oz@nexus.YorkU.CA (Ozan Yigit) (01/29/91)
[this article appeared in a gnu newsgroup, and it is thought to be very illuminating for those following the progress of FSF, and its politics, from either supportive or non-supportive positions. enjoy... oz] --- From: rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Why we use copyleft Message-ID: <9101282011.AA20121@mole.ai.mit.edu> Date: 28 Jan 91 20:11:23 GMT Lines: 37 Currently we don't let people turn our software into proprietary software. Some people consider our policy "taking away freedom". But freedom to do what? Only the freedom to be a software hoarder and undermine the freedom of others. Thus, the question is whether we defend freedom best by trying to prevent others from taking it away, or by passively letting everyone else do whatever they want. Some people are pacifists; they believe in being peaceful even to murderers, rapists or tyrants. It would be fully consistent for a pacifist to believe in putting software in the public domain. But I'm not a pacifist. (Most of you are not pacifists either.) I think it makes sense to have policemen try to stop or catch murderers, and armies or revolutions try to stop or catch tyrants, even if they have to shoot. Likewise, though on a different scale of intensity, I think it makes sense to use the weapons of software hoarding (such as copyright) against hoarders to prevent hoarding. Think of this as economic sanctions--offering aid in exchange for progress in recognizing particular human rights. If that means we lose business, that's ok. We also lose business when we refuse to trade with South Africa or Iraq. The purpose of the GNU project is not to maximize the amount of use of GNU software. It is to promote freedom. The example of X Windows shows what would happen without the copyleft. Most users who get X Windows get just a binary. They can't get the source for the version they are running. The MIT source may not interoperate with it, since it may not contain the changes needed for the particular operating system in use. The result is that X Windows is not free for most users. (I myself have had this problem.) And many improvements made to X Windows are kept proprietary and do not get back to the community. GNU software avoids this problem, while being nonetheless well accepted. This shows that the copyleft is working. It would be silly for us to drop our sanctions now.
jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) (01/30/91)
Stallman's comments make it plain that he's not really interested in maximizing the reuse of software, as the GNU General Public Virus claims; rather, he's using it as a political weapon to further his utopia. Hence, his software, far from being truly free, will continue carrying the cost of buying in to his utopian ideal of stamping out software ownership entirely. I find it particularly ironic that he's using the FSF's ownership of its software to further his goals. This still means that I cannot afford to have any GPV-protected code on my computer, since I cannot risk having the source of some of my income tainted by association with GPV code; whether or not it's infected by the GPV, I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my programming. This is a real shame, as there are good tools that are not acceptable only because of the licensing, and it's far more likely that I'll be able to reimplement them more easily than I could convince their authors (even those not directly associated with the FSF, such as Larry Wall) to license their code under non-utopian terms. Oh well. So much for gcc, bash, perl, smail 3,... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity. "Today is different from yesterday." -- State Department spokesman Margaret Tutwiler, 17 Jan 91, explaining why they won't negotiate with Saddam Hussein
chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg) (01/30/91)
According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard): >I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my >programming. Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files edited by Emacs. And who would ever sue a person making a good faith effort to abide by the GPV? -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT <chip@tct.uucp>, <uunet!pdn!tct!chip> "I want to mention that my opinions whether real or not are MY opinions." -- the inevitable William "Billy" Steinmetz
taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com (Dave Taylor) (02/01/91)
Chip Salzenberg writes: > Our rights to control our own programming are explicitly protected in > the few cases that really matter to me: output of GCC/G++ and files > edited by Emacs. Files edited by EMACS? You've GOT to be kidding here, Chip. Tell me you aren't saying that any files edited by EMACS now have the FSF license stuck to them forever? If so, what an incredibly powerful argument to use "vi"... -- Dave Taylor Intuitive Systems Mountain View, California taylor@limbo.intuitive.com or {uunet!}{decwrl,apple}!limbo!taylor
ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) (02/01/91)
> ... > The example of X Windows shows what would happen without the copyleft. > Most users who get X Windows get just a binary. They can't get the > source for the version they are running. ... To me, this is just further proof of Mr. Stallman's distance from reality on this issue. The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of users don't want the source to X windows. They want it to run to the spec and run fast. As the available implementations become less and less buggy and faster and faster, the demand for source code--small to begin with--just diminishes further. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP 1000 N.E. Circle | (USA) (503) 750-4980 | FAX Corvallis, OR 97330 | (USA) (503) 757-2000 | VOICE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- All relevant disclaimers apply. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (02/02/91)
In article <100920286@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: >To me, this is just further proof of Mr. Stallman's distance from >reality on this issue. The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of users >don't want the source to X windows. I expect that Stallman would agree that *most* users of any particular piece of software have little use for the source. However, there will almost always be some who do have use for it. In the case of X, they would include hobbyists and researchers who need to port it, sites that need to tailor client applications (perhaps they would need xterm to emulate a different terminal), and programmers who are simply curious about how it works. His goal is that these users should not be hindered. Furthermore, if so few users will actually ask for the source, making it available costs almost nothing, since the service will hardly ever be used. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) (02/02/91)
>>To me, this is just further proof of Mr. Stallman's distance from >>reality on this issue. I have to think that the FSF would be a lot different if they didn't have MIT to sponge off of. >almost always be some who do have use for it. In the case of X, they would >include hobbyists and researchers who need to port it, sites that need to >tailor client applications (perhaps they would need xterm to emulate a >different terminal), and programmers who are simply curious about how it >works. His goal is that these users should not be hindered. How are these users hindered? The sources to MIT's X are freely and extremely available -- on plenty of anonymous Internet and uucp archives. Someone's not on a net? Get it from a friend, or from ICS. ICS sells tapes with MIT source. Before you complain about that, note that the FSF also *sells* their tapes, at something like $175 a pop. -- --
sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (02/03/91)
In article <100920286@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: > The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of users >don't want the source to X windows. They want it to run to the spec >and run fast. As the available implementations become less and less >buggy and faster and faster, the demand for source code--small to begin >with--just diminishes further. Quite true! The only reason I am bothering with the MIT code is the #*!*$ buggy OpenwWindow 2.0(Beta) on Sun39\86i workstations! (That and the fact that the libraries in the Beta version are release "3.5" rather than fully release 4). [OpenWindows 2.0(Beta) will not even run Framemaker!!!] -- --------------- uunet!tdatirv!sarima (Stanley Friesen)
barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) (02/03/91)
In article <1991Feb01.190625.940@convex.com> datri@convex.com (Anthony A. Datri) writes: >I have to think that the FSF would be a lot different if they didn't have >MIT to sponge off of. They are "sponging off" lots of organizations, and I think most of us are happy to be spongees. The Sun workstation that they use was donated by Thinking Machines. We use lots of their software, and were happy to promote the development of high quality software. MIT provides disk space on an unused little Vax; they have thousands of students using GNU Emacs, and probably other FSF products -- I'd say they got the long end of the deal (how much do most software vendors charge for an 8000-user license?). >How are these users hindered? The sources to MIT's X are freely and >extremely available I never said they were hindered. I was responding to a post that said that X users don't want access to source, they just want working binaries. He was implying that if the software worked, the users wouldn't be hindered by lack of access to source. I was listing uses for source that have nothing to do with bugs; if the source to X weren't available, those users would be hindered. -- Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) (02/05/91)
> Furthermore, if so few users will actually ask for the source, making > it available costs almost nothing, since the service will hardly ever > be used. I wonder if you have ever had to support, in the traditional sense, a source release. I rather suspect that if you had, you wouldn't be saying that. --- Ben
ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) (02/05/91)
> ... He [me] was implying that if the software worked, the users > wouldn't be hindered by lack of access to source. ... There are and will continue to be legitimate uses and needs for source code. I was taking particular issue with rms's use of the word "most." Since most users don't want the source, the fact that they can't get it is a no-op. Trying to prop up his utopian proselytizing with such a statement indicates to me an unrealistic world view. > ...if the source to X weren't available, those users would be > hindered. Those users, in my experience, constitute and exceedingly small minority of X users. Interestingly, however, within that very small minority are some of the users who you are most anxious to have your source. Those users should be accomodated. The approach put forward (and forcibly so for users of his software) by rms is not a realistic or workable approach for the marketplace in general (it does work great when your market is heavily populated by techno-whizzes). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com | INTERNET Hewlett-Packard Company | {backbone}!hplabs!hp-pcd!ben | UUCP 1000 N.E. Circle | (USA) (503) 750-4980 | FAX Corvallis, OR 97330 | (USA) (503) 757-2000 | VOICE ----------------------------------------------------------------------- All relevant disclaimers apply. -----------------------------------------------------------------------
allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) (02/05/91)
As quoted from <27A6E9BA.2E94@tct.uucp> by chip@tct.uucp (Chip Salzenberg): +--------------- | According to jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard): | >I can't afford the legal representation I'd need to defend my rights in my | >programming. | | And who would ever sue a person making a good faith effort to abide by | the GPV? +--------------- A willing dupe with a greedy lawyer. There've been some cases of ridiculous suits making it into court because some larcenous lawsmith started seeing green... and the company I work for can't afford some yip suing us because a system we sell happens to include some Perl scripts and the yip thinks he can sue us into giving him the whole system for free courtesy of the GPV. If any of our customers even *threatens* this there'll be h*ll to pay.... ++Brandon -- Me: Brandon S. Allbery VHF/UHF: KB8JRR on 220, 2m, 440 Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG Packet: KB8JRR @ WA8BXN America OnLine: KB8JRR AMPR: KB8JRR.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88] uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery Delphi: ALLBERY
mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU (02/06/91)
[>> is Richard Stallman, > is Benjamin Ellsworth] >> The example of X Windows shows what would happen without the ["X Windows", forsooth. If he means the X Window System he should call it that, or use its short name: X.] >> copyleft. Most users who get X Windows get just a binary. They >> can't get the source for the version they are running. ... > To me, this is just further proof of Mr. Stallman's distance from > reality on this issue. The vast (and I mean VAST) majority of users > don't want the source to X windows. They want it to run to the spec > and run fast. But the number of *sites* that want source is proportionately much higher. Here, for example, perhaps five of our user community have any direct use for the source to X. However, those five are the ones responsible for supporting X for all our users (some 125 to 150 of them)! So while most of the users probably wouldn't be competent to unpack the source, much less do anything useful with it, source availability has a direct impact on X's utility for most/all of them. As for wanting it to run to the spec, I doubt most users really care about that. Most probably wouldn't even be able to tell, and would even claim brokenness for ones which actually do conform. (To pick my favorite example, consider a server which draws zero-width lines as circles with the ideal lines as diameters, or perhaps coordinate-axis-aligned rectangles with the ideal lines as diagonals. Either one would, I believe, be perfectly legal, but most users, myself included, would unhesitatingly point and say "broken".) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU (02/06/91)
>> Furthermore, if so few users will actually ask for the source, >> making it available costs almost nothing, since the service will >> hardly ever be used. > I wonder if you have ever had to support, in the traditional sense, a > source release. I rather suspect that if you had, you wouldn't be > saying that. See that "if"? Your assertion implies that it's *not* true that "so few users will actually ask for the source". Besides, there *is* a solution. You don't have to support the source. I would gladly swap conventional software support - which in my experience has invariably been utterly worthless - for full source code any day. ("[C]onventional software support" does not include free one-person programs/packages supported by that one person, like patch or the pbmplus stuff. In fact, as far as I can recall, my experiences with all types of software support show a very strong correlation of free software with good, functional, support.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/07/91)
In article <9102061051.AA05898@lightning.McRCIM.McGill.EDU> mouse@lightning.mcrcim.mcgill.EDU writes: >Besides, there *is* a solution. You don't have to support the source. Unfortunately, anytime you release source, there's always some idiot who ignores the disclaimers, does something screwy, asks for support, doesn't get it, and then screams about it on the net, thus making the company look bad. I'm not sure the problem is really that bad, but I've never been able (either from the inside or outside) been able to persuade a company to release unsupported _binaries_, let alone source. -kee -- Alfalfa Software, Inc. | Poste: The EMail for Unix nazgul@alfalfa.com | Send Anything... Anywhere 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | info@alfalfa.com I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
terry@venus.sunquest.com (Terry R. Friedrichsen) (02/09/91)
ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Benjamin Ellsworth) writes: >> Furthermore, if so few users will actually ask for the source, making >> it available costs almost nothing, since the service will hardly ever >> be used. >I wonder if you have ever had to support, in the traditional sense, a >source release. I rather suspect that if you had, you wouldn't be >saying that. Yeah, it's GREAT. Lots of users take the time to send the FIX in, along with the bug report. Lots of users send in ENHANCEMENTS, in source form, free of charge. If you can't reproduce the bug, you ask for more information. If you STILL can't reproduce it, you explain that to the customer, and they usually understand and attempt to reproduce the problem on the standard release. The customer and the company both benefit. Binary-only software benefits only the company. Terry R. Friedrichsen terry@venus.sunquest.com (Internet) uunet!sunquest!terry (Usenet) terry@sds.sdsc.edu (alternate address; I live in Tucson) Quote: "Do, or do not. There is no 'try'." - Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back