Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Grant Griffin]

John W. Eaton wrote:
> 
> Grant Griffin <g2 at seebelow.org> writes:
> 
> > I have--long ago.  I have read everything I can find on the GNU web site
> > about the GNU philosophy (except the foreign-language translations of
> > the GPL. ;-)  I've also gone through the OSI site, and read all of Eric
> > S. Raymond's work (which may or may not apply).  So if I remain ignorant
> > on GPL/copyleft, it's probably some sort of fault in my genes. <wink>
> 
> > [...]
> 
> > In GNUspeak, the "free" part means both "free in a cost sense" and "free
> > in a freedom sense".
> 
> Grant, if you reall have read the GPL and all the GNU philosophy that
> you can find on the FSF web site, it seems incredible to me that you
> would make this statement.  But perhaps you missed (or simply chose to
> ignore) the second paragraph of the preamble to the GPL.  Here it is,
> so you don't have to go find it:
> 
>     When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
>   price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
>   have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>   this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
>   if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
>   in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
> 
> Note the first sentence.  ``... we are referring to FREEDOM, not PRICE.''

Sorry...perhaps my memory of the GNU idealogy has gotten rusty; I
haven't studied it in awhile (because it never seems to change much. ;-)

But with all respect, John, when are you people gonna stop believing
every word Stallman says?  The problem is that his words have no
internal logical consistency.  Just because someone makes an assertion
does not make it true.  (For example, see the preceeding sentence. ;-) 
The paragraph above is much like a politician who says, "Let me say this
about that", and then proceeds to say "this" about something entirely
_different_ than "that"!  The paragraph asserts that "free software"
refers to "freedom", not price, but then goes on to state that one can
charge for the service of _distributing_ copies--but notably does not
then proceed to give one the right to charge for the software itself:
that sounds kindaa like it's "free of cost" to me...  (Sneaky, eh?)

This point may seem like a nit, but it's critical: imagine what
Microsoft's products would cost if the price didn't include the software
development cost.  (Heck, Windows might be almost as cheap as Linux. ;-)

Even if Richard Stallman's followers don't understand it, I'm pretty
sure that _he_ understands that--whatever words he may couch it in--the
GPL license makes it impossible to charge each and every user for the
software development cost.  So in that sense, GPL software certainly is
"free of cost".  For example, consider the price differencial we see
between Matlab (mucho deniro) and your "Octave" package (which, last I
checked, was GPL'ed "free software").  Would anyone succeed at selling
Octave for "mucho deniro", given that you (or others) can supply it for
free?  "No, Miss Landers."  So Octave certainly is "free in a cost
sense" as a result of its GPL license.  (Now let's be honest,
John...didn't you pretty-much know that would happen when you started? 
If not, I'd ask those GNU folks for my money back if I were you. ;-)

Anyway, even if I accept your assertion that "when we speak of free
software, we are referring to freedom, not price", you have at best
narrowed the list of GPL deceits down from two to one.  I am not saying
that one should then "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and discard
the GPL because of its deceitful marketing; quite the contrary: keep the
ugly baby if you like, but drain the marketing tub and refill it with
some clean water.  This is my basic message to GNU: Please market the
GPL to us honestly.  Call a spade a spade, not a heart.  (So I don't
have to. ;-)

> 
> And sure, software that is released under the terms of the GPL is
> encumbered by the restriction that the source and derivatives based on
> it remain available.

The problem here is:

	"Encumbered" does not equal "freedom"

Encumberances may be a good thing (if you get more than you give), but
let's just call an encumberance an encumberance (as you just
did--thanks.)

> What is the problem?  There are many things
> which I cannot leagally do, such as sell myself into slavery.  Does
> that restriction enhance or restrict my freedom?

No.  My point here is that Copyleft has little or nothing to do with
"freedom"; the term should not be used.  OK, why *is* it used?--for the
obvious marketing benefit of its emotional and ideological appeal.

_Heck, John, I'm beginning to wonder if you and I even disagree here_!
<0.5 wink>

I have long wondered if the two separate meanings of the word "free" we
see here, "cost free" and "freedom", apply to some single word in other
languages; I suspect that it doesn't in every case.  (Maybe some of our
all-knowing Dutch friends can help out here. ;-)  Tying the two separate
(though related) meanings of the word together into a neat slogan is
very effective, because people are initially quite attracted to "free in
a cost sense"--which gives the GNU folks an in to tell them that "free
in a freedom sense" is what they _really_ should care about.  But it has
lead GNU marketeers down a sadly disingenuous path.

> No need to reply.  By now I think I've heard all the arguments a
> thousand and two times.

(Now let's not go trying to restrict my "freedom" to be an Original
Thinker, John... ;-)

if-i-wanted-that,-i'd-license-my-posts-under-the-GPL-<wink>-ly y'rs,

=g2
-- 
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation	      http://www.iowegian.com