once, silly. But "in theory", everyone could become the majority shareholder -- there is no law or physical law of nature that says "Patrick Maupin is prohibited from being majority shareholder of Microsoft". Anti-competition laws or similar may prevent a person from becoming majority shareholder unless they (e.g.) gave up their shares in another company, but again, there's nothing stopping them from doing so, if they wished. > Can you come up with a sillier analogy? I'm sure I could, but you seem to have entirely missed the point that such theoretical "freedom" is entirely illusionary, since *in practice* very few people actually can partake in it. >> Another, more practical example: here in Australia our government is >> hell- bent on introducing an ineffective and expensive Internet >> censorship scheme. It seems that under Australian law, it will be >> completely legal to circumvent the filter, but our government is >> investigating ways to make it illegal to tell anyone how to circumvent >> it. In other words, Australians will have permission to circumvent the >> nanny filter, but since few people will know this, or know how to do >> so, it will be a meaningless freedom. > > Yes, that's basically how the DMCA works, and that's evil, and that's > one of the reasons I sometimes give money to the EFF. But, you can't > seriously be comparing making speech a crime and making not speaking a > crime (or a copyright violation), can you? Maybe you *did* manage to > come up with a sillier analogy... There are situations where not speaking is a crime. If you witness a crime, and fail to report it, there are circumstances where you may be liable to be persecuted for aiding and abetting. >> The GPL concerns itself with the *practical* freedom to gain access to >> source code, not merely the theoretical freedom represented by >> permission without opportunity. > > No, the GPL is ideologically opposed to anything related to practicality > (although in practice, its adherents have to bend a bit to avoid being > made irrelevant, and Linux, the shining success, is led by someone who > arguably cares not one whit for GPL ideological purity). And yet Linux is distributed under the GPL, which pretty much sinks your argument. [...] > But the GPL wording required to enforce what you call a practical > freedom imposes so many impractical costs that there are probably > millions of people in the world who have violated this license, in the > good-faith attempt to spread free software around. As I admitted earlier, there is an apparent grey area there, at least according to the FAQs, but I don't think it is anywhere near as obvious as you claim that it is a licence violation. -- Steven |