Still no new license -- but draft text available

[John W. Stevens]

Gary Momarison wrote:
> 
> 297 lines?  Wow.  Where will it all end?  Who will be left sitting?
> Pardon me if I over-edit quotes.
> 
> "John W. Stevens" <jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com> writes:
> 
> > Grant Griffin wrote:
> > >
> 
> > > 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?
> 
> Why do you think he's mad?

The word choice and emotional over tones.  That's why.

> Trying to emotionalize the debate again?

Me?  No.

Incidently, nice spin there.  A little to obvious, but still, a nice
attempt.

> He only said why he dislikes the GPL.  He apparently finds the cost
> which you mention too high.

And as I pointed out: it is an entirely voluntary cost.  Complaining
about it is the equivalent of buying a house, then complaining about the
payments.

> > > 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.  Your
> > complaint is not specifc to the GPL, it applies to any license that has
> > restrictions.
> 
> It doesn't apply to the MIT/BSD/X11 licenses (which have restrictions).

You miss the point, which is that the measure of generosity varies
between the *GROUP* and the *INDIVIDUAL*.

Since with the licenses you list above, it is possible to take an
existing open source product, change it, then make it closed source, the
*TAKER* benefits, but the *GROUP* gets hurt (See: MS and Kerberos V).

Had these licenses included GPL-like provisions, there wouldn't have
been so many wasted man hours in so many companies, and the overall
quality and level of functionality would have been higher.

> > 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.
> 
> Not quite. Your statement would apply also to those who use MIT/BSD/X11
> licenses.

No.  Analogy: A community gives away guns to who ever wants one. 
Including the criminals, revolutionaries and the criminally insane. 
Another community gives away guns only to those who vow and agree to use
those guns in protection of the community.

The first community is more generous TO THE INDIVIDUAL, while the second
community is more generous overall, because it's generousity extends to
the entire community, EVEN WHEN SELECTED INDIVIDUALS CHOSE NOT TO OWN A
GUN.

IOW, the GPL is more generous than your "Free for any use" type
licenses, except in those cases where there are no parties who choose to
restrict access to the changes they make.

> > If you are a member of the community, there are no strings attached.
> >
> > If you aren't, then you are complaining about other's life style choices
> > . . . aren't we a little bit more civilized than that?
> 
> If you aunt had nuts, she'd be your uncle.  IE, there ARE strings attached.

But, they are irrelevant. A string only matters if you try to move
beyond it's limits.

> No, we (GNU pro AND con) aren't more civilized than that.  Pay attention.

The reference re: "civilized" was made as a combination
Socratic/Sarcastic response.  Pay attention.

> > 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.
> 
> Yeah, well the life of people with freedom can be much more complex,
> even more uncomfortable at times, than the life of people who have
> surrendered their freedoms to a group.

Yet more emotionally laden FUD.

I suppose that being an American makes a person non-free, since you must
forfeit your freedoms to the group . . . as must every member of every
group.

> If your philosophy manages to
> squeeze out the other, it wouldn't be the first time.

By definition, any community that has exclusive factors built into its
conversation, "squeezes" out others.  Every society "squeezes" out
criminals, that's what prisons are for.

> Agreed. Same thing for Linux, *BSD, and any other Open Source OSes.
> Linux got where it is probably because of lucky timing (mostly having to
> do with the late opening of BSD OS code).

An interesting theory.  Do you have any supporting arguments?

> Linux has copyleft simply
> because Stallman offered gcc and many other tools under the L/GPL and
> Linus foolishly chose it for the kernel.

Correction . . . Linus wisely chose it for the kernel. Which means that
companies such as IBM and HP can both use it.

> Nobody can show any evidence
> of any reasonble merit that growth would have been any different (either
> way) had Stallman and Linus choosen a more free license than L/GPL.

The most reasonable evidence of all is available to you right now:
Linux's success.

> Linux had the best featured "OS distributions" and so that's the
> bandwagon most people jumped on.

And they had the best, due to the GPL.  The GPL makes unavoidable
competition more efficient.

> Licensing was a concern of almost
> nobody

Not true.  I chose Linux over *BSD precisely because of the licensing
issues.  As did a number of my compatriots.

> and many of those that did choose the GPL didn't understand it.

Unsupported opinion. Who, specifically, used the GPL and did not
understand it?

> Why "closed/commercial"?  I thought you said we could make profits off
> copylefted softare?

You can.  But the paradigm shift is huge, and most commercial companies
will not separate the two for quite some time.

> Wouldn't that make it commercial too?

Yes.  Count the number of companies who are making that shift . . . HP
is one, as is IBM, but most cannot due to their lack of vision.

You point is, of course, perfectly valid, in that commercial can be open
source, or even GPL'ed.

> > 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).
> 
> Using "economic coercion" to enforce that justice, I might add.

And you would add that in error.  There is no coercion involved.  Either
that, or you must first admit to me that the exercise of making law IS
violence, and then give me an example of someone who was forced (by
threat of violence) to use GPL'ed code.

> > Open Source projects that do not, in some other fashion, engender a
> > sense of cooperation, are doomed to fail.
> 
> Right. Like X11, Apache, Sendmail, Perl, Python, all BSD OSes, Mac OS X,
> etc., etc.  It's only a matter of time.

It's only a matter of time until . . . what, there are four different
versions of Python?

Before there are commercial systems based on "Python", that won't
execute your scripts because you wrote those scripts for Z-Python? 
What?

> > There is no "force" in the acceptance of the GPL.  It, like any other
> 
> Force takes many forms.

No, it doesn't.  In all cases, force is backed up with either violence,
or the immediate threat of violence.  All other uses of the term
"force", are a misuse of the word.

> In our commercial world, physical force is not
> the one we deal with most.

In the commercial world, there are two types of force, both of which are
backed up with violence: the first is the threat of legal action, as of
course, passing a law that cannot be enforced is simply an exercise in
political demagoguery.  The second type of force is direct: the
assasination of a key employee, theft of IP, sabotage of the machinery
of production, etc.  All of which constitute direct violence.

> I've just snipped your explanation of how
> the GPL forces people towards the GNU model.

The GPL does not force people towards the GNU model.

> You just didn't use that
> word.

Because it is in error. When, in your life, has anybody used force in
relationship to the GPL on YOU PERSONALLY?

> > Sorry, but again, not true.  Compare the percentage basis of
> > contributions between Linux . . . and Windows.
> 
> That'd be a stupid thing to do.

Why?  You can write GPL'ed code for both systems, right?

> Are you toying with us?  If you had any
> hope of a fair comparison (probably not), you'd use two licenses that
> are the most similar, excepting the viral copyleft clause.

Feel free to make such a comparison . . . but the end result will be
risky, as to compare any existing free system that isn't under the GPL
with Linux is going to give you a result you won't like.

> I don't know why they'd think that, the license could be read in one minute.

Yet it was you who claimed that nobody read the license . . . or cared. 
A little discontinuity in your argument, there.

> > 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 . .
> 
> Copylefting doesn't do that.

Yes it does.

> People opening their source does that,

No, it doesn't.  Example: Mozilla.  Fear of the NPL kept several people
I know PERSONALLY from contributing to that project.  Had it been
GPL'ed, they would not have hesitated.  I, too, avoided Mozilla and have
started looking for GPL'ed replacements.

> > The GPL does not discourage commercial use: proof of this lies in the
> > steady adoption of Linux by the commercial world.
> 
> So why do you write "closed/commercial" and "open/free"?

To avoid confusion.  In general, commercial software is closed source. 
The exceptions are few and far between.  Have you better, easier terms
to use?

> > 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.
> 
> Among people who write open source code, people can fork GPLware as
> easily as X11ware.

Yes, of course.  But that is irrelevant.  What is relevant, are the
MOTIVATIONAL FACTORS.  People are less likely to be motivated to fork
the code base, when that code base is GPL'ed.

> People who fork off closed source code haven't
> taken anything from the others.

Yes, they have.  They've taken away compatibily.  Need I remind you of
Word, and it's constantly changing file format?

> They are just people who choose to
> keep their own work closed.  No skin off my back.

If you don't mind having something stolen from you, then the skin that
was taken off of your back, you won't mind or miss.

> Would that be someone who follows the rules of the community and
> forks off a closed version?

No.

> People aren't criminals until you take
> away their freedom to do things you don't approve of.

No, people aren't crimals until they violate the rules of their
community.

> You may have
> criminals in your world, but please don't imply that people outside
> your world are criminals for violating rules that don't apply elsewhere.

I didn't.  You used a straw man argument.

> > No they are not.  This is clearly not true, from the simple fact of the
> > adoption of so many copylefted systems.
> 
> That are many other factors that could lead to that fact than copyleft.

The standard Internet defense when presented with unpleasant facts . . .
your theories not withstanding, I know PERSONALLY people that have
advocated Linux to their companies because of the GPL.

> I doubt that the effects of copyleft can be reliably understood.

Just because a system is chaotic, and cannot be totally understood down
to the last detail, does not mean that it's effects cannot be measured. 
You can indeed measure and understand the effects of copyleft.

> > It is free, open, and of very high quality partially because of the GPL.
> 
> Maybe a litte. Maybe not.  But it would be a lot more useful if so much
> of it were not GPLed.

No, it wouldn't.  Once again, the market is proving you wrong.  The
steady adoption of Linux discredits your theory.  If the *BSD license is
superior to GPL . . . then why isn't FreeBSD or ONE OF ITS VARIANTS the
up-and-coming Unix-like OS?

Answer: because commercial entities have tried the X11/*BSD license, and
found it lacking.  The GPL is a driving factor in the adoption of Linux
by commercial companies . . . they must contribute changes back to the
community, but SO DOES THE OTHER GUY.

Economic justice.

> Eg, it would probably be driving Mac OS X.

The Mac OS X compiler . . . is it GCC, or not?  Remember, the new Mac OS
X is a mildly modified version of OpenStep, which used GCC.

> > Nope.  Please read some of RMS's writings before posting again.
> 
> First get a good dictionary to check for important word misusage.

I did.  Note the corrections to your misusage above.

-- 

If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!

John Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com