What is free software? [Re: Licenses and Open Source don't conflict.]

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Gonnerman <chris.gonnerman at newcenturycomputers.net> writes:

    >> A public domain software can be modified by anyone, and the
    >> result can be made available to someone else under a binding
    >> license.  So, that software was indeed free, but that quality
    >> of being "free" was totally fragile...

    Chris> Exactly.  MIT (X11) and BSD licenses exhibit similar
    Chris> fragility.

Only if you identify modified forms of the software with the original.
The original is forever free.  You can't make the usual arguments
about the non-invasiveness of GPL, and at the same time argue that the
freedom of PD/MIT/BSD code is somehow "fragile", without being wide
open to charges of sophistry.

    >> The GPL wants to help programs at being free in more permanent
    >> ways.

The original code, as a unit, is still free even if it is not
copyleft.  Nothin "unpermanent" about it.  It is available for anyone
who wants to use it.  The "problem", when one exists, is that nobody
wants it, as something better or more compatible is available.  But
that doesn't make the code unfree.  So PD/MIT/BSD is good enough
protection of freedom for many developers.

And the (rms-deprecated!) LGPL is surely good enough for anybody who
only cares about freedom of their own code.  So the GPL is an advocacy
tool, pure and simple.  It's all about affecting licensing decisions
for code that others write, it has nothing to do with protecting
freedom of yours.

    Chris> There are those (uniformly programmers) who hate the GPL
    Chris> because it restricts their ability to "hide" the source if
    Chris> they incorporate GPL'd code in their non-GPL programs.

Consumers also dislike the GPL because it removes their freedom to
sell their privilege of inspection of enhanced derivative software, a
privilege most will never wish to exercise.  They don't hate it the
way Bill Gates does, of course; they just would rather not pay for it
in higher prices and reduced functionality.  (Whether an "intelligent"
consumer would wish to sell the privilege in practice is another
question, although it's trivial to demonstrate that in theory open
source licensing can destroy the market for a given software product.)

Aladdin Ghostscript shows that the set of programs where non-GPL
licensing results in clear benefit to all concerned is non-empty.
With the exception of those who would like to use Aladdin's code to
harm Aladdin's interests without paying for it.  Everybody else gets
Ghostscript for free, including the most recent source code.  (I
understand why neither the OSD nor the FSF admits APFL as a free
license.  But I have never seen a coherent argument that the world
would be a better place if Aladdin Ghostscript, and only Aladdin
Ghostscript, had its licensing policy changed to GPL.)

On the other hand, there are almost certainly other software packages
which would make a much greater social contribution under AFPL terms
than under the GPL---because their authors would actually choose to
publically distribute them under the AFPL, while they keep them
private under the GPL.


-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.