Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 09:59:05 -0500 From: "G. Adam Stanislav" <zen@buddhist.com> To: cjclark@home.com Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Richard Stallman came to town Message-ID: <3.0.6.32.19990513095905.00955e10@mail.bfm.org> In-Reply-To: <199905130247.WAA11499@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> References: <19990512195044.B217@whizkidtech.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 22:47 12-05-1999 -0400, Crist J. Clark wrote: >Hmmm... I do not see how that can be true. The _original_ programmer, >the orginial copyright holder, cannot use his own code anyway he would >like? Sure, the copies of the code that are already out there are >really 'out there' and cannot be retroactively un-GNUed, but I don't >see how the original author is prevented from licensing a derivative >work, or even an unmodified version, anyway he sees fit. To quote from the license: "To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights." Notice the word "anyone." That includes the original author, at least until there is a court decision or an explicit disclaimer from SFS to the contrary. Lacking a court decision, the license can be interpreted as prohibitng the original author from licensing a derivative work, or even an unmodified version, anyway he sees fit. Legal language is subtle. If you release your software under GNU licence and reuse your software outside the scope of the GNU license, you are opening yourself up to the possibility of being sued. Even if you'd win, the hassle is not worth it. And just because it never happened does not mean it cannot. Stranger things have happened in legal history. Right now you can argue either way, which is precisely the problem. You do not know which way a court would side. Now, I wish I could place the popular disclaimer that I am not a lawyer. I am not an attorney in the country I live in, but I am a lawyer, i.e. I have a degree in Law from world's oldest school ever to grant such a degree: The Gregorian University in Rome (technically part of the Vatican State). >Huh? What's to stop that same kid from writing a copycat program and >distributing it as Shareware, under other Freeware licensing, or even >putting it in public domain. Again, how does GNU directly affect this? The difference is that the same kid would be acting as an individual. He might be competing with a single program, not the whole system. He might be perceived as a nuisance at best but not a big enough threat to stop people from continuing innovation in software industry at large. GNU does directly affect this. They have a web site where they have clearly declared their ideology which states that anyone who does not release software under their terms is taking away their freedom. >Also, if it's easy to do, why can't another economically motivated >party redevelop your idea? Isn't that what Microsoft Windows did to >the Macintosh (after Apple took the idea from Xerox)? Last I checked, >Windows is not GNU. I did mention Microsoft as doing the same thing at the opposite extreme. One wrong does not justify another. GNU and MS are two sides of the same coin. >Anyone in creative circles must have a certain fear of that. Does the >musician live in fear that he's unconciously copying a song he heard >as a child? Again, this issue is not unique to GNU. It is completely different. GNU says you MAY copy but you MUST become one of them. "Resistence is futile, you will be assimilated." Besides, the music business has had court decisions. Their rules are clearly spelled out. Ours are all gray. >Actually this is not as much of a concern with software. An algorithm >cannot be copywritten, it has to be patented. If you look at GNU to >see how something works, then write your own implementation from >scratch using the same method, that is not (necesarily) a copyright >violation. Oh, I think advertising execs would disagree that an algorithm cannot be copywritten. :-) But I am going to assume you meant it could not be copyrighted. That, of course is true. You cannot copyright ideas, but you can copyright implementations of the ideas. And, how many ways can you write down "for (i = 0; i < MAX; i++)"? If you were to believe FSF claims, once you see that in GNU licensed code, you can never use it in your own programs unless you release it under GNU license. Seems absurd? Well, that's the whole point. GNU is absurd. >Did BSD invent all of these tools (well, maybe a few ;)? And again, >copycatting of these tools could and does exist without GNU (afterall, >what are FreeBSD tools but copycats or descendents of these same >things). They are not copycats. When BSD wrote an assembler (substitute any tool you want) for BSD, it was an original tool in that it was written for BSD. They wrote the tools for BSD because such tools did not exist for BSD. Yes, FreeBSD is a descendent of BSD. It is not a copycat. It was not written with the intent of throwing BSD out of business. The project was started to continue the work of BSD when BSD no longer continued their work. As far as I know, BSD (i.e., Berkeley Software Development, the group, not their code) does not even exist anymore. FreeBSD is not going against BSD, nor does it perceive BSD as the enemy of human freedom. Quite the contrary. FreeBSD continues the work started by BSD. It does not copy it, it enhances it. It evolves it. It modernizes it. Most importantly, FreeBSD has NEVER said: We are right and everyone else is wrong. FreeBSD does not say that everyone should switch to FreeBSD. FreeBSD does not say people should drive commercial developers out of business. And it certainly does not make the most absurd claim FSF keeps making, namely that programmers can earn their living by giving out all of their software away. Nor does it say everyone should stop using Windows or Linux (all that despite the fact there is one person in our midst who constantly gets into Jordan's hair for NOT doing that). >IMHO, GNU has a place in the world. I personally don't go to the >extreme that _all_ software should be GNU, but I do think that the >existence of GNU or a foundation actively trying to increase the pool >of GNU software is not evil. It's just another choice for people who >write programs. I never said GNU was evil. All I am saying is that just because Stallman is intelligent does not mean he automatically deserves our respect. I see his ideas as absurd, especially when the idea of society owning the fruit of everyone's labor has been proven wrong during the Communist "experiment." And I disagree that it is "just another choice." GNU has a clearly stated agenda, and it wants their choice to be the one and only choice. It has all elements of cult: a charismatic leader, an ideology, subtle brainwashing, and an us-versus-them mentality. And that is scary. Just my two nickels worth (statement adjusted for taxes and inflation). Adam --- Want to design your own web counter? Get GCL 2.10 from http://www.whizkidtech.net/gcl/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.6.32.19990513095905.00955e10>