Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Grant Griffin]

John W. Stevens wrote:
> 
> Grant Griffin wrote:
> >
> > Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> > >
> > > Many people do m\not like GPL but if python had originally been released
> > > under GPL, CNRI wouldn't have been able to change that, and all this fuss
> > > wouldn't have been necessary.
> >
> > But without its generous CWI license, many of the commercial uses of
> > Python (which have undoubtedly contributed to its success) would not
> > have been possible.
> 
> Really?  You are saying that there are a lot of companies that have
> taken the Python source code, modified it, and are making money off of
> it, and that they couldn't have done this under the L\GPL?
> 
> Who?  And why?

We may never know.  They enjoy the freedom not to tell us. ;-)

> > I personally dislike the GPL because it has repeatedly left me unable to
> > use technically-meritorious and free (!) software.
> 
> Seems that your dislike is based on a misunderstanding . . . why should
> you get mad because the cost of the ticket is to agree to cooperate?

I'm not really "mad" (except in the "Mad Hatter" sense ;-), but the
problem is that the cost of the ticket is unreasonably high.  Much of
what I do is embedded software development.  In case you don't know,
"embedded software" is stuff inside little black boxes that the user
never really sees, and may not even know exists--you know, like the
stuff that makes your toaster burn the toast--or makes the next Kleenex
pop out of the box.  To provide users of embedded software with the
source code is unreasonably expensive, relative to the economics of the
applications.  Besides, the users don't really care anyway.  (Then
again, I guess the source code for a VCR might finally offer some
talented hacker a way to figure out how to program it.  ;-)

> 
> Don't want to cooperate?  Don't use GPL'ed code. 

I agree: Just say "no".  (It's a darn shame, though.)

> I don't want to
> forfeit control over my data and systems, so I don't use code that isn't
> at least open, and I don't release anything that isn't L\GPL'ed.

What's that cliche about a canary?  If you let it go and it stays, it
was yours, but if you let it go and it flies away, it wasn't yours in
the first place.

> 
> > So I then have to
> > buy something, or, more often, have to write my own.  That just seems
> > wasteful.
> 
> It is . . . and the same thing is true on the other side of the fence .
> . . instead of being able to use your stuff (because of it's restrictive
> license), people have to use something else or write their own.

I guess you're right.  (Kleenex Box Hackers of the world, unite! ;-)

> Your
> complaint is not specifc to the GPL, it applies to any license that has
> restrictions.

Yep.  That's why I prefer BSDish license whose only real restriction is
"don't sue us".  (That's the least I can do for people who give me free
stuff.)

> 
> > It amazes me that people who want to give away their work would want to
> > place restrictions on its use.
> 
> GPL isn't about a "gift to anyone for any use", it is about "a gift to
> the community", where the community is defined as those people who have
> agreed to work together in cooperation towards the common goal of
> creating the best possible system.

Right.  A community can define itself any way it likes--even by its
strange habit of giving gifts only within itself.

> 
> > If one has a "gift" mentality, the gift
> > means more if given without strings.
> 
> If you are a member of the community, there are no strings attached.

Yep.  In fact, that's just what all my Borg friends have been telling
me. ;-)

> 
> If you aren't, then you are complaining about other's life style choices
> . . . aren't we a little bit more civilized than that?
> 
> > But that being said, the *empirical* evidence seems to indicate that the
> > open/free aspect of software is much more important than whether (or
> > not) it is copylefted.
> 
> Nope.  The copyleft is very, very important, because it defines, and
> helps to make cohesive, the community.

I agree: like I said, it's an effective marketing gimmick that appeals
to a certain segment.

> There have been suggestions of "forking" Python (IN THIS GROUP!) to fix
> licensing issues.  In the GPL based world, this is less likely, because
> the copy left defines the basic philosoply of the community:
> cooperation.

Sorry, but I gotta disagree here.  The spirit of the GPL community is
"freedom", not cooperation: you are free to use software any way you
like, so long as you adhere to the restrictions of the GPL.  It kindda
reminds me of those elections where you are free to vote for the only
guy on the ballot.  (Ya' gotta give that Richard Stallman credit for
convincing people that "restrictions" are "freedom". ;-)

> 
> Tell me . . . just how much work will have to be redone, if Python is
> forked to fix licensing issues?  And what will be the final result . . .
> two different versions of Python?  And what will happen after this
> rework is done . . . a law suit is a definite possibiliy.

(For the record, I would like to point out that you just forked
"copyleft" and "lawsuit" into "copy left" and "law suit". ;-)

Actually, I would like to suggest that forking is not a legal issue so
much as a techno-political one: so long as Guido, Larry, and Linus
continue to be the wise Benevolent Dictators For Life that they are,
forking will not occur (like it did with gcc/egcs).

> 
> > If you consider the success of Python
> 
> Python's "success" is debatable . . . 

Not among people like me who like it. ;-)

> as is Perl's . . . 

OK, point taken.  ;-)

> at a recent
> meeting, I asked everybody who uses Python to raise their hand.  Nobody
> did.  I then asked everybody who used Perl to raise their hand . . .
> about 40% did.  I then asked everybody who used "Perl 5" to keep their
> hands up.  Everybody dropped their hand except for one person.

I have a less scientific survey.  I go to my local bookstore and see how
many Perl and Java books there are compared to Python books.  The ratio
might be 50:1 or more.  But, as Benjamin Disraeli said, "There are lies,
damn lies, and statistics" (or something like that).  If you look at the
_growth rate_ of Python (as measured by number of books or some other
statistic), you might conclude that Python is tremendously "successful".

Another measure is that if you look at the goals of Perl 6 (yet to be
developed), many of them are already in Python 1.6 (e.g. unicode
support) or have been in Python for a long time (e.g. bytecodes and easy
extensibility.)

> 
> > (with its
> > generous CWI license), Perl (with its generous Artistic License--and the
> > Grinchly GPL available as an alternative), and the Linux Sysem (not
> > "GNU/Linux System"--na-nya-nana-nay Mr. Stallman! ;-) available only in
> > GPL, it all seems to add up to this: the presence or absence of copyleft
> > probably just doesn't matter.
> 
> Comparing Linux to Perl or Python is a mistake.  Apples and Oranges.
> 
> Linux is well on its way to being the most widely adopted OS in the
> world . . .

Show me the evidence (without citing its growth rate, of course. ;-)

> precisely because of copy left, not "Open Source".  Copy
> left makes it clear: you wanna play, you have to be cooperative, and it
> has the teeth to protect the community from infringers.

I'm not sure there's any objective way to decide this issue, so let's
just agree to disagree on this point.

> 
> > As evidence of the merit of the GPL, we hear the example of Next having
> > to contribute Objective C so they could use the rest of the gcc
> > compiler.
> 
> Which produced a number of positive results for NeXT, and continues to
> be advantageous for the community.

That's nice.

> 
> > This example is notable for its singularity: I haven't heard
> > others.
> 
> Linux.  Note, too, the prevalence of gcc on just about anything big
> enough to run it . . . and emacs . . . and others.

I don't argue with the success of gcc and other GNU software.  But the
point I was making--which the Objective C case has often been cited to
prove--was that copyleft somehow makes what would otherwise be
closed/commercial software become open/free.  In fact, I contend (as
evidenced by GPL proponents citing only this single, weak example), that
the net positive effect of copyleft is nil: in fact, it only forces
software which would otherwise be open/free to be open/free. BFHD.

Unlike biological viruses which one catches involuntarily (be careful,
Kids!), the world of closed/commercial software can easily innoculate
itself against the copyleft legal virus.  And it has.  Therefore, you
see GPL software, and non-GPL software, but very little non-GPL-software
that has become GPL software.

> 
> > Also, notice that Objective C never really caught on.
> 
> That's debatable, considering it's the core language of the next
> generation Mac OS.

(They also paint their computers pretty colors, but I respect their
right to be different. ;-)

> 
> > And Next
> > itself is dead (I think).
> 
> Nope.  They were purchased by Apple, and Apple is anything but dead.
> Note, too, that the publication of the OpenStep specification produced
> the GNUstep project.

(I sure hope Linux doesn't put 'em out of business like you people think
it'll do to Microsoft. ;-)

> 
> > So at best, there seems to be very little
> > empirical evidence that copyleft thing actually accomplishes its goal of
> > making otherwise closed/commercial software become open/free.
> 
> Straw man.  It is *NOT* the purpose of copy left to make "otherwise
> closed/commercial software become open/free" . . . the purpose of copy
> left is to provide a core philosophy and enforcable mechanism for
> forming a cooperative community.

If that's the idea, maybe Richard Stallman should just start a
non-profit organization, and create a web site. ;-)

> 
> And at that, it has suceeded beyond anybodies wildest dream.

Certainly beyond mine. ;-)

> 
> A *SIDE* effect of copyleft is that closed/commercial systems become
> unable to compete (to much waste).

Although open/free software certainly seems to be becoming a big thing,
there's no reason to believe that the two models of software creation
will not continue to coexist indefinitely into the future.  (In other
words, you people aren't going to be putting my little closed/commercial
Kleenex microcontroller out of business anytime soon.  At least not if
you want to wipe your noses. ;-)

> 
> > If Open Source has intrinsic economic value, the copyleft concept isn't
> > needed;
> 
> Copy left provides the basis for "economic justice"  (See: the protests
> against the WTO and the World Bank for more about economic justice, but
> please filter out the nonsense).
> 
> Open Source projects that do not, in some other fashion, engender a
> sense of cooperation, are doomed to fail.

One of the things we all should have learned in the 20th century is that
systems based on people pursuing their own personal interests are more
efficient than systems which force people to cooperate under an
idealogical guise.  Of course, which approach one believes is "morally
better" is purely a matter of taste, but I would suggest that, in the
end, the more efficient system will win.  Thus, within the world of
free/open software, BSDish software will win.

If you assume the worst about people, you'll never be disappointed.

> 
> Guido and Larry have managed to make this happen without the GPL, but
> lacking an enforcement mechanism makes situations like the Python
> licensing thing almost inevitable, *ESPECIALLY* as the system starts to
> become something people can make money on.

There will be squabbles in any community.  The key, then, is to manage
them.  As best we can tell from Tim's reports, all parties in the Python
community are managing a contentious situation in a fairly mature way,
evidently to the rough satisfaction of all.

When I read the new CNRI license, it looks verbose (like me ;-), but
fairly benign (also like me. ;-)  Luckily, the one thing I _don't_
see--which I would find completely unacceptable and unPythonic--is a
copyleft clause.  I can't speak for other Pythoneers, but the spirit of
freedom and true "openness" that the CWI license (and even the new
license) embodies is one of the things that attracts me to Python.  The
new license (as best I can understand it ;-) preserves that.

> 
> > if it doesn't, copyleft won't be enough to make Open Source a
> > force.
> 
> Obviously, to be adopted, the *SYSTEM* must have some intrinsic economic
> value . . . and the GPL provides this through cooperation.

I'm not really sure how to state this any plainer, but: cooperation
occurs automagically in cases where it benefits all parties.

> 
> > In other words, you don't need to require people to make their
> > improvements to software open/free if the openness and freeness of those
> > improvements is truly economically beneficial to them
> 
> Competition drives evolution, and evolution is nearly a universal aspect
> of systems . . . copyleft makes competition more efficient and
> effective, making the GPL a more economically viable system than "let's
> all spend money and time re-inventing the same wheel, instead of
> improving on it".
> 

(What was the question? ;-)

> > --they'll do that
> > without being forced; likewise, if you _try_ to force them but they find
> > no advanatage in it, it probably won't work; they'll just go elsewhere,
> > as I have done many times.
> 
> There is no "force" in the acceptance of the GPL.  It, like any other
> license, is accepted or rejected by each individual, and acceptance is
> entirely voluntary.  The simple fact that you chose to go "elsewhere"
> proves this.

OK, instead of "force", let's be clinical and call it a "quid pro quo". 
But frankly, this here pro don't think it's worth the quid he has to quo
out for it.

> 
> > Likewise, one can find no obvious correlation between the copyleftness
> > of a license and the amount of contributions a given package receive.
> 
> Sorry, but again, not true.  Compare the percentage basis of
> contributions between Linux . . . and Windows.

I was comparing BSDish software with GPL'ed software.  Windows is
neither (unless you have some inside information on that whole nutty
monopoly-settlement thing...?)

But if you want to drag Windows into this, I dare you to prove that
Linux has more authors than Windows.

> 
> > Python is a good example of Open Source software that receives
> > considerable contributions without a copylefted license.  Ditto Perl.
> 
> Yes.  That's because, up to now, a great many contributors believed that
> the Python license gave every advantage that the L\GPL did, with less
> restrictions . . . we may be witnessing proof that this was a mistake.

Or not.  Again, I find no copyleft restriction in the new license. 
(Help me out here...)

> 
> It will be interesting to watch, and see if the license issues get
> resolved without scaring off some conributors.

I'm sure somebody will be scared off just by the squabble.  But to me,
the pudding seems to be proving OK.

> 
> > Personally, I think of the whole copyleft thing as being primarily a
> > clever marketing gimmick (whether or not Richard Stallman realizes it.)
> > It definitely has a strong appeal to a certain segment of the
> > population--especially young people.  But then again, it turns off
> > another segment.  So, from strictly a marketing point of view, it's a
> > tradeoff.
> 
> It isn't a marketing gimmick . . . if "rogues" (from the communities
> stand point) get "scared off", that isn't a loss, it's a gain.

You young people really tickle me. ;-)

> 
> > Notice, though, that copyleft seems to thrive primarily in cases where
> > somebody is *re-implementing* an existing system--most noticably the
> > GNU/Linux System
> 
> And since *EVERY* system is a "re-implementation" . . . copyleft is
> superior.

Help me out.  What exactly does Python reimplement?  AFAIK, Guido
invented it (while borrowing a few good ideas, of course.)

> 
> > (OK, it's probably about time I threw His Royal Root of
> > All Square Meanness a bone ;-).  Specifically, the appeal of a
> > re-implemented free system is primarily that it is _free_.  (Or, as
> > Linus Torvalds has said, the problem with UNIX was that it was "so
> > expensive".)
> 
> The appeal of copyleft is it's *EFFICIENCY*.  Reducing the amount of
> unneccessary cost is a pure win.  And that is what the copyleft does . .
> . it eliminates the totally unneccessary cost of fixing a bug, of
> optimizing a routine, of writing this or that tool, again and again and
> again . . .

Sure it _sounds_ efficient...but have you ever tried to sell a box of
Kleenex with a little disk of source code inside?  You'd be out of
business in a week, Kid. ;-)

> 
> > But if you're trying to popularize a _new_ system (as Guido and Larry
> > Wall once were--and still are to an extent), it makes a lot more sense
> > not to limit the ecologies that your system can live in
> 
> Nope.  It makes more sense to include new members into a group, than to
> encourage the creation of a bunch of mutually exclusive groups.
> Cooperation leverages the most powerful aspect of humanity: our
> gregariousness.  Copy left is the wall, the border that defines the
> difference between those who are willing to cooperate, and those who are
> not.

(What was the question? ;-)

> 
> > (by putting in
> > license terms that discourage commercial uses);
> 
> The GPL does not discourage commercial use: proof of this lies in the
> steady adoption of Linux by the commercial world.

I guess we shall never know, but I would posit that an equally
technically-meritorious system without copyleft would be adopted even
faster.

Copyleft makes it hard (though not impossible) to make money selling the
software.  If you limit software's development fuel (that is, money), it
does not get developed as fast.  Of course, the contributions of
volunteers is critical, because you can only make so much money selling
GNU T-shirts and coffee mugs (and Richard Stallman will only receive a
single McArthur grant.  )

> 
> > broad usage terms give
> > it a better chance of thriving and prospering.
> 
> Broad usage terms that allow for a product to be fragmented into a
> number of different, incompatible versions, reduces the chance of a
> system thriving.

That's why you need a wise BDFL like Guido (or Linus).  (They don't grow
on trees, ya' know.)

> 
> As I said, this does not absolutely require the GPL, but without some
> enforcement mechanism, the community is vulnerable to "rogues" and
> "criminals", in exactly the same way as a community that has laws, but
> no law enforcment, can be peaceful and happy . . . for a while.

(It's not too late to start your own country. ;-)

> 
> > Put another way,
> > packages which have a copyleft license restriction are at a competitive
> > disadvantage compared to those who don't.
> 
> No they are not.  This is clearly not true, from the simple fact of the
> adoption of so many copylefted systems.

(You lost me here.)

> 
> > (Even within the world of
> > free/open software, competition is the rule.)
> 
> Yes . . . but copyleft makes competition more efficient.

(You lost me again.)

> 
> > But I think that the success of a re-implemented system like GNU/Linux
> > can be entirely explained by the fact that it is free, open, and very
> > high quality--in other words, by the merits of the product itself.
> 
> It is free, open, and of very high quality partially because of the GPL.

Could be...but can you prove it?

> 
> > The
> > fact that it is copylefted is incidental
> 
> Nope.  Copy left has allowed the Linux community to avoid fragmentation,
> avoid unneccessary repetition, and greatly increased the number of
> "ecological" niches that Linux can occupy (from running on a
> *WRISTWATCH*, to being the basis for a low-level super computer).
> 

OK, I'm sensing a theme here: you think copyleft is a really good
thing.  But I think you sell the talent and devotion of the people who
actually _create_ free/open software short.  Let's give credit where
credit's due: the main reason people use their work is that it's good
work.

> No other system has been as successful by that measure.

Are you sure?...

> 
> > --except that perhaps Richard
> > Stallman would never have applied his considerable drive and technical
> > talents to helping create it if he wasn't able to create a legal
> > mechanism to enforce his strange obsession with making it difficult for
> > people to make money on the work he "gives" away.
> 
> It's not difficult to make money on GPL'ed systems.

Just ask Red Hat. ;-)

> 
> > (which-reminds-me:-i-bet-that-red-hat-ipo-thing-last-year-must-have
> >    -really-burned-his-butt-<wink>)-ly y'rs,
> 
> Nope.  Please read some of RMS's writings before posting again.

I have.  In fact, his writings form the basis of many of the ideas I
have presented.

> RMS isn't against "making money", he's against *WASTE* (as any good
> engineer would be).

So do you think he will cry himself to sleep tonight when he hears that
some of us have to write new software rather than use his because of the
terms of the license he invented?

Sorry, but I still see an element of meanness in his concept. If one
wanted to give away one's work, yet somehow limit the amount of money
_others_ could make on it (which is a bit of an oxymoronic concept, if
you think about it), I can think of no better way to do it than the
GPL.  In fact, the GPL is darn clever in that way.

personally,-i-don't-want-to-live-in-a-community-which-is-defined
   -by-attaching-strings-to-gifts-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