10 comments

• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Tim:
  
  Great post.
  
  In reality, all that FSF is doing is trying to prevent the theft of GPL code, by some entity that would make that code unfree.
  
  When you see that all of the complexity of the GPL 3.0 is really a reaction to some equally clever scheme (for example: TIVO) to steal GPL code, it is clear why the GPL has gotten complex.
• 

  David McElroy

  1 year ago

  The BSD license makes SO much more sense -- if your goal is to give ANY user the right to take software and use it freely. With the BSD license, I can take code and do whatever I want with it. I can incorporate it into a software product that I then make proprietary, but my use of that code doesn't mean that the original code is no longer totally free for everyone else. The GPL lets you do what you want with code, but ONLY if you go along with the FSF's notions about software being open source. You can't incorporate that code into a product whose source isn't released, so you're prevented from using it in anything you don't intend to give away.
  
  The BSD license gives people true freedom about what THEY want to do with code. The GPL is primarily designed to enforce the FSF's philosophy about open source. The BSD license gives power to the user. The GPL gives power to those who write the license. It's clear to me which gives more freedom.
• 

  Seth Schoen

  1 year ago

  "You can't incorporate [GPL] code into a product whose source isn't released [...] The BSD license gives people true freedom about what THEY want to do with code. [...] The BSD license gives power to the user."
  
  Doesn't this depend on who gets to count as "people" and "the user"? In FSF's view, "the user" being protected is the end user (who is running the code). That does mean that "the user" who packages, distributes, sells, etc. the code or products containing it is not allowed to do things that restrict "the user" who runs it.
  
  FSF set out this point in a different form at
  
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/freedom-or-power....
  
  (This essay does slightly undermine Tim Lee's point about FSF's purported tolerance toward nonfree software licensing. But it makes clear that FSF is trying to protect users in the sense of people who run the software as distinct from users who package or distribute it. Of course, FSF wants to protect them, too, but not in the event that their intentions or interests conflict with those of end-users.)
  
  This distinction does seem to me to be at the root of most of the disagreements between copyleft advocates and copyleft critics in the free software community. Thus when FSF wrote that "[t]o protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights", some people said "why is it OK to make any restrictions at all?" or "if someone denies freedoms to end users, isn't that that person's fault, not the original developer's fault for failing to prevent it?".
• 

  Crosbie Fitch

  1 year ago

  Freedom to restrict someone else's freedom?
  

  
  All men should have the liberty to enslave their fellows?
  

  
  Why is it so difficult to grok the fact that the GPL restores the liberty suspended by copyright and patent law?
  

  
  How can anyone seriously believe their freedom is legitimately increased by having the 'freedom' to suspend the freedom of their fellow men?
  

  
  The GPL is equivalent to an anti-slavery mechanism. If you would like to retain the unethical privilege of owning slaves then don't use the GPL.
  

  
  The GPL is for those who find the idea of using copyright and patent to restrict others repugnant.
  

  
  Quite happy restricting others? Don't use the GPL.
  

  
  But, for hecks sake, at least attempt to understand why a license that nullifies your privilege of being able to suspend the liberty of the public, is actually FREER than one that gives you 'freedom' to bind the manacles of copyright and patent upon your fellow men.
• 

  David McElroy

  1 year ago

  Those who turn open source into a religion are the ones who are blocking its further adoption. One of the most bizarre things about some open source zealots is that they refuse to acknowledge that someone else can come to a different position honestly and rationally. On the other hand, I see what they want and understand their position. I just find it absurd to claim that an end user is being enslaved if he doesn't have access to the source code for any software he uses. There's no basis for making this claim. It's an invention that's purely pulled out of thin air. It's pretty arrogant to claim that I don't "attempt to understand" a postion that I clearly understand, but find stupid.
  
  It's also absurd to claim that owning code and owning slaves is a valid comparison. Owning code that no one has access to isn't depriving anyone of any right. Owning a human being is. So that comparison is bizarre in every way.
  
  I'm perfectly happy restricting others when it's reasonable and ethical. If I own a car, I'm perfectly happy to prevent others from using it. If I own land, I'm perfectly happy to prevent others from coming onto it against my will. The idea that "restricting others" is such a terrible thing doesn't make any sense without a lot of qualifiers that open source advocates conveniently ignore.
  
  Nobody has the RIGHT to my work unless I grant the person that right. If I write a program -- or a book or a song or any such thing -- I deserve to control how my work is used, at least for a limited amount of time. Modern extensions of copyright are silly and unreasonable, because they're clearly designed to do nothing other than continue to enrich copyright holders forever. But the notion that creators don't deserve ANY control over their work is unreasonable and unworkable in a real economy. Besides, the GPL supporters clearly believe that THEY have the right to control their work, because the GPL puts restrictions on how code can be used. Isn't it convenient that these people believe that THEY can enforce THEIR views about how code should be used, but people with other views aren't legitimate is making their own decisions about their own work?
  
  If you TRULY believe that it's not right to control how code is used, release it into the public domain. Then anyone can use it as he pleases -- for ANY kind of project. But you're not going to do that, because that wouldn't restrict what others can do with it in the way that YOU want to. The FSF and its acolytes are all about trying to force others to accept their view of intellectual property (which is basically that no ideas can ever be property). It's ironic that they use a contract to restrict what can be done with ideas in order to prove their notion that no one can restrict what can be done with ideas.
• 

  MikeT

  1 year ago

  Crosbie,

  
  

  Uh huh. I think I'll just help myself to the products of your labor. Surely you won't mind me denying you part of your paycheck if you work in a services industry, or taking some of your physical products if you make something for a living. Clearly, you think that it is morally wrong for a software developer to actually have any right to the product of their labor. And I'm not talking about the right to control how it's used, but rather you seem to clearly have an issue with the exclusive right to sell it. That's the only conclusion I can come to after reading your comment.

  
  

  My skepticism of the GPL comes from being personally a little more of an anarchist than a libertarian. Why do I say that my views are a bit more along the lines of anarchist than libertarian? I define freedom as being not told what to do, not a series of contractual agreements and legal mechanisms except the most rudimentary ones (basic property rights, no violent crimes). I am skeptical of the GPL because the BSD license has fewer restrictions. It is more anarchistic than the GPL.

  
  

  Granted, I also am skeptical of the need of government to even maintain general professional law enforcement agencies, save for the investigative components (such as detectives, not general beat cops). So, your mileage might vary with me there...
• 

  Crosbie Fitch

  1 year ago

  No-one has any right to help themselves to anyone else's intellectual property, nor to deny anyone else the ability to sell the product of their labour for any price they can get for it in a free market.
  
  If I sell you my intellectual property, it's yours.
  
  The difference is, those who believe it is right to suspend your liberty believe I should be able to deny you the right to enjoy your own intellectual property.
  
  If you buy it, it's yours. You can use it. You can share it. You can modify it. You can sell it.
  
  If you're not free to sell your labour in a free market you're a slave.
• 

  Chris Brand

  1 year ago

  I always think of the GPL this way : people releasing code under the GPL ask to be "paid" for it in the form of getting access to the enhancements and other changes that people make to it, in addition to the "payment" they would also get if they used a BSD-style license.
• 

  Mark Blafkin

  1 year ago

  I really need to stop taking weekends off from blogging, and clear my Monday meeting schedule.
  
  

  Tim, you are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, there isn't anything in the GPL that prevents distribution of the proprietary video card drivers alongside free software. But, doesn't it seem odd to you that Linux has to distribute separate binaries for the drivers? In the Windows, Mac, Unix operating system INTEGRATE those drivers directly into the OS. Why doesn't Linux? Because the GPL specifically forbids it!
  
  

  I'm late to this thread, so I decided to provide a more detailed response over at the ACT Blog
  

  Actually, it is Crosbie who seems to have the best understanding of the GPL, the FSF, and their raison d'etre. He gave a perfect description of the reasoning and effect of the GPL when he tried to explain how a "license that nullifies your privilege of being able to suspend the liberty of the public, is actually FREER than one that gives you 'freedom' to bind the manacles of copyright and patent upon your fellow men." Tim, read and learn.
  
  

  I don't share the beliefs of the FSF like Crosbie, but I think they have every right to hold them and advocate for them. Our only point at ACT is that the new GPL in particular may limit the adoption of free/open source software in the future. For Richard Stallman, ideology comes before business success. I'm just not sure the same goes for IBM, Red Hat, and others more pragmatic voices.
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Tim, you are missing the forest for the trees. Yes, there isn't anything in the GPL that prevents distribution of the proprietary video card drivers alongside free software. But, doesn't it seem odd to you that Linux has to distribute separate binaries for the drivers? In the Windows, Mac, Unix operating system INTEGRATE those drivers directly into the OS. Why doesn't Linux? Because the GPL specifically forbids it!
  
  No, not true. Several distro's do ship with proprietary drivers. (Knoppix, ASPLinux) both ship with NVidia 3d drivers, for example. There is nothing that prevents GPL programs from inter-operating with non-GPL programs. Nor is there anything in the GPL that would prevent such drivers from being shipped on the same CD. Generally, it is the license of the proprietary drivers that prevents them from being freely redistributed freely.
  
  Also, Windows has not 'integrated' NVidias drivers, in any meaningful way. You still need to use NVidia's drivers, not Microsofts for reasonable 3D performance.