Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 20:14:00 -0500 From: Joel Ray Holveck <joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: toor@dyson.iquest.net Cc: dyson@freebsd.org, cmott@srv.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702210114.UAA17911@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199702190322.WAA17162@dyson.iquest.net> (toor@dyson.iquest.net)
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>> For a user, the GPL is as much of a carte blanche as you want. You >> can use it, you can distribute it, you can sell it, whatever you want, >> just so long as it stays GPL'd. > But if you change the software one IOTA, you must make the > source of the changes available to those that you distribute binaries > to. This is correct. However, it also makes the assumption that distributing the source is harmful. This is where I disagree. Although distributed source does allow competitors to see what changes you have made, this allows them to improve, and to make further changes, which you will receive. Because NeXT based their Objective C on GCC, they were required to distribute the source. Steve Jobs did not want to do this, but the FSF would not allow him to violate the GPL in that manner. However, bugs in Objective C were found and fixed by its users. Optimizations were added. The compiler was a better compiler--and hence NeXT, based on Objective C, was a better system--than would have been possible had those changes been kept secret. By hoarding sources, limiting licenses, patenting techniques, and copyrighting interfaces, the entire industry suffers rather than profits. Had rms and the other hackers chosen to keep GCC secret, NeXT would have been forced to write their own compiler from scratch, costing a great deal of time and money. >>> The second (and more substantial) complaint, is that derived works >>> using GPLed code end up being encumbered by the terms of the GPL. >> 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. > What is wrong with the proprietary software people? Especially the > little guy just getting started with a good idea that the original > software author didn't have (or perhaps imagine?) The guy who adds > to the GPLed software needs to understand that his additions will > likely be encumbered, and perhaps question the value of the original (GPLed) > works relative to the value of his invention. Algorithms need not be kept secret to be profitable. Walnut Creek is making a pretty profit, and allowing all their sources to be availible for FTP. >>> The third (and yet more substantial) complaint, is that the original >>> author who releases code to the world under GPL, is also bound by the >>> GPL that is applied to the modifications of his original source code. >> This is misleading. > Actually, it is precisely correct. I said misleading, not incorrect. It doesn't take you down the wrong path, but it does point you in that direction. > The original author is bound by > the GPL applied to the derived works in the same way that those who > add to the original works are bound by his GPL encumberance. The author does not, in my mind, have the right to hold a monopoly on his program. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. >> An author can write code, release it under GPL, >> modify it, and release it non-GPL'd. (Example: ICS chess server) If >> somebody else writes modifications, and signs the copyright over to >> the original author (as most people do), then the author is still free >> to release it non-GPL'd. > So those people who write the enhancements would have fewer rights than the > original author? Legally, only if they give those rights up by signing them over to the author. Ethically, they are equal to the author---and this is why they have the right to the source. The author does not have any ethical right to force a monopoly. >>> The fourth (and the basis for the above points being of concern) complaint, >>> is that if you distribute binaries of a program under GPL, then you are >>> obligated to make sure that the receiver of your distribution is able >>> to get the source code of the program. >> Assuming that you don't mind giving out your source, this isn't a >> problem. > Agreed, and much of the time, source code can have cost either alot of money > to produce, or have unique and novel ideas that would be undesirable to > disclose. This is especially important for the small manufacturer, or large > company with paranoid (rightfully so) lawyers. By hoarding these ideas, the author is doing a great harm to society. In rms's paper, "Why Software Should Be Free" (availible in the Emacs distribution and installation as etc/copying.paper), rms hypothesizes about a society in which recipes were hoarded, and gives an example in which a diner is faced with a delicious recipe, but one which contains salt, which he is forbidden from eating. He is either required to pay an exhorbant amount of money and wait for two years to have the salt removed (since the chef has a monopoly), or to refrain from eating the meal altogether. > That is all and well, but the information in those sources is a combination > of both the GPLed original, and code that must necessarily come under the > GPL encumberance because of interface issues (per RMS.) This implies that > the payment for using GPLed code is to give away potentially valuable > trade secrets. These secrets only need be given away if you give away binaries. If you sell your binaries, the source must accompany them, but you have made your profit already. More importantly, these ideas need not be secret to be valuable. There is not a programmer alive who will question the value of linked lists, but these are not secret. In addition, because everybody has access to learn about linked lists, all of society can use them and write better programs. The only thing that hoarding algorithms accomplishes is to cripple other programmers, and this is when your business has gone from competition to combat. >>> With that, you will be divulging ideas that were potentially time consuming >>> (expensive) to create. You will then be compelled to give that hard fought >>> work to the person that you gave the binary to. >> That is the basis of the GPL. I work as a contract programmer on >> occasion. My customer asks me to write a program to help him track >> his oil production. (I live in West Texas, not Boston, despite my >> address.) I write that program. He now can track his oil. If his >> neighbor wants to keep track of oil, then my customer can give this to >> him. My efforts can help his neighbor as well, and it was good. This >> is the idea behind free software. > In the above case, GPL is not needed. If you wrote your program on a > PC clone or common U**X clone, then you can give your customer binary > redistribution rights. That is orthogonal to the source redistribution > requirements of GPL. However, the binaries may not be sufficient. If his friend lives in another state, then his laws and reports will vary slightly from the assumptions built into the program. He will be forced either to write a new program from scratch, or do without. Either way, the benefit that he could have gotten from society was lost. Several of our points of conflict in this matter center around differing goals and different presuppositions about the rights of users, etc. I have little else to say. If you have more to add, feel free, but I believe most of the group is beginning to tire of this. -- 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?199702210114.UAA17911>