What is free software? [Re: Licenses and Open Source don't conflict.]

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Rubin <phr-n2002a at nightsong.com> writes:

    Paul> "Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
    >> And the (rms-deprecated!) LGPL is surely good enough for
    >> anybody who only cares about freedom of their own code.  So the
    >> GPL is an advocacy tool, pure and simple.  It's all about
    >> affecting licensing decisions for code that others write, it
    >> has nothing to do with protecting freedom of yours.

My bad.  s/yours/your code/.  Since it seems likely that you'd have
written the same response had I written that, I'll continue.

    Paul> Um, I value the freedom to use code that I wrote, including
    Paul> derivative versions.

I don't see a problem.  Since you wrote the derivative versions, you
are free to use them.<wink>  If you mean derivative versions written
by others, that incorporate your code, well, the code that you wrote
is still available in the original, and you're free to use it.  I
still see no problem.  If you want to use code that you wrote, as
others have modified it, then you need the LGPL, of course.  But still
no problem that requires the GPL.

But if you want to use all of the code that _somebody else writes_,
and just happens to be _linked_ with code based on a few lines of
yours, well, this is where the GPL shines![1]  The GPL is a legal tool
that often increases your freedom to use their code by constraining
their freedom to use yours.  But it's your freedom to use _their_ code
that requires GPL "protection" (ie, the viral provision), not your
(or anyone's) freedom to use _your_ code in any sense, not modified
and definitely not verbatim.

This is generally a good thing for society, of course, since it's not
just the GPL author's freedom that is protected, but everybody's.  But
it's not about protecting your own creations.

    Paul> It promotes cooperation by providing an incentive to release
    Paul> free software.

"I'll make you an offer you will find rather expensive to refuse."
I'm not really sure I consider that cooperation.  Sounds a bit like a
commercial transaction to me.

There is no question that both the GNU- and BSD/MIT/Perl/Apache-style
communities are founded on voluntary inter-developer cooperation.  The
core groups seem to work together because, shucks, "we like working on
this software with each other" (except when we hate each other<wink>).
Nobody at GNU needs the GPL to get them to share!  Nor have the non-
copyleft communities fallen apart because of occasional proprietary
defections.

So it looks to me like the GPL is aimed at people who insist on quid
pro quo, not at people who are interested in, and value, cooperation
per se.


Footnotes: 
[1]  This is not at all implausible.  Google for "Aladdin Ghostscript
GNU readline" (case seems to be significant).

-- 
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences     http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
              Don't ask how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.