Still no new license -- but draft text available

[John W. Stevens]

Grant Griffin wrote:
> 
> John W. Stevens wrote:
> > 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,

I do.  I've done a fair amount of embedded software development myself. 
Using, incidentally, GPL'ed tools . . . precisely because they were
GPL'ed.

> To provide users of embedded software with the
> source code is unreasonably expensive, relative to the economics of the
> applications.

Which would make a perfect argument for not using GPL'ed code in your
source.

> Besides, the users don't really care anyway.

In general, perfectly true. . . though I, personally, mind it. ;->

> (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.  ;-)

Precisely!

> > Don't want to cooperate?  Don't use GPL'ed code.
> 
> I agree: Just say "no".  (It's a darn shame, though.)

Yes, it is.  But no solution is perfect.  Everything has a cost.

> > 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.

Are you drawing an analogy between birds and software?

Or are you trying to say that any political system that defines and
punishes criminal behavior is by definition not free?

> > 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.)

>From your point of view, the BSD license works, but have you considered
the cost to the community?

> > 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.

What is so strange about that?

Incidentally, not all of the "gifts" of the GNU community are solely
given to the community: the wide spread adoption and use of FSF tools
proves this.

> > 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. ;-)

A reference to MS?  Or have you extended the term "Borg" to the GPL/FSF
community?

The FSF/GPL community is one you join by choice: the Borg force
community membership upon you.

> > 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.

A very BIG segment.  As the adoption of Linux by both IBM and HP can
attest.

> > 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.

The problem here is the slipperiness of the terms.

> 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". ;-)

Restrictions *ARE* neccesary for freedom.  Just how free are you if the
community of which you are a member is perfectly free to steal anything
you posses, or to kill you at desire?

Communities *MUST* define themselves (culture is an on going, evolving
conversation, the purpose of which is to agree upon and describe that
community to itself), or they are not communities.  And part of that
definition *MUST* be a description and reason for a given set of
restrictions.  Freedom is measured relative to the cost of that
definition.  Yes, it costs you something to be restricted from
committing murder.  But don't you gain more than you loose?

The question here isn't not as you pose it: the question here is - does
the GPL give you a better return on your investment (re: choice of
communities and their associated restrictions).

For you, it seems, the answer is no.

> > 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". ;-)

I are a computer scientsit.  I rglrly drp th vwls ff f vrthg.

> 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).

And you play right into my hands . . . [evil laugh!]

Seriously, the communities take part of their shape, and gather some of
their restrictions, from their choice of "Benevolent Dictators for
Life".  RMS, Guido, Larry, Linus . . . all dictators, yes?

And they ALL SET RESTRICTIONS!

So by your comment, I would suspect that you do not consider any of
these communities to be truly free . . . right?

> > Python's "success" is debatable . . .
> 
> Not among people like me who like it. ;-)

Which statement defines and restricts the meaning of success, right?

> > as is Perl's . . .
> 
> OK, point taken.  ;-)

Yep.  Hey, I like Python.  I contribute to the community . . . using the
LGPL.  People are free to use my modules . . . or not.

> 
> > 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.

How can you get less scientific than what I did!?  ;-)

Seriously, I posted the above to illustrate a point: one of the most
common difficulties experienced in UseNet discussions is the lack of
restriction placed on certain key phrases.  If the word "success" were
restricted to "the most widely used solution for a given problem
domain", then there would be a lot fewer arguments . . .

> 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".

Then, if so, you'd have to admit that Linux is tremendously successful,
yes?

> 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.)

Hey, I consider Python to be superior to Perl for OBJECTIVLEY MEASURABLE
REASONS, and one of those reasons is that Python imposes more
restrictions on me than Perl does . . . thereby increasing my freedom. 
:-)

> > 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. ;-)

Excuse, but "well on its way" is entirely based on growth rate.  I
didn't say that it *WAS* the most widely adopted, I said: "well on it's
way".  In combination with growth rate, the proliferation of Linux
info-appliances, the large number of different ports, and the number of
large companies that have adopted Linux (including IBM and HP), the
statement stands as reasonably well supported.

Just how many Windows based wrist watches have you seen announced,
lately, eh?

> > 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.

But, there is an objective way to decide this issue.  Measure the number
of contributors who feel more comfortable with the GPL'ed, rather than
code licensed in other ways.  To great extent, IBM and HP both decided
to support Linux BECAUSE the GPL provided an enforcable means for
ensuring economic justice.

> > 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.

Really?  I thought that was precisely what you were arguing.

> 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.

GNUstep.

Which, of course, would have been much more difficult had it not been
for GCC + GPL.

> In fact, I contend (as
> evidenced by GPL proponents citing only this single, weak example), that
> the net positive effect of copyleft is nil:

If the example is weak: it is weak in both directions.  You cannot use
it to support your contention.

> in fact, it only forces
> software which would otherwise be open/free to be open/free. BFHD.

Yes, but . . . to state that the GPL was designed for this purpose is a
misrepresentation.

> 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.

Precisely.  Because the GPL isn't about forcing *EXISTING* closed source
software to become GPL'ed, it's about protecting the communities freedom
by making it clear, up front, that cooperation is part of the definition
for that community.

> > 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. ;-)

Hey, there are a lot of people who like Objective-C and the OpenStep
libraries . . . by your definition re: Python, that makes it successful,
right?  ;-)

> > 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. ;-)

Why?

Microsoft won't go out of business, and they won't be *PUT* out of
business by Linux.  Even in the wildest sceanrio, the extent of what
Linux will do to MS is to present them with the choice to either relax
some of their control over their market, allowing their market more
choice, or to loose some market share.

> > 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. ;-)

Which he did, right?

> > 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.

This assumes that the efficiency of the GPL model is illusory, or
temporary.

Or maybe you are segmenting the market in an undisclosed fashion . . .
certainly Solaris will be around for a while, but . . . indefinitely? 
Linux is the fastest growing OS in existence, how can any closed source,
commercial OS hope to compete?

> (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. ;-)

Oh, are you talking about hardware?

The costs of producing hardware are such that open sourcing hardware
design probably won't work, though the cost of different, incompatible
interfaces is high enough that a company that creates and maintains a
standard interface will probably be more successful than one that
doesn't . . . hence the long life of the X86 instruction set, right?  As
well as the preference for UHCI and OHCI USB controllers . . .

> > 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.

Note that what you just wrote, does not in any way apply to the
conversation we are having re: GPL, as nobody is "forced" to use the
GPL, and indeed, use of the GPL furthers the users own personal
interests.

> 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.

Nice theory, yet even in the BSD world, the compiler is . . . [drum roll
here] a GPL'ed system.

Or has the *BSD community produced their own compiler?

Also, please note that your theory has the same defect as the
Mac-Advocates theories did . . . reality bites.

A GPL'ed system is winning.  One that has some BSD components, it is
true.

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

Which is the genius of the GPL . . . people assume the worst of each
other, and so they are more comfortable with the GPL than they are with
a license that allows a "Big Corporation" to take away what they've
produced.

> There will be squabbles in any community.  The key, then, is to manage
> them.

Isn't the license the managment policy?

> 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.

It would be ideal to have this resolved without creating a fork.

> 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.

An why would that be unacceptable to you?  Are you using Python in a
commercial environment where the company must make secret changes to
Python?

> > 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.

And the GPL helps to guarantee that cooperation will benefit all
parties.

> > 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".

Ok.

> But frankly, this here pro don't think it's worth the quid he has to quo
> out for it.

And therefore, you choose not to be a member of the community.  Your
choice.

> > Sorry, but again, not true.  Compare the percentage basis of
> > contributions between Linux . . . and Windows.
> 
> I was comparing BSDish software with GPL'ed software.

In that case, you kind of loose, hands down.  IBM and HP have both
committed to support Linux . . . neither has said any such thing about a
*BSD variant.

> Windows is
> neither (unless you have some inside information on that whole nutty
> monopoly-settlement thing...?)

Hey, according to Bill, Windows is not a monopoly, and we trust Bill,
right?

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

Note: "contributions", not "authors".

Just how many of those Windows authors contributed their work?

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

Oh, I agree with you . . . "Or Not".  I did word my response as a
hypothetical.

Let's wait and see.

> > 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.

Python is not, as of yet, the commercial success that Perl is, and even
if it does become so, one of the things you have to realize is that the
Python community has agreed, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LICENSE SAYS, to act
in a GPL like fashion.

It isn't neccessary to write it down in the license, if the community
STILL makes cooperation a part of the conversation.

IOW, if a commercial entity made use of the power to take Python, and
"embrace and extend it" . . . would you use it, or would you prefere to
continue using the Guido-approved version of Python, thereby in effect
enforcing a licensing restriction that doesn't appear in the license?

> > 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. ;-)

Thank you for calling this old man "young", it makes my arthritis hurt
just a bit less.

> > 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.)

That last (in parentheses) pretty much says it all . . .

> > 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. ;-)

Kid.  Yet another sop to my aching bones.

> > 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.

We do know, and you'd be wrong.  According to the *BSD crowd, their
various versions of BSD are superior to Linux, yet it is Linux that is
being adopted.

> Copyleft makes it hard (though not impossible) to make money selling the
> software.

Hence it's success.  Copyleft makes it hard enough to sell software,
that that software must be CLEARLY superior to be able to win market
share (and that is: clearly superior even to the end user).

> If you limit software's development fuel (that is, money), it
> does not get developed as fast.

Then how do you explain how quickly Linux is being developed, and how do
you explain the fact that MS, one of the biggest pools of "development
fuel", found it more efficient to "embrace and extend" a LARGE number of
open source systems, rather than create their own?

> > 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.)

And just how does Guido prevent fragmentation when a commercial entity
choses to "embrace and extend"?

The community can do so by the simple expedient of ACTING as if the
license has GPL-like restrictions, but why not simply write the
restriction down, instead of leaving it on the wind?

> > 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.)

Reality bites.

Fortunately, insanity or simple denial are always options. ;->

> > Yes . . . but copyleft makes competition more efficient.
> 
> (You lost me again.)

System A --> Fragmented by MS --> producing MS-Python and Guido-Python
--> Bug fixes made by MS are not released to Guido-Python -->
Gudio-Python group must spend precious resources re-inventing the bug
fixes.

System B --> Adopted by MS --> producing patches that CAN BE MERGED BACK
into the original System B

No wasted resources.

Obviously, this point is moot until somebody adopts, embraces and then
extends the system . . . examples of which already exist.  I even have
dollar figures to attach to the waste. . .

> > It is free, open, and of very high quality partially because of the GPL.
> 
> Could be...but can you prove it?

Yes.  It's already been done.

Compare defect rates, and rates of repair for closed source X server
implementations with the open source XFree86 project (taking into
account supported platforms and hardware).

> 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.

The same people who write free/open source write closed source, too. 
That really isn't the issue.

> > No other system has been as successful by that measure.
> 
> Are you sure?...

Yes.  If I am incorrect . . . correct me.

> > It's not difficult to make money on GPL'ed systems.
> 
> Just ask Red Hat. ;-)

Precisely.  They are doing rather well.

> > 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?

Nope.  You are free to choose to be wasteful, if that is what you wish.

> Sorry, but I still see an element of meanness in his concept.

As I do . . . in yours.

> 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,

Your choice.  As I've pointed out, some of your perception of that
community is incorrect, but that's your choice, too.

-- 

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

John Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com