Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Gary Momarison]

"John W. Stevens" <jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com> writes:

> Gary Momarison wrote:
[snip]
> > Comment on the previous post: The "obsession" that motivates copyleft
> > and which draws so many to the GPL is an obsessional desire for
> > FAIRNESS, which Stallman's propaganda UNFAIRLY exploits and which, like
> > his promotional misuse of the software freedom concept, is less well
> > achieved by the GPL than by old-Python, BSD, X11, and similar licenses.
> 
> The whole point of the GPL is indeed fairness.  I don't see how BSD, or
> the X11 licenses, or the old-style Python license, achieve this end as
> well as the GPL/LGPL do.

Because, the GPL is not fair and the others are not unfair.  As you say,
the GPL requires cooperation with the community to belong, which is
often quite unfair in terms of exchange of work and benefit.  You may be
required to disclose a fortune in code to use a pittance in code.  The
other licenses are very fair simply because there is not much to be
unfair about -- there are essentially no strings attached that aren't in
the GPL.  They confer a kind of gift of rights, not an exchange.

> > A suprising number of people are captivated by the thought that someone
> > should only be allowed to use their work if that someone will
> > reciprocate.
> 
> Umm . . . no.  The GPL/LGPL is based on a very simple concept: if you
> are of a cooperative mentality, use the L\GPL license, and use L\GPL
> code.  If you aren't a cooperative type, don't use 'em.

The same thorn by another name.  But you said it wrong. It is: if you
use L/GPLed software, you must cooperate, otherwise, don't use it.  Your
version could be used on MIT/BSD/X11 licenses; this one fits only
copyleft licenses.

> 
> > Everyone feels a bit of outrage when someone refuses to
> > share equaly, but it's sad to find that so few can stiffle that
> > uncivilized emotion
> 
> . . . interesting.  So outrage over unfairness is "uncivilized"?

Unartful on my part.  The more civilized people become, the more virtue
is applied to the ability to share unconditionally without expectation
of return, has been my (and others) observation.

> 
> > and share unconditionaly, especially when so many
> > seem so proud of their generosity in using the GPL.
> 
> Nope.  It's not "generosity" that motivates use of the GPL, it's the
> desire to form a "cooperative".

Yup. You may be writing for some, but not for many others who's posts
I've read.  Anyway it's the LACK of generosity that motivates the
formation of the cooperative.

> > And what is fair
> > about exchanging the disclosure of my office suite for the use of your
> > word counting routine?
> 
> FUD.  You know very well that this is FUD, too.  If you don't want to
> cooperate, don't.  What is fair about you taking and using a product
> that was offered as a contribution to the "co-op", then refusing to
> cooperate?

Fear? No. Uncertainty? No. Doubt? No.  Does not apply.

I am cooperating.  I accepted your entry requirements and have followed
every requirement of membership.  I have only choosen not to participate
in certain activities.  In any case, I'm not the one promoting fairness,
remember?  I'll take what's offered to me, just as you would.  You said 
the whole point of the GPL is fairness.  The whole point of the freer 
licenses is something else (distribution?).

> > Stallman's obsession probably started as a desire to minimize/maximize
> > the amount of software he wasn't/was allowed to control
> 
> Nope.  Stallman's "obsession" (I really, really disklike your use of
> emotionally laden terms . . . are you obsessed with money and control,
> or are you simply making a philisophical choice?) is based on what he
> saw as the obvious advantage over cooperatively based competition,
> instead of artificially restricted competition.

You might not know, but I was responding to a just-prior post which
referred to Stallman's "obsession", but which (I thought) had it wrong.
But I think most would find that term applies in this case.  And yes,
I am obsessed, from time to time, with control (and money when it buys
control) when it is in the hands of those who abuse it.  And then you 
just repeated another of my statements, again in more euphemistic words.

> > But the method of implementing the obsession is to propagandize
> 
> More emotionally laden terms?  Guido "propagandizes", as well.  In less
> emotionally-spun terms, RMS and Guido both "evangelize".  Don't like
> Python?  Don't use it.  Don't want to cooperate?  Don't.

Who thinks there's anything wrong with propaganding or evangelizing?
I don't.  It just that Stallman does his in a manner that deceives, and 
I believe, he means to deceive.  One blatent case in a mailing list is at:
http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=berlin-design&m=93118897023514&w=2
His frequent misuse of several common words and concepts misleads many.

> What's the big deal?  You makes your philisophical choices, and you
> lives with 'em, and a part of every philisophy is "evangelizing".
> 
> > about things
> > like the supposed freedom of the software and the horrors of letting
> > someone use (even PROFIT - oh, the humanity) YOUR open code as part of
> > their closed code.
> 
> There is nothing in the GPL that restricts your ability to make a
> profit.  See: RedHat for an example of this.

Oh, come on now. Sure, as long as I don't use GPLed code, or if you
mean I can may ANY profit, or some other rediculous argument.  Get 
serious.  There are valid reasons to use the GPL, but that ain't one 
of them.  The words "THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE", along 
with the viral clause restricts my ability plenty.

And IIRC, Red Hat has been loosing money hand over fist, except to the
extent they can get suckers to fund their losses.  (I've helped them
enough to get "the IPO offer", and I wish them luck, but I've
experienced enough of their incompetence in five years to expect their
failure unless they've replaced some key people lately or do it soon.)