Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1997 22:35:54 -0500 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com Cc: dyson@freebsd.org, cmott@srv.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702190335.WAA11596@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <7502.856316125@time.cdrom.com> (jkh@time.cdrom.com)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> This is a feature, not a bug. It was designed that way intentionally, >> to keep GNU's works from becoming tools for the proprietary software >> people. >But it's a bug if you'd like to help out the proprietary software >people, you see. That's where RMS and I have classically differed >(and we've argued about this a LOT :). Then the GPL isn't at all designed for your needs, any more than Nethack is designed for the needs of a quarter arcade. >The real point is simply that there is still quite a bit of value in >the "grey areas" which the GPL seems to strongly discourage. RMS >would prefer a far more black-and-white reality in the commercial >software world, and I can't fault him for setting and sticking to a >very high set of ideals, but I just don't think that it makes sense to >draw the lines that closely and seek to enforce by law what you should >and can be enforcing by pre-agreement with your clients. Businessmen will enforce their ideals with their licenses. Their ideals just make Kant weep, that's all. >programmers happy, they'll do it. I've had considerable success >prying loose various bits of code from companies, or getting them to >relax their militant stance about some part of the freeware community >(or its products), and in ALL cases it was accomplished through >negotiation, not waving threatening pieces of paper around. That >would have accomplished exactly zero in any of the cases I can think >of. I'd rather not get into a discussion of the effectiveness of the licenses, or of the moral issues behind them. Right now, I am only trying to make sure that the GPL gets its due credit in this discussion by clearing up potential misunderstandings. >All things considered, I'd be really happy if the legal realities for >liability and copyright made it possible for me to release all my >code with a "legal notice" about this long: > This is my code, you can use it for anything you like, just please > don't be a cretin and try to pretend that you wrote it, or break > it and then try to blame me. Thanks. Most of us are just trying to get back to the mentality of the elder days. We just have different ways of doing it. I'd love to never have to see a lawyer try to debate whether statically linked library is an aggregate or derived work, or whether or not I can run a single-CPU licensed program on a Pentium, let alone whether or not I can get blamed for a user playing with the 'rebuild master block' command. >improve the code. Negotiation on a case by case basis has worked more >than well enough for me, better than I'd ever have a right to even >expect, and a pit-bull copyright I need like a KKK banner at a Martin >Luther King memorial rally. :-) You're after different aims. rms is out to change the world; I don't see that as your ambition. (Correct me if I'm wrong, of course!) >> Not entirely orthogonal. The ability to make source-level >> modifications to the code is often extremely useful. >And if you look at every BSD system you might ever want to run, it >comes with all of it - how about that! :-) The GPL may enforce the >question of source, but it's hardly correct to say or even imply that >it's the only way of going about it. Agreed. I was actually directing that line in a discussion which seemed to be mostly about whether or not the GPL is sane in a world oriented towards commercial sourceless licensing. I intended to be commending the BSD technique in that paragraph; my apologies if I was unclear. Did SunOS 4 come with source? I never had both sufficient need and skill to modify it at the time, so I don't know, and considering that Solaris doesn't come with a compiler, let alone source... >I've heard a lot of flag waving in the Linux groups about how the GPL >saves from predation and software tyranny, but frankly I've yet to see >a single instance of that anywhere close to home myself in these last >19 years. To my view, it's a solution looking for a problem. The GNU General Public License is not the solution. Only when people change how they think about software, will it be free. >that would be a hateful existence. Should we wrap all of our code >around a multi-page legalese document that sets down more restrictions >than your average insurance policy just in case someone *might* want >to rip it off? No. That would be the GPL. :-) Again, I'd just as soon see law stay away from hacking. But I live in America, and it ain't gonna happen. -- http://www.wp.com/piquan --- Joel Ray Holveck --- joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu All my opinions are my own, not the FSF's, my employer's, or my dog's. Second law of programming: Anything that can go wrong wi sendmail: segmentation violation -- core dumped
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702190335.WAA11596>