I am currently using VaVoom (vavoom-engine.com) and
Edge (edge.sourceforge.net) to write a Doom-type game--
I am curious if there are any Doom game engines written
in either ANSI CL or IEEE Scheme.
Both of the games are written in C + ASM but I like how
Lisp handles better. Easier to extend, easier to add
a scripting language. (I have heard that some games
are written in Lisp, i.e. some Playstation games.)
I think it is much easier to write code in Lisp, and
some of the AI techniques I want to use are
more easily done in Lisp and/or Prolog.
I know some pretty fancy graphics tools have
been written in Lisp, S-World for example.
If no gaming engines are written in Lisp--how
hard would it be to translate the engine from
C to Lisp.
I am better at using Lisp, and I like that
interactive features of Lisp--you
can change one function at a time, and
you don't have to recompile the whole
engine.
Thanks for any help, not pointers I've
seen enough of them in C, you can
give me. :)
P.S.
If I can prove that it is easier to extend
the engine in Lisp; I might convince so
of the programmers on my team who
are sick of C-styled core dumps, and
memory leaks to give Lisp a chance.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> (I have heard that some games are written in Lisp, i.e. some
> Playstation games.)
Yes, one of the more recent CL success stories is NaughtyDog's "Jak
and Daxter". See for example:
<http://www.franz.com/success/customer_apps/animation_graphics/naughtydog.lhtml>
Regards
Henrik
I was also thinking about how Abuse used Lisp as a scripting language. I
could not find any info in Google about it, except that it exists. & I never
used Abuse (crack.com\abuse) -- if anyone used the Lisp scripting (Common
Lisp) language with it.
Or, the Game Object Assembly Lisp (Scheme) system that Naughty Dog used.
Could they tell me how powerful these languages are, and wether or not
they'd work with Edge, or VaVoom.
Is GOAL (Game Object Assembly Lisp) avail. either commerically or for
download? I know that Abuse written in C++ /w Lisp scripting lang. is avail.
for download; I just don't know: 1.) how powerful it is? 2.) if the game can
handle wad files. 3.) If the game can convert scripts from Edge or VaVoom in
its Lisp.
Thanks for any help you can offer me. :)
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com>
wrote in message ·······················@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
>
>
> Could they tell me how powerful these languages are, and wether or not
> they'd work with Edge, or VaVoom.
The APIs and functionality offered by each game engine are different
therefore you would have to modify the scripting language to support these
changes. I think in Lisp the term 'embedded language' is more fitting, as a
scripting language implies riding on top of an existing language, whereas
using Lisp you are able to mix the 'embedded' language with standard CL.
> I know that Abuse written in C++ /w Lisp scripting lang. is avail.
> for download; I just don't know: 1.) how powerful it is? 2.) if the game
can
> handle wad files. 3.) If the game can convert scripts from Edge or VaVoom
in
> its Lisp.
2) No. Abuse was a side-scroller in a similar vien to Contra and did not use
WAD files.
3) No. Abuse was released before Edge or VaVoom were even thought of. It's
like asking if C++ can convert COBOL or
Amiga Basic into C++ source. If you insist on going down this path then you
will have to:
a) get a copy of the Abuse source code.
b) pick your favourite LISP/Scheme environment and interface directly to the
Edge or Vavoom API using FFI (I'm unsure of the Scheme terminology).
c) modify the Abuse script to work with these new APIs on the implementation
you have chosen.
The problem is, as you already mentioned, that these engines already have a
scripting language (Lua is really hot for scripting game engines right now).
And the scripting language as implemented in these game engines is probably
not exported in such a way that you can use it from within another scripting
language. GOAL (Game Object Assembly Lisp) isn't going to work out of the
box with Edge or Vavoom either as it is designed to work with whatever
engine Naughty Dog uses.
I suggest starting with b) and then replace c) with an implementation of an
embedded langage of your own design using macros (you can look at Abuse,
Edge or Vavoom for ideas).
-Luke Crook
I might even try to get an opensource game API that has
C/C++ functions, and use the FFI interface in my Lisp
env. to create a Lisp interface to that API.
I think this would allow me to rapid prototype my game.
I think there was a free Game API written in C++ with
the Teach Your Self Game Programming Package avail.
at CompUSA.
I think I am going to write a wraper in either CLISP or
LispWorks to hook into that API.
Are there any issues in calling a C/C++ Library from Lisp
using FFI, or can I write a Lisp wrapper, and just start
using the C/C++ Library from Lisp just like it was a native
Lisp Library.
Anyone who has done a simular thing--what are the pitfalls?
which Lisp system has the most robust FFI? the easies FFI to
use?
If the program in being written in Multiple languages--does Lisp
have to be in charge? or do I need to make 2 exe files? or does
C++ need to be in charge?
Thank you.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote in message news:<·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>...
> I might even try to get an opensource game API that has
> C/C++ functions, and use the FFI interface in my Lisp
> env. to create a Lisp interface to that API.
>
> I think this would allow me to rapid prototype my game.
>
> I think there was a free Game API written in C++ with
> the Teach Your Self Game Programming Package avail.
> at CompUSA.
You may want to try Crystal Space (http://www.crystalspace.org). It's
written in C++, it is cross-platform and is under the LGPL licence.
> [SNIP]
>
> If the program in being written in Multiple languages--does Lisp
> have to be in charge? or do I need to make 2 exe files? or does
> C++ need to be in charge?
You don't need two or more executables for this. You can choose which
of the languages to be "in charge" depending on what makes more sence
for your project and it should be more like a state of mind than a
technical issue. E.g.
* Game, written in C/C++ with LISP/Scheme scripting; or
* A game, written in LISP/Scheme using a game library written in
C/C++.
HTH,
Ivan
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> I think I am going to write a wraper in either CLISP or
> LispWorks to hook into that API.
You might want to use UFFI, so that your wrapper works with multiple
Lisp implementations. CLISP doesn't currently seem to be supported,
thouhg.
> Are there any issues in calling a C/C++ Library from Lisp
> using FFI, or can I write a Lisp wrapper, and just start
> using the C/C++ Library from Lisp just like it was a native
> Lisp Library.
I doubt that you can use C++ libs directly with any FFI, you'll
probably have to have a "pure" C layer and interface with that.
Other than that, using foreign libraries in Lisp is quite
straightforward, except that you can't just fix things and go on in
the debugger, of course. I guess it can be less convenient if your C
lib insists on running it's own main loop.
Regards
Henrik
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote in message news:<·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>...
> Are there any issues in calling a C/C++ Library from Lisp
> using FFI, or can I write a Lisp wrapper, and just start
> using the C/C++ Library from Lisp just like it was a native
> Lisp Library.
There's lot of issues trying to call C++ from Lisp.
LispWorks used to have a C++ interfacing tool that used the MOP. No more.
ILOG Talk had a C++ interface, but it's dead now.
From: ····@sonic.net
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <3EC10AA1.CD566A37@sonic.net>
Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
>
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote in message news:<·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>...
>
> > Are there any issues in calling a C/C++ Library from Lisp
> > using FFI, or can I write a Lisp wrapper, and just start
> > using the C/C++ Library from Lisp just like it was a native
> > Lisp Library.
>
> There's lot of issues trying to call C++ from Lisp.
> LispWorks used to have a C++ interfacing tool that used the MOP. No more.
> ILOG Talk had a C++ interface, but it's dead now.
Interfaces to other languages are the single thing most
subject to "bit rot" in any language. There are just too
many dependencies between linkfile formats, calling conventions,
operating system conventions, stack discipline, register saving,
etc, etc, etc.... You can write finicky details like this, but
it always seems like three months or a year down the line
something somewhere is going to change and it'll stop working.
If you want to have a C++ interface, and you aren't getting
there by directly compiling your HLL into C++, you'll have to
be tinkering with it every time people come out with a new C++
compiler.
Bear
<····@sonic.net> wrote in message ······················@sonic.net...
> Fernando Mato Mira wrote:
> >
> > "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail .
com> wrote in message
news:<·················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>...
> >
> > > Are there any issues in calling a C/C++ Library from Lisp
> > > using FFI, or can I write a Lisp wrapper, and just start
> > > using the C/C++ Library from Lisp just like it was a native
> > > Lisp Library.
> >
> > There's lot of issues trying to call C++ from Lisp.
> > LispWorks used to have a C++ interfacing tool that used the MOP. No
more.
> > ILOG Talk had a C++ interface, but it's dead now.
>
> Interfaces to other languages are the single thing most
> subject to "bit rot" in any language. There are just too
> many dependencies between linkfile formats, calling conventions,
> operating system conventions, stack discipline, register saving,
> etc, etc, etc.... You can write finicky details like this, but
> it always seems like three months or a year down the line
> something somewhere is going to change and it'll stop working.
> If you want to have a C++ interface, and you aren't getting
> there by directly compiling your HLL into C++, you'll have to
> be tinkering with it every time people come out with a new C++
> compiler.
>
> Bear
Can't you just have something that works with say: VisualC/C++,
gcc,GNU C/C++,Borland C/C++,etc.--and run your libraries from those
environments.
I'd use what ever C/C++ I needed to be able to call the librarys from
Lisp.
Including writting wrapers in C++, and using FFI to interface with
the wrappers.
I just want the Interactive Lisp Env., and all the Tools that Lisp offers:
dynamic run-time typechecking, rapid prototyping, metering, the ability to
recompile functions while the program is running, etc.
C++/Java seem to lack the Interactive Listener--I just don't want to wait
until the C++/Java world catches up, I want to start coding today.
Thanks.
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <ey34r3ylun9.fsf@cley.com>
* bear wrote:
> Interfaces to other languages are the single thing most
> subject to "bit rot" in any language. There are just too
> many dependencies between linkfile formats, calling conventions,
> operating system conventions, stack discipline, register saving,
> etc, etc, etc....
The standard solution to this is a common, standard, glue format, to
which everyone interfaces. The problem is that this format tends to
be an LCD format, but that's mostly livable-with. CORBA is a good
example, I guess.
--tim
····@sonic.net writes:
> Interfaces to other languages are the single thing most subject to "bit rot"
> in any language. There are just too many dependencies between linkfile
> formats, calling conventions, operating system conventions, stack
> discipline, register saving, etc, etc, etc.... You can write finicky
> details like this, but it always seems like three months or a year down the
> line something somewhere is going to change and it'll stop working. If you
> want to have a C++ interface, and you aren't getting there by directly
> compiling your HLL into C++, you'll have to be tinkering with it every time
> people come out with a new C++ compiler.
The trick is not to interface using C++, but use something more portable. In
the case of C++, that would be extern "C".
It's not perfect, but it's a lot better than relying on a particular
compiler's mangling conventions, calling conventions, etc.
You then route all Lisp<-->C++ communications via this lowest common
demoninator interface.
It does mean that fancy-smancy high level objects cannot be between the two
universes, but it is risky to do that anyway.
--
Cheers, The Rhythm is around me,
The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak The Rhythm is inside me,
········@STRIPCAPStelus.net The Rhythm has my soul.
Ray Blaak <········@STRIPCAPStelus.net> wrote in message news:<·············@STRIPCAPStelus.net>...
> ····@sonic.net writes:
> > Interfaces to other languages are the single thing most subject to "bit rot"
> > in any language. There are just too many dependencies between linkfile
> > formats, calling conventions, operating system conventions, stack
> > discipline, register saving, etc, etc, etc.... You can write finicky
> > details like this, but it always seems like three months or a year down the
> > line something somewhere is going to change and it'll stop working. If you
> > want to have a C++ interface, and you aren't getting there by directly
> > compiling your HLL into C++, you'll have to be tinkering with it every time
> > people come out with a new C++ compiler.
>
> The trick is not to interface using C++, but use something more portable. In
> the case of C++, that would be extern "C".
That is not a solution when you have to rely heavily on a big C++
library. It's just another reason for Lisp not to get used.
I bought both LispWorks and ILOG Talk because of this feature. When
Harlequin dropped it, I dropped LispWorks for ILOG Talk in the
following project, which was also C++ centric, not just heavily
reliant on C++.
With LispWorks, you could derive Lisp classes from C++ classes! (not
visible to C++, of course)
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3adds5xtc.fsf@cley.com>
* Franz Kafka wrote:
> Is GOAL (Game Object Assembly Lisp) avail. either commerically or
> for download?
I imagine that Naughty Dog aren't about to give away, or sell, the
tool that lets them write better games, faster, than other people.
(Actually, I don't think, Jak & Daxter is as good as Ratchet & Clank,
but it's pretty good).
--t
I think the bigger problem to getting one's grubby paws on GOAL would
be the fact that Naughty Dog are owned by Sony*. I hear that Andy Gavin
has been complaining that he can't find good Lisp programmers, which
leads me to think that their Lisp codebase wouldn't depreciate much in
value to them if they decided to release it (hell, that might even
help attract those mysteriously reclusive Lisp programmers everyone
seems to have trouble finding).
* - At least that's the impression I got from this interview.
http://www.gamespy.com/interviews/march03/jak2/
"Vladimir S." <·······@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wrote in message
···················@shawnews.cg.shawcable.net...
>
> I think the bigger problem to getting one's grubby paws on GOAL would
> be the fact that Naughty Dog are owned by Sony*. I hear that Andy Gavin
> has been complaining that he can't find good Lisp programmers, which
> leads me to think that their Lisp codebase wouldn't depreciate much in
> value to them if they decided to release it (hell, that might even
> help attract those mysteriously reclusive Lisp programmers everyone
> seems to have trouble finding).
Actually what will probably happen is that an exec at Sony will hear about
this, then freak out about how a system so important could have been written
in such an "obscure / dated /old fashioned" language, and order the whole
thing to be ported to C++. That's what happens when you can't find good
programmers in a specific language - it gets re-implemented in another
language to lower the percieved risk to the company.
Of course, what is his definition of a 'good' lisp programmer. I mean, they
might want one Lisper to handle the entire GOAL system, whereas if it had
been written in C/C++ they may have a lower definition of "good" and require
5 guys.
Seriously. Is 'good' in C++ or Java the same as 'good' in Lisp ?
-Luke
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail .
com> wrote...
>
> If I can prove that it is easier to extend
> the engine in Lisp; I might convince so
> of the programmers on my team who
> are sick of C-styled core dumps, and
> memory leaks to give Lisp a chance.
>
You could write a wrapper for the game engine api/scripting facility
really easy in Guile. I'm using Guile myself for a simple tile-based
game engine, and yet it works far better than Lua did. (For instance
Guile doesn't have that silly stack thing between the engine and the
library.)
-toki
"Johan Persson" <··········@fish.co.jp> wrote in message
·································@posting.google.com...
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail .
> com> wrote...
> >
> > If I can prove that it is easier to extend
> > the engine in Lisp; I might convince so
> > of the programmers on my team who
> > are sick of C-styled core dumps, and
> > memory leaks to give Lisp a chance.
> >
> You could write a wrapper for the game engine api/scripting facility
> really easy in Guile. I'm using Guile myself for a simple tile-based
> game engine, and yet it works far better than Lua did. (For instance
> Guile doesn't have that silly stack thing between the engine and the
> library.)
>
> -toki
Is it avail. for down load, so I can get some ideas about how to use FFI to
interface with an API. I know ANSI CL, but don't know FFI, or
graphics--what graphics does Guile come with--OpenGL, Direct3d.
Thanks.
franz
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote in message news:<··················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>...
> > >
> > > If I can prove that it is easier to extend
> > > the engine in Lisp; I might convince so
> > > of the programmers on my team who
> > > are sick of C-styled core dumps, and
> > > memory leaks to give Lisp a chance.
> > >
> > You could write a wrapper for the game engine api/scripting facility
> > really easy in Guile. I'm using Guile myself for a simple tile-based
> > game engine, and yet it works far better than Lua did. (For instance
> > Guile doesn't have that silly stack thing between the engine and the
> > library.)
> >
> > -toki
>
> Is it avail. for down load, so I can get some ideas about how to use FFI to
> interface with an API. I know ANSI CL, but don't know FFI, or
> graphics--what graphics does Guile come with--OpenGL, Direct3d.
>
> Thanks.
>
> franz
Try http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html
There are a primitive Simple Direct Media Layer
(http://www.libsdl.org/) wrapper aviable for download from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/guile-sdl who support OpenGL.
-toki
From: David Steuber
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <87ptmorfw3.fsf@verizon.net>
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
[Guile]
> Is it avail. for down load, so I can get some ideas about how to use FFI to
> interface with an API. I know ANSI CL, but don't know FFI, or
> graphics--what graphics does Guile come with--OpenGL, Direct3d.
Guile is GNU. It is free. Here is the description Debian gives it:
Description: The GNU extension language and Scheme interpreter
Guile is a Scheme implementation designed for real world programming,
providing a rich Unix interface, a module system, an interpreter, and
many extension languages. Guile can be used as a standard #! style
interpreter, via #!/usr/bin/guile, or as an extension language for
other applications via libguile.
--
(describe 'describe)
David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> writes:
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
>
> [Guile]
> > Is it avail. for down load, so I can get some ideas about how to use FFI to
> > interface with an API. I know ANSI CL, but don't know FFI, or
> > graphics--what graphics does Guile come with--OpenGL, Direct3d.
>
> Guile is GNU. It is free. Here is the description Debian gives it:
It is not free, you just do not have to pay for it. There are other
encumbrances attached by using gpl/lgpl that are developer hostile.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> writes:
>> Guile is GNU. It is free. Here is the description Debian gives it:
> It is not free, you just do not have to pay for it. There are other
> encumbrances attached by using gpl/lgpl that are developer hostile.
Please do not make wild assertions without any evidence for them.
Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to run,
study, modify and redistribute the software. That is developer-friendly,
because it allows any developers to actually work on the code. While
Guile is available without cost as well, it is possible to sell it if
you can find a buyer: nothing in the LGPL prevents you selling it.
MJR
MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> writes:
> >> Guile is GNU. It is free. Here is the description Debian gives it:
> > It is not free, you just do not have to pay for it. There are other
> > encumbrances attached by using gpl/lgpl that are developer hostile.
>
> Please do not make wild assertions without any evidence for them.
OK here is an example, if I use a gpled library in an application
and distribute it the people who use it can demand my source code.
This is not free for any definition of free that I have read in a
dictionary. The definition that you were using for free in the the
above post was "with out cost" and cost is not only monetary you can
also incur a serious cost in the loss of rights to your work that the
gpl imposes on you.
>
> Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to run,
> study, modify and redistribute the software. That is developer-friendly,
But not the "freedom" to own your own work, if it touches any gpled
work.
> because it allows any developers to actually work on the code. While
> Guile is available without cost as well, it is possible to sell it if
> you can find a buyer: nothing in the LGPL prevents you selling it.
Well guile is licensed under the gpl not lgpl. Now with that said
there is nothing in the gpl that prohibits you from selling binaries,
the problem is that you loose all rights to keep your work as private
property once you do distribute a binary out side of your organization
(yourself and/or your company/employer).
So if your work(time) is of no value then you are right the gpl is free
because to surrender your work costs you nothing.
marc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
[snipped, not repling to hot issues]
> > because it allows any developers to actually work on the code. While
> > Guile is available without cost as well, it is possible to sell it if
> > you can find a buyer: nothing in the LGPL prevents you selling it.
>
> Well guile is licensed under the gpl not lgpl. Now with that said
> there is nothing in the gpl that prohibits you from selling binaries,
> the problem is that you loose all rights to keep your work as private
> property once you do distribute a binary out side of your organization
> (yourself and/or your company/employer).
[snipped, not repling to hot issues]
Read the other followups, Guile is not fully GPL, it has a clause that
permits you to link it to your program and distribute it without the
sources; read the README and COPYING files that come with the Guile
sources for more detailed informations.
However, the GPL guarantee that the code that the author writes is
free for everyone, and that nobody will take that freedom away from
other users. More informations on the GNU site (www.gnu.org).
So if you are writing a non-free program, you are right to not want to
use GPL code in it, as doing that is against the GPL code authors
wishes, and you will have to distribute your sources, as you stated
before.
- --
Marco Parrone - ·····@autistici.org
www.autistici.org/marc0
2143 9E77 D5E6 115A 48AD A170 D0EE F736 (4E88 99C2)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD4DBQE+v9mQ0O73Nk6ImcIRAoPwAJiJN+JcRIRnFQAugzzChhnNz7ZVAKDCpyfv
1XW15OznhlbZpjUGgTd7zA==
=aavK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marco Parrone <·····@autistici.org> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> [snipped, not repling to hot issues]
> > > because it allows any developers to actually work on the code. While
> > > Guile is available without cost as well, it is possible to sell it if
> > > you can find a buyer: nothing in the LGPL prevents you selling it.
> >
> > Well guile is licensed under the gpl not lgpl. Now with that said
> > there is nothing in the gpl that prohibits you from selling binaries,
> > the problem is that you loose all rights to keep your work as private
> > property once you do distribute a binary out side of your organization
> > (yourself and/or your company/employer).
> [snipped, not repling to hot issues]
Why not?
>
> Read the other followups, Guile is not fully GPL, it has a clause that
> permits you to link it to your program and distribute it without the
> sources; read the README and COPYING files that come with the Guile
> sources for more detailed informations.
Here is what the gnu says about guile in their software directory:
http://www.gnu.org/directory/guile.html
Version 1.6.4 (stable) released on 2003-04-29
Licensed under GPL. This is a GNU package.
That is gpl enough for me, please post specific if this is not
accurate.
>
> However, the GPL guarantee that the code that the author writes is
> free for everyone, and that nobody will take that freedom away from
> other users. More informations on the GNU site (www.gnu.org).
No it does not, public domain does that and for countries where
there is no public domain the BSD or MIT/X licenses are damn close.
What the gpl does is put forth a political agenda. It also is designed
with the assumption that the vast majority of people are shit and will
steal whatever they can so they must be compelled to "do the right thing".
For some historic perspective, I remember when the fsf was claiming the
output of bison and flex were under the gpl, if I remember correctly
they also attempted to do this with gcc( all your source is mine).
This was quickly stooped because of industry backlash, get this out of
my shop said management and stop buying their tapes/cds/books. The
lgpl came about for the same reason, gpled code was too dangerous to
use so many companies just baned it.
>
> So if you are writing a non-free program, you are right to not want to
> use GPL code in it, as doing that is against the GPL code authors
> wishes, and you will have to distribute your sources, as you stated
> before.
If you are writing free software you still may want to avoid it
because of the clauses that make you keep a source code archive
around for X number of years after you stop distributing it.
marc
Marco Parrone <·····@autistici.org> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Marco Parrone <·····@autistici.org> writes:
> >
> > > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > >
> > > [snipped, not repling to hot issues]
> > > > > because it allows any developers to actually work on the code. While
> > > > > Guile is available without cost as well, it is possible to sell it if
> > > > > you can find a buyer: nothing in the LGPL prevents you selling it.
> > > >
> > > > Well guile is licensed under the gpl not lgpl. Now with that said
> > > > there is nothing in the gpl that prohibits you from selling binaries,
> > > > the problem is that you loose all rights to keep your work as private
> > > > property once you do distribute a binary out side of your organization
> > > > (yourself and/or your company/employer).
> > > [snipped, not repling to hot issues]
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Because we are OT, and we should stop before peoples starts
> complaining, but hot issues will take more messages.
>
> You were complaining that the GPL limits your freedom, but the GPL is
> meant to protect the freedom of the community, not some individual
> freedoms, and so it is less idealist then the Public Domain or
The only freedoms I am aware of are individual freedoms, the 'peoples'
collective freedom is flawed thinking. There is no such thing as a
group rights, only the individuals rights.
> BSD-like, but it is effective to promote the free software over the
> non-free one, providing the mankind with a useful step forward in
> direction of a better free world.
Ah the agenda comes out. A nice group hug communist/socialist argument,
it is a pity that the theory has been put into practice and found to
be flawed. But the funny thing is that capitalism is still going strong.
Also why do you assume that people will not give of their own free will?
*BSD is going strong as is cmucl.
>
> Public Domain and BSD-style software has some big disavantages in the
> fight versus non-free software, as the non-free software can include
> the results of the free software hackers efforts, but it's not true
> for the opposite.
When did you get in a fight? I use cmucl that does not mean I am
planning the great war to destroy Franz, I currently just do not
need the features they offer so why pay for it.
>
> With the GPL the free software developers can build their own
> advantages, making useful libraries only avaiable for free software,
> and so the free software as a whole has more possibilities to obsolete
> the non-free software.
gpled software is not free, look up free in a real dictionary and find
the definition of free that RMS uses for his and you use for your
definition of free(it is not there).
>
> More and better informations in the philosophy section of the GNU
> website.
The definition of free is not defined by the fsf.
>
> > > Read the other followups, Guile is not fully GPL, it has a clause that
> > > permits you to link it to your program and distribute it without the
> > > sources; read the README and COPYING files that come with the Guile
> > > sources for more detailed informations.
> >
> > Here is what the gnu says about guile in their software directory:
> >
> > http://www.gnu.org/directory/guile.html
> >
> >
> > Version 1.6.4 (stable) released on 2003-04-29
> > Licensed under GPL. This is a GNU package.
> >
> > That is gpl enough for me, please post specific if this is not
> > accurate.
>
> It is not accurate to say that it is under the GPL, but it's not
> completely wrong.
Then why do they claim it for the gpl?
>
> This is a piece of the README file that comes with the sources, what
> count are the terms written on each source file, not what written
> in the GFSD (g.o/directory):
>
> [README...]
> Guile License ==================================================
>
> The license of Guile consists of the GNU GPL plus a special statement
> giving blanket permission to link with non-free software. This is the
> license statement as found in any individual file that it applies to:
>
> This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option)
> any later version.
>
> This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
> but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
> MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
> GNU General Public License for more details.
>
> You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
> along with this software; see the file COPYING. If not, write to
> the Free Software Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330,
> Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
>
> As a special exception, the Free Software Foundation gives permission
> for additional uses of the text contained in its release of GUILE.
>
> The exception is that, if you link the GUILE library with other files
> to produce an executable, this does not by itself cause the
> resulting executable to be covered by the GNU General Public License.
> Your use of that executable is in no way restricted on account of
> linking the GUILE library code into it.
>
> This exception does not however invalidate any other reasons why
> the executable file might be covered by the GNU General Public License.
>
> This exception applies only to the code released by the
> Free Software Foundation under the name GUILE. If you copy
> code from other Free Software Foundation releases into a copy of
> GUILE, as the General Public License permits, the exception does
> not apply to the code that you add in this way. To avoid misleading
> anyone as to the status of such modified files, you must delete
> this exception notice from them.
>
> If you write modifications of your own for GUILE, it is your choice
> whether to permit this exception to apply to your modifications.
> If you do not wish that, delete this exception notice.
> [...End of README]
>
> > > However, the GPL guarantee that the code that the author writes is
> > > free for everyone, and that nobody will take that freedom away from
> > > other users. More informations on the GNU site (www.gnu.org).
> >
> > No it does not, public domain does that and for countries where
> > there is no public domain the BSD or MIT/X licenses are damn close.
>
> No, public domain an BSD-like licenses do not guarantee that the
> software is free for everyone, for example I can get the sources and
> give to another person only the binaries, so I can take the initial
> freedom away from that person.
The BSD license does guarantee free source of the work released
under the license from the original source for as long as they
want to keep it available. Furthermore it allows you to keep
your improvements confidential when you release a derived work,
this is good. One of the reasons this is good is because it is
then my choice weather or not to release the source of my stuff,
I own it. And this is not the case in glped software.
>
> Or I can write a great improvement to the software, forking it and
> distributing only the binaries, making who don't think of free in term
> of freedom but in terms on money to use the my non-free fork,
> "stealing" users from the free sofware, and I have an advantage doing
> so, as I can include the free software code, but the free software can
> not include my non-free code. Now the users of the non-free fork have
> not the freedom to modify and fork the non-free fork, freedom that was
> fundamental for the birth of the non-free fork.
You are not being particularly clear in your thoughts or they are
just not translating well to words. You are saying in the above paragraph
the following, near as I can tell:
1: you make a major improvement in a package released under a BSD
license
ok
2: you decide to sell it, to recoup your costs and put some money in
the bank.
fine
3: this is bad
you lost me here
4: without the gpl you would not release any of the code, because
you were not forced to do so
its your choice
5: Your clients are some disadvantaged because they do not have
the source
They will just want the library to work as advertised, they paid
money so that they could make more money.
>
> > What the gpl does is put forth a political agenda. It also is designed
> > with the assumption that the vast majority of people are shit and will
> > steal whatever they can so they must be compelled to "do the right thing".
>
> What happened with Unix? And with X11?
still going strong, BSD and XFree86
>
> How many proprietary versions are outthere of these?
Who cares?
>
> How much ex-free code there is in these versions?
Who cares and the free code is still free code
>
> And with Darwin what happened?
They released it under their terms as they are allowed to
>
> Apple licensed this under its (non-free) APSL license, but it used BSD
> parts if I'm not wrong. So that code was free, now is non-free.
Well I have seen packages released into the public domain(free)
that were contaminated by a bunch of gpled patches so now the
package is not free it is gpled(aka non-free)
>
> Why Wine (www.winehq.org) is now GPL and not X11?
>
> Because other forks were using its X11 licensed code, but putted their
> own extensions under non-free licensed, stealing so users to Wine,
> that was in disavantage and in the impossibility to become better of
> the non-free competitors.
And how is this bad? The end user had a better product and it did
not in any way shape or form stop wine from adding the improvements
also.
>
> Using the GPL Free Software can win over non-free software, as the
> free software developers can have less disavantages.
Again you are in a fight
>
> The fact that Microsoft hates the GPL but not the BSDs shows clearly
> what is the better way to go if you want Free Software to become the
> best and more-widely-used software.
Great now it is a religious argument and a bad one. Ohh the great
Satan microsoft.
>
> > For some historic perspective, I remember when the fsf was claiming the
> > output of bison and flex were under the gpl, if I remember correctly
> > they also attempted to do this with gcc( all your source is mine).
> > This was quickly stooped because of industry backlash, get this out of
> > my shop said management and stop buying their tapes/cds/books. The
> > lgpl came about for the same reason, gpled code was too dangerous to
> > use so many companies just baned it.
>
> That is a thing that I like of the FSF: it has a clear target, to make
> the Free Software win over the non-free software, obsoleting it and
> making the Free Software wide spread, this will be a step forward for
> the mankind.
How? Socialism/communism does not work. Why should I work hard for
your benefit and not mine? This just does not make sense.
I have 2 questions for you:
1: how old are you?
2: who pays your rent/bills?
The reason is that you sound like a young person who has not been out
in the world for long and who does not yet pay their own way.
marc
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3of27isyq.fsf@cley.com>
* Marc Spitzer wrote:
> Ah the agenda comes out. A nice group hug communist/socialist
> argument, it is a pity that the theory has been put into practice
> and found to be flawed. But the funny thing is that capitalism is
> still going strong. Also why do you assume that people will not
> give of their own free will? *BSD is going strong as is cmucl.
While I completely agree with most of what you are saying, wouldn't it
be better to not have this argument? Arguing with free software
cultists is, well, arguing with people who have very strong and
extreme religious beliefs: you won't get anywhere, because the part of
their brains that deals with rational thought has just been hacked out
off, and replaced with ideology. Nothing you say will even impinge on
their consciousness, so really you're better off just not speaking, I
think.
--tim
"Tim Bradshaw" <···@cley.com> wrote in message
····················@cley.com...
> * Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > Ah the agenda comes out. A nice group hug communist/socialist
> > argument, it is a pity that the theory has been put into practice
> > and found to be flawed. But the funny thing is that capitalism is
> > still going strong. Also why do you assume that people will not
> > give of their own free will? *BSD is going strong as is cmucl.
>
> While I completely agree with most of what you are saying, wouldn't it
> be better to not have this argument?
It's like Commodore 64 vs Spectrum 48K all over again.
Dammit, those were the days.
-Luke
Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer wrote:
> > Ah the agenda comes out. A nice group hug communist/socialist
> > argument, it is a pity that the theory has been put into practice
> > and found to be flawed. But the funny thing is that capitalism is
> > still going strong. Also why do you assume that people will not
> > give of their own free will? *BSD is going strong as is cmucl.
>
> While I completely agree with most of what you are saying, wouldn't it
> be better to not have this argument? Arguing with free software
> cultists is, well, arguing with people who have very strong and
> extreme religious beliefs: you won't get anywhere, because the part of
> their brains that deals with rational thought has just been hacked out
> off, and replaced with ideology. Nothing you say will even impinge on
> their consciousness, so really you're better off just not speaking, I
> think.
I am not trying to argue with the faithful here. The problem is
that the faithful say things that just are not true and need to
be corrected because other people who do do not know better may
be burned by trusting their statements.
Well that's a pompous paragraph,
marc
From: Tim Bradshaw
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <ey3fznhraql.fsf@cley.com>
* Marc Spitzer wrote:
> I am not trying to argue with the faithful here. The problem is
> that the faithful say things that just are not true and need to
> be corrected because other people who do do not know better may
> be burned by trusting their statements.
That's a reasonable approach, but I think a better solution is to do
some out-of-band thing - like a web page or something, perhaps (loath
though I am to suggest a web page for anything...), as simply replying
to them will cause them to go into full burn-the-heretic mode,
resulting in, well, what we're seeing.
Of course, I'm a guilty of this as anyone (though I only recently
realised that the free-x movement had become a religion).
--tim
In comp.lang.scheme Tim Bradshaw <···@cley.com> wrote:
> * Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> Ah the agenda comes out. A nice group hug communist/socialist
>> argument, it is a pity that the theory has been put into practice
>> and found to be flawed. But the funny thing is that capitalism is
>> still going strong. Also why do you assume that people will not
>> give of their own free will? *BSD is going strong as is cmucl.
>
> While I completely agree with most of what you are saying, wouldn't it
> be better to not have this argument? Arguing with free software
> cultists is, well, arguing with people who have very strong and
> extreme religious beliefs: you won't get anywhere, because the part of
> their brains that deals with rational thought has just been hacked out
> off, and replaced with ideology. Nothing you say will even impinge on
> their consciousness, so really you're better off just not speaking, I
> think.
The problem I see with never contradicting their claims is that just as
people advocating - well, just about anything - if left to their own
devices, it will get to a point where it will become impossible to voice
it after a time. I want to retain my freedom to think differently than them
and be able to freely choose the licence I want for my own code.
>
> --tim
>
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Tim Bradshaw wrote:
> While I completely agree with most of what you are saying, wouldn't it
> be better to not have this argument? Arguing with free software
> cultists is, well, arguing with people who have very strong and
> extreme religious beliefs: you won't get anywhere, because the part of
> their brains that deals with rational thought has just been hacked out
> off, and replaced with ideology. Nothing you say will even impinge on
> their consciousness, so really you're better off just not speaking, I
> think.
I think you are describing both sides here.
If they refuse to agree with you and you refuse to agree with them then
there is no essential difference is there? You can say the above to win
the argument of course :) I am just saying that their thought process
is not necessarily different from yours (rational vs. zealot). As I see
it both sides are as bad (or good) as eachother.
Isn't it amazing how I managed to say that you are wrong while staying
completely neutral? :)
--
Thomas.
"What is the future c existence which does not do in all languages"
From: Marco Parrone
Subject: BSD/GPL/non-free issues (was Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???)
Date:
Message-ID: <877k8uhlza.fsf_-_@marc0host.dyndns.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > You were complaining that the GPL limits your freedom, but the GPL is
> > meant to protect the freedom of the community, not some individual
> > freedoms, and so it is less idealist then the Public Domain or
>
> The only freedoms I am aware of are individual freedoms, the 'peoples'
> collective freedom is flawed thinking. There is no such thing as a
> group rights, only the individuals rights.
I wrote not about rights, but about freedoms.
There are things that protect the community freedom, like the GPL, and
things that give a lot of individual freedom, like the Public Domain
or BSD.
Then, how individual freedoms are used is different in different cases.
> > BSD-like, but it is effective to promote the free software over the
> > non-free one, providing the mankind with a useful step forward in
> > direction of a better free world.
>
> Ah the agenda comes out. A nice group hug communist/socialist argument,
This is not necessarely a communist/socialist argument, it can fit in
an Anarchist model or in a liberal model.
> it is a pity that the theory has been put into practice and found to
> be flawed.
There are very different forms of communism, not only the statal one.
> But the funny thing is that capitalism is still going strong.
Yes, with what price? Wars, repression, mass poverty, huge differences
between peoples conditions, very very rich ones and others in
starvation conditions, pollution, injustices, and so on.
Some peoples think that it is collapsing, so there is still hope.
> Also why do you assume that people will not give of their own free will?
> *BSD is going strong as is cmucl.
I made some examples: some Unices, some X forks, some Wine forks,
Darwin.
> > Public Domain and BSD-style software has some big disavantages in the
> > fight versus non-free software, as the non-free software can include
> > the results of the free software hackers efforts, but it's not true
> > for the opposite.
>
> When did you get in a fight? I use cmucl that does not mean I am
> planning the great war to destroy Franz, I currently just do not
> need the features they offer so why pay for it.
I'm writing about "Free Software Versus Non-Free Software".
I'm not saying that everyone is involved in this, but some free
software authors are.
> > With the GPL the free software developers can build their own
> > advantages, making useful libraries only avaiable for free software,
> > and so the free software as a whole has more possibilities to obsolete
> > the non-free software.
>
> gpled software is not free, look up free in a real dictionary and find
> the definition of free that RMS uses for his and you use for your
> definition of free(it is not there).
GPL software is free, its restrictions are meant to make it remain free.
> > More and better informations in the philosophy section of the GNU
> > website.
>
> The definition of free is not defined by the fsf.
I meant to see that section to read the reasons because the GPL is how
it is and its strategy for making free software to remain free.
> > It is not accurate to say that it is under the GPL, but it's not
> > completely wrong.
>
> Then why do they claim it for the gpl?
I don't know, it can be a mistake, or not, you can ask them.
> > > > However, the GPL guarantee that the code that the author writes is
> > > > free for everyone, and that nobody will take that freedom away from
> > > > other users. More informations on the GNU site (www.gnu.org).
> > >
> > > No it does not, public domain does that and for countries where
> > > there is no public domain the BSD or MIT/X licenses are damn close.
> >
> > No, public domain an BSD-like licenses do not guarantee that the
> > software is free for everyone, for example I can get the sources and
> > give to another person only the binaries, so I can take the initial
> > freedom away from that person.
>
> The BSD license does guarantee free source of the work released
> under the license from the original source for as long as they
> want to keep it available.
Exactly, this does not mean that the software is free for everyone.
> Furthermore it allows you to keep your improvements confidential
> when you release a derived work, this is good.
This is good for you, the derived work developer, but it is bad for
the software, for the original authors, for the users, for the other
developers that can not use your work as you used other's work, this
is bad for everyone but the derived work developer, with a little
angle of view, but it is bad for him too if you see this in social
context: if all the developers will fork and close, then there will be
no more free software.
> One of the reasons this is good is because it is then my choice
> weather or not to release the source of my stuff, I own it. And
> this is not the case in glped software.
If you use other's code, then ther results in not 100% your, so you
have to respect their wills.
> > Or I can write a great improvement to the software, forking it and
> > distributing only the binaries, making who don't think of free in term
> > of freedom but in terms on money to use the my non-free fork,
> > "stealing" users from the free sofware, and I have an advantage doing
> > so, as I can include the free software code, but the free software can
> > not include my non-free code. Now the users of the non-free fork have
> > not the freedom to modify and fork the non-free fork, freedom that was
> > fundamental for the birth of the non-free fork.
>
> You are not being particularly clear in your thoughts or they are
> just not translating well to words. You are saying in the above paragraph
> the following, near as I can tell:
>
> 1: you make a major improvement in a package released under a BSD
> license
>
> ok
>
> 2: you decide to sell it, to recoup your costs and put some money in
> the bank.
>
> fine
>
> 3: this is bad
>
> you lost me here
No, I'm not saying making money is bad, everyone (ehm, most peoples)
needs money these days, the bad thig is that you will damage the
community closing the sources, as
a) your code does not enrich the community code base
b) other peoples will think: why should I write free software to make
others make money?
c) others will follow your example
> 4: without the gpl you would not release any of the code, because
> you were not forced to do so
>
> its your choice
Side note: the subject "I" was an example, replace it with "someone".
If someone does not release its code, then it taked the advantages of
having free software avaiable, but had not gived anything back, and
this is bad for the free software community.
> 5: Your clients are some disadvantaged because they do not have
> the source
>
> They will just want the library to work as advertised, they paid
> money so that they could make more money.
The problem becomes not only of your clients, but will have some
impact in a greater scale, because non-free software makes the life
hard to free software, or free software makes life easier to free
software, read it as you want.
For example, if most peoples use some free OSes, then HW verdors will
likely give away free drivers, else they will write drivers for the
other N more popular non-free OSes and stop.
> > > What the gpl does is put forth a political agenda. It also is designed
> > > with the assumption that the vast majority of people are shit and will
> > > steal whatever they can so they must be compelled to "do the right thing".
> >
> > What happened with Unix? And with X11?
>
> still going strong, BSD and XFree86
>
> >
> > How many proprietary versions are outthere of these?
>
> Who cares?
1. If they were GPL, then there will be more likely that nobody made a
non-free fork, and someone else contributed to the free software (in
this case BSD and X), and that more peoples used the free software (in
this case BSD and X).
> > How much ex-free code there is in these versions?
>
> Who cares and the free code is still free code
[See 1]
> > And with Darwin what happened?
>
> They released it under their terms as they are allowed to
I said not that they were not allowed, but that allowing them was
likely bad for the free software [See 1].
> > Apple licensed this under its (non-free) APSL license, but it used BSD
> > parts if I'm not wrong. So that code was free, now is non-free.
>
> Well I have seen packages released into the public domain(free)
> that were contaminated by a bunch of gpled patches so now the
> package is not free it is gpled(aka non-free)
Who sent the GPL patches likely do this to make sure their effort will
help the free software, and not used against it.
> > Why Wine (www.winehq.org) is now GPL and not X11?
> >
> > Because other forks were using its X11 licensed code, but putted their
> > own extensions under non-free licensed, stealing so users to Wine,
> > that was in disavantage and in the impossibility to become better of
> > the non-free competitors.
>
> And how is this bad? The end user had a better product and it did
> not in any way shape or form stop wine from adding the improvements
> also.
[See 1]
> > Using the GPL Free Software can win over non-free software, as the
> > free software developers can have less disavantages.
>
> Again you are in a fight
Exactly.
> > The fact that Microsoft hates the GPL but not the BSDs shows clearly
> > what is the better way to go if you want Free Software to become the
> > best and more-widely-used software.
>
> Great now it is a religious argument and a bad one. Ohh the great
> Satan microsoft.
[kill&yank from the my other post...]
I wrote about MS for no other reason that it is known to me
too that they hate the GPL and not the BSD, I don't think that Apple
or other non-free OS vendors are better then MS, they have different
targets then the FSF, their main target is surely not to spread the
free software.
The subject was not how to obsolete MS software, but how to obsolete
non-free software (MS, Apple, Sun, IBM or whatever non-free).
[end of k&y]
> > > For some historic perspective, I remember when the fsf was claiming the
> > > output of bison and flex were under the gpl, if I remember correctly
> > > they also attempted to do this with gcc( all your source is mine).
> > > This was quickly stooped because of industry backlash, get this out of
> > > my shop said management and stop buying their tapes/cds/books. The
> > > lgpl came about for the same reason, gpled code was too dangerous to
> > > use so many companies just baned it.
> >
> > That is a thing that I like of the FSF: it has a clear target, to make
> > the Free Software win over the non-free software, obsoleting it and
> > making the Free Software wide spread, this will be a step forward for
> > the mankind.
>
> How? Socialism/communism does not work. Why should I work hard for
> your benefit and not mine? This just does not make sense.
You have not to interpret this as communist, or socialist, or
Anarchist, this fits well in a liberal model too, it is just in
advantage of users and developers (like you) and in disavantage for
huge corporations that own the software, you have just to stop
thinking to the software as a thing to sell, like fruits, but as a
service to sell to see this.
> I have 2 questions for you:
>
> 1: how old are you?
>
> 2: who pays your rent/bills?
>
> The reason is that you sound like a young person who has not been out
> in the world for long and who does not yet pay their own way.
I stated not that making money is bad, it is good, it is needed, I
want to make money too, but there are other ways than closing free
source code.
- --
Marco Parrone - ·····@autistici.org
www.autistici.org/marc0
2143 9E77 D5E6 115A 48AD A170 D0EE F736 (4E88 99C2)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE+wRcU0O73Nk6ImcIRAg6aAKCquCi8L5m94vXBUIxRPk7jxAu9jgCgxIGl
CEz8g7xj5CoRKxS+K9E9q3c=
=SO3T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marco Parrone <·····@autistici.org> writes:
> And with Darwin what happened?
>
> Apple licensed this under its (non-free) APSL license, but it used BSD
> parts if I'm not wrong. So that code was free, now is non-free.
I'm happily using a BSD OS, and it seems to be free software to me. I
certainly didn't pay any license fees to Apple.
> Using the GPL Free Software can win over non-free software, as the
> free software developers can have less disavantages.
Maybe for some people "winning over non-free software" is not the most
important goal in life. Or in software development. Creating software
that does what you need seems to be a popular motivation as well, and
you'd usually want others to use working software as well, especially
when you have to interface with them somehow.
If only Microsoft would "steal" free software more often, the net
would be a better place.
(BTW, "using software in compliance with the license its developers
chose" is a funny definition of "theft")
> The fact that Microsoft hates the GPL but not the BSDs shows clearly
> what is the better way to go if you want Free Software to become the
> best and more-widely-used software.
Yeah, right. Clearly.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> writes:
> > And with Darwin what happened?
> >
> > Apple licensed this under its (non-free) APSL license, but it used BSD
> > parts if I'm not wrong. So that code was free, now is non-free.
>
> I'm happily using a BSD OS, and it seems to be free software to me. I
> certainly didn't pay any license fees to Apple.
Yes, the *BSD code is still free, but the code that you get from
Darwin, that was partially free, now is non-free.
You can say: get that code from *BSD!
But then *BSD is the "one" that gives me the free software, but the
fact that Apple taked the freedom away from me is still real.
So if a BSD-like licensed program stops its development, and there are
N proprietary forks, but I can not take the original version, then the
software is not free anymore for me.
I'm not saying BSD-licensed programs are bad, I use some of them
everytime, I only say that IMHO (and not only the mine) GPL is a
better license to preserve Free Software free.
> > Using the GPL Free Software can win over non-free software, as the
> > free software developers can have less disavantages.
>
> Maybe for some people "winning over non-free software" is not the most
> important goal in life. Or in software development. Creating software
> that does what you need seems to be a popular motivation as well, and
> you'd usually want others to use working software as well, especially
> when you have to interface with them somehow.
You're right, peoples are different, and they have different
priorities.
> If only Microsoft would "steal" free software more often, the net
> would be a better place.
>
> (BTW, "using software in compliance with the license its developers
> chose" is a funny definition of "theft")
I never wrote about stealing code, but about stealing users.
> > The fact that Microsoft hates the GPL but not the BSDs shows clearly
> > what is the better way to go if you want Free Software to become the
> > best and more-widely-used software.
>
> Yeah, right. Clearly.
IMHO if spreading the Free Software would damage MS, then if MS does
not worry about a way of doing that but worries about another way,
then the second way is more likely to be the right one.
- --
Marco Parrone - ·····@autistici.org
www.autistici.org/marc0
2143 9E77 D5E6 115A 48AD A170 D0EE F736 (4E88 99C2)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8 <http://mailcrypt.sourceforge.net/>
iD8DBQE+wC9O0O73Nk6ImcIRArlbAJ9qCkytNDDJVXq5APimgV0ArDVtagCdEJ2I
nbpyMp9Z42z9miJSvSwkFUQ=
=9p8R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Marco Parrone <·····@autistici.org> writes:
[It would really help if you would just send a reply either via the
newsgroup or per private mail. Doing both is rather confusing.]
>> I'm happily using a BSD OS, and it seems to be free software to me. I
>> certainly didn't pay any license fees to Apple.
>
> Yes, the *BSD code is still free, but the code that you get from
> Darwin, that was partially free, now is non-free.
>
> You can say: get that code from *BSD!
>
> But then *BSD is the "one" that gives me the free software, but the
> fact that Apple taked the freedom away from me is still real.
No, it's not.
They haven't even taken away software from you, there's no need to
resort to "your freedom" without saying what you actually mean with
that phrase.
In the times of Mac OS 9, there were 3 free and 1 proprietary BSD OS
(roughly speaking, and I don't know exactly when Net and Open forked).
Now all of these are still available, and /additionally/, there are
Darwin and Mac OS X. As in, more stuff for everyone. That is a good
thing.
BTW, Microsoft hates Apple, too. That clearly shows that their way is
right, no?
Not to mention that Apple has contributed back to FreeBSD (as they
have to KDE more recently), both directly with code and test suites
and indirectly by hiring FBSD hackers (that continued to hack on BSD)
and publicity.
Could you please say in your own words in what way you, or anyone
else, has lost any kind of freedom in that process? And what "freedom"
means in that context?
> So if a BSD-like licensed program stops its development, and there are
> N proprietary forks, but I can not take the original version, then the
> software is not free anymore for me.
Well, but you /can/ take the original version. Unless all traces of
the code magically disappeared somehow, and then neither GPL nor the
MSL EULA would have saved you.
>> If only Microsoft would "steal" free software more often, the net
>> would be a better place.
>>
>> (BTW, "using software in compliance with the license its developers
>> chose" is a funny definition of "theft")
>
> I never wrote about stealing code, but about stealing users.
Stealing users by writing programms sounds even funniert to me, if I'm
honest.
But you are right, you didn't write that. It is a quite common
formulation among GPL zealots, and I mistakenly projected that on you,
for which I apologize.
> IMHO if spreading the Free Software would damage MS, then if MS does
> not worry about a way of doing that but worries about another way,
> then the second way is more likely to be the right one.
The world is not about the brave free software clan vs. the evil
Microsoft monopoly.
Frankly, I don't like Microsoft either, neither their business
practices nor their actual products. But there is a simple solution:
Don't use their products, warn businesses about the dangers of dealing
with them, and if they do something illegal, take them to court. It
doesn't make sense to make a crusade out of this (then again, not
making sense is a common property of the reasons fro crusades,
actually ;-)
The GPL is not about freedom. It is about creating a "them-versus-us"
microcosm of hackers that share a certain view on the world. That
might have made sense if you are the last Lisp hacker left at MIT
while all your former colleagues left for Symbolics and other
companies, and additionally your printer has a paper jam, but times
are changing, and the lack of social skills of RMS is not what should
rule the world. I'm a free software user and developer myself, and the
GPL poses as many troubles on me as it does on the evil proprietary
bastards.
Regards
Henrik
In comp.lang.lisp Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> wrote:
> The GPL is not about freedom. It is about creating a "them-versus-us"
Errr.... GPL is about:
"You can use my code as long as others can use yours."
BSD-style licenses are about:
"You can use my code."
Neither is silly or evil. Rest is politics.
> GPL poses as many troubles on me as it does on the evil proprietary
Then don't use it. Does that mean that you lose an essential library?
Maybe the library was never intended to be used the way you'd like.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus
Nikodemus Siivola <········@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> writes:
> In comp.lang.lisp Henrik Motakef <··············@web.de> wrote:
>
> > The GPL is not about freedom. It is about creating a "them-versus-us"
>
> Errr.... GPL is about:
>
> "You can use my code as long as others can use yours."
Which is formulated to allow in particular:
"You can use my code as long as I can use yours (your modificatios
of my code)."
> BSD-style licenses are about:
>
> "You can use my code."
>
> Neither is silly or evil. Rest is politics.
GPL comes from individual who invest their time and resources in
developing software and who want to share it with other individuals.
So, GPL software comes from free men sharing their software purposedly
with other free men. (My interpretation)
BSD comes from a different point of view. In the case of BSD software,
the development process and resources have been financed by the
people. Well not every human of the planet, but all citizens of the
USA have already paid for it. It is already owned by all citizens
(all tax-payers) of the USA.
So BSD software comes from slaves directed by the mafia (the
government) who stole from the citizens of USA money to finance it.
Since USA is a free country, they just don't make the citizen pay a
second time for the BSD software and allow them to have it for their
taxes (minus the big overhead parts for the administration and
politicians). (My interpretation).
Now, I would like to understand why an individual or a private
corporation should use the BSD-style license, reproducing an evil
scheme... If one feels so generous, why not put it directly in the
public domain then?
> > GPL poses as many troubles on me as it does on the evil proprietary
>
> Then don't use it. Does that mean that you lose an essential library?
> Maybe the library was never intended to be used the way you'd like.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Nikodemus
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Nikodemus Siivola <········@kekkonen.cs.hut.fi> wrote:
> Errr.... GPL is about:
> "You can use my code as long as others can use yours."
I prefer "you can use my code as long as you don't stop others from using
a work derived from it" ;-)
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Here is what the gnu says about guile in their software directory:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/directory/guile.html
>
> Version 1.6.4 (stable) released on 2003-04-29
> Licensed under GPL. This is a GNU package.
That's a mistake.
> That is gpl enough for me, please post specific if this is not
> accurate.
For the record, what Dale said elsewhere is exactly right. Recent
versions of Guile (up through 1.6.*) have been covered under the GPL
plus an exception which should make the license at least as
unrestrictive as the LGPL. Starting with the next stable release (and
already in CVS HEAD), Guile will be covered under the LGPL.
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>> Please do not make wild assertions without any evidence for them.
>
> OK here is an example, if I use a gpled library in an application and
> distribute it the people who use it can demand my source code.
>
> This is not free for any definition of free that I have read in a
> dictionary.
How's about this for an idea: reserve `free' for monetary cost, and `Free'
for the use in <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, which you
should read forthwith? Particularly the section,
| Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
| distribute, study, change and improve the software.
> The definition that you were using for free in the the above post was
> "with out cost" and cost is not only monetary you can also incur a
> serious cost in the loss of rights to your work that the gpl imposes on
> you.
Loss of rights? You still have copyright over your own code. You don't have
to use GPL'd code if you have some notion that it'll restrict what you're
doing.
>> Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to run,
>> study, modify and redistribute the software. That is developer-friendly,
>
> But not the "freedom" to own your own work, if it touches any gpled
> work.
You "own" exactly your own work and nobody else's. There are more people on
the planet than just you, and if you're taking an existing work then you
should abide by its usage terms & conditions just like with any license.
> So if your work(time) is of no value then you are right the gpl is free
> because to surrender your work costs you nothing.
Ultimately, the GPL Exists, that is all. You can take it, leave it, write
your own or walk away and use another license, as long as you respect its
use where you see it.
Personally, I found it far more rewarding to watch my little bit of
programming head out into the Big Bad World for anyone else to adopt & play
with, than to keep it to myself for monetary gain. That wee application was
not developed in order to pay my bills, but there's still nothing stopping
me selling it. Arguably, I could choose to make a bit of money off it as
sole copyright holder if I wanted.
~Tim
--
18:54:44 up 45 days, 17:35, 10 users, load average: 0.15, 0.16, 0.15
······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk |Sometimes you're the pigeon,
http://piglet.is.dreaming.org |Sometimes you're the statue.
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >> Please do not make wild assertions without any evidence for them.
> >
> > OK here is an example, if I use a gpled library in an application and
> > distribute it the people who use it can demand my source code.
> >
> > This is not free for any definition of free that I have read in a
> > dictionary.
>
> How's about this for an idea: reserve `free' for monetary cost, and `Free'
> for the use in <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, which you
> should read forthwith? Particularly the section,
>
> | Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
> | distribute, study, change and improve the software.
You have to be kidding. To communicate with groups of people you need
to have well defined terms or the system just does not work. In English
you look up words in a dictionary to figure out what they mean so you
can use them to communicate accurately with people. Co-opting a well defined
basic English word, such as free for example, and coming up with your own
definition that contradicts the dictionary definition is at the very best
negligent and in the fsf's case I feel flat out dishonest.
>
> > The definition that you were using for free in the the above post was
> > "with out cost" and cost is not only monetary you can also incur a
> > serious cost in the loss of rights to your work that the gpl imposes on
> > you.
>
> Loss of rights? You still have copyright over your own code. You don't have
> to use GPL'd code if you have some notion that it'll restrict what you're
> doing.
You appear to be deliberately misreading my text above. Lets say I
write an application and it uses a gpled library and I then release
the binary. Now anyone who uses the binary has the right to require
me to hand over the source code that I have written. This is not
developer friendly, ie help me pay my bills. The funny thing is that
this is not end user friendly either, the added risk of source code
release means my per unit cost must be higher due to the risk that my
market will disappear, if one of my customers publishes my source.
>
> >> Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to run,
> >> study, modify and redistribute the software. That is developer-friendly,
> >
> > But not the "freedom" to own your own work, if it touches any gpled
> > work.
>
> You "own" exactly your own work and nobody else's. There are more people on
> the planet than just you, and if you're taking an existing work then you
> should abide by its usage terms & conditions just like with any license.
under the gpl I do not, if I owned it I could not be compelled to share
it against my wishes. Remember the context here, I used a gpled library.
>
> > So if your work(time) is of no value then you are right the gpl is free
> > because to surrender your work costs you nothing.
>
> Ultimately, the GPL Exists, that is all. You can take it, leave it, write
> your own or walk away and use another license, as long as you respect its
> use where you see it.
The fact that I do respect copyright and property rights is the
fundamental reason I have a problem with the gpl. If I was a thief I
would just steal.
>
> Personally, I found it far more rewarding to watch my little bit of
> programming head out into the Big Bad World for anyone else to adopt & play
> with, than to keep it to myself for monetary gain. That wee application was
> not developed in order to pay my bills, but there's still nothing stopping
> me selling it. Arguably, I could choose to make a bit of money off it as
> sole copyright holder if I wanted.
Have you ever accepted a patch or some code that added a feature to your
software? If yes how was said code licensed?
Sure there is people can download it for free.
marc
From: ····@sonic.net
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <3EC014CB.500C4CC7@sonic.net>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
> You appear to be deliberately misreading my text above. Lets say I
> write an application and it uses a gpled library and I then release
> the binary. Now anyone who uses the binary has the right to require
> me to hand over the source code that I have written.
Exactly. If you have a problem with that, don't use GPL'd
libraries. Those are the terms their developers offered
them under, and being developer friendly here means abiding
by their terms.
> This is not
> developer friendly, ie help me pay my bills.
Unless, of course, your customers happen also to be
developers. The idea behind the GPL is that if anyone
can get the source code and modify and use it, then
source code is available for developers all over the
place. They think that's developer friendly, because
they're looking at more than one person as potential
developers.
If you use stuff that's under the LGPL, you don't need
to release your own source -- just that of the LGPL
library that you linked your code to. And the Guile
license, as it stands, is even less restrictive; Guile
itself is offered under the terms of both the GPL (from
the FSF) and under the terms of the Guile License (from
the authors). The Guile license allows you to link it
to closed source code without placing *ANY* obligations
to distribute source code on you -- not even the source
to Guile itself, which would be the case if it were LGPL.
If you don't like the terms of the GPL, don't license
Guile from the FSF. License it instead under the Guile
License, which is offered by the authors. You have the
choice of licenses, you can 'freely' pick the one you
like. And if you don't want to have an obligation to
redistribute even the Guile source under the LGPL, grab
it now while the Guile license is still distinct from
the LGPL.
> > You "own" exactly your own work and nobody else's. There are more people on
> > the planet than just you, and if you're taking an existing work then you
> > should abide by its usage terms & conditions just like with any license.
>
> under the gpl I do not, if I owned it I could not be compelled to share
> it against my wishes. Remember the context here, I used a gpled library.
No... nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you don't
like the license, just don't use the libraries which are
available to you only under that license. If you don't
want to give back to the community, don't rip off their
stuff and flout their terms. You are free to develop your
own stuff and keep the code secret if you want; your only
problem is that unless it's at least as good as GPL'd code,
and people like the license terms you offer at least as well
as they like the license terms the GPL offers them, then
people might not want it.
Bear
From: Thien-Thi Nguyen
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <7gwugvvkcf.fsf@gnufans.net>
····@sonic.net writes:
> grab it now while the Guile license is
> still distinct from the LGPL.
small fyi: the guile-1.4.x series available under:
http://www.glug.org/alt/
will maintain the guile license in perpetuity.
although this is carte blanche for the unethical,
probably net loss will be minimal (i.e., only
crazy curmudgeons use 1.4.x.... ;-).
thi
····@sonic.net writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >
>
> > You appear to be deliberately misreading my text above. Lets say I
> > write an application and it uses a gpled library and I then release
> > the binary. Now anyone who uses the binary has the right to require
> > me to hand over the source code that I have written.
>
> Exactly. If you have a problem with that, don't use GPL'd
> libraries. Those are the terms their developers offered
> them under, and being developer friendly here means abiding
> by their terms.
I do not have a problem with gpled libraries, I have a problem
when people call gpled stuff free when the definition of free
that they cook up contradicts the one in the dictionary. The
reason I have a problem with this is it is dishonest and can
cause people grief because everyone knows what free is, the
dictionary definition. Let me say it again the GPL is not
what I have a problem with, I have a problem with the
dishonest marketing of the GPL as free.
>
> > This is not
> > developer friendly, ie help me pay my bills.
>
> Unless, of course, your customers happen also to be
> developers. The idea behind the GPL is that if anyone
> can get the source code and modify and use it, then
> source code is available for developers all over the
> place. They think that's developer friendly, because
> they're looking at more than one person as potential
> developers.
huh? The idea behind the gpl is to compel you to release
derived works, you used mine so I get to use yours( whether
you want to or not). And that is not developer friendly.
In fact it seems to be quite hostile to developers because
it assumes that they *must be compelled to share* their
derived works, for a counter example look at the BSD ->
(osX and darwin) development. And if you just want to
get the code out there you could place it in the public
domain.
>
> If you use stuff that's under the LGPL, you don't need
> to release your own source -- just that of the LGPL
> library that you linked your code to. And the Guile
> license, as it stands, is even less restrictive; Guile
> itself is offered under the terms of both the GPL (from
> the FSF) and under the terms of the Guile License (from
> the authors). The Guile license allows you to link it
> to closed source code without placing *ANY* obligations
> to distribute source code on you -- not even the source
> to Guile itself, which would be the case if it were LGPL.
That is good to know.
>
> If you don't like the terms of the GPL, don't license
> Guile from the FSF. License it instead under the Guile
> License, which is offered by the authors. You have the
> choice of licenses, you can 'freely' pick the one you
> like. And if you don't want to have an obligation to
> redistribute even the Guile source under the LGPL, grab
> it now while the Guile license is still distinct from
> the LGPL.
>
> > > You "own" exactly your own work and nobody else's. There are
> > > more people on the planet than just you, and if you're taking an
> > > existing work then you should abide by its usage terms &
> > > conditions just like with any license.
> >
> > under the gpl I do not, if I owned it I could not be compelled to
> > share it against my wishes. Remember the context here, I used a
> > gpled library.
>
> No... nobody is forcing you to use GPL'd code. If you don't
> like the license, just don't use the libraries which are
> available to you only under that license. If you don't
> want to give back to the community, don't rip off their
> stuff and flout their terms. You are free to develop your
> own stuff and keep the code secret if you want; your only
> problem is that unless it's at least as good as GPL'd code,
> and people like the license terms you offer at least as well
> as they like the license terms the GPL offers them, then
> people might not want it.
>
> Bear
My main point is that the gpl is not free software and that
I objected to it being put forward as free. It is dishonest.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> I do not have a problem with gpled libraries, I have a problem when
> people call gpled stuff free when the definition of free that they cook
> up contradicts the one in the dictionary.
`The' dictionary? ;)
> The reason I have a problem with this is it is dishonest and can cause
> people grief because everyone knows what free is, the dictionary
> definition. Let me say it again the GPL is not what I have a problem
> with, I have a problem with the dishonest marketing of the GPL as free.
This is why people say `Free' (as in freedom) when they mean `Free', and
`free' (or `free-as-in-beer') when that's all they mean.
At least, I think folks generally *should* adopt this, or another similarly
unambiguous readily-comprehensible convention.
I thought GNU had a page detailing exactly such a difference, for good
reason.
~Tim
--
So lead me to the river ·······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
Blood runs thicker than the water |http://spodzone.org.uk/
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > I do not have a problem with gpled libraries, I have a problem when
> > people call gpled stuff free when the definition of free that they cook
> > up contradicts the one in the dictionary.
>
> `The' dictionary? ;)
yes a real dictionary.
>
> > The reason I have a problem with this is it is dishonest and can cause
> > people grief because everyone knows what free is, the dictionary
> > definition. Let me say it again the GPL is not what I have a problem
> > with, I have a problem with the dishonest marketing of the GPL as free.
>
> This is why people say `Free' (as in freedom) when they mean `Free', and
> `free' (or `free-as-in-beer') when that's all they mean.
> At least, I think folks generally *should* adopt this, or another similarly
> unambiguous readily-comprehensible convention.
>
> I thought GNU had a page detailing exactly such a difference, for good
> reason.
The FSF is not where I go to look up the word free or Free( it the same
word) and when they claim something is free and then wack you with a
massively encumbered license it is dishonest. And their justification
for this is we made up a new definition of free, that just happens to
contradict all the others. The interesting thing is you cannot have
a word defined to mean one thing and its negative, so who looses
Webster or fsf?
marc
Marc Spitzer wrote:
> The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> thing and its negative [...]
Actually, English has quite a few examples of this, e.g.
Skin \Skin\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Skinned}; p. pr. & vb. n.
{Skinning}.]
1. To strip off the skin or hide of; to flay; to peel; as, to
skin an animal.
[1913 Webster]
2. To cover with skin, or as with skin; hence, to cover
superficially.
[1913 Webster]
Jeremy.
Jeremy Yallop <······@jdyallop.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>> The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
>> thing and its negative [...]
> Actually, English has quite a few examples of this, e.g.
Wow! You mean that there are other words where English isn't entirely
logical and perfect?!?
I'm shocked. I thought that the other marketing campaign started because
FSF picked the only example of an ambiguous word in the language. Maybe
it was a political move after all?
Really.
MJR
MJ Ray wrote:
> Jeremy Yallop <······@jdyallop.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>> The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
>>> thing and its negative [...]
>> Actually, English has quite a few examples of this, e.g.
>
> Wow! You mean that there are other words where English isn't entirely
> logical and perfect?!?
No, I mean that there are several words in English that have both a
meaning and its opposite.
Jeremy.
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <4llxa249w.fsf@beta.franz.com>
Jeremy Yallop <······@jdyallop.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Jeremy Yallop <······@jdyallop.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >>> The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> >>> thing and its negative [...]
> >> Actually, English has quite a few examples of this, e.g.
> >
> > Wow! You mean that there are other words where English isn't entirely
> > logical and perfect?!?
>
> No, I mean that there are several words in English that have both a
> meaning and its opposite.
Two words that come to mind are
awful: Not quite an opposite, but pretty close. We usually take this
word to mean terrible, but it also has a secondary meaning as majestic,
sulime, or impressive, based on its root word "awe".
bad: Has a truly opposite meaning, the primary ones have negative
connotations and the slang "ebonics" meaning is very positive.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <smri6ai6.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
among others:
cleave
trim
"Joe Marshall" <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
·················@ccs.neu.edu...
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> > thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
>
> among others:
> cleave
> trim
>
Lead as in metal
Lead as lead people forward.
Polish as in Race
or Polish as in Floor Polish.
Invalid as in the data is invalid
or invalid as in the invalid is in the hospital
wait as in wait for something to happen.
or wait as in to serve something.
English is loaded with words like this;
this makes Computational Lingustics hard.
The meaning of the word is derived from contex.
Free as in it is free, it does not cost anything.
or Free as in thinking--in America we are free to worship how we want
to--this does not have anything to do with cost, I don't think.
In article <··················@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net>,
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail .
com> wrote:
> Free as in it is free, it does not cost anything.
> or Free as in thinking--in America we are free to worship how we want
> to--this does not have anything to do with cost, I don't think.
It doesn't help much when economists write books with titles like
_The Cost of Freedom_ either.
paul
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> "Joe Marshall" <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
> ·················@ccs.neu.edu...
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > > The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> > > thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
> >
> > among others:
> > cleave
> > trim
> >
>
> Lead as in metal
> Lead as lead people forward.
>
> Polish as in Race
> or Polish as in Floor Polish.
>
> Invalid as in the data is invalid
> or invalid as in the invalid is in the hospital
You mean: the invalid is in the Invalid hospital, Paris VIII.
> wait as in wait for something to happen.
> or wait as in to serve something.
>
> English is loaded with words like this;
> this makes Computational Lingustics hard.
>
> The meaning of the word is derived from contex.
>
> Free as in it is free, it does not cost anything.
> or Free as in thinking--in America we are free to worship how we want
> to--this does not have anything to do with cost, I don't think.
You're forgetting the dime. Worshiping is not free, the best proof is
that churches are tax-free.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
>
> You're forgetting the dime. Worshiping is not free, the best proof is
> that churches are tax-free.
Worshiping is free, churches cost money. You can talk to G_D whenever
you want to.
marc
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> "Joe Marshall" <···@ccs.neu.edu> wrote in message
> ·················@ccs.neu.edu...
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > > The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> > > thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
> >
> > among others:
> > cleave
> > trim
> >
>
> Lead as in metal
> Lead as lead people forward.
look up the word contradict, for example:
lead as in to lead people forward
lead as in to follow(put lead here) the person in front who is
showing the way
did bit bother to read the rest looked like more of the same.
marc
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> > thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
>
> among others:
> cleave
ok, but I think the "keep close to or faithful" is archaic but
still on the books because of where the word is found, king james
mibil for example.
> trim
could you please post the contradictory definitions, I did not
find any and I would like to know what they are.
And let me clarify my earlier statement I forgot to mention
context as a filter for meaning. I have always seen the context
that the fsf uses to push the "free" gpl to mean with out cost
or obligation and that is just not true.
marc
From: Duane Rettig
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <4he7y1rcy.fsf@beta.franz.com>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > > The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> > > thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
> >
> > among others:
> > cleave
My dictionary (the World Book Dictionary) doesn't show the second
definition of cleave to be archaic, although it does mention the
archaic version of the past tense "clave" as opposed to the more
modern "cleaved". It also gives the Old English word as the root
for cleave(1) (meaning to cut apart) as "cleofan", and the root
for cleave(2) (meaning to cling or hold fast) to be the Old English
"cleofian".
> ok, but I think the "keep close to or faithful" is archaic but
> still on the books because of where the word is found, king james
> mibil for example.
>
> > trim
>
> could you please post the contradictory definitions, I did not
> find any and I would like to know what they are.
There are _many_ definitions for trim, as verb, adjective, or noun.
The two definitions that are in opposition are both verbs in my
dictionary - definition 1 is to make neat by cutting away parts
(e.g. trimming a hedge) and definition 5 is to decorate or adorn
(e.g. trimming a Christmas tree or a cake).
> And let me clarify my earlier statement I forgot to mention
> context as a filter for meaning. I have always seen the context
> that the fsf uses to push the "free" gpl to mean with out cost
> or obligation and that is just not true.
Context is _always_ necessary when discussing definitions. And I tend
to agree that GPL is not as free as it could be. The LGPL is for
libraries, and comes closer to relieving some of the stresses of the
issues that Lisp and other dynamic languages have to deal with. But
it is primarily intended for static languages, and so the LLGPL:
http://opensource.franz.com/preamble.html
is our attempt to define contexts and definitions for which the
LGPL can be usable for Lisp bodies of code.
--
Duane Rettig ·····@franz.com Franz Inc. http://www.franz.com/
555 12th St., Suite 1450 http://www.555citycenter.com/
Oakland, Ca. 94607 Phone: (510) 452-2000; Fax: (510) 452-0182
From: Joe Marshall
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <65oe5zge.fsf@ccs.neu.edu>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > > The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> > > thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
> >
> > among others:
> > cleave
>
> ok, but I think the "keep close to or faithful" is archaic but
> still on the books because of where the word is found, king james
> mibil for example.
Not too archaic to say that peanut butter may make one's tongue cleave
to one's palatte.
> > trim
1. To remove excess.
2. To embellish (trim a tree).
Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Joe Marshall <···@ccs.neu.edu> writes:
> >
> > > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > The interesting thing is you cannot have a word defined to mean one
> > > > thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or fsf?
> > >
> > > among others:
> > > cleave
> >
> > ok, but I think the "keep close to or faithful" is archaic but
> > still on the books because of where the word is found, king james
> > mibil for example.
>
> Not too archaic to say that peanut butter may make one's tongue cleave
> to one's palatte.
I would use stick there.
>
> > > trim
>
> 1. To remove excess.
> 2. To embellish (trim a tree).
damn it was there after all, I missed it.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>> This is why people say `Free' (as in freedom) when they mean `Free', and
>> `free' (or `free-as-in-beer') when that's all they mean. At least, I
>> think folks generally *should* adopt this, or another similarly
>> unambiguous readily-comprehensible convention.
>>
>> I thought GNU had a page detailing exactly such a difference, for good
>> reason.
>
> The FSF is not where I go to look up the word free or Free( it the same
> word) and when they claim something is free and then wack you with a
> massively encumbered license it is dishonest. And their justification for
> this is we made up a new definition of free, that just happens to
> contradict all the others. The interesting thing is you cannot have a
> word defined to mean one thing and its negative, so who looses Webster or
> fsf?
When dealing with specific areas of expertise, it's wise not to rely on a
general-purpose dictionary. Also, the role of dictionaries is to describe,
rather than prescribe. I also suspect you have a circular argument in the
middle there, somewhere.
Anyway, this is all getting a bit OT. If you don't like `free' or `Free',
then use something else that everyone understands, and take it up with the
FSF. It's all just licensing, you do what you want with them.
~Tim
--
River of millions flow downstream ·······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
A golden highway to the sea of dreams |http://spodzone.org.uk/
From: ····@sonic.net
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <3EC058F8.8AF17F91@sonic.net>
Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>
> My main point is that the gpl is not free software and that
> I objected to it being put forward as free. It is dishonest.
>
Hmmm... The definition you object to is in fact the accepted
definition of "free" as it applies to software. If you want
software with no license restrictions at all, you should instead
be looking for "public domain" or "public" software. There
isn't nearly as much, because there has been little motivation for
anyone to release software into the public domain.
Bear
····@sonic.net writes:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >
> >
> > My main point is that the gpl is not free software and that
> > I objected to it being put forward as free. It is dishonest.
> >
>
> Hmmm... The definition you object to is in fact the accepted
> definition of "free" as it applies to software. If you want
> software with no license restrictions at all, you should instead
> be looking for "public domain" or "public" software. There
> isn't nearly as much, because there has been little motivation for
> anyone to release software into the public domain.
I see no more reason to beleive the fsf's definition of free
then microsofts claim that they never engaged in monopolistic
business pratices. If you want a yardstick for free software
here is mine:
1: it costs nothing to get
2: it comes unencumbered
Then it is free, public domain does this so does the bsd licence and mit/x.
Of the two item above I am more interested in two, one you can budget for.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> 1: it costs nothing to get
> 2: it comes unencumbered
> Then it is free, public domain does this so does the bsd licence and mit/x.
> Of the two item above I am more interested in two, one you can budget for.
The BSD licence definitely places restrictions on the developer.
MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > 1: it costs nothing to get
> > 2: it comes unencumbered
> > Then it is free, public domain does this so does the bsd licence and mit/x.
> > Of the two item above I am more interested in two, one you can budget for.
>
> The BSD licence definitely places restrictions on the developer.
aside from the credit clause, which was removed from the BSD v2 licence,
what are they? Please list them:
1 :
2 :
3 :
4 :
.
.
.
N :
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
>> The BSD licence definitely places restrictions on the developer.
> aside from the credit clause, which was removed from the BSD v2 licence,
> what are they? Please list them:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
without specific prior written permission.
MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> The BSD licence definitely places restrictions on the developer.
> > aside from the credit clause, which was removed from the BSD v2 licence,
> > what are they? Please list them:
>
> 1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
> 2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
> 3. Neither the name of the University nor the names of its contributors
> may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software
> without specific prior written permission.
you are really grasping at straws here in comparison to the gpl.
marc
ps 2 was removed from the bsd v2 if I remember correctly, why did you
not compair the current BSD vs the current gpl. It would have hurt your
case even more.
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> you are really grasping at straws here in comparison to the gpl.
Who was comparing it to the GPL in this subthread? You asserted that
the BSD licence did not restrict the developer at all, so I stated the
restrictions it makes. The GPL has no bearing on whether the BSD
restricts developers.
> ps 2 was removed from the bsd v2 if I remember correctly, why did you
> not compair the current BSD vs the current gpl. It would have hurt your
> case even more.
Now it seems that you don't even know the BSD licence?
*PLONK*
--
MJR
MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > you are really grasping at straws here in comparison to the gpl.
>
> Who was comparing it to the GPL in this subthread? You asserted that
> the BSD licence did not restrict the developer at all, so I stated the
> restrictions it makes. The GPL has no bearing on whether the BSD
> restricts developers.
>
> > ps 2 was removed from the bsd v2 if I remember correctly, why did you
> > not compair the current BSD vs the current gpl. It would have hurt your
> > case even more.
>
> Now it seems that you don't even know the BSD licence?
>
> *PLONK*
good riddance.
marc
>
> --
> MJR
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <3EC06DB6.3090906@nyc.rr.com>
····@sonic.net wrote:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>
>>
>>My main point is that the gpl is not free software and that
>>I objected to it being put forward as free. It is dishonest.
>>
>
>
> Hmmm... The definition you object to is in fact the accepted
> definition of "free" as it applies to software.
This misses the whole point. True, using the phrase "free software" will
at least make the listener ask "as in beer?". ie, the meaning of the
phrase "free software" to many listeners will be "GPL software". But
that just means the marketing is working. Mr. Spitzer seems to be
objecting to the marketing per se: "...I objected to it being put
forward as free".
The bigger point is that if you play games with words and win, that does
not mean people cannot take you to task for having played games with
words. (There is no statute of limitations).
Now if I refer to "free software" and someone jumps all over me for
being dishonest because it is GPLed, OK, /then/ it would make sense to
point out that "free" (to many) means something different when connected
to "software".
I am gald this thread has developed here on CLL. These issues have been
kicked around before, I think we have a good chance of settling them
once and for all.
<rofl>
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Kenny Tilton <·······@nyc.rr.com> writes:
> ····@sonic.net wrote:
> > Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>My main point is that the gpl is not free software and that
> >>I objected to it being put forward as free. It is dishonest.
> >>
> > Hmmm... The definition you object to is in fact the accepted
> > definition of "free" as it applies to software.
>
> This misses the whole point. True, using the phrase "free software"
> will at least make the listener ask "as in beer?". ie, the meaning of
> the phrase "free software" to many listeners will be "GPL
> software". But that just means the marketing is working. Mr. Spitzer
> seems to be objecting to the marketing per se: "...I objected to it
> being put forward as free".
>
> The bigger point is that if you play games with words and win, that
> does not mean people cannot take you to task for having played games
> with words. (There is no statute of limitations).
>
> Now if I refer to "free software" and someone jumps all over me for
> being dishonest because it is GPLed, OK, /then/ it would make sense to
> point out that "free" (to many) means something different when
> connected to "software".
>
> I am glad this thread has developed here on CLL. These issues have
> been kicked around before, I think we have a good chance of settling
> them once and for all.
You're right, it should not be called free software, but freedom
software, that is as all will know, in the non-PC means: French
software. Houra! Use French Software!
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
>
> You're right, it should not be called free software, but freedom
> software, that is as all will know, in the non-PC means: French
> software. Houra! Use French Software!
Well at least there will be no liberty cabbage.
marc
In comp.lang.scheme ····@sonic.net wrote:
> Marc Spitzer wrote:
>>
>>
>> My main point is that the gpl is not free software and that
>> I objected to it being put forward as free. It is dishonest.
>>
>
> Hmmm... The definition you object to is in fact the accepted
> definition of "free" as it applies to software. If you want
'The accepted definition by people using the GNU definition' -
this is not the case with the majority of people on this planet
or even the majority of people who know or can write software.
The GNU definitionis the minority and not the accepted defintion
of free. 'covered by strong copyleft licence' != 'free'.
> software with no license restrictions at all, you should instead
> be looking for "public domain" or "public" software. There
> isn't nearly as much, because there has been little motivation for
> anyone to release software into the public domain.
>
> Bear
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Sander Vesik <······@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
> The GNU definitionis the minority and not the accepted defintion
> of free. 'covered by strong copyleft licence' != 'free'.
Have you read the GNU definition? That is not what it says!
MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Sander Vesik <······@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
> > The GNU definitionis the minority and not the accepted defintion
> > of free. 'covered by strong copyleft licence' != 'free'.
>
> Have you read the GNU definition? That is not what it says!
dare I say it *use a real dictinary*
marc
····@sonic.net wrote:
> Hmmm... The definition you object to is in fact the
> accepted definition of "free" as it applies to software.
That's only because the FSF has redefined "free" to have this meaning. I'm
pro-GPL myself, and like the license, what it stands for, and what it
achieves, but I dislike pushing positions by redefining language in one's
favor. I agree with Marc: it's dishonest.
Certainly, it can be an effective tactic - which is why it has been used to
good effect by totalitarian governments and evil organizations of all
kinds - see George Orwell's writing for more. Does the FSF really want to
"win" by such tactics? The FSF promotes a certain kind of freedom, but that
doesn't make GPL software "free" in a general sense, and from some
perspectives it is anything but.
For another modern day example of definitional abuse, the recording and
motion picture industry use the words "piracy" and "theft" to refer, among
other things, to copying of copyrighted materials, even in cases that are
actually legal under copyright laws (i.e. fair use). This completely
contaminates debate on the subject, with news channels and commentators
latching onto the word usage even when it's not appropriate to the
circumstances. Meaningful debate is made more difficult, confusion is
widespread, incorrect conclusions are reached, and society is harmed as a
result.
As a minor proof of the harm that this sort of thing can cause, I offer this
thread, which serves no useful purpose except to object to the FSF's
redefinition of language in its favor.
Anton
Anton van Straaten <·····@appsolutions.com> wrote:
> That's only because the FSF has redefined "free" to have this meaning.
Free has always had meanings to do with freedom and FSF have only asserted
a particular definition of "free software" although some supporters detach
the word "free" from that when talking about software. Probably that's not
the best move ever, but it's yet another flaw of the language that it lends
itself to such thigns.
FU's set, again.
--
MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: ····@jabber.at
This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging.
How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
In comp.lang.scheme Anton van Straaten <·····@appsolutions.com> wrote:
> ····@sonic.net wrote:
>> Hmmm... The definition you object to is in fact the
>> accepted definition of "free" as it applies to software.
>
> That's only because the FSF has redefined "free" to have this meaning. I'm
> pro-GPL myself, and like the license, what it stands for, and what it
> achieves, but I dislike pushing positions by redefining language in one's
> favor. I agree with Marc: it's dishonest.
hear! hear! 8-)
>
> Certainly, it can be an effective tactic - which is why it has been used to
> good effect by totalitarian governments and evil organizations of all
> kinds - see George Orwell's writing for more. Does the FSF really want to
> "win" by such tactics? The FSF promotes a certain kind of freedom, but that
> doesn't make GPL software "free" in a general sense, and from some
> perspectives it is anything but.
In every movement there are those who want to win by any means at all. You always
also get camp followers and self-appointed cheerleaders (just watch slashdot
whenever a thread even hinting at gpl abuse is posted), and at time FSF itself
appears to take a way too 'ends justify means' approach to promoting their agenda.
>
> For another modern day example of definitional abuse, the recording and
> motion picture industry use the words "piracy" and "theft" to refer, among
> other things, to copying of copyrighted materials, even in cases that are
> actually legal under copyright laws (i.e. fair use). This completely
See also 'BSDL allows code theft' 8-(
>
> Anton
>
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
* Anton van Straaten <·····@appsolutions.com>:
> That's only because the FSF has redefined "free" to have this meaning. I'm
> pro-GPL myself, and like the license, what it stands for, and what it
> achieves, but I dislike pushing positions by redefining language in one's
> favor. I agree with Marc: it's dishonest.
Hang on a moment, free has definitions of "freedom" just as much as it has
definitions that deal with cost. In this sense the FSF haven't redefined
anything. If the FSF are being dishonest about anything it is, arguably,
regarding their notion of "freedom". In this sense I, too, agree with what
Marc is probably attempting to say but failing to because he doesn't seem to
understand the difference between free of cost and freedom.
Complaining that a word has more than one meaning isn't terribly useful,
complaining that the FSF has a restrictive view of freedom is probably more
useful when done in the correct context. Sadly Marc talks about context but
doesn't seem to be using it himself.
Disagreeing with the views of individuals who talk for the FSF is useful and
should be encouraged. I'm sure I'm not the only who uses the GPL where it
makes sense (and doesn't use it in other cases (like when I've released code
for CA-Clipper programmers, a language/product you'll remember)) but who
also doesn't agree with many things said and written by the likes of RMS.
Someone like Marc needs to learn that use of the GPL, which is just another
software licence, isn't an endorsement of everything written by every member
of the FSF. When he realises that individuals use the GPL and that
individuals can have individual motivations he'll probably be able to
respond to people as individuals (unlike at the moment when he seems to be
responding to everyone who disagrees with him as if they were one amorphous
blob).
> As a minor proof of the harm that this sort of thing can cause, I offer
> this thread, which serves no useful purpose except to object to the FSF's
> redefinition of language in its favor.
Sadly that doesn't seem to have been the case. Marc, for example, seems to
bother little with what freedom really means and bothers a lot with
motivations he's invented for individuals who deploy the GPL, assuming that
each individual's motivations are those he's invented for them.
--
Dave Pearson | OSLib - Timeslice release functions.
http://www.davep.org/ | eg - Norton Guide reader for Linux.
http://www.davep.org/clipper/ | weg - Norton Guide reader for Windows.
http://www.davep.org/norton-guides/ | dgscan - DGROUP scanner for Clipper.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Anton van Straaten <·····@appsolutions.com>:
>
>> That's only because the FSF has redefined "free" to have this meaning. I'm
>> pro-GPL myself, and like the license, what it stands for, and what it
>> achieves, but I dislike pushing positions by redefining language in one's
>> favor. I agree with Marc: it's dishonest.
>
> Hang on a moment, free has definitions of "freedom" just as much as it has
> definitions that deal with cost. In this sense the FSF haven't redefined
> anything.
I see the FSF's page as a simple clarification that there *is*
`free-as-in-beer' and there *is* `free-as-in-liberty', going on to say
`when we say `Free Software', we mean <foo>'. That seems a rather simple
statement of fact to me, somewhat devoid of dishonesty.
~Tim
--
10:05:08 up 48 days, 8:46, 10 users, load average: 0.01, 0.23, 0.61
······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk |And we feel those flickering moments
http://piglet.is.dreaming.org |Like silk, the flags of our days
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > * Anton van Straaten <·····@appsolutions.com>:
> >
> >> That's only because the FSF has redefined "free" to have this meaning. I'm
> >> pro-GPL myself, and like the license, what it stands for, and what it
> >> achieves, but I dislike pushing positions by redefining language in one's
> >> favor. I agree with Marc: it's dishonest.
> >
> > Hang on a moment, free has definitions of "freedom" just as much as it has
> > definitions that deal with cost. In this sense the FSF haven't redefined
> > anything.
>
> I see the FSF's page as a simple clarification that there *is*
> `free-as-in-beer' and there *is* `free-as-in-liberty', going on to say
> `when we say `Free Software', we mean <foo>'. That seems a rather simple
> statement of fact to me, somewhat devoid of dishonesty.
>
The problem with the "free as in beer" vs. "free as in liberty"
distinction is that I seem to have lost track of which one GPL
software is supposed to be.
From what I recall, the thread started when someone said something
like "Frobnitz is free software."
Someone replied, "No, its GPL."
Someone said, "GPL is free software."
Someone else said, "No, it's not."
The rest of the thread has consisted of ringing changes on the above.
My gripe is that someone will come along and say, "GPL is free
software." If you take this at what I call "face value" you wind up
getting blind-sided by the fine print later.
Perhaps the Free Software Foundation ought to trademark
"Free Software" (with caps) and then people would do the following:
"GPL is Free Software (tm)."
That might at least make people wonder.
(The above proposal isn't meant to be taken seriously.)
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
The opponents of income taxation in 1912 said that we would see the
day when taxes would extract 25% of people's income. Such Cassandras
were ridiculed. -- Gary North
Fred Gilham wrote:
> Perhaps the Free Software Foundation ought to trademark
> "Free Software" (with caps) and then people would do the following:
>
> "GPL is Free Software (tm)."
>
> That might at least make people wonder.
>
> (The above proposal isn't meant to be taken seriously.)
Along those lines, how about using "GNU/Free Software". There's precedent
for this convention, promoted by the FSF itself, and it's unambiguous.
In fact, I don't see why this *shouldn't* be taken seriously. I take the
attempted appropriation of words from my native language seriously, at any
rate.
Anton
Tim Haynes wrote:
> I see the FSF's page as a simple clarification that there *is*
> `free-as-in-beer' and there *is* `free-as-in-liberty', going on to say
> `when we say `Free Software', we mean <foo>'. That seems a rather simple
> statement of fact to me, somewhat devoid of dishonesty.
The FSF doesn't capitalize "Free Software" like that, though - if it did,
there would be somewhat less of a problem. For example, in its definition
of the term, the FSF says "We maintain this free software definition to show
clearly what must be true about a particular software program for it to be
considered free software." There are no qualifications of any kind - the
goal seems to be to define the English phrase "free software" in general,
thus excluding any other equally valid meanings of the term. In fact, this
language grab goes well beyond just English - the FSF also defines
equivalent terms in at least 26 other languages [1].
Not incidentally, the FSF definition of "free software" as a natural phrase
contaminates the word "free", along with "libre", "libero", "livre",
"freie", etc., causing much confusion. The FSF does not use the word "free"
as in "free speech" - it uses the word "free" as in the FSF's definition of
"free software", which is only indirectly related to the concept of free
speech.
When most organizations define a word or phrase to mean something specific
related to its activities, that is usually made clear by capitalization,
trademark symbols, or other identifying marks. One purpose of this is to
make a proprietary claim on the words in question, but another reason to
mark these specific uses of language is to make it clear to the reader which
usage is intended. For example, if I were to talk about Windows, the
meaning is fairly unambiguous, even without a registered trademark symbol.
Staking a claim on common words and phrases in a language, rather than on
specially marked words or phrases, is a tool of political control - I can
think of no other purpose for it. The FSF itself implicitly objects to such
tactics on its page of words to avoid [2] - for example, in the descriptions
for the words "piracy" and "theft". The FSF descriptions don't clearly
state what the problem is with those who redefine and use common words to
skew debate in their favor, but the argument that underlies the FSF's
objection is the exact argument that I am making. "Piracy" and "theft" are
strong words, and so is "free". Misusing them to further an agenda - of any
kind - is dishonest and aggressive. Controlling language is one of the most
powerful means of control, as numerous governments and other organizations
have repeatedly demonstrated. The FSF has only attempted to co-opt a few
words and phrases, but they're important words and phrases, over which no
organization has a valid claim.
On the FSF page about self-interest [3], it says "Self-interest is not
necessarily evil, though it can lead people to act in morally reprehensible
ways." In this case, the FSF has acted in what it perceives as its own
self-interest, "cleverly" defining language in its favor - but is it a
morally sound approach, to sabotage debate by unilaterally redefining
strategic words? Are we to understand that the end justifies the means in
this case, perhaps?
The same page points out that "[Adam Smith] thought that people often
misjudge their own self-interest." I think the FSF has misjudged its own
self-interest. The negative reactions that many people have to various
aspects of the FSF's agenda are at least in part a reaction to this kind of
shady tactic. Humans are evolved to be sensitive to cheating, and the FSF
is cheating in its attempts at linguistic control. It puts people on guard
and creates suspicion - not the reaction which an organization interested in
promoting a notion of social good should be trying to elicit.
BTW, since RMS and Lisp are closely connected, I hereby define this post
on-topic.
Anton
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-translations.html
[2] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
[3] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/self-interest.es.html
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Anton van Straaten <·····@appsolutions.com>:
>
> > That's only because the FSF has redefined "free" to have this meaning. I'm
> > pro-GPL myself, and like the license, what it stands for, and what it
> > achieves, but I dislike pushing positions by redefining language in one's
> > favor. I agree with Marc: it's dishonest.
>
> Hang on a moment, free has definitions of "freedom" just as much as it has
> definitions that deal with cost. In this sense the FSF haven't redefined
> anything. If the FSF are being dishonest about anything it is, arguably,
> regarding their notion of "freedom". In this sense I, too, agree with what
> Marc is probably attempting to say but failing to because he doesn't seem to
> understand the difference between free of cost and freedom.
Are you talking about positive freedoms or negative freedoms?
Positive freedoms are entitlements by another name, btw.
>
> Complaining that a word has more than one meaning isn't terribly useful,
> complaining that the FSF has a restrictive view of freedom is probably more
> useful when done in the correct context. Sadly Marc talks about context but
> doesn't seem to be using it himself.
You just do not get or want to get my point. The marketing of the gpl by
the fsf and its minions(zealots was getting over used) deliberately uses
the definition of free that the license is designed to prevent. This is
*DISHONEST* in the extreme.
>
> Disagreeing with the views of individuals who talk for the FSF is useful and
> should be encouraged. I'm sure I'm not the only who uses the GPL where it
> makes sense (and doesn't use it in other cases (like when I've released code
> for CA-Clipper programmers, a language/product you'll remember)) but who
> also doesn't agree with many things said and written by the likes of RMS.
>
> Someone like Marc needs to learn that use of the GPL, which is just another
> software licence, isn't an endorsement of everything written by every member
The gpl is a license designed to promote a socialist/communist utopian
agenda. The fsf backs this up with dishonest marketing in support of
the above agenda. Use of the gpl on code gives support to the above
agenda and attacks the individual liberty of programmers and end users
every where.
> of the FSF. When he realises that individuals use the GPL and that
> individuals can have individual motivations he'll probably be able to
> respond to people as individuals (unlike at the moment when he seems to be
> responding to everyone who disagrees with him as if they were one amorphous
> blob).
All of you are pretty much saying the same thing so you get the same
response.
>
> > As a minor proof of the harm that this sort of thing can cause, I offer
> > this thread, which serves no useful purpose except to object to the FSF's
> > redefinition of language in its favor.
>
> Sadly that doesn't seem to have been the case. Marc, for example, seems to
> bother little with what freedom really means and bothers a lot with
> motivations he's invented for individuals who deploy the GPL, assuming that
> each individual's motivations are those he's invented for them.
What does freedom really mean??? I want to hear your definition.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Complaining that a word has more than one meaning isn't terribly useful,
> > complaining that the FSF has a restrictive view of freedom is probably
> > more useful when done in the correct context. Sadly Marc talks about
> > context but doesn't seem to be using it himself.
>
> You just do not get or want to get my point.
Please don't invent motives for me and try and get me to accept
responsibility for them. I do want to get your point. That's why, on more
than one occasion, I've pointed out that you're obfuscating your point by
worrying about "cost" when it's an issue of freedom that's under discussion
here.
> The marketing of the gpl by
> the fsf and its minions(zealots was getting over used) deliberately uses
> the definition of free that the license is designed to prevent. This is
> *DISHONEST* in the extreme.
I agree that one can see a contradiction in what the FSF say and what the
GPL does. I've said this before. How does this then demonstrate that I have
no desire to "get your point"?
> > Someone like Marc needs to learn that use of the GPL, which is just
> > another software licence, isn't an endorsement of everything written by
> > every member
>
> The gpl is a license designed to promote a socialist/communist utopian
> agenda.
I don't know that I'd word it quite like that but, yes, the GPL was designed
as a legal tool to protect the works of those who wish to promote RMS's and
the FSF's agenda. I doubt that anyone would seriously challenge this obvious
fact.
It isn't uncommon for a tool to be used for purposes other than those
dreamed of by the designer. Each individual tool user might have their own
motivations for using a tool. Can you not see this?
> The fsf backs this up with dishonest marketing in support of the
> above agenda. Use of the gpl on code gives support to the above agenda and
> attacks the individual liberty of programmers and end users every where.
This, to my mind, is where you go wrong. You don't appear to want to think
about the idea that individual programmers have individual motivations. You
appear to want to pretend that anyone making use of the GPL is someone who
thinks, acts and shares all the motivations of the FSF.
> > of the FSF. When he realises that individuals use the GPL and that
> > individuals can have individual motivations he'll probably be able to
> > respond to people as individuals (unlike at the moment when he seems to
> > be responding to everyone who disagrees with him as if they were one
> > amorphous blob).
>
> All of you are pretty much saying the same thing so you get the same
> response.
I rather think that reason "we" (who is the "you" you speak of here?) all
appear to be saying the same thing is that you've created a single "you".
Why else would you have apparently attributed something that someone else
wrote to me? You seem concerned with honesty, perhaps you'd be honest enough
to deal with individuals as individuals? Is that too much to ask? Can you
please show the honesty you claim to care about so much?
> > Sadly that doesn't seem to have been the case. Marc, for example, seems
> > to bother little with what freedom really means and bothers a lot with
> > motivations he's invented for individuals who deploy the GPL, assuming
> > that each individual's motivations are those he's invented for them.
>
> What does freedom really mean??? I want to hear your definition.
The four freedoms, as outlined on the FSF web site, would seem to serve as a
good enough definition for the purposes of my Free code. All I ask, when you
distribute my code or a work based on it, is that you extend those same
freedoms to your users. Is that what you're asking?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > Complaining that a word has more than one meaning isn't terribly useful,
> > > complaining that the FSF has a restrictive view of freedom is probably
> > > more useful when done in the correct context. Sadly Marc talks about
> > > context but doesn't seem to be using it himself.
> >
> > You just do not get or want to get my point.
>
> Please don't invent motives for me and try and get me to accept
> responsibility for them. I do want to get your point. That's why, on more
> than one occasion, I've pointed out that you're obfuscating your point by
> worrying about "cost" when it's an issue of freedom that's under discussion
> here.
Ok for this reply you are not responable for your choices, I will assume
you are incomptent.
This sounds like one of those "freedom from XXXX"(want for example)
bits, those are all entitlement programs not rights.
>
> > The marketing of the gpl by
> > the fsf and its minions(zealots was getting over used) deliberately uses
> > the definition of free that the license is designed to prevent. This is
> > *DISHONEST* in the extreme.
>
> I agree that one can see a contradiction in what the FSF say and what the
> GPL does. I've said this before. How does this then demonstrate that I have
> no desire to "get your point"?
you continue to misrepresent your position, using words like ask instead
of compel and request instead of compel ... This is doing the exact same
thing as the fsf does with free, you are misrepresenting the terms of the
license and its impact on other people.
>
> > > Someone like Marc needs to learn that use of the GPL, which is just
> > > another software licence, isn't an endorsement of everything written by
> > > every member
> >
> > The gpl is a license designed to promote a socialist/communist utopian
> > agenda.
>
> I don't know that I'd word it quite like that but, yes, the GPL was designed
> as a legal tool to protect the works of those who wish to promote RMS's and
> the FSF's agenda. I doubt that anyone would seriously challenge this obvious
> fact.
so you promote the agenda when you use the gpl, but its not your fault.
>
> It isn't uncommon for a tool to be used for purposes other than those
> dreamed of by the designer. Each individual tool user might have their own
> motivations for using a tool. Can you not see this?
By using the gpl you are supporting the fsf agenda, what other purpose
does it serve. it is hostile to anything that does not agree with it.
>
> > The fsf backs this up with dishonest marketing in support of the
> > above agenda. Use of the gpl on code gives support to the above agenda and
> > attacks the individual liberty of programmers and end users every where.
>
> This, to my mind, is where you go wrong. You don't appear to want to think
> about the idea that individual programmers have individual motivations. You
> appear to want to pretend that anyone making use of the GPL is someone who
> thinks, acts and shares all the motivations of the FSF.
By using the gpl you are actively supporting the fsf's agenda. The fsf
agenda is bad. You are activly helping bad things to happen. Do not
worry it is not your fault.
>
> > > of the FSF. When he realises that individuals use the GPL and that
> > > individuals can have individual motivations he'll probably be able to
> > > respond to people as individuals (unlike at the moment when he seems to
> > > be responding to everyone who disagrees with him as if they were one
> > > amorphous blob).
> >
> > All of you are pretty much saying the same thing so you get the same
> > response.
>
> I rather think that reason "we" (who is the "you" you speak of here?) all
> appear to be saying the same thing is that you've created a single "you".
> Why else would you have apparently attributed something that someone else
> wrote to me? You seem concerned with honesty, perhaps you'd be honest enough
> to deal with individuals as individuals? Is that too much to ask? Can you
> please show the honesty you claim to care about so much?
If you made different arguments you would get different responces from me,
you do not.
>
> > > Sadly that doesn't seem to have been the case. Marc, for example, seems
> > > to bother little with what freedom really means and bothers a lot with
> > > motivations he's invented for individuals who deploy the GPL, assuming
> > > that each individual's motivations are those he's invented for them.
> >
> > What does freedom really mean??? I want to hear your definition.
>
> The four freedoms, as outlined on the FSF web site, would seem to serve as a
> good enough definition for the purposes of my Free code. All I ask, when you
> distribute my code or a work based on it, is that you extend those same
> freedoms to your users. Is that what you're asking?
I beleive that this is the page you are refering to:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
and that these are the points:
* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access
to the source code is a precondition for this.
Now lets take them in order:
0: does this include criminal purposes? or running an nuclear reactor?
1: with out fairly compensating the owner of the code?
2: Could I not buy him a copy of the software?
3: release or be compeled to release, its for the greater good of course
and its not your fault anyway.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Please don't invent motives for me and try and get me to accept
> > responsibility for them. I do want to get your point. That's why, on
> > more than one occasion, I've pointed out that you're obfuscating your
> > point by worrying about "cost" when it's an issue of freedom that's
> > under discussion here.
>
> Ok for this reply you are not responable for your choices, I will assume
> you are incomptent.
In other words you're only interested in being insulting. Why?
> > I agree that one can see a contradiction in what the FSF say and what
> > the GPL does. I've said this before. How does this then demonstrate that
> > I have no desire to "get your point"?
>
> you continue to misrepresent your position,
No, I continue to present by point, you continue to misrepresent so that it
appears to be the point that you so badly want to argue against, so that I'm
part of the "communist" conspiracy you so badly want to be seen to expose.
> using words like ask instead
> of compel and request instead of compel ... This is doing the exact same
> thing as the fsf does with free, you are misrepresenting the terms of the
> license and its impact on other people.
No, I've never once said that the licence doesn't compel. Why lie? Please
try and begin to figure out the difference between my motivations for using
the licence and what the licence does.
> so you promote the agenda when you use the gpl, but its not your fault.
> [SNIP]
> By using the gpl you are supporting the fsf agenda, what other purpose
> does it serve. it is hostile to anything that does not agree with it.
> [SNIP]
> By using the gpl you are actively supporting the fsf's agenda. The fsf
> agenda is bad. You are activly helping bad things to happen. Do not
> worry it is not your fault.
I can see how, in your opinion, I'm doing that. What you now need to
understand is that it is possible for your opinion of my motivations to be
at odds with my actual motivation. Please try and understand this. If you do
you might actually move away from your witch hunting mentality.
> > I rather think that reason "we" (who is the "you" you speak of here?)
> > all appear to be saying the same thing is that you've created a single
> > "you". Why else would you have apparently attributed something that
> > someone else wrote to me? [SNIP]
>
> If you made different arguments you would get different responces from me,
> you do not.
But I've not been making the argument that you so badly want me to be
making. This, presumably, is why you even tried to get me to take
responsibility for someone else's words.
> > The four freedoms, as outlined on the FSF web site, would seem to serve
> > as a good enough definition for the purposes of my Free code. All I ask,
> > when you distribute my code or a work based on it, is that you extend
> > those same freedoms to your users. Is that what you're asking?
>
> I beleive that this is the page you are refering to:
> http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Yes, they are the three freedoms I had in mind as a useful outline.
> [SNIP four "freedoms"]
>
> Now lets take them in order:
>
> 0: does this include criminal purposes? or running an nuclear reactor?
Yes, I extend to you the freedom to run my program for any purpose you see
fit.
> 1: with out fairly compensating the owner of the code?
You are free to fairly compensate me if you wish.
> 2: Could I not buy him a copy of the software?
You're free to give him a copy and compensate me at the same time.
> 3: release or be compeled to release, its for the greater good of course
> and its not your fault anyway.
You are not compelled to release any modifications you make to my program
unless you release them. If you choose not to release them you're not
compelled to do anything.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>> How's about this for an idea: reserve `free' for monetary cost, and `Free'
>> for the use in <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, which you
>> should read forthwith? Particularly the section,
>>
>> | Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
>> | distribute, study, change and improve the software.
>
> You have to be kidding. To communicate with groups of people you need to
> have well defined terms or the system just does not work.
Yes. When you're talking about Free Software, the above page is *the*
definition.
> In English you look up words in a dictionary to figure out what they mean
> so you can use them to communicate accurately with people. Co-opting a
> well defined basic English word, such as free for example, and coming up
> with your own definition that contradicts the dictionary definition is at
> the very best negligent and in the fsf's case I feel flat out dishonest.
You might want to take this up with GNU or the FSF if you feel it's a
problem.
>> Loss of rights? You still have copyright over your own code. You don't
>> have to use GPL'd code if you have some notion that it'll restrict what
>> you're doing.
>
> You appear to be deliberately misreading my text above. Lets say I write
> an application and it uses a gpled library and I then release the binary.
> Now anyone who uses the binary has the right to require me to hand over
> the source code that I have written. This is not developer friendly,
What, developers don't like to receive patches from other people improving
their software?
I can sense you come from a world which thinks software is best hidden.
Surprisingly, the GPL might not be for you ;)
> ie help me pay my bills.
This doesn't follow at all. Merely retaining sources to yourself is no
guarantee of making money; putting a price on a product will do that, and
source is as good a thing as any.
> The funny thing is that this is not end user friendly either, the added
> risk of source code release means my per unit cost must be higher due to
> the risk that my market will disappear, if one of my customers publishes
> my source.
You takes your choice ;)
>> You "own" exactly your own work and nobody else's. There are more people
>> on the planet than just you, and if you're taking an existing work then
>> you should abide by its usage terms & conditions just like with any
>> license.
>
> under the gpl I do not, if I owned it I could not be compelled to share
> it against my wishes. Remember the context here, I used a gpled library.
Rubbish, I'm afraid. Where does it say you must publish anything? Either
use someone else's software, optionally add your own bits and do what you
like (with the clause that further redistribution must include source,
which seems fair enough when you've adulterated someone else's work), or
otherwise work through the licensing terms.
>> Personally, I found it far more rewarding to watch my little bit of
>> programming head out into the Big Bad World for anyone else to adopt &
>> play with, than to keep it to myself for monetary gain. That wee
>> application was not developed in order to pay my bills, but there's
>> still nothing stopping me selling it. Arguably, I could choose to make a
>> bit of money off it as sole copyright holder if I wanted.
>
> Have you ever accepted a patch or some code that added a feature to your
> software? If yes how was said code licensed?
Yes, I did. We agreed that it would be under the same license as my project
unless otherwise stipulated (which never happened).
> Sure there is people can download it for free.
There are also people who contribute patches and improve the software for
free, or who find it beneficial to take and incorporate it, or to fork it
off for their own good.
Of course, you could be more creative, and consider the implications of
being a copyright holder on a piece of work (be that wholly original or a
useful patch to something else), when it comes to choosing the license
considerations - specifically, the GPL helps you here, if you have
copyright over some code that someone else wants to use in a proprietary
product, you have to negotiate a license with them that could well be
financially rewarding - they have to pay to stop the tree of
source-redistribution from their product onwards.
~Tim
--
It's all over the front page ·······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
You give me road rage |http://spodzone.org.uk/
Racing through the best days |
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >> How's about this for an idea: reserve `free' for monetary cost, and `Free'
> >> for the use in <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, which you
> >> should read forthwith? Particularly the section,
> >>
> >> | Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy,
> >> | distribute, study, change and improve the software.
> >
> > You have to be kidding. To communicate with groups of people you need to
> > have well defined terms or the system just does not work.
>
> Yes. When you're talking about Free Software, the above page is *the*
> definition.
No it is not, you just claim it is.
>
> > In English you look up words in a dictionary to figure out what they mean
> > so you can use them to communicate accurately with people. Co-opting a
> > well defined basic English word, such as free for example, and coming up
> > with your own definition that contradicts the dictionary definition is at
> > the very best negligent and in the fsf's case I feel flat out dishonest.
>
> You might want to take this up with GNU or the FSF if you feel it's a
> problem.
They know about it an do it anyway. The problem is other people repeat
it through ignorance or zealotry and it needs to be corrected so that
people do not get burned by accident.
>
> >> Loss of rights? You still have copyright over your own code. You don't
> >> have to use GPL'd code if you have some notion that it'll restrict what
> >> you're doing.
> >
> > You appear to be deliberately misreading my text above. Lets say I write
> > an application and it uses a gpled library and I then release the binary.
> > Now anyone who uses the binary has the right to require me to hand over
> > the source code that I have written. This is not developer friendly,
>
> What, developers don't like to receive patches from other people improving
> their software?
You are deliberately changing the subject here.
>
> I can sense you come from a world which thinks software is best hidden.
> Surprisingly, the GPL might not be for you ;)
You are right if I had anything to release to the public I would
use BSD or MIT/X license.
>
> > ie help me pay my bills.
>
> This doesn't follow at all. Merely retaining sources to yourself is no
> guarantee of making money; putting a price on a product will do that, and
> source is as good a thing as any.
No because once I release the source, not sell a source license, I loose
all control over it legally.
>
> > The funny thing is that this is not end user friendly either, the added
> > risk of source code release means my per unit cost must be higher due to
> > the risk that my market will disappear, if one of my customers publishes
> > my source.
>
> You takes your choice ;)
so you do not care that the gpl can harm the software market in general?
>
> >> You "own" exactly your own work and nobody else's. There are more people
> >> on the planet than just you, and if you're taking an existing work then
> >> you should abide by its usage terms & conditions just like with any
> >> license.
> >
> > under the gpl I do not, if I owned it I could not be compelled to share
> > it against my wishes. Remember the context here, I used a gpled library.
>
> Rubbish, I'm afraid. Where does it say you must publish anything? Either
> use someone else's software, optionally add your own bits and do what you
> like (with the clause that further redistribution must include source,
> which seems fair enough when you've adulterated someone else's work), or
> otherwise work through the licensing terms.
As soon as I release a binary I am obligated to release the source,
if someone who has the binary requests it. One of the main reasons
I do not think it is fair is that there is no reasonableness test for
application of the gpl, one 10 line file can really screw you if it
gets in your application.
>
> >> Personally, I found it far more rewarding to watch my little bit of
> >> programming head out into the Big Bad World for anyone else to adopt &
> >> play with, than to keep it to myself for monetary gain. That wee
> >> application was not developed in order to pay my bills, but there's
> >> still nothing stopping me selling it. Arguably, I could choose to make a
> >> bit of money off it as sole copyright holder if I wanted.
> >
> > Have you ever accepted a patch or some code that added a feature to your
> > software? If yes how was said code licensed?
>
> Yes, I did. We agreed that it would be under the same license as my project
> unless otherwise stipulated (which never happened).
>
> > Sure there is people can download it for free.
>
> There are also people who contribute patches and improve the software for
> free, or who find it beneficial to take and incorporate it, or to fork it
> off for their own good.
>
> Of course, you could be more creative, and consider the implications of
> being a copyright holder on a piece of work (be that wholly original or a
> useful patch to something else), when it comes to choosing the license
> considerations - specifically, the GPL helps you here, if you have
> copyright over some code that someone else wants to use in a proprietary
> product, you have to negotiate a license with them that could well be
> financially rewarding - they have to pay to stop the tree of
> source-redistribution from their product onwards.
That assumes that you can trace the copyrights down and get everyones
permission who was involved to the satisfaction of the lawyers.
And this sort of destroys the whole argument you were making about how the
gpl is good because it is "free".
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> As soon as I release a binary I am obligated to release the source, if
> someone who has the binary requests it. One of the main reasons I do not
> think it is fair is that there is no reasonableness test for application
> of the gpl, one 10 line file can really screw you if it gets in your
> application.
This isn't just a problem with the GPL, this is a problem with any form of
software license. Moreover, if you really want those ten lines but you don't
want to have to deal with the licence you have to hand you can do what you'd
do for any other licence, speak with the person who extended you the licence
and see if you can negotiate a licence that's more to your taste.
> > [SNIP Tim saying the same thing]
>
> That assumes that you can trace the copyrights down and get everyones
> permission who was involved to the satisfaction of the lawyers.
This, again, is a general issue.
> And this sort of destroys the whole argument you were making about how the
> gpl is good because it is "free".
How?
--
Dave Pearson
http://www.davep.org/
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > As soon as I release a binary I am obligated to release the source, if
> > someone who has the binary requests it. One of the main reasons I do not
> > think it is fair is that there is no reasonableness test for application
> > of the gpl, one 10 line file can really screw you if it gets in your
> > application.
>
> This isn't just a problem with the GPL, this is a problem with any form of
> software license. Moreover, if you really want those ten lines but you don't
This is a specific problem with the gpl, in fact the gpl was designed to
do this from the outset.
> want to have to deal with the licence you have to hand you can do what you'd
> do for any other licence, speak with the person who extended you the licence
> and see if you can negotiate a licence that's more to your taste.
>
> > > [SNIP Tim saying the same thing]
> >
> > That assumes that you can trace the copyrights down and get everyones
> > permission who was involved to the satisfaction of the lawyers.
>
> This, again, is a general issue.
No it is not, public domain, bsd, mit/x licences do not have this problem.
>
> > And this sort of destroys the whole argument you were making about how the
> > gpl is good because it is "free".
>
> How?
because you are saying that "free" is not as good as cash in hand.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > This isn't just a problem with the GPL, this is a problem with any form
> > of software license. Moreover, if you really want those ten lines but
> > you don't
>
> This is a specific problem with the gpl, in fact the gpl was designed to
> do this from the outset.
Good, you agree with this much and can see it. Now, can you see that the GPL
isn't the only licence that requests that you do certain things when using
the software? In the case of the GPL it simply requests that, when using an
item of Free Software, you extend the freedoms you enjoyed to your users.
> > This, again, is a general issue.
>
> No it is not, public domain, bsd, mit/x licences do not have this problem.
I'm not sure there is such a thing as a "public domain licence". But that's
beside the point. I'm happy to see that you understand that there are other
Free Software licences. Do you make a point of understanding those licences
when they're used by some code you want to use? If you do I fail to see why
you should object to understanding the GPL too.
Understanding the licence of a body of code is something you need to do when
you use that body of code. Now, here's the important bit: this is true if
the code is licenced with a Free Software licence or with a non-Free
Software licence. Now can you see how understanding the licence and
complying with it is a general issue?
> > > And this sort of destroys the whole argument you were making about how
> > > the gpl is good because it is "free".
> >
> > How?
>
> because you are saying that "free" is not as good as cash in hand.
Where, exactly, did I say any such thing? A quote would be nice.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>> > That assumes that you can trace the copyrights down and get everyones
>> > permission who was involved to the satisfaction of the lawyers.
>>
>> This, again, is a general issue.
>
> No it is not, public domain, bsd, mit/x licences do not have this problem.
So you want to redistribute my software under a different license to that
which I, as copyright author, have defined? Well, thanks for the tip-off.
Of the above, public-domain is the closest to that (when software is
expressly placed in it), all the others are great respecters of copyright.
~Tim
--
Newton and Adam, lost and found, ·······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
The apple must fall to the ground |http://spodzone.org.uk/
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> So you want to redistribute my software under a different license to that
> which I, as copyright author, have defined? Well, thanks for the tip-off.
> Of the above, public-domain is the closest to that (when software is
> expressly placed in it), all the others are great respecters of copyright.
Respecters? I think not. GPL calls itself "copyleft", intended to use
Copyright law against itself. Copyright restricts people; copyleft
restricts people from restricting people.
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >> > That assumes that you can trace the copyrights down and get everyones
> >> > permission who was involved to the satisfaction of the lawyers.
> >>
> >> This, again, is a general issue.
> >
> > No it is not, public domain, bsd, mit/x licences do not have this problem.
>
> So you want to redistribute my software under a different license to that
> which I, as copyright author, have defined? Well, thanks for the tip-off.
> Of the above, public-domain is the closest to that (when software is
> expressly placed in it), all the others are great respecters of copyright.
I do not want to redistribute your software under a license other then
what you release it under, if we had a deal worked out with a different
license so be it.
And WHY DID YOU ACCUSE ME OF WANTING TO STEAL FROM YOU?
What I said, read above and use some of those basic reading comprehension
skills you are supposed to have, is that the problem of tracking everyone
down to settle copyright issues is a effective non issue with the following
licenses(or lack there of) BSD, MIT/X and public domain. It is not a non
issue with gpl unless you want to deliver more gpled code.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>> > You have to be kidding. To communicate with groups of people you need
>> > to have well defined terms or the system just does not work.
>>
>> Yes. When you're talking about Free Software, the above page is *the*
>> definition.
>
> No it is not, you just claim it is.
Right. Show me another page and large group of people who have another
accepted definition of `Free Software' and you'll have half a point.
>> You might want to take this up with GNU or the FSF if you feel it's a
>> problem.
>
> They know about it an do it anyway. The problem is other people repeat it
> through ignorance or zealotry and it needs to be corrected so that people
> do not get burned by accident.
Agreed; arguing with zealots never got anyone anywhere.
>> What, developers don't like to receive patches from other people improving
>> their software?
>
> You are deliberately changing the subject here.
Not at all. You said `developer-friendly', I'm talking about being friendly
to developers. *You* seem to be talking about money-friendly, however.
>> > ie help me pay my bills.
>>
>> This doesn't follow at all. Merely retaining sources to yourself is no
>> guarantee of making money; putting a price on a product will do that,
>> and source is as good a thing as any.
>
> No because once I release the source, not sell a source license, I loose
> all control over it legally.
Again, rubbish. You have copyright on everything you right. Have you
actually read the GPL?
>> Rubbish, I'm afraid. Where does it say you must publish anything? Either
>> use someone else's software, optionally add your own bits and do what you
>> like (with the clause that further redistribution must include source,
>> which seems fair enough when you've adulterated someone else's work), or
>> otherwise work through the licensing terms.
>
> As soon as I release a binary I am obligated to release the source, if
> someone who has the binary requests it.
Only if you release it under the GPL. Note that `Free Software' is more
than the GPL.
> One of the main reasons I do not think it is fair is that there is no
> reasonableness test for application of the gpl, one 10 line file can
> really screw you if it gets in your application.
This is where you should be conscientious about what you put in. All
software, source or binary, has some form of usage/distribution license.
>> Of course, you could be more creative, and consider the implications of
>> being a copyright holder on a piece of work (be that wholly original or
>> a useful patch to something else), when it comes to choosing the license
>> considerations - specifically, the GPL helps you here, if you have
>> copyright over some code that someone else wants to use in a proprietary
>> product, you have to negotiate a license with them that could well be
>> financially rewarding - they have to pay to stop the tree of
>> source-redistribution from their product onwards.
>
> That assumes that you can trace the copyrights down and get everyones
> permission who was involved to the satisfaction of the lawyers.
Correct. If someone doesn't want to play ball with you, you have a problem.
> And this sort of destroys the whole argument you were making about how
> the gpl is good because it is "free".
I don't recall making such an argument at all.
~Tim
--
13:16:45 up 46 days, 11:57, 10 users, load average: 0.06, 0.13, 0.09
······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk |The sun is melting over the hills,
http://piglet.is.dreaming.org |All our roads are waiting / To be revealed
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >> > You have to be kidding. To communicate with groups of people you need
> >> > to have well defined terms or the system just does not work.
> >>
> >> Yes. When you're talking about Free Software, the above page is *the*
> >> definition.
> >
> > No it is not, you just claim it is.
>
> Right. Show me another page and large group of people who have another
> accepted definition of `Free Software' and you'll have half a point.
I have issuse with there definition of free, it is wrong. If they want
to co-opt it for their marketing fine and when I see it I can correct it.
>
> >> You might want to take this up with GNU or the FSF if you feel it's a
> >> problem.
> >
> > They know about it an do it anyway. The problem is other people repeat it
> > through ignorance or zealotry and it needs to be corrected so that people
> > do not get burned by accident.
>
> Agreed; arguing with zealots never got anyone anywhere.
>
> >> What, developers don't like to receive patches from other people improving
> >> their software?
> >
> > You are deliberately changing the subject here.
>
> Not at all. You said `developer-friendly', I'm talking about being friendly
> to developers. *You* seem to be talking about money-friendly, however.
to be friendly to a group you must be friendly to the majoroty of
indviduals in that group, no? The gpl is designed around the idea
that people cannot be trusted, ie people are bad, and the gpl must
compel them through force of law to do the right thing.
>
> >> > ie help me pay my bills.
> >>
> >> This doesn't follow at all. Merely retaining sources to yourself is no
> >> guarantee of making money; putting a price on a product will do that,
> >> and source is as good a thing as any.
> >
> > No because once I release the source, not sell a source license, I loose
> > all control over it legally.
>
> Again, rubbish. You have copyright on everything you right. Have you
> actually read the GPL?
But I do not own the distribution rights, do I? The gpl requires me
to give away the design along with the finished product, if the end
user requests it. I then loose all control over what is done with my
design and much of the abillity to profit from it by selling other
copies. And in all honesty if the end user does not fund the total cost
of development why should they get more then they paid for?
>
> >> Rubbish, I'm afraid. Where does it say you must publish anything? Either
> >> use someone else's software, optionally add your own bits and do what you
> >> like (with the clause that further redistribution must include source,
> >> which seems fair enough when you've adulterated someone else's work), or
> >> otherwise work through the licensing terms.
> >
> > As soon as I release a binary I am obligated to release the source, if
> > someone who has the binary requests it.
>
> Only if you release it under the GPL. Note that `Free Software' is more
> than the GPL.
I was specificaly talking about the gpl in this thread and how it is not
a free licence the whole time. Stop trying to change the subject. And
I was speaking about the dangers of using gpled software to build other
software whenyou may not want to release it under the gpl.
>
> > One of the main reasons I do not think it is fair is that there is no
> > reasonableness test for application of the gpl, one 10 line file can
> > really screw you if it gets in your application.
>
> This is where you should be conscientious about what you put in. All
> software, source or binary, has some form of usage/distribution license.
most does, but calling the gpl free is what I objected to.
>
> >> Of course, you could be more creative, and consider the implications of
> >> being a copyright holder on a piece of work (be that wholly original or
> >> a useful patch to something else), when it comes to choosing the license
> >> considerations - specifically, the GPL helps you here, if you have
> >> copyright over some code that someone else wants to use in a proprietary
> >> product, you have to negotiate a license with them that could well be
> >> financially rewarding - they have to pay to stop the tree of
> >> source-redistribution from their product onwards.
> >
> > That assumes that you can trace the copyrights down and get everyones
> > permission who was involved to the satisfaction of the lawyers.
>
> Correct. If someone doesn't want to play ball with you, you have a problem.
exactly my point
marc
>
> > And this sort of destroys the whole argument you were making about how
> > the gpl is good because it is "free".
>
> I don't recall making such an argument at all.
>
> ~Tim
> --
> 13:16:45 up 46 days, 11:57, 10 users, load average: 0.06, 0.13, 0.09
> ······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk |The sun is melting over the hills,
> http://piglet.is.dreaming.org |All our roads are waiting / To be revealed
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> But I do not own the distribution rights, do I? The gpl requires me
> to give away the design along with the finished product, if the end
> user requests it. I then loose all control over what is done with my
> design and much of the abillity to profit from it by selling other
> copies. And in all honesty if the end user does not fund the total cost
> of development why should they get more then they paid for?
Oh, come on. Your definition of "free" is a lot more obscure than the
FSF's. I doubt the first freedom that comes to mind for average people
is the freedom to control what others do with what you sell them.
Bruce Lewis <·······@yahoo.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > But I do not own the distribution rights, do I? The gpl requires me
> > to give away the design along with the finished product, if the end
> > user requests it. I then loose all control over what is done with my
> > design and much of the abillity to profit from it by selling other
> > copies. And in all honesty if the end user does not fund the total cost
> > of development why should they get more then they paid for?
>
> Oh, come on. Your definition of "free" is a lot more obscure than the
> FSF's. I doubt the first freedom that comes to mind for average people
> is the freedom to control what others do with what you sell them.
Ask someone if it is a free dinner if the restaurant makes them wash
dishes after they finish eating but charges them no money. The vast
majority of them will say no.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Ask someone if it is a free dinner if the restaurant makes them wash
> dishes after they finish eating but charges them no money. The vast
> majority of them will say no.
Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
--
Dave Pearson
http://www.davep.org/
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Ask someone if it is a free dinner if the restaurant makes them wash
> > dishes after they finish eating but charges them no money. The vast
> > majority of them will say no.
>
> Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
the part where someone elses is more important then mine.
marc
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> > >
> > > > Ask someone if it is a free dinner if the restaurant makes them wash
> > > > dishes after they finish eating but charges them no money. The vast
> > > > majority of them will say no.
> > >
> > > Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
> >
> > the part where someone elses is more important then mine.
>
> But the only freedom of yours that is being restricted is to make
> money off of someone else's labors without respecting the terms under
> which the said work was made available to you.
>
> The more I hear of the anti-GPL rants, the more I'm convinced of the
> merits of the GPL license.
This is a misrepresentation of the position being advocated here.
Someone said, GPL is Free Software. Someone else said it wasn't. All
hell promptly broke loose.
But nobody denies the right of the people who use the GPL to put their
software under that license.
There's a certain irony here. The GPL is supposed to be against the
idea of intellectual property. But the above comment seems to imply
that a property right does inhere. If there is no property right, why
should you care what anyone does with your non-property?
In fact, the argument of those against using the GPL to advance the
cause of free software seems to win at both ends. At one end, it
respects property rights and says that people can enforce whatever
(legal) terms they want on what they've created. At the other end it
says that one can give software away, and impose no terms on its use,
and if someone can make money off it, more power to them. So it
admits the right of people to use software to advance their political
agenda, if that's what they choose, no matter how fuzzy their thinking
may be. It also undercuts the GPL by demonstrating that one can give
away software in the here and now even with the current climate
regarding "intellectual property".
(Software patents as they currently exist are another story....)
The argument we are having is over whether restrictions the GPL
embodies allow it to be legitimately called free software.
It's clearly not free to the extent that Public Domain software is, or
even software released under the BSD license or the X license. That's
because it imposes restrictions on the way people can use it.
Does anybody disagree with that? I was under the impression that it
was a given.
So I just take the point of view that software under the GPL is called
"free" as a polemic device. Again, I think nobody would disagree that
the restrictions the GPL imposes are intended to advance a political
agenda, to change society by making impossible certain kinds of
transactions that society currently supports.
I used to think this was a good idea. Now I think the water is much
murkier, and I'm leery of trying to work for changes that I don't
understand the consequences of. I'm particularly unhappy about the
"software tax" idea that RMS has advocated, because I'm unhappy about
giving the government any more taxing power (or power of any sort, for
that matter) than it already has.
As a result, I'm more inclined to support paid software (people
writing software because people pay them to do so) and also software
donated to the public in the form of public domain or licenses that
impose no restrictions on reuse (people giving away software they've
written because they like doing it and want to see it used widely.)
I don't deny people the right to use GPL, or to pretty much do
whatever they want with their creations. And I gratefully acknowledge
the tremendous amount of high quality work that they've done. But I
don't agree with the political agenda and I don't think the word
"free" is being used completely honestly.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
I can't escape the sensation that I have already been thinking in Lisp
all my programming career, but forcing the ideas into the constraints
of bad languages, which explode those ideas into a bewildering array
of details, most of which are workarounds for the language.
--Kaz Kylheku
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> The argument we are having is over whether restrictions the GPL
> embodies allow it to be legitimately called free software.
>
> It's clearly not free to the extent that Public Domain software is, or
> even software released under the BSD license or the X license. That's
> because it imposes restrictions on the way people can use it.
>
> Does anybody disagree with that? I was under the impression that it
> was a given.
I'm a free person. I'm given to understand that the law forbids me
from selling myself into slavery. If I'm not free to make myself
non-free, does that make me more or less free?
-dan, wielding the blunt saw of analogy
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
From: Kenny Tilton
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <3EC2CAC5.9010706@nyc.rr.com>
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
>
>>The argument we are having is over whether restrictions the GPL
>>embodies allow it to be legitimately called free software.
>>
>>It's clearly not free to the extent that Public Domain software is, or
>>even software released under the BSD license or the X license. That's
>>because it imposes restrictions on the way people can use it.
>>
>>Does anybody disagree with that? I was under the impression that it
>>was a given.
>
>
> I'm a free person. I'm given to understand that the law forbids me
> from selling myself into slavery. If I'm not free to make myself
> non-free, does that make me more or less free?
>
>
> -dan, wielding the blunt saw of analogy
>
And let's not forget Sartre: "The facticity of freedom is the fact that
freedom is not able to be not free."
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Everything is a cell." -- Alan Kay
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> > The argument we are having is over whether restrictions the GPL
> > embodies allow it to be legitimately called free software.
> >
> > It's clearly not free to the extent that Public Domain software is, or
> > even software released under the BSD license or the X license. That's
> > because it imposes restrictions on the way people can use it.
> >
> > Does anybody disagree with that? I was under the impression that it
> > was a given.
>
> I'm a free person. I'm given to understand that the law forbids me
> from selling myself into slavery. If I'm not free to make myself
> non-free, does that make me more or less free?
Well, actually one can say that being in debt is like being slave.
You're free to contract a debt if you want to sell yourself into
slavery.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> wrote:
> There's a certain irony here. The GPL is supposed to be against the
> idea of intellectual property. But the above comment seems to imply
> that a property right does inhere. If there is no property right, why
> should you care what anyone does with your non-property?
Is it non-property if anyone can make it their property instead of
everyone's? If you want to look at it that way, the GPL is a protection
against proprietariness, isn't it?
MJR, setting FUs again.
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
> > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> >
> > > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> > >
> > > > * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> > > >
> > > > > Ask someone if it is a free dinner if the restaurant makes them wash
> > > > > dishes after they finish eating but charges them no money. The vast
> > > > > majority of them will say no.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
> > >
> > > the part where someone elses is more important then mine.
> >
> > But the only freedom of yours that is being restricted is to make
> > money off of someone else's labors without respecting the terms under
> > which the said work was made available to you.
> >
> > The more I hear of the anti-GPL rants, the more I'm convinced of the
> > merits of the GPL license.
>
> This is a misrepresentation of the position being advocated here.
> Someone said, GPL is Free Software. Someone else said it wasn't. All
> hell promptly broke loose.
>
> But nobody denies the right of the people who use the GPL to put their
> software under that license.
>
> There's a certain irony here. The GPL is supposed to be against the
> idea of intellectual property. But the above comment seems to imply
> that a property right does inhere. If there is no property right, why
> should you care what anyone does with your non-property?
The only irony is on the proponent of the copyright and intellectual
property. Well, actually, the GPL is in the same vein as the original
copyright, that is the laws that give the _author_ certain rights of
regulating the copy of his work. Nowaday, most copyright holders are
not the author (who was mortal and whose copyright was thus limited in
time, shortly after his death, to be benefit of the whole humanity),
but articifial immortal monsters with the power to promote laws
retarding indefinitely the time when the works will be available free.
Otherwise, that's just playing with the arms of the adversary...
> In fact, the argument of those against using the GPL to advance the
> cause of free software seems to win at both ends. At one end, it
> respects property rights and says that people can enforce whatever
> (legal) terms they want on what they've created. At the other end it
> says that one can give software away, and impose no terms on its use,
> and if someone can make money off it, more power to them. So it
> admits the right of people to use software to advance their political
> agenda, if that's what they choose, no matter how fuzzy their thinking
> may be. It also undercuts the GPL by demonstrating that one can give
> away software in the here and now even with the current climate
> regarding "intellectual property".
Of course. The difference is that in the case of an individual,
publishing his software under BSD will not change the unfortunate
situation where the corporations keep the sources closed, and won't
help him solve his problems with deficient proprietary software and
firmware. On the contrary, with GPL there's a hope to change the
situation and make the corporation publish the sources of their
software and firmware in exchange of using the good GPL'ed software.
Between individuals, there's not much difference between GPL and BSD.
But there is an asymetry between the individuals and the corporations,
and while the GPL most probably will not have made Xerox give the
sources of their printer software to the public in general and to
Stallman in particular, and will not have made D-Link give the sources
of their router firmware along with their router to let me correct
their bugs, at least there's an opening. And NeXT did release their
modifications to the gcc compiler finally, and probably the experience
was not so painful, since not at Apple, their released the sources of
Darwin, and SAP released under GPL the sources of their data base, etc.
> (Software patents as they currently exist are another story....)
>
> The argument we are having is over whether restrictions the GPL
> embodies allow it to be legitimately called free software.
>
> It's clearly not free to the extent that Public Domain software is, or
> even software released under the BSD license or the X license. That's
> because it imposes restrictions on the way people can use it.
>
> Does anybody disagree with that? I was under the impression that it
> was a given.
No. It's obvious, GPL embodies a "politic" agenda, that of promoting
the opening of the sources, of promoting the freedom of people to do
what they want with all distributed software and firmware.
You know the chinese proverb that it is better to learn a man to fish
than to give him a fish. Well, usually the man is not happy with you
after your lesson because he ends hungry. (It's hard, you have to be
a good teacher and have the good conditions, to teach how to fish and
fish a fish at the same time!).
> So I just take the point of view that software under the GPL is called
> "free" as a polemic device. Again, I think nobody would disagree that
> the restrictions the GPL imposes are intended to advance a political
> agenda, to change society by making impossible certain kinds of
> transactions that society currently supports.
Ok, let's say that the GPL is meta-free.
> I used to think this was a good idea. Now I think the water is much
> murkier, and I'm leery of trying to work for changes that I don't
> understand the consequences of. I'm particularly unhappy about the
> "software tax" idea that RMS has advocated, because I'm unhappy about
> giving the government any more taxing power (or power of any sort, for
> that matter) than it already has.
>
> As a result, I'm more inclined to support paid software (people
> writing software because people pay them to do so) and also software
> donated to the public in the form of public domain or licenses that
> impose no restrictions on reuse (people giving away software they've
> written because they like doing it and want to see it used widely.)
>
> I don't deny people the right to use GPL, or to pretty much do
> whatever they want with their creations. And I gratefully acknowledge
> the tremendous amount of high quality work that they've done. But I
> don't agree with the political agenda and I don't think the word
> "free" is being used completely honestly.
Note that when an author distributes a given copy of his work under
the GPL, that does not prevent him to distribute it also under another
license, be it BSD or commercial or whatever, at the same time or
later.
Once again, between us, it does not matter. But I would not mind
selling commercial licenses of my GPL'ed software to interested
companies if they prefer to keep their sources for them instead of
exchanging them against mine (and those of others).
I could argue that the GPL is more "free" than BSD as follow:
X publish software U under BSD.
Y takes software U and integrate it inside his software V.
Y sells licenses to use the binaries of V.
----------------------------------------------------------
People are free to use U as they wish.
People are free to distribute the sources of U.
People are free to distribute binaries of U.
People are free to pay Y for the right of executing V.
(People can't ask Z to modify V for them.)
(People can't distribute V (not even the binaries they only have)).
= 4 freedoms
X publish software U under GPL.
Y takes software U and integrate it inside his software V.
Y sells copies of V along with its sources under GPL.
----------------------------------------------------------
People are free to use U as they wish
People are free to distribute the sources of U.
People are free to distribute binaries AND sources of U.
People are free to use V as they wish
People are free to distribute the sources of V.
People are free to distribute binaries AND sources of V.
People are free to pay Y for V.
People are free to ask Z to modify V for them.
= 8 freedoms
X publish software U under GPL.
Y does not take software U, and develop his own software V.
Y sells licenses to use the binaries of V.
----------------------------------------------------------
People are free to use U as they wish.
People are free to distribute the sources of U.
People are free to distribute binaries of U.
People are free to pay Y for the right of executing V.
(People can't ask Z to modify V for them.)
(People can't distribute V (not even the binaries they only have)).
= 4 freedoms
Total: at worse GPL will leave people with the same freedom than BSD,
and if the corporation deems worthwhile using GPL'ed software, people
will get more freedom.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
* Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote:
|
| Total: at worse GPL will leave people with the same freedom than BSD,
| and if the corporation deems worthwhile using GPL'ed software, people
| will get more freedom.
No. There are many more scenarios you're just not mentioning.
For example:
X publish software U under BSD.
Y takes software U and integrate it inside his software V.
Y sells copies of V along with its sources under BSD.
----------------------------------------------------------
People are free to use U as they wish.
People are free to distribute the sources of U.
People are free to distribute binaries of U.
People are free to use V as they wish
People are free to distribute the sources of V.
People are free to distribute binaries of V.
People are free to pay Y for V.
People are free to ask Z to modify V for them.
People are free to take U and distribute modifications with a different license.
People are free to take V and distribute modifications with a different license.
= 10 freedoms (and I'm sure I forgot some)
Judging from the thread, you probably don't like those last two
freedoms and I'm sure you're able to come up with a new table that
shows that the GPL gives you more freedoms than BSD, but that would
just remind me of Leverrier.
Boris
--
·····@uncommon-sense.net - <http://www.uncommon-sense.net/>
If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are headed.
"Boris Schaefer" <·····@uncommon-sense.net> wrote in message
···················@qiwi.uncommon-sense.net...
> * Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote:
> |
> | Total: at worse GPL will leave people with the same freedom than BSD,
> | and if the corporation deems worthwhile using GPL'ed software, people
> | will get more freedom.
>
> No. There are many more scenarios you're just not mentioning.
> For example:
>
> X publish software U under BSD.
> Y takes software U and integrate it inside his software V.
> Y sells copies of V along with its sources under BSD.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> People are free to use U as they wish.
> People are free to distribute the sources of U.
> People are free to distribute binaries of U.
> People are free to use V as they wish
> People are free to distribute the sources of V.
> People are free to distribute binaries of V.
>
> People are free to pay Y for V.
> People are free to ask Z to modify V for them.
>
> People are free to take U and distribute modifications with a
different license.
> People are free to take V and distribute modifications with a
different license.
>
> = 10 freedoms (and I'm sure I forgot some)
>
> Judging from the thread, you probably don't like those last two
> freedoms and I'm sure you're able to come up with a new table that
> shows that the GPL gives you more freedoms than BSD, but that would
> just remind me of Leverrier.
>
> Boris
>
> --
> ·····@uncommon-sense.net - <http://www.uncommon-sense.net/>
>
> If we do not change our direction we are likely to end up where we are
headed.
I agree. Programmers should be allowed to do what they want
with there code. But, they must be careful to use code that
is licenced correctly.
As a hobbyist/dabler I just code, but I can understand
why people who code for a living should worry about
loss of some freedoms.
If BSD gives you all of these freedoms--I wonder why people
would choose GPL.
Source code helps me learn--I love it when it's released--but it should be
done in such a way as to not scare of coders. Because, without
coders/programmers writing code their'd be no source code is distribute. :)
* "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> wrote:
|
| If BSD gives you all of these freedoms--I wonder why people would
| choose GPL.
Basically I think this "list of freedoms"-argument is totally bogus.
I just came up with a different list to show that Pascal's list isn't
"correct". I think anyone can come up with another list that shows
that my list isn't correct (I believe I'd already have to modify it,
because of Nicolas' reply to my post), and I seriously doubt that
someone can come up with a list that's universally accepted.
I thought my post was clear in that I think this "argument by listing
freedoms" is bogus, and that I just used a different list to show
that. But apparently I wasn't as clear as I hoped.
And to come back to your comment. I don't think that people choose a
license by considering a list of freedoms that they enjoy through
using it.
Boris
--
·····@uncommon-sense.net - <http://www.uncommon-sense.net/>
An effective way to deal with predators is to taste terrible.
Boris Schaefer <·····@uncommon-sense.net> writes:
> People are free to take U and distribute modifications with a
> different license.
>
> People are free to take V and distribute modifications with a
> different license.
Sorry for jumping into a thread which I did not read completely (too much
Kafka, I guess, and therefore having a low score).
Reading the BSD license at
<http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php> I see
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
* Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
* Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
* Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
this software without specific prior written permission.
I understand this such that the copyright notice on the code should be
retained even for modifications [1]. Am I wrong?
Nicolas.
[1] ... and I would find that quite useful because I'm thinking about using
that license myself.
* Nicolas Neuss <·············@iwr.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote:
|
| Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
| modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
|
| * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
| notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
|
| * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
| notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
| documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
|
| * Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its
| contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from
| this software without specific prior written permission.
|
| I understand this such that the copyright notice on the code should be
| retained even for modifications [1]. Am I wrong?
I'm not sure, but I think you're right (but, IANAL).
What I meant was the following: as far as I understand the BSD
license, you can create a derived work and withhold the source. In my
hypothetical scenario, this would add 2 freedoms that the GPL doesn't
have. (I'd have to reformulate it, so that you have the freedom to
withhold the source.) Anyway, I think all these scenarios are
neglecting essential issues and so are not really useful.
Boris
--
·····@uncommon-sense.net - <http://www.uncommon-sense.net/>
To stay youthful, stay useful.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> > >
> > > > Ask someone if it is a free dinner if the restaurant makes them wash
> > > > dishes after they finish eating but charges them no money. The vast
> > > > majority of them will say no.
> > >
> > > Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
> >
> > the part where someone elses is more important then mine.
>
> But the only freedom of yours that is being restricted is to make
> money off of someone else's labors without respecting the terms under
> which the said work was made available to you.
you realize that you are contradicting your self here? I am
restricted in making money because I respect the concept of property
not because I take things that I am not entitled to.
And what is wrong with making money?
marc
>
> The more I hear of the anti-GPL rants, the more I'm convinced of the
> merits of the GPL license.
ps just because we do not agree does not make it a rant unless you can
not defend your position any other way, even then it is not a rant(you
just claim it is).
>
> rsi
> --
> <···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
> Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
> > > But the only freedom of yours that is being restricted is to make
> > > money off of someone else's labors without respecting the terms under
> > > which the said work was made available to you.
>
> > you realize that you are contradicting your self here? I am
> > restricted in making money because I respect the concept of property
> > not because I take things that I am not entitled to.
>
> So your argument is:
>
> a. you're too scrupulous to steal someone's property
>
> b. therefore you can't make money by fencing it
>
> c. therefore property rights are an undue restriction on your ability
> to make money
>
> And I'm the one contradicting myself?
No you are the one misrepresenting my position. I have repeatedly
stated that I do not have a problem with the gpl I have a problem
with how the gpl is dishonestly marketed by the fsf and its zealots.
And what gives you the right to call me a thief you sack of shit.
>
> > And what is wrong with making money?
>
> Nothing at all. It's simply false to claim that GPL prevents you from
> making money. All it does is restrict you from making money off of
> *OTHER* people's work in a *PARTICULAR* way. This is no more a
> restriction than, say, a stricture against someone making money by
> stealing someone else's property and then selling it.
No it does not, for example if I was to write some tool and *give* it
away but did not want to release the source and it used a gpled library
I could be compelled to release the source, it fundamentally has nothing
to do with money and everything to do with property rights. And the lies
being told how the gpl is free for any reasonable definition of free, with
or with out quotes and/or capitalization.
marc
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> >
> > > Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > > But the only freedom of yours that is being restricted is to make
> > > > > money off of someone else's labors without respecting the terms under
> > > > > which the said work was made available to you.
> > >
> > > > you realize that you are contradicting your self here? I am
> > > > restricted in making money because I respect the concept of property
> > > > not because I take things that I am not entitled to.
> > >
> > > So your argument is:
> > >
> > > a. you're too scrupulous to steal someone's property
> > >
> > > b. therefore you can't make money by fencing it
> > >
> > > c. therefore property rights are an undue restriction on your ability
> > > to make money
> > >
> > > And I'm the one contradicting myself?
> >
> > No you are the one misrepresenting my position. I have repeatedly
> > stated that I do not have a problem with the gpl I have a problem
> > with how the gpl is dishonestly marketed by the fsf and its zealots.
> >
> > And what gives you the right to call me a thief you sack of shit.
>
> I think I finally understand the root cause of your problem with the
> GPL. You're simply illiterate and quite dishonest to boot.
I am shocked by your lack of perception and ability to understand the
concept of context. And your utter inability to actualy understand
an argument instead of lashing out like a disfunctional 3 year old
is also sad statement on whatever growing up up you have claimed to
do.
fuck you too
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> No it does not, for example if I was to write some tool and *give* it away
> but did not want to release the source and it used a gpled library I could
> be compelled to release the source, it fundamentally has nothing to do
> with money and everything to do with property rights. And the lies being
> told how the gpl is free for any reasonable definition of free, with or
> with out quotes and/or capitalization.
The GPL simply asks you to further extend the freedom you enjoyed to your
users. What is dishonest about that? Nobody would have forced you to use
software under the GPL and, hopefully, you make a point of comprehending the
licence of any body of 3rd party code you use.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > No it does not, for example if I was to write some tool and *give* it away
> > but did not want to release the source and it used a gpled library I could
> > be compelled to release the source, it fundamentally has nothing to do
> > with money and everything to do with property rights. And the lies being
> > told how the gpl is free for any reasonable definition of free, with or
> > with out quotes and/or capitalization.
>
> The GPL simply asks you to further extend the freedom you enjoyed to your
> users. What is dishonest about that? Nobody would have forced you to use
It does not ask it requires, there is a big big difference. Stating
that it asks when that is in direct contradiction to the licence terms
as you seem to know them is dishonest. This is *exactly* the kind of
partisan garbage I was complaining about orignaly.
> software under the GPL and, hopefully, you make a point of comprehending the
> licence of any body of 3rd party code you use.
Yes I do, and when dealing with the fsf crowd I read thrice before
even considering once. They are a dishonest bunch.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > The GPL simply asks you to further extend the freedom you enjoyed to
> > your users. What is dishonest about that? Nobody would have forced you
> > to use
>
> It does not ask it requires, there is a big big difference. Stating that
> it asks when that is in direct contradiction to the licence terms as you
> seem to know them is dishonest. This is *exactly* the kind of partisan
> garbage I was complaining about orignaly.
What does "partisan" mean here in regard to my motivations for using the
GPL?
> > software under the GPL and, hopefully, you make a point of comprehending
> > the licence of any body of 3rd party code you use.
>
> Yes I do, and when dealing with the fsf crowd I read thrice before even
> considering once. They are a dishonest bunch.
I rather think that the vast majority of code licenced under the GPL doesn't
come from the FSF. Do you understand that your opinion of the honesty of the
FSF has nothing to do with the motivations of individual software developers
who use the GPL on a body of code?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > The GPL simply asks you to further extend the freedom you enjoyed to
> > > your users. What is dishonest about that? Nobody would have forced you
> > > to use
> >
> > It does not ask it requires, there is a big big difference. Stating that
> > it asks when that is in direct contradiction to the licence terms as you
> > seem to know them is dishonest. This is *exactly* the kind of partisan
> > garbage I was complaining about orignaly.
>
> What does "partisan" mean here in regard to my motivations for using the
> GPL?
I was not talking about the use but the marketing, stated yet again.
ie the gpl is free, the gpl gives you a choice on derived works ...
>
> > > software under the GPL and, hopefully, you make a point of comprehending
> > > the licence of any body of 3rd party code you use.
> >
> > Yes I do, and when dealing with the fsf crowd I read thrice before even
> > considering once. They are a dishonest bunch.
>
> I rather think that the vast majority of code licenced under the GPL doesn't
> come from the FSF. Do you understand that your opinion of the honesty of the
> FSF has nothing to do with the motivations of individual software developers
> who use the GPL on a body of code?
The licence comes from the fsf.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > I rather think that the vast majority of code licenced under the GPL
> > doesn't come from the FSF. Do you understand that your opinion of the
> > honesty of the FSF has nothing to do with the motivations of individual
> > software developers who use the GPL on a body of code?
>
> The licence comes from the fsf.
While this is true, its use on my code comes from me. What purpose does it
serve that you try and force me to accept responsibility for someone else's
actions and motivations? I've also released code that, while being under the
GPL, also extended a guile-a-like exception. Did I act like an individual
there or was I still being a "minion of the FSF"? If the former then why
doesn't that hold true for use of the GPL alone? If the latter what distance
does there need to be between my chosen licence and the GPL before you're
willing to accept that I'm an individual with my own motivations and
beliefs?
What about when I've released "public domain" code? What about when I've
released non-free code?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
>
> the part where someone elses is more important then mine.
Personally, when I use the GPL, I do so because I see yours as being exactly
equal to mine. Please explain how, when I release a body of code under the
GPL, I'm showing that I value my freedom to mess with the code more than
yours.
At least you're concerning yourself with freedom now, not costs.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
> >
> > the part where someone elses is more important then mine.
>
> Personally, when I use the GPL, I do so because I see yours as being exactly
> equal to mine. Please explain how, when I release a body of code under the
> GPL, I'm showing that I value my freedom to mess with the code more than
> yours.
By using the gpl you are taking away my choice to "do the right thing"
or not as it were. You have compelled me to behave in a certain way,
not only in regards to your property but also in regards to my
property that touches your's.
So I am not worthy of having the same right to choose whether I want to
release my property or not. This shows that you think I can not be
trusted with the freedom that you claim you support in my case by removing
my right to choose.
>
> At least you're concerning yourself with freedom now, not costs.
Cost aka economics and liberty are closely related.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Personally, when I use the GPL, I do so because I see yours as being
> > exactly equal to mine. Please explain how, when I release a body of code
> > under the GPL, I'm showing that I value my freedom to mess with the code
> > more than yours.
>
> By using the gpl you are taking away my choice to "do the right thing" or
> not as it were.
Nonsense, you've still got the choice to not do the right thing.
> You have compelled me to behave in a certain way, not only
> in regards to your property but also in regards to my property that
> touches your's.
Then don't let them touch. What you're saying here is that you want to make
me (the author of the code in question) responsible for your actions.
Personally I assume that you're willing to take responsibility for your own
actions. That's why I'd use the GPL, I think you can be trusted to be
responsible for your own actions.
It's really quite simple, when I use the GPL my motivation is to ask you
that, if you distribute a compiled version of my code or you distribute a
work based on it you extend the same freedom to your users that I extended
to you. Where, exactly, is the harm in that?
> So I am not worthy of having the same right to choose whether I want to
> release my property or not.
It isn't about your "property", it is about my "property". If my request,
via the GPL, doesn't work for you we can possibly negotiate some other
agreement. That seems pretty fair doesn't it?
> This shows that you think I can not be trusted
> with the freedom that you claim you support in my case by removing my
> right to choose.
I make no such assumption, I simply, up front, provide the answer you'd get
if you contacted me and asked me if it was ok to do something or other.
Where is the harm in being preemptive in answering people's questions?
If the preemptive answer isn't the one you want you can always contact me
for further details. See how I actually do trust you? See how I'm trusting
you to be responsible for your own actions?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > Personally, when I use the GPL, I do so because I see yours as being
> > > exactly equal to mine. Please explain how, when I release a body of code
> > > under the GPL, I'm showing that I value my freedom to mess with the code
> > > more than yours.
> >
> > By using the gpl you are taking away my choice to "do the right thing" or
> > not as it were.
>
> Nonsense, you've still got the choice to not do the right thing.
bullshit, I have a compulsion under the terms of the license. I have
had my choice taken away.
>
> > You have compelled me to behave in a certain way, not only
> > in regards to your property but also in regards to my property that
> > touches your's.
>
> Then don't let them touch. What you're saying here is that you want to make
> me (the author of the code in question) responsible for your actions.
> Personally I assume that you're willing to take responsibility for your own
> actions. That's why I'd use the GPL, I think you can be trusted to be
> responsible for your own actions.
The terms that you released your code under(gpl) contradict the above
statement that I am trustworthy. If you truly trusted me you would
not be so determined to be able to force me through copyright and the
courts.
>
> It's really quite simple, when I use the GPL my motivation is to ask you
> that, if you distribute a compiled version of my code or you distribute a
> work based on it you extend the same freedom to your users that I extended
> to you. Where, exactly, is the harm in that?
You do not ask, you compel(force) under terms of the license.
>
> > So I am not worthy of having the same right to choose whether I want to
> > release my property or not.
>
> It isn't about your "property", it is about my "property". If my request,
> via the GPL, doesn't work for you we can possibly negotiate some other
> agreement. That seems pretty fair doesn't it?
A request is something I can legally not comply with, you require. And it
is about my property because you are saying you want it.
>
> > This shows that you think I can not be trusted
> > with the freedom that you claim you support in my case by removing my
> > right to choose.
>
> I make no such assumption, I simply, up front, provide the answer you'd get
> if you contacted me and asked me if it was ok to do something or other.
> Where is the harm in being preemptive in answering people's questions?
ok before I contact you you have shown that you do not trust me, happy?
>
> If the preemptive answer isn't the one you want you can always contact me
> for further details. See how I actually do trust you? See how I'm trusting
> you to be responsible for your own actions?
not in the slightest way do I see how you are trusting me.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Then don't let them touch. What you're saying here is that you want to
> > make me (the author of the code in question) responsible for your
> > actions. Personally I assume that you're willing to take responsibility
> > for your own actions. That's why I'd use the GPL, I think you can be
> > trusted to be responsible for your own actions.
>
> The terms that you released your code under(gpl) contradict the above
> statement that I am trustworthy. If you truly trusted me you would not be
> so determined to be able to force me through copyright and the courts.
In other words you're only interested in seeing the worst possible
motivation for my actions. Ok, I'd suspected as much.
> > It's really quite simple, when I use the GPL my motivation is to ask you
> > that, if you distribute a compiled version of my code or you distribute
> > a work based on it you extend the same freedom to your users that I
> > extended to you. Where, exactly, is the harm in that?
>
> You do not ask, you compel(force) under terms of the license.
No, I ask, using a pre-written document that more or less fits the purpose.
That is my motivation. Think about it.
> > It isn't about your "property", it is about my "property". If my
> > request, via the GPL, doesn't work for you we can possibly negotiate
> > some other agreement. That seems pretty fair doesn't it?
>
> A request is something I can legally not comply with, you require. And it
> is about my property because you are saying you want it.
No, it is about my property. Think about it.
> > I make no such assumption, I simply, up front, provide the answer you'd
> > get if you contacted me and asked me if it was ok to do something or
> > other. Where is the harm in being preemptive in answering people's
> > questions?
>
> ok before I contact you you have shown that you do not trust me, happy?
If use of the GPL filters out people who are only interested in inventing
the worst possible motives for my actions then, yes, I'm happy to learn that
it serves a useful purpose I'd never thought of.
> > If the preemptive answer isn't the one you want you can always contact
> > me for further details. See how I actually do trust you? See how I'm
> > trusting you to be responsible for your own actions?
>
> not in the slightest way do I see how you are trusting me.
Then try looking a little harder, it really isn't that hard to see. When you
stop accusing me of lying about my motives (and you are, I'm stating facts
about my motivations here, you're stating facts about your inventions about
my motivations) you should be able to see that my use of the GPL is, in
part, about trusting that you'll able to be responsible for your actions.
Doubtless there will be cases, like this, where the trust is misplaced. I
can live with that.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > Then don't let them touch. What you're saying here is that you want to
> > > make me (the author of the code in question) responsible for your
> > > actions. Personally I assume that you're willing to take responsibility
> > > for your own actions. That's why I'd use the GPL, I think you can be
> > > trusted to be responsible for your own actions.
> >
> > The terms that you released your code under(gpl) contradict the above
> > statement that I am trustworthy. If you truly trusted me you would not be
> > so determined to be able to force me through copyright and the courts.
>
> In other words you're only interested in seeing the worst possible
> motivation for my actions. Ok, I'd suspected as much.
It is reasonable to look at a license and ask "how can this harm me and
how much harm can it do" this is called assessing risk. When the license
has been shown to set me up for massive loss of my property rights if I
touch something that used it I can not see the person who released code
as a noble and selfless saint, it just does not follow.
>
> > > It's really quite simple, when I use the GPL my motivation is to ask you
> > > that, if you distribute a compiled version of my code or you distribute
> > > a work based on it you extend the same freedom to your users that I
> > > extended to you. Where, exactly, is the harm in that?
> >
> > You do not ask, you compel(force) under terms of the license.
>
> No, I ask, using a pre-written document that more or less fits the purpose.
> That is my motivation. Think about it.
under the terms of said pre-written document it is compel not ask.
>
> > > It isn't about your "property", it is about my "property". If my
> > > request, via the GPL, doesn't work for you we can possibly negotiate
> > > some other agreement. That seems pretty fair doesn't it?
> >
> > A request is something I can legally not comply with, you require. And it
> > is about my property because you are saying you want it.
>
> No, it is about my property. Think about it.
look up request.
>
> > > I make no such assumption, I simply, up front, provide the answer you'd
> > > get if you contacted me and asked me if it was ok to do something or
> > > other. Where is the harm in being preemptive in answering people's
> > > questions?
> >
> > ok before I contact you you have shown that you do not trust me, happy?
>
> If use of the GPL filters out people who are only interested in inventing
> the worst possible motives for my actions then, yes, I'm happy to learn that
> it serves a useful purpose I'd never thought of.
The gpl is designed to serve a specific function as part of the fsf taking
over the software world. If you use it you are supporting the goal of
some kind of collective nirvana of coders where you get paid shit money
and work hard for it. A workers paradise by any other name...
>
> > > If the preemptive answer isn't the one you want you can always contact
> > > me for further details. See how I actually do trust you? See how I'm
> > > trusting you to be responsible for your own actions?
> >
> > not in the slightest way do I see how you are trusting me.
>
> Then try looking a little harder, it really isn't that hard to see. When you
> stop accusing me of lying about my motives (and you are, I'm stating facts
> about my motivations here, you're stating facts about your inventions about
> my motivations) you should be able to see that my use of the GPL is, in
> part, about trusting that you'll able to be responsible for your actions.
> Doubtless there will be cases, like this, where the trust is misplaced. I
> can live with that.
If you trusted me or people in general with your property you would
not have included the ability to compel me. That is how you show your
lack of trust. That is what the gpl is designed to do, among other
things.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > In other words you're only interested in seeing the worst possible
> > motivation for my actions. Ok, I'd suspected as much.
>
> It is reasonable to look at a license and ask "how can this harm me and
> how much harm can it do" this is called assessing risk.
Agreed.
> When the license
> has been shown to set me up for massive loss of my property rights if I
> touch something that used it I can not see the person who released code as
> a noble and selfless saint, it just does not follow.
The licence sets you up for nothing that you don't agree to. Moreover,
you're not being asked to see me as a "noble and selfless saint". You're
just being silly now, that's just yet another invention of yours that you're
trying to make be take responsibility for. I refuse to do that.
> > No, I ask, using a pre-written document that more or less fits the
> > purpose. That is my motivation. Think about it.
>
> under the terms of said pre-written document it is compel not ask.
What part of "my motivation" don't you understand? Remember, you've turned
this into something about people's motivations because you're attempting to
suggest that anyone who uses the GPL is, by default, fully supporting the
motivations and the position of the FSF and their more outspoken advocates.
Please try and actually deal with the issue you've raised.
> > > A request is something I can legally not comply with, you require. And
> > > it is about my property because you are saying you want it.
> >
> > No, it is about my property. Think about it.
>
> look up request.
In other words you don't want to think about the fact that we're talking
about my property. If you did you would have responded to that point. By
your own admission we're talking about my property. Why pretend here that
we're not?
> > If use of the GPL filters out people who are only interested in
> > inventing the worst possible motives for my actions then, yes, I'm happy
> > to learn that it serves a useful purpose I'd never thought of.
>
> The gpl is designed to serve a specific function as part of the fsf taking
> over the software world.
I don't know that I'd go quite that far but, yes, of course it was designed
to serve the purposes of the FSF. As I've said more than once, this is a
given. Tools often get used for purposes that the designer never thought of.
Tools often get used by people who don't share the motivations and reasons
of the creator.
> If you use it you are supporting the goal of some
> kind of collective nirvana of coders where you get paid shit money and
> work hard for it. A workers paradise by any other name...
This, however, is nonsense. Once again you're inventing motives for me and
asking me to take responsibility for them on your behalf. Can't you even
begin to imagine that the GPL might be a useful tool for some bodies of code
written by someone who doesn't 100% agree with the stance of the FSF?
> If you trusted me or people in general with your property you would not
> have included the ability to compel me.
Am I to take it that you never use and have never used software licences
that are less free than the GPL?
> That is how you show your lack of
> trust. That is what the gpl is designed to do, among other things.
Please learn to understand that, beyond your keyboard, past your news
reader, there are *individuals* out there who might care about their
"property" as much as you do and who have their own reasons and motivations
that are quite separate from the creators of the GPL.
[F-U set to poster as you've turned this into something about my personal
motivations, please have the decency to find out about them before you
attempt to misrepresent them in public]
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > In other words you're only interested in seeing the worst possible
> > > motivation for my actions. Ok, I'd suspected as much.
> >
> > It is reasonable to look at a license and ask "how can this harm me and
> > how much harm can it do" this is called assessing risk.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > When the license
> > has been shown to set me up for massive loss of my property rights if I
> > touch something that used it I can not see the person who released code as
> > a noble and selfless saint, it just does not follow.
>
> The licence sets you up for nothing that you don't agree to. Moreover,
> you're not being asked to see me as a "noble and selfless saint". You're
> just being silly now, that's just yet another invention of yours that you're
> trying to make be take responsibility for. I refuse to do that.
Well by your actions here in deliberately misrepresenting the impact
that the gpl would have on any code touching a gpled project are not
your fault. The fact that you used request when require was factually
accurate or that you use ask when compel is accurate is not your fault
also. nothing is your fault, nothing.
>
> > > No, I ask, using a pre-written document that more or less fits the
> > > purpose. That is my motivation. Think about it.
> >
> > under the terms of said pre-written document it is compel not ask.
>
> What part of "my motivation" don't you understand? Remember, you've turned
> this into something about people's motivations because you're attempting to
> suggest that anyone who uses the GPL is, by default, fully supporting the
> motivations and the position of the FSF and their more outspoken advocates.
> Please try and actually deal with the issue you've raised.
You use the gpl and the fsf's very own definition of freedom and you
are not a fellow traveler? That is a bit of a stretch, but not your
fault.
>
> > > > A request is something I can legally not comply with, you require. And
> > > > it is about my property because you are saying you want it.
> > >
> > > No, it is about my property. Think about it.
> >
> > look up request.
>
> In other words you don't want to think about the fact that we're talking
> about my property. If you did you would have responded to that point. By
> your own admission we're talking about my property. Why pretend here that
> we're not?
Request is something I do not have to obey, you are talking about
requirments.
>
> > > If use of the GPL filters out people who are only interested in
> > > inventing the worst possible motives for my actions then, yes, I'm happy
> > > to learn that it serves a useful purpose I'd never thought of.
> >
> > The gpl is designed to serve a specific function as part of the fsf taking
> > over the software world.
>
> I don't know that I'd go quite that far but, yes, of course it was designed
> to serve the purposes of the FSF. As I've said more than once, this is a
> given. Tools often get used for purposes that the designer never thought of.
> Tools often get used by people who don't share the motivations and reasons
> of the creator.
they would and have. And by choosing to use the gpl you choose of your
own free will to further their goals, but it is not your fault.
>
> > If you use it you are supporting the goal of some
> > kind of collective nirvana of coders where you get paid shit money and
> > work hard for it. A workers paradise by any other name...
>
> This, however, is nonsense. Once again you're inventing motives for me and
> asking me to take responsibility for them on your behalf. Can't you even
> begin to imagine that the GPL might be a useful tool for some bodies of code
> written by someone who doesn't 100% agree with the stance of the FSF?
You activly and deliberatly help support and streinghten the fsf's goal,
for your own reasons of course and it not your fault. So why should I
care what inner muse you are following?
>
> > If you trusted me or people in general with your property you would not
> > have included the ability to compel me.
>
> Am I to take it that you never use and have never used software licences
> that are less free than the GPL?
But they do not lie about it being free and the fsf does.
>
> > That is how you show your lack of
> > trust. That is what the gpl is designed to do, among other things.
>
> Please learn to understand that, beyond your keyboard, past your news
> reader, there are *individuals* out there who might care about their
> "property" as much as you do and who have their own reasons and motivations
> that are quite separate from the creators of the GPL.
but the effects are exactly the same, the advancement of the fsf's
agenda.
marc
>
> [F-U set to poster as you've turned this into something about my personal
> motivations, please have the decency to find out about them before you
> attempt to misrepresent them in public]
I thought your motovation was that you do not want ot accept responability
for any thing. That ok because it is not your fault.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > The licence sets you up for nothing that you don't agree to. Moreover,
> > you're not being asked to see me as a "noble and selfless saint". You're
> > just being silly now, that's just yet another invention of yours that
> > you're trying to make be take responsibility for. I refuse to do that.
>
> Well by your actions here in deliberately misrepresenting the impact that
> the gpl would have on any code touching a gpled project are not your
> fault.
Liar. I've never once misrepresented the consequences of someone making a
derived work of my work. I've written about my motivations for using a
licence like the GPL (I've also pointed out that I've used less and more
free licences where it has made sense, based on my motivations). I'm very
clear about the consequences of someone modifying and onward distributing my
work.
The only problem here is that you're incapable of seeing that there's a
difference between the motivations of the FSF and the motivations of an
individual developer who makes use of the GPL for their own code.
> The fact that you used request when require was factually accurate
> or that you use ask when compel is accurate is not your fault also.
> nothing is your fault, nothing.
Both ask and compel are factually accurate. Please, think about it.
> > What part of "my motivation" don't you understand? Remember, you've
> > turned this into something about people's motivations because you're
> > attempting to suggest that anyone who uses the GPL is, by default, fully
> > supporting the motivations and the position of the FSF and their more
> > outspoken advocates. Please try and actually deal with the issue you've
> > raised.
>
> You use the gpl and the fsf's very own definition of freedom and you are
> not a fellow traveler? That is a bit of a stretch, but not your fault.
I see that "guilty by association" is important to you. Is there any chance
that, at some point, you'll realise that two motivations can overlap without
being the same? Is there any chance that, at some point, you'll address this
issue?
> > [F-U set to poster as you've turned this into something about my personal
> > motivations, please have the decency to find out about them before you
> > attempt to misrepresent them in public]
>
> I thought your motovation was that you do not want ot accept responability
> for any thing. That ok because it is not your fault.
Thankyou for honestly pointing out that you are horribly confused about my
motivations and that you've been misrepresenting them. F-U set again on the
off chance that you're still only interested in talking about what you'd
like my motivations to be.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
>>>>> "Marc" == Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
Marc> The gpl is designed to serve a specific function as part of the
Marc> fsf taking over the software world. If you use it you are
Marc> supporting the goal of some kind of collective nirvana of
Marc> coders where you get paid shit money and work hard for it. A
Marc> workers paradise by any other name...
As opposed to the current trend where many large companies are sacking
programmers and moving development to countries like india where
programmers get paid bugger all and end up with absolutely no control
over their work?
You have claimed in this thread that you don't like the GPL because it
compels you to abide by some conditions - is this really a problem - I
mean, it is a licence after all and isn't that why you have a licence
- the whole concept of licencing is to place conditions which the user
is compelled to abide by IFF they decide to use the product?
In other parts of this thread you have claimed the GPL is an attack on
your freedom because it takes away the individuals freedom to attempt
to earn an income. Apart from the fact the GPL does not stop you from
earning an income, but rather only places some conditions on how you
can earn that income, the ability to attempt to earn an income is
nowhere as fundamental to freedom as the ability to control the
utilization of what you produce. There are plenty of places in the
world where you are free to attempt to earn an income, but where you
have very little actual freedom. However, if you have control over how
the products (software) you produce is utilized, then you can exercise
control and control is what gives you freedom.
I think what the FSF is all about is trying to promote an ideology
where the developers of software and algorithms can exercise some
control and ownership of that work rather than it being the property
of some large corporation which keeps it secret and sells systems
based on the work for high levels of profit. I'm sure you would say,
but if I use some GPL'd software in my system, I am forced to
relinquish some of this control - this is true, but it is your
decision to use the GPL'd software in the first place - if you don't
agree with the licence, the underlying ideology or whatever, then just
don't use it. The FSF is not attempting to take over the world with
their GPL, they are putting forward an alternative ideology and if you
like it, you are free to follow it and if you don't agree, then you
don't have to adopt it. Of course, everything is different if the GPL
was a legal requirement and we did not have the choice.
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Dave Pearson wrote:
> It isn't about your "property", it is about my "property". If my request,
> via the GPL, doesn't work for you we can possibly negotiate some other
> agreement. That seems pretty fair doesn't it?
>
>> This shows that you think I can not be trusted
>>with the freedom that you claim you support in my case by removing my
>>right to choose.
>
> I make no such assumption, I simply, up front, provide the answer you'd get
> if you contacted me and asked me if it was ok to do something or other.
> Where is the harm in being preemptive in answering people's questions?
The problem is this: If you release source code under the GPL then you
allow other people to continue development. As soon as a considerable
amount of changes have been made to the source you don't own it anymore
- it starts to be collectively owned by many developers. After that
point in time, I am not able anymore to negotiate with someone to reuse
the code under a different license. I guess this is the kind of freedom
that Marc sees taken away from developers.
Other licences clearly say that people are allowed to make changes to
the code, but that the usage rights stay with the original developer.
They provide a higher degree of freedom in this regard because they
allow me to contact the original developer and ask for a different license.
When you publish code under the GPL, you really risk to loose certain
rights on your code, and you can't change your mind afterwards.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>:
> When you publish code under the GPL, you really risk to loose certain
> rights on your code, and you can't change your mind afterwards.
Only if *I* let that happen to my code. Nobody can force me to accept a
patch. I have to be responsible for my own actions, blaming the licence
(which I don't think you're directly doing) seems silly.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>:
>
>>When you publish code under the GPL, you really risk to loose certain
>>rights on your code, and you can't change your mind afterwards.
>
> Only if *I* let that happen to my code. Nobody can force me to accept a
> patch. I have to be responsible for my own actions, blaming the licence
> (which I don't think you're directly doing) seems silly.
In different open source models, you can accept a patch and still claim
it is your code because the contributor have agreed to the licence.
In a closed source model, you see that someone else implements a certain
feature, and then you can decide to implement the same feature for your
product.
With the GPL, when someone sends you a patch, you can either accept it -
then you may loose certain rights on your code - or you can reject it -
but then you will never have the feature. (Or a potential rewrite needs
to look considerably different from the patch that has been submitted to
you.)
The GPL seems to have a clear disadvantage in this regard from the
original implementers point of view.
Note that I am not arguing against the GPL - I am only saying that it is
important to be aware of the consequences.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>:
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > Only if *I* let that happen to my code. Nobody can force me to accept a
> > patch. I have to be responsible for my own actions, blaming the licence
> > (which I don't think you're directly doing) seems silly.
>
> In different open source models, you can accept a patch and still claim it
> is your code because the contributor have agreed to the licence.
Agreed. As I understand it you can also do a variation of this with GPLd
code too.
> In a closed source model, you see that someone else implements a certain
> feature, and then you can decide to implement the same feature for your
> product.
Presumably this is also feasible with the GPL. In fact, isn't a lot of the
GNU project software a variation on this theme, just without the "closed
source" aspect?
> With the GPL, when someone sends you a patch, you can either accept it -
> then you may loose certain rights on your code - or you can reject it -
> but then you will never have the feature. (Or a potential rewrite needs to
> look considerably different from the patch that has been submitted to
> you.)
Or you ask the person sending the patch to extend you a right to use it as
your own. Isn't that an option too?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson wrote:
> * Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>:
>
>>Dave Pearson wrote:
>>
>>>Only if *I* let that happen to my code. Nobody can force me to accept a
>>>patch. I have to be responsible for my own actions, blaming the licence
>>>(which I don't think you're directly doing) seems silly.
>>
>>In different open source models, you can accept a patch and still claim it
>>is your code because the contributor have agreed to the licence.
>
> Agreed. As I understand it you can also do a variation of this with GPLd
> code too.
>
>>In a closed source model, you see that someone else implements a certain
>>feature, and then you can decide to implement the same feature for your
>>product.
>
> Presumably this is also feasible with the GPL. In fact, isn't a lot of the
> GNU project software a variation on this theme, just without the "closed
> source" aspect?
A problem I can see here is: What if the feature you want to copy is
implemented in another open source project, but you don't want to use
their sources because you want to keep your rights. How can you justify
that your code is original when it happens to look nearly the same as
that of the other project?
>>With the GPL, when someone sends you a patch, you can either accept it -
>>then you may loose certain rights on your code - or you can reject it -
>>but then you will never have the feature. (Or a potential rewrite needs to
>>look considerably different from the patch that has been submitted to
>>you.)
>
> Or you ask the person sending the patch to extend you a right to use it as
> your own. Isn't that an option too?
Hmm, I don't know - is it?
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
* Pascal Costanza <········@web.de>:
> Dave Pearson wrote:
>
> > Presumably this is also feasible with the GPL. In fact, isn't a lot of
> > the GNU project software a variation on this theme, just without the
> > "closed source" aspect?
>
> A problem I can see here is: What if the feature you want to copy is
> implemented in another open source project, but you don't want to use
> their sources because you want to keep your rights. How can you justify
> that your code is original when it happens to look nearly the same as that
> of the other project?
I would have thought that, in this case, the GNU developers would be good
people to ask. Isn't this, in effect, one of the problems they were faced
with when re-developing "Free" versions of various Un*x commands and tools?
> > Or you ask the person sending the patch to extend you a right to use it
> > as your own. Isn't that an option too?
>
> Hmm, I don't know - is it?
I seem to recall that it's one of the things that the FSF do. I've
personally signed over the rights to two bodes of code that have been
assimilated into GNU emacs. Now, they were full .el files, not patches. But
I think that might count as a couple of examples.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>>>With the GPL, when someone sends you a patch, you can either accept it -
>>>then you may loose certain rights on your code - or you can reject it -
>>>but then you will never have the feature. (Or a potential rewrite needs to
>>>look considerably different from the patch that has been submitted to
>>>you.)
>> Or you ask the person sending the patch to extend you a right to use
>> it as
>> your own. Isn't that an option too?
>
> Hmm, I don't know - is it?
If you send "significant" patches for FSF projects such as GCC or
Emacs, the maintainers will expect you to fill in a copyright
assignment or disclaimer and send it (by mail!) to the FSF. See
http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_5.html#SEC5
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
> If you send "significant" patches for FSF projects such as GCC or
> Emacs, the maintainers will expect you to fill in a copyright
> assignment or disclaimer and send it (by mail!) to the FSF. See
I wonder how this works with copyright laws like the german, where
essentially the only way to get rid of your rights as an author is by
having died decades ago.
Daniel Barlow wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
>
>>>>With the GPL, when someone sends you a patch, you can either accept it -
>>>>then you may loose certain rights on your code - or you can reject it -
>>>>but then you will never have the feature. (Or a potential rewrite needs to
>>>>look considerably different from the patch that has been submitted to
>>>>you.)
>>>
>>>Or you ask the person sending the patch to extend you a right to use
>>>it as
>>>your own. Isn't that an option too?
>>
>>Hmm, I don't know - is it?
>
> If you send "significant" patches for FSF projects such as GCC or
> Emacs, the maintainers will expect you to fill in a copyright
> assignment or disclaimer and send it (by mail!) to the FSF. See
>
> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_5.html#SEC5
Just as a sidenote: According to German law, it's not possible to assign
copyrights to others, or to disclaim copyrights. You can only assign
usage rights.
IANAL, but I guess that such copyright transfer papers are probably
ineffective if signed by Germans.
Pascal
--
Pascal Costanza University of Bonn
···············@web.de Institute of Computer Science III
http://www.pascalcostanza.de R�merstr. 164, D-53117 Bonn (Germany)
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
Daniel> Pascal Costanza <········@web.de> writes:
> With the GPL, when someone sends you a patch, you can either accept
> it - then you may loose certain rights on your code - or you can
> reject it - but then you will never have the feature. (Or a potential
> rewrite needs to look considerably different from the patch that has
> been submitted to you.) Or you ask the person sending the patch to
> extend you a right to use it as your own. Isn't that an option too?
>>
>> Hmm, I don't know - is it?
Daniel> If you send "significant" patches for FSF projects such as GCC
Daniel> or Emacs, the maintainers will expect you to fill in a
Daniel> copyright assignment or disclaimer and send it (by mail!) to
Daniel> the FSF. See
Daniel> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_5.html#SEC5
Which begs asking -- has anyone ever seen these papers? Do they clearly
state what the FSF is and what it is not allowed to do with the
contributed code?
The reason I'm asking is because despite several attempts I was unable
to find anything resembling a formal charter for the FSF. Basically the
website is all propaganda.
I'm sure that's just an oversight, but if I were to assign a copyright
to anything significant, I'd want to be sure the code doesn't get
packaged, closed and sold by (for example) dual-licensing it.
--J.
Hi Jan Rychter,
> Daniel> If you send "significant" patches for FSF projects such as GCC
> Daniel> or Emacs, the maintainers will expect you to fill in a
> Daniel> copyright assignment or disclaimer and send it (by mail!) to
> Daniel> the FSF. See
>
> Daniel> http://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain_5.html#SEC5
>
> Which begs asking -- has anyone ever seen these papers? Do they clearly
> state what the FSF is and what it is not allowed to do with the
> contributed code?
It's quite broad. The issue is active since the FSF and especially Richard
Stallman have been promoting what many Debian developers consider to be a
non-free licence, the GFDL. GFDL licensed documentation with invariant
sections is likely to be moved into non-free (and this includes the Emacs
documentation). Stallman is continuing to claim that invariant sections
are free. No satisfactory justification has been given for this position
but it does have the side effect of giving the FSF a mandatory political
platform.
The debate has raged over hundreds of messages (and a long time period in
total) and most of the debate is of a very high standard. One should read
through the debian-legal archives to understand it better.
While a licence doesn't have to be GPL compatible to be considered
free software it is also unfortunate that the GFDL is not even GPL
compatible. Creating a derived work that integrates GPL code with GFDL
data (in ways that Lispers are familiar with) could render the software
illegal to distribute.
It also seems that the FSF is attempting to impose something similar to
the BSD advertising clause that it so successfully campaigned against as
obnoxious. One wonders why this sort of criticism does not apply:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html
When people put many such programs together in an operating system, the
result is a serious problem. Imagine if a software system required 75
different sentences, each one naming a different author or group of
authors. To advertise that, you would need a full-page ad.
This might seem like extrapolation ad absurdum, but it is actual fact.
NetBSD comes with a long list of different sentences, required by the
various licenses for parts of the system. In a 1997 version of NetBSD, I
counted 75 of these sentences. I would not be surprised if the list has
grown by now.
However the essential issue is that parts of the data cannot be modified
(the original BSD licence is considered DFSG-free after all).
To help answer your question Jan see this message and follow up by a
developer who had assigned the copyright to his documentation to the FSF
and his realisation as to how much latitude the FSF has:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030420014007%24504d%40gated-at.bofh.it
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=20030509040016%242763%40gated-at.bofh.it
Debian archives:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/
gmane.org is also a good source for more recent archives.
Regards,
Adam
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> > Exactly which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand?
>
> the part where someone elses is more important then mine.
On a moral note: that is probably the only important part.
david rush
--
Computer games don't affect kids. If Pac Man affected us as kids, we
would all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills, and
listening to repetitive music.
-- Andreas Rossberg (on comp.lang.ml)
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> Ask someone if it is a free dinner if the restaurant makes them wash
> dishes after they finish eating but charges them no money. The vast
> majority of them will say no.
I have two responses to that.
(1) The GPL's restrictions are nothing like your dish-washing analogy.
(2) One of these days, you're going to forget to ignore followups and
this thread is going to go to the newsgroup where it belongs. The
only part of this thread different from the periodic flame-wars
there is the part about homonyms that are also antonyms, which isn't
really about the GPL.
From: Lauri Alanko
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <b9reh4$d2r$1@la.iki.fi>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> quoth:
> I have issuse with there definition of free, it is wrong. If they want
> to co-opt it for their marketing fine and when I see it I can correct it.
Oh come on already. "Free Software" is a fairly well-establish term
that's been coined by RMS and FSF. It does have a special, idiomatic,
non-compositional meaning, but so do lots of other terms in this world.
Granted, its ambiguity is unfortunate and this was one reason for the
new term "Open Source" (with its slightly different connotations). But
still, complaining that "Free Software isn't really free" is like
complaining that pineapples aren't really apples, or that jellyfishes
aren't really fishes...
Lauri Alanko
··@iki.fi
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <uptmm1tak.fsf@dtpq.com>
>>>>> On Tue, 13 May 2003 18:45:56 +0000 (UTC), Lauri Alanko ("Lauri") writes:
Lauri> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> quoth:
>> I have issuse with there definition of free, it is wrong. If they want
>> to co-opt it for their marketing fine and when I see it I can correct it.
Lauri> Oh come on already. "Free Software" is a fairly well-establish term
Lauri> that's been coined by RMS and FSF. It does have a special, idiomatic,
Lauri> non-compositional meaning, but so do lots of other terms in this world.
Most people (including consumers of software) do not understand what
is meant by the word "free" in the phrase "free software"; rather,
they understand it to mean "free of cost", and the idea of encumberance
other than (no-)cost does even enter their mind. Some people think that
this is the result of deliberate mischief: that the term "free" was
chosen to confuse people on this count. This is evidenced by the fact
that it does not mean what most people suppose that it means.
Even computer programmers who are trying to understand the term "free
software" don't even know exactly what it means (as seen by a posts
in this thread) or what the terms and conditions of the GPL are.
It's an attempt of an ideology to get people to think that "free"
means something different than what they ever supposed.
Primarily, it is the freedom to disempower computer programmers.
If you don't think that's what it's about, read Stallman's manifesto,
where he explains that programmers should not be making a lot of money,
because that's greedy, and that intellectual property rights should
not exist. That is what the "free software" movement is about.
Christopher C. Stacy <······@dtpq.com> wrote:
> Primarily, it is the freedom to disempower computer programmers.
> If you don't think that's what it's about, read Stallman's manifesto,
> where he explains that programmers should not be making a lot of money,
> because that's greedy, and that intellectual property rights should
> not exist. That is what the "free software" movement is about.
So one person in the movement, albeit a significant one, believes that.
Were you never taught about the dangers of over-generalisation? If you
were, please show evidence that the whole movement believes the above.
Further, why do you think that the ideas of social responsibility
and ethics should not apply to programmers?
Finally, why should copyright not be used for copyleft?
MJR
* MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
|
| Christopher C. Stacy <······@dtpq.com> wrote:
|
| > Primarily, it is the freedom to disempower computer programmers.
| > If you don't think that's what it's about, read Stallman's
| > manifesto, where he explains that programmers should not be making
| > a lot of money, because that's greedy, and that intellectual
| > property rights should not exist. That is what the "free
| > software" movement is about.
|
| So one person in the movement, albeit a significant one, believes
| that. Were you never taught about the dangers of
| over-generalisation? If you were, please show evidence that the
| whole movement believes the above.
Well, it's likely that the GPL is designed to achieve what Stallman
believes in. So, it's likely, that the GPL is designed to disempower
programmers. I don't know whether the GPL will stand up to Stallman's
goals. I believe it might, but I hope it doesn't.
Boris
--
·····@uncommon-sense.net - <http://www.uncommon-sense.net/>
serendipity, n.:
The process by which human knowledge is advanced.
Lauri Alanko <··@iki.fi> wrote:
> Granted, its ambiguity is unfortunate and this was one reason for the
> new term "Open Source" (with its slightly different connotations). But
And its own ambiguity. http://mjr.towers.org.uk/writing/ambigopen.html
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>> > No because once I release the source, not sell a source license, I loose
>> > all control over it legally.
>>
>> Again, rubbish. You have copyright on everything you right.
(Arse. Sorry, `write'.)
>> Have you actually read the GPL?
>
> But I do not own the distribution rights, do I?
You own distribution rights to your own software. What more do you want?
> The gpl requires me to give away the design along with the finished
> product, if the end user requests it. I then loose all control over what
> is done with my design
Why? Have you actually read the GPL?
> and much of the abillity to profit from it by selling other copies. And
> in all honesty if the end user does not fund the total cost of
> development why should they get more then they paid for?
They get exactly what you give them. I suggest you read the GPL before
choosing whether to use it or not.
~Tim
--
You should never underestimate ·······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
the predictability of stupidity. |http://spodzone.org.uk/
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> They get exactly what you give them. I suggest you read the GPL before
> choosing whether to use it or not.
Oh, come on. It's obvious he *has* read the GPL. Understood it, no,
read it, yes.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > You appear to be deliberately misreading my text above. Lets say I
> > write an application and it uses a gpled library and I then release
> > the binary. Now anyone who uses the binary has the right to require
> > me to hand over the source code that I have written. This is not
> > developer friendly, ie help me pay my bills. The funny thing is that
> > this is not end user friendly either, the added risk of source code
> > release means my per unit cost must be higher due to the risk that my
> > market will disappear, if one of my customers publishes my source.
>
> Perhaps it was not intented, but I sense a strong undercurrent of
> entitlement in this objection. There really is no basis to complain
> that a developer chooses to not let his/her work be used to create
> derivative works on your terms. I can see nothing unfriendly about
> attaching conditions under which some work may be used.
I am not entitled to anything, in this context. What I was talking
about is the dual standard of free that the gpl uses. The gpl is
marketed as free software and is loaded with encumbrances, the
requirement to release derived works fo example. What the fsf
does to get around this is state we have our own special definition
of free, it contradicts the definitions of free that I have seen
in dictionaries though. I was also making the point that by using
gpled software in my work I have increased my risk for recouping my
investment so my per unit cost goes up to deal with the risk.
>
> > > Ultimately, the GPL Exists, that is all. You can take it, leave it, write
> > > your own or walk away and use another license, as long as you respect its
> > > use where you see it.
> >
> > The fact that I do respect copyright and property rights is the
> > fundamental reason I have a problem with the gpl. If I was a thief I
> > would just steal.
>
> Again, if your statement is that you would not use GPLed code because
> you cannot profit (in a particular way) from it, then it is quite
> unobjectionable. However, if this is a complaint about the concept of
> GPL in general, you must make a case for why you are entitled to use
> another's work in a manner that is against the spirit that it was
> offered in.
OK I recently was looking for an ans.1 library and came across one.
It was released public domain but so people got a government contract
to add some features to it. They released the new version under gpl
because they released the patches under gpl. The thing that pissed
me off about this little bit of evangelism is that my tax dollars
paid for it.
And yes I do have issues with the view of people that the fsf takes
with the gpl, you must be compelled to give up anything that touches
our stuff. The only reason I can see for this is that they think that
people are not generally decent and need to be compelled to behave for
the greater good. And we will swear it free.
marc
>
> rsi
> --
> <···@panix.com> a.k.a. Rajappa Iyer.
> Absinthe makes the tart grow fonder.
"Will people move posts about what 'free' means and
why/why not GPL or FSF is 'free' to an other
thread or an other News group.
This post was cross posted to Lisp & Scheme to see
if either lang. had a doom development env.
Somehow if got way off track.
Such as
"Problems With FSF/GPL Licencing was. Is there a Doom ...
Please keep this thread clean--like the new thread that
was formed to move alot of talk about Allegro CL's pricing
to a new thread.
From: Christopher C. Stacy
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <un0hra0za.fsf@dtpq.com>
[comp.lang.scheme removed
because I don't want to spam them with GPL discussions]
>>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 20:45:30 GMT, Marc Spitzer ("Marc") writes:
Marc> The fact that I do respect copyright and property rights is the
Marc> fundamental reason I have a problem with the gpl. If I was a
Marc> thief I would just steal.
The stated goal of the Free Software Foundation, which is
implemented by the GPL, is to eliminate the intellectual
property rights. Stallman believes that there is no such
moral right, and that "intellectual property" should not exist.
······@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> [comp.lang.scheme removed
> because I don't want to spam them with GPL discussions]
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 20:45:30 GMT, Marc Spitzer ("Marc") writes:
> Marc> The fact that I do respect copyright and property rights is the
> Marc> fundamental reason I have a problem with the gpl. If I was a
> Marc> thief I would just steal.
>
> The stated goal of the Free Software Foundation, which is
> implemented by the GPL, is to eliminate the intellectual
> property rights. Stallman believes that there is no such
> moral right, and that "intellectual property" should not exist.
That is weird.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> ······@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
>
> > [comp.lang.scheme removed
> > because I don't want to spam them with GPL discussions]
> >
> > >>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 20:45:30 GMT, Marc Spitzer ("Marc") writes:
> > Marc> The fact that I do respect copyright and property rights is the
> > Marc> fundamental reason I have a problem with the gpl. If I was a
> > Marc> thief I would just steal.
> >
> > The stated goal of the Free Software Foundation, which is
> > implemented by the GPL, is to eliminate the intellectual
> > property rights. Stallman believes that there is no such
> > moral right, and that "intellectual property" should not exist.
>
> That is weird.
>
> marc
That is recognizing the fundamental difference between gold and ideas.
22:21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render
therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the
things that are God's.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > ······@dtpq.com (Christopher C. Stacy) writes:
> >
> > > [comp.lang.scheme removed
> > > because I don't want to spam them with GPL discussions]
> > >
> > > >>>>> On Mon, 12 May 2003 20:45:30 GMT, Marc Spitzer ("Marc") writes:
> > > Marc> The fact that I do respect copyright and property rights is the
> > > Marc> fundamental reason I have a problem with the gpl. If I was a
> > > Marc> thief I would just steal.
> > >
> > > The stated goal of the Free Software Foundation, which is
> > > implemented by the GPL, is to eliminate the intellectual
> > > property rights. Stallman believes that there is no such
> > > moral right, and that "intellectual property" should not exist.
> >
> > That is weird.
> >
> > marc
>
> That is recognizing the fundamental difference between gold and ideas.
no that is wierd, because to make an idea requires time and effort
to make it happen. Think of Mr. Edison lightbulb, pass eletric through
something and it will glow white hot. Now how much effort went into
making this happen, his and other people he paid to work on it. This
costs money. He used the closed source model, a patent, to recoup
his expences.
marc
From: rydis (Martin Rydstr|m) @CD.Chalmers.SE
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <w4ck7cuwmv1.fsf@haddock.cd.chalmers.se>
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> [Edison] used the closed source model, a patent, to recoup
> his expences.
A patent is patently not congruent to any "closed source model".
It is rather more like open source with a license.
TTFN,
'mr
--
[Emacs] is written in Lisp, which is the only computer language that is
beautiful. -- Neal Stephenson, _In the Beginning was the Command Line_
rydis (Martin Rydstr|m) @CD.Chalmers.SE writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> > [Edison] used the closed source model, a patent, to recoup
> > his expences.
>
> A patent is patently not congruent to any "closed source model".
> It is rather more like open source with a license.
For the duration of the patent it is, he has exclusive rights to the
idea for a time. The trade is that to get this protection he must
share the idea, disclosure in the patent application. So while not
exact it is pretty close. A trade secret would be a more accurate model
for closed source in general. The gpl directly impacts on the right
to control the distribution and that is what I was trying to illustrate.
marc
In comp.lang.scheme Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> wrote:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
>>> Please do not make wild assertions without any evidence for them.
>>
>> OK here is an example, if I use a gpled library in an application and
>> distribute it the people who use it can demand my source code.
>>
>> This is not free for any definition of free that I have read in a
>> dictionary.
>
> How's about this for an idea: reserve `free' for monetary cost, and `Free'
> for the use in <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, which you
> should read forthwith? Particularly the section,
>
How about reserving 'Free' and 'free' to BSDL and giving GPL 'encumbered'?
As in 'encumbered to include all of your own source code aswell'.
>
> ~Tim
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> OK here is an example, if I use a gpled library in an application
> and distribute it the people who use it can demand my source code.
>
> This is not free for any definition of free that I have read in a
> dictionary.
I think you need to read more dictionaries. For example, Webster's 1913
is easily available over dict and many of the definitions of free apply
to free software. For example:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
Free \Free\ (fr[=e]), a.
[...]
2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject
only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and
defended by them from encroachments upon natural or
acquired rights; enjoying political liberty.
If you wish to argue with dictionaries, I suggest you post to
alt.syntax.tactical because it's wildly OT here.
> The definition that you were using for free in the the
> above post was "with out cost"
1. I was not involved in this thread previously.
2. Even if I were, you cannot see inside my mind.
> and cost is not only monetary you can
> also incur a serious cost in the loss of rights to your work that the
> gpl imposes on you.
You do not lose any rights if it is your work. If you are using the
work of others, you must obey their terms, same as ever, and I cannot
see how you claim you are losing rights that you didn't have originally.
>> Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to run,
>> study, modify and redistribute the software. That is developer-friendly,
> But not the "freedom" to own your own work, if it touches any gpled
> work.
You still "own" it, as much as any writing is owned.
[...]
> there is nothing in the gpl that prohibits you from selling binaries,
> the problem is that you loose all rights to keep your work as private
> property once you do distribute a binary out side of your organization
> (yourself and/or your company/employer).
If other people are depending on your work, it's only fair to let them
be able to maintain it. If your service is so terrible that you have to
*force* your users to keep coming to you, then I pity your clients.
> So if your work(time) is of no value then you are right the gpl is free
> because to surrender your work costs you nothing.
No, I get paid for my work.
--
MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: ····@jabber.at
This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging.
How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > OK here is an example, if I use a gpled library in an application
> > and distribute it the people who use it can demand my source code.
> >
> > This is not free for any definition of free that I have read in a
> > dictionary.
>
> I think you need to read more dictionaries. For example, Webster's 1913
> is easily available over dict and many of the definitions of free apply
> to free software. For example:
>
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
> Free \Free\ (fr[=e]), a.
> [...]
> 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject
> only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and
> defended by them from encroachments upon natural or
> acquired rights; enjoying political liberty.
go to you dictionary and look up the word context, then think about
your lack of context above. Bringing stuff in from left field does
not help your case.
>
> If you wish to argue with dictionaries, I suggest you post to
> alt.syntax.tactical because it's wildly OT here.
>
> > The definition that you were using for free in the the
> > above post was "with out cost"
>
> 1. I was not involved in this thread previously.
> 2. Even if I were, you cannot see inside my mind.
>
> > and cost is not only monetary you can
> > also incur a serious cost in the loss of rights to your work that the
> > gpl imposes on you.
>
> You do not lose any rights if it is your work. If you are using the
> work of others, you must obey their terms, same as ever, and I cannot
> see how you claim you are losing rights that you didn't have originally.
And the viral aspect of the gpl means that if you use the smallest bit
of it it has infected the rest of your code.
>
> >> Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to run,
> >> study, modify and redistribute the software. That is developer-friendly,
> > But not the "freedom" to own your own work, if it touches any gpled
> > work.
>
> You still "own" it, as much as any writing is owned.
no because of the fact that anything touched by the gpl looses the
right to not distribute the source if I make a binary available. That
is a major loss of rights, it like having to give the design away with
the purchase of the TV because you used a specific brand of
components.
>
> [...]
> > there is nothing in the gpl that prohibits you from selling binaries,
> > the problem is that you loose all rights to keep your work as private
> > property once you do distribute a binary out side of your organization
> > (yourself and/or your company/employer).
>
> If other people are depending on your work, it's only fair to let them
> be able to maintain it. If your service is so terrible that you have to
> *force* your users to keep coming to you, then I pity your clients.
Why are you attacking me personally, did I touch a gpled nerve? If
someone pays me for a program and does not fund the complete
development cost why should they get the design(source) and the end
product(application)? They get what they paid for, if they want
everything it costs them more money. If they do not pay for the
source, why should they get it?
If they do not want to pay for the source then that is a decision
that they made to accept a risk to save some money. Its their choice
and they made it, what is unfair?
>
> > So if your work(time) is of no value then you are right the gpl is free
> > because to surrender your work costs you nothing.
>
> No, I get paid for my work.
Good for you. But I was not talking about an employee type relation,
by employee type I mean employee or hourly contractor type or fixed
bid where the bid is supposed to cover the total cost of the work. If
you are engaging in speculative work where the sale price covers a
small portion of the cost of the work involved then you are accepting
much more risk by giving the design away before you have recovered the
engineering cost.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
>> Free \Free\ (fr[=e]), a.
>> [...]
>> 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject
>> only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and
>> defended by them from encroachments upon natural or
>> acquired rights; enjoying political liberty.
>
> go to you dictionary and look up the word context, then think about your
> lack of context above. Bringing stuff in from left field does not help
> your case.
Right, so it's OK to choose your own "dictionary" and select just the
definitions that back up your "point" and ignore facts left right & centre?
~Tim
--
The blade cuts clean through ·······@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk
the island soil, |http://spodzone.org.uk/
The years roll back and |
the world grows small |
Tim Haynes <···············@stirfried.vegetable.org.uk> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> >> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) [web1913]:
> >> Free \Free\ (fr[=e]), a.
> >> [...]
> >> 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject
> >> only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and
> >> defended by them from encroachments upon natural or
> >> acquired rights; enjoying political liberty.
> >
> > go to you dictionary and look up the word context, then think about your
> > lack of context above. Bringing stuff in from left field does not help
> > your case.
>
> Right, so it's OK to choose your own "dictionary" and select just the
> definitions that back up your "point" and ignore facts left right & centre?
So you object to how the fsf made up a new definition of the word free.
Then we agree the fsf co-option of the wor free is bad and dishonest.
Happy you have seen the light of reason.
marc
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> And the viral aspect of the gpl means that if you use the smallest bit
> of it it has infected the rest of your code.
I'm not convinced this is true, actually. The GPL says something
about derived works, but the definition of "derived work" that you
actually need to care about is the one that copyright law gives.
IANAL, but I imagine that copyright law in most places has a "fair
use" or "fair dealing" provision which provide a reasonable defence
against mistaken use of "the smallest bit of it".
If you use substantial portions of the GPLed code, sure, you're bound
by its license. But that doesn't make it any more viral than any
other license. If you use substantial portions of a GPLed library
without even _realising_ that's what you're doing, your development or
management process has serious issues.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
>
> > You still "own" it, as much as any writing is owned.
>
> no because of the fact that anything touched by the gpl looses the right
> to not distribute the source if I make a binary available. That is a major
> loss of rights, it like having to give the design away with the purchase
> of the TV because you used a specific brand of components.
Did the creator of this TV use the components without actually understanding
how they work or how they are made available? Why would you make use of a
body of code, under the GPL, or any other free or non-free licence, without
actually understanding the licence?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> go to you dictionary and look up the word context, then think about
> your lack of context above. Bringing stuff in from left field does
> not help your case.
The original context was freedom. You just didn't see that.
>> You do not lose any rights if it is your work. If you are using the
>> work of others, you must obey their terms, same as ever, and I cannot
>> see how you claim you are losing rights that you didn't have originally.
> And the viral aspect of the gpl means that if you use the smallest bit
> of it it has infected the rest of your code.
Any normal rights to quote etc are still applicable depending on one's
local legislation. GPL is no more "viral" than any copyright licence:
take the work, follow the terms. Maybe you have an idea for non-viral
copyright law that you should share?
[...]
> Why are you attacking me personally, did I touch a gpled nerve?
I'm not. In modern use of English, "you" is often used where "one"
used to be and the two senses are mixed freely. I will endeavour not
to do that in this discussion again.
> If someone pays me for a program and does not fund the complete
> development cost why should they get the design(source) and the
> end product(application)? They get what they paid for, if they want
> everything it costs them more money. If they do not pay for the source,
> why should they get it?
Why should one be able to take a radio to pieces and solder in new parts,
or take a car to pieces to repair or upgrade it? It's just the way things
are. With software, one seems to expect to have a right to use laws to
stop others from "opening the bonnet" which is not how it should be.
[...]
> If you are engaging in speculative work where the sale price covers a
> small portion of the cost of the work involved then you are accepting
> much more risk by giving the design away before you have recovered
> the engineering cost.
Ultimately, if one is selling below the cost of the part of the product
that you ship, one must anticipate going out of business.
--
MJR
>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
MJ> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
>> David Steuber <·············@verizon.net> writes:
> Guile is GNU. It is free. Here is the description Debian gives it:
>> It is not free, you just do not have to pay for it. There are other
>> encumbrances attached by using gpl/lgpl that are developer hostile.
MJ> Please do not make wild assertions without any evidence for them.
How very true.
MJ> Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to
MJ> run, study, modify and redistribute the software.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not necessarily. Please read section 7 of the GPL and section 11 of the
LGPL. If the licensed code contains any patented algorithms and the
patents restrict the rights given by GPL/LGPL in any way (such as
demanding royalties or otherwise restricting use and redistribution),
then you are not allowed to redistribute the software under the GPL or
LGPL.
Some believe this is a serious concern, as there are many software
patents and it is extremely difficult not to infringe on them. And yes,
there is GPL'ed software that clearly implements patented algorithms,
and anybody who is redistributing it violates the GPL.
So, while I wouldn't say the GPL or LGPL are developer hostile, they
certainly are redistributor-hostile.
--J.
Jan Rychter <···@rychter.com> wrote:
> MJ> Guile is free software. That is, it gives users the freedom to
> MJ> run, study, modify and redistribute the software.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Not necessarily. Please read section 7 of the GPL and section 11 of the
> LGPL. If the licensed code contains any patented algorithms and the
Sorry. I often forget that. Algorithm patents are not useful for
the oppression of software in general in the UK yet. YMMV IANAL
etc but I am trying to help http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/ and
http://swpat.ffii.org/ stop them becoming useful here.
Say no to algorithm patents! Yes to freedom to think and express those
thoughts in new ways! No to patent-led oppression of ideas!
They already trademark and copyright software. Now they say they need
patents too. Are the poor producers having so much trouble making money
from software that they need monopolies on general design concepts?
The results from public companies suggest not...
MJR
>>>>> "MJ" == MJ Ray <··········@cloaked.freeserve.co.uk> writes:
MJ> Jan Rychter <···@rychter.com> wrote: Guile is free software. That
MJ> is, it gives users the freedom to run, study, modify and
MJ> redistribute the software.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not necessarily. Please read section 7 of the GPL and
>> section 11 of the LGPL. If the licensed code contains any patented
>> algorithms and the
MJ> Sorry. I often forget that. Algorithm patents are not useful for
MJ> the oppression of software in general in the UK yet. YMMV IANAL
MJ> etc but I am trying to help http://www.softwarepatents.co.uk/ and
MJ> http://swpat.ffii.org/ stop them becoming useful here.
I am not sure if you understood my point. The point was that if you, as
the author, choose to use the GPL for your software, you place _others_
at risk. It doesn't matter where you are, or where you wrote the
software, or what law is applicable to you.
The "proper" way to go about this if you really want to use the GPL
would be to 1) study all patents (yes, worldwide) applicable to your
application that potentially restrict the rights guaranteed by the GPL,
2) make appropriate geographical restrictions for distribution, as
required by the GPL.
The way I see it is as an all-or-nothing deal. Either you go with the
GPL and choose to fight the patents at all cost (including hurting
people who redistribute your software), or you don't GPL it.
I am actually surprised that few people notice this aspect of the GPL.
--J.
Jan Rychter <···@rychter.com> writes:
> The "proper" way to go about this if you really want to use the GPL
> would be to 1) study all patents (yes, worldwide) applicable to your
> application that potentially restrict the rights guaranteed by the GPL,
> 2) make appropriate geographical restrictions for distribution, as
> required by the GPL.
Sorry, but I believe you have this backwards. The GPL requires that you
*not* place additional restrictions on distribution. You're supposed to
redistribute with *exactly* the same restrictions the GPL imposes. So
the proper way to go about it is to ignore this whole abomination
legislated upon us by the US judiciary, and redistribute without placing
any restrictions. If a software-patent holder then comes along and
wants to place restrictions, it's not your issue.
> The way I see it is as an all-or-nothing deal. Either you go with the
> GPL and choose to fight the patents at all cost (including hurting
> people who redistribute your software), or you don't GPL it.
First, only you can enforce copyright licenses on your code. If someone
does make a derivative of your work using patented code, and explicitly
adds restrictions, its your choice whether to enforce the GPL or not.
Second, if they don't explicitly add restrictions, it's really only the
software-patent holder who might see a violation. Its his restrictions
the redistributor is violating, not yours.
Jan Rychter <···@rychter.com> wrote:
> I am not sure if you understood my point. The point was that if you, as
> the author, choose to use the GPL for your software, you place _others_
> at risk. It doesn't matter where you are, or where you wrote the
> software, or what law is applicable to you.
I am not sure if you understood mine. I consider the proper way for
someone who wishes to to use GPL software to go about it is to 1) make
sure that the GPL can be applied to that software in their jurisdiction;
2) change their local laws to allow it to be applied if necessary.
FUs set. Again.
--
MJR http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ IM: ····@jabber.at
This is my home web site. This for Jabber Messaging.
How's my writing? Let me know via any of my contact details.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> Is it avail. for down load, so I can get some ideas about how to use
> FFI to interface with an API. I know ANSI CL, but don't know FFI, or
> graphics--what graphics does Guile come with--OpenGL, Direct3d.
As I believe may have already been mentioned, Guile is available from
www.gnu.org/software/guile, and ftp.gnu.org/gnu/guile, or via "apt-get
install guile-1.6 guile-1.6-dev guile-1.6-doc" if you're running
Debian.
Guile doesn't have graphics bindings in the main distribution. There
are various projects that add xlib, gtk, and I think gl bindings, but
I'm not certain of their current state.
You can also use SWIG or g-wrap to semi-automatically create bindings,
or you can write your own bindings using Guile's C API:
static SCM
plus_one (SCM x)
{
return scm_sum (x, SCM_MAKINUM (1)); /* or the slower scm_int2num (1) */
}
void
add_my_funcs ()
{
scm_c_define_gsubr ("plus-one", 1, 0, 0, (SCM (*)()) plus_one);
}
This is the prototype for scm_c_define_gsubr -- more docs are
available in the Guile info pages:
Function: SCM scm_c_define_gsubr (char *NAME,
int REQ,
int OPT,
int REST,
SCM (*FUNCTION)())
Hope this helps.
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
On Sat, 10 May 2003 14:00:11 GMT, Franz Kafka <> wrote:
> I am currently using VaVoom (vavoom-engine.com) and
> Edge (edge.sourceforge.net) to write a Doom-type game--
> I am curious if there are any Doom game engines written
> in either ANSI CL or IEEE Scheme.
See http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mmn/cl/index.html for a simple
example of CMUCL and opengl, and a jpeg reader using the FFI.
It's very rough, but contains the bulk of what you need to get started
on a Doom-type engine.
-- MMN
From: Neil W. Van Dyke
Subject: Re: Is there a Doom Game Engine Written in Lisp ???
Date:
Message-ID: <7g1xz5doui.fsf@neilvandyke.org>
Michael Naunton <···@news.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> See http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mmn/cl/index.html for a simple
> example of CMUCL and opengl, and a jpeg reader using the FFI.
Several Scheme implementations also have OpenGL bindings.
A quick Google turns up the following, and I'm sure I've seen others:
http://www.neilvandyke.org/opengl-plt/
http://www.shiro.dreamhost.com/scheme/gauche/packages.html
http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~0rfelyus/guileGL/
http://www.accad.ohio-state.edu/~smay/AL/ExtOpenGL/gl.html
(Note: Scheme seems to be missing whatever CMUCL feature renders
charismatic Japanese people in swimsuits. See the quoted URL if
this is required.)
Hi!
For the records, I've started to work on a game engine in Dylan:
http://www.gwydiondylan.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/game-engine/
It's unfinished, as the client stopped financing, but it shows the
basic stuff (OpenGL interface, texture loading, VRML parsing).
Andreas
--
"Share your knowledge. It's a way to achieve immortality."
-- His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso
I have been working on a SDL wrapper for Corman Common Lisp. It's available
at http://www.balooga.com/lisp_sdl.php3
I have also ported the OpenGL gears demo to test my implementation.
-Luke Crook
"Neil W. Van Dyke" <····@neilvandyke.org> wrote in message
···················@neilvandyke.org...
> Michael Naunton <···@news.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> > See http://members.bellatlantic.net/~mmn/cl/index.html for a simple
> > example of CMUCL and opengl, and a jpeg reader using the FFI.
>
> Several Scheme implementations also have OpenGL bindings.
> A quick Google turns up the following, and I'm sure I've seen others:
>
> http://www.neilvandyke.org/opengl-plt/
> http://www.shiro.dreamhost.com/scheme/gauche/packages.html
> http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~0rfelyus/guileGL/
> http://www.accad.ohio-state.edu/~smay/AL/ExtOpenGL/gl.html
>
> (Note: Scheme seems to be missing whatever CMUCL feature renders
> charismatic Japanese people in swimsuits. See the quoted URL if
> this is required.)
On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:21:32PM +0000, Luke J Crook wrote:
> I have been working on a SDL wrapper for Corman Common Lisp. It's available
> at http://www.balooga.com/lisp_sdl.php3 I have also ported the OpenGL gears
> demo to test my implementation.
With your knowledge of the Corman FFI, have you considered getting UFFI and
CL-SDL to work under Corman?
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
"Matthew Danish" <·······@andrew.cmu.edu> wrote in message
··························@mapcar.org...
> On Mon, May 12, 2003 at 05:21:32PM +0000, Luke J Crook wrote:
>
> With your knowledge of the Corman FFI, have you considered getting UFFI
and
> CL-SDL to work under Corman?
I actually considered this when I first started. The Corman C to FFI parser
swung me in the end as it really speeds the process along. I wanted to start
learning Lisp by getting SDL to work, implementing the UFFI seemed out of my
depth. My aim was to get SDL working in Corman in as short a time as
possible.
I feel more comfortable with Lisp now, so I may give it a shot - time
permitting.
-Luke
>
> --
> ; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
> ; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
> ; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
> ; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all
dark."
On Tue, 13 May 2003 02:09:23 GMT, Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
>> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>>
> I am not entitled to anything, in this context. What I was talking
> about is the dual standard of free that the gpl uses. The gpl is
> marketed as free software and is loaded with encumbrances, the
> requirement to release derived works fo example. What the fsf
> does to get around this is state we have our own special definition
> of free, it contradicts the definitions of free that I have seen
> in dictionaries though. I was also making the point that by using
> gpled software in my work I have increased my risk for recouping my
> investment so my per unit cost goes up to deal with the risk.
My dictionary (the OED) gives 32 basic meanings of "free." Many of them
seem to conform with the FSF's concept of "free."
-- MMN
Michael Naunton <···@news.bellatlantic.net> writes:
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 02:09:23 GMT, Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> >
> >> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> >>
> > I am not entitled to anything, in this context. What I was talking
> > about is the dual standard of free that the gpl uses. The gpl is
> > marketed as free software and is loaded with encumbrances, the
> > requirement to release derived works fo example. What the fsf
> > does to get around this is state we have our own special definition
> > of free, it contradicts the definitions of free that I have seen
> > in dictionaries though. I was also making the point that by using
> > gpled software in my work I have increased my risk for recouping my
> > investment so my per unit cost goes up to deal with the risk.
>
> My dictionary (the OED) gives 32 basic meanings of "free." Many of them
> seem to conform with the FSF's concept of "free."
>
> -- MMN
I am using Webster's II new college dictionary. And one of the
definitions is "with out cost" as in "he had a free dinner", but
implicit in that definition is the assumption that he did not wash
dishes for the rest of the evening. The gpl has a lot of dishes
attached.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> I am using Webster's II new college dictionary. And one of the definitions
> is "with out cost" as in "he had a free dinner", but implicit in that
> definition is the assumption that he did not wash dishes for the rest of
> the evening. The gpl has a lot of dishes attached.
[Hmm, but no suggestion that you have to wash them.]
Really Marc, if you're going to pick holes in the FSF's use of the word
"Free" you could at least pick the right definition. Of course Free Software
as costs involved. But you knew that didn't you?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > I am using Webster's II new college dictionary. And one of the definitions
> > is "with out cost" as in "he had a free dinner", but implicit in that
> > definition is the assumption that he did not wash dishes for the rest of
> > the evening. The gpl has a lot of dishes attached.
>
> [Hmm, but no suggestion that you have to wash them.]
>
> Really Marc, if you're going to pick holes in the FSF's use of the word
> "Free" you could at least pick the right definition. Of course Free Software
> as costs involved. But you knew that didn't you?
Actually free means, in the context of this discussion, without cost
or obligation imposed by the giver. For example I give you a car, but
I impose the condition that you have to drive me around on Tues. & Thurs.
every week, is the car free? It had no initial cost but it is not free.
Your argument is saying that I am saying here is a car and the car is not
free because you have to pay for gas. So I think the dinner/dishes example
is a reasonable definition.
marc
"Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> >
> > > I am using Webster's II new college dictionary. And one of the
definitions
> > > is "with out cost" as in "he had a free dinner", but implicit in that
> > > definition is the assumption that he did not wash dishes for the rest
of
> > > the evening. The gpl has a lot of dishes attached.
> >
> > [Hmm, but no suggestion that you have to wash them.]
> >
> > Really Marc, if you're going to pick holes in the FSF's use of the word
> > "Free" you could at least pick the right definition. Of course Free
Software
> > as costs involved. But you knew that didn't you?
>
> Actually free means, in the context of this discussion, without cost
> or obligation imposed by the giver. For example I give you a car, but
> I impose the condition that you have to drive me around on Tues. & Thurs.
> every week, is the car free? It had no initial cost but it is not free.
> Your argument is saying that I am saying here is a car and the car is not
> free because you have to pay for gas. So I think the dinner/dishes
example
> is a reasonable definition.
>
> marc
Since this thread is not going to die down anytime soon, let me throw
some gasoline on the flames and hopfully the extra heat will quench
the fire.
People who are complaining about what 'Free' means are not the ones who are
likely to use FSF software.
If you want to sell your application write it from scratch.
Nothing stops you from selling support for the software you wrote or gave
away. RedHat seems to be doing quite well Supporting the "Free" OS Linux.
It is "Free" in the sense that you can download it and use it for free.
However, if you repackage it you need to provide the sourcecode.
This does not stop RedHat from making money by supporting Linux--
it just changes the business stratagy that needs to be used.
Try 'Free' as in 'Free Country' as opposed to Iraq/Fance, rather than 'Free'
as in 'Free Car.'
Even with a few Dishes attached: if you ate at a $1,000 a plate French
resturant it would be worth it--unless your time was worth more than
$100/hr.
If someone gave you a free Porsh--but, told you that you'd have to drive
them around on Tues. & Thurs. would you complain to them that the Porsh was
not 'free.'
Plus, if you contriubte to 'Free' software--a future employer might look at
that when deciding to hire you for a high-paying job in IT.
Try the english word 'Lead'
Is it lead as in the metal?
or, lead as in he lead his troops to Bagdad, and bombed it.
But, bombed could me a play failed. The Movie bombed.
English is loaded with multi-meaning words: thanks to borrowing
from French(Freedom)/Latan in LME and German in OE.
Accept 'Free' to mean what the FSF licence says it means--no
more no less.
And also analyze:
The freed people, who were freeded by the army, wanted free software that
was free; the people who wrote the free software wanted to keep the software
free for the free people--the developers only wanted free software if it
were like free beer, and not like free countries--the computers that ran the
free software used free electrons to run the free software.
When you figure out that sentice--tell me what "Free" really means.
Lisp can be used for NLP :)
Only people who can diagram the above sentice should debate what 'free'
means. :) other people should have learnt English, or consider
taking a Middle English or Olde English (not the drink ;) ) class.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com>
wrote in message ·······················@news01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
>
> "Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
> ···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> > >
> > > > I am using Webster's II new college dictionary. And one of the
> definitions
> > > > is "with out cost" as in "he had a free dinner", but implicit in
that
> > > > definition is the assumption that he did not wash dishes for the
rest
> of
> > > > the evening. The gpl has a lot of dishes attached.
> > >
> > > [Hmm, but no suggestion that you have to wash them.]
> > >
> > > Really Marc, if you're going to pick holes in the FSF's use of the
word
> > > "Free" you could at least pick the right definition. Of course Free
> Software
> > > as costs involved. But you knew that didn't you?
> >
> > Actually free means, in the context of this discussion, without cost
> > or obligation imposed by the giver. For example I give you a car, but
> > I impose the condition that you have to drive me around on Tues. &
Thurs.
> > every week, is the car free? It had no initial cost but it is not free.
> > Your argument is saying that I am saying here is a car and the car is
not
> > free because you have to pay for gas. So I think the dinner/dishes
> example
> > is a reasonable definition.
> >
> > marc
>
> Since this thread is not going to die down anytime soon, let me throw
> some gasoline on the flames and hopfully the extra heat will quench
> the fire.
>
> People who are complaining about what 'Free' means are not the ones who
are
> likely to use FSF software.
>
> If you want to sell your application write it from scratch.
>
> Nothing stops you from selling support for the software you wrote or gave
> away. RedHat seems to be doing quite well Supporting the "Free" OS Linux.
>
> It is "Free" in the sense that you can download it and use it for free.
> However, if you repackage it you need to provide the sourcecode.
>
> This does not stop RedHat from making money by supporting Linux--
> it just changes the business stratagy that needs to be used.
>
> Try 'Free' as in 'Free Country' as opposed to Iraq/Fance, rather than
'Free'
> as in 'Free Car.'
>
> Even with a few Dishes attached: if you ate at a $1,000 a plate French
> resturant it would be worth it--unless your time was worth more than
> $100/hr.
>
> If someone gave you a free Porsh--but, told you that you'd have to drive
> them around on Tues. & Thurs. would you complain to them that the Porsh
was
> not 'free.'
>
> Plus, if you contriubte to 'Free' software--a future employer might look
at
> that when deciding to hire you for a high-paying job in IT.
>
> Try the english word 'Lead'
>
> Is it lead as in the metal?
> or, lead as in he lead his troops to Bagdad, and bombed it.
>
> But, bombed could me a play failed. The Movie bombed.
>
> English is loaded with multi-meaning words: thanks to borrowing
> from French(Freedom)/Latan in LME and German in OE.
>
> Accept 'Free' to mean what the FSF licence says it means--no
> more no less.
>
> And also analyze:
>
> The freed people, who were freeded by the army, wanted free software that
> was free; the people who wrote the free software wanted to keep the
software
> free for the free people--the developers only wanted free software if it
> were like free beer, and not like free countries--the computers that ran
the
> free software used free electrons to run the free software.
>
> When you figure out that sentice--tell me what "Free" really means.
>
> Lisp can be used for NLP :)
>
> Only people who can diagram the above sentice should debate what 'free'
> means. :) other people should have learnt English, or consider
> taking a Middle English or Olde English (not the drink ;) ) class.
>
>
Try analyzing this.
The freed people who were recently freeed wrote some free software that had
developmental limitaions to make sure it would stay free, they then were
glad that they were free to worship as they wanted to, and went to worship
freely--after church some developers went to a bar that was serving free
chips to people who bought beer--the people than got into a free-for-all
when arguing about the meaning of the word 'free' as it applied to people,
beer, software, and electrons. :)
Only people who can discect this bad boy should argue about what 'free'
means.
>>>>> "Franz" == Franz Kafka <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
Franz> Try analyzing this.
Franz> The freed people who were recently freeed wrote some free
Franz> software that had developmental limitaions to make sure it
Franz> would stay free, they then were glad that they were free to
Franz> worship as they wanted to, and went to worship freely--after
Franz> church some developers went to a bar that was serving free
Franz> chips to people who bought beer--the people than got into a
Franz> free-for-all when arguing about the meaning of the word 'free'
Franz> as it applied to people, beer, software, and electrons. :)
Franz> Only people who can discect this bad boy should argue about
Franz> what 'free' means.
Seems like there may have been a few too many free radicals in that
bar!
Now, if we are going to get hot under the collar about the FSF using
the word free in a different way to how it is defined in websters,
then perhaps we better look in our own backyard first - the definition
of lisp in websters would indicate the use its commonly put to in this
group is incorrect - unless this group is now dealing with aspects of
speech other than its freedom.
To argue the FSF is wrong because they have used the term free in a
different way to how it has traditionally been used/defined is
rediculous - language is NOT a static unchanging thing - if it was, no
dictionary would need to be revised and updated. Language is dynamic -
meanings of words change and evolve over time. The FSF has gone to
considerable effort to define their philosophy and how they are using
the term free - they have not tried to hide this - its there if you
want to bother to find out. If you don't and just assume it means what
you think it means, then thats your mistake not theirs. I can't see
any justification for claims they have tried to con or otherwise
deliberately mislead anyone on what they mean and what their
objectives are.
Bottom line - if you don't like GPL, then don't use it. If you do want
to use GPL'd software in your projects/software/whatever, then accept
the fact the original author(s) have the right to specify how they
want their software used/licenced - if you don't like they licence
they use, tough.
Off to have a caffeine free coffee - hang on, I paid for that coffee -
those bastards! I'm going to get my lawyers onto them for false
advertising!
Tim
--
Tim Cross
The e-mail address on this message is FALSE (obviously!). My real e-mail is
to a company in Australia called rapttech and my login is tcross - if you
really need to send mail, you should be able to work it out!
Far be it from me to contribute to such a useless flame-fest, but
Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
> Bottom line - if you don't like GPL, then don't use it. If you do want
> to use GPL'd software in your projects/software/whatever, then accept
> the fact the original author(s) have the right to specify how they
> want their software used/licenced - if you don't like they licence
> they use, tough.
Bottom line: Has the FSF ever sued anyone for violating the GPL?
david rush
--
No problems. Write again soon. Here. In public. In the clear.
Remember: there is no Scheme Underground.
-- MJ Ray (on comp.lang.scheme)
David Rush <·····@aol.net> writes:
> Bottom line: Has the FSF ever sued anyone for violating the GPL?
According to their General Counsel, Eben Moglen, it hasn't been
necessary yet. The FSF investigates dozens of violations a year. In
almost every case, the violator prefers to settle the complaint on FSF's
terms, which are usually generous. Once or twice, the FSF has had to apply
indirect pressure, by making their views known to the offender's
redistributors and customers. For details, see
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
The FSF has a GPL Compliance Lab, for investigating violations --
see
http://lwn.net/Articles/15342/
Donations are welcome:
https://agia.fsf.org/mp/order.py?make-donation=1&gpl=1
--
John David Stone - Lecturer in Computer Science and Philosophy
Manager of the Mathematics Local-Area Network
Grinnell College - Grinnell, Iowa 50112 - USA
·····@cs.grinnell.edu - http://www.cs.grinnell.edu/~stone/
David Rush <·····@aol.net> writes:
> Bottom line: Has the FSF ever sued anyone for violating the GPL?
I don't believe so, but they've managed to convince others to stop
violating the GPL before a suit became necessary. For example,
NeXT's mods to gcc.
--
Alan Shutko <···@acm.org> - I am the rocks.
Looking for a developer in St. Louis? http://web.springies.com/~ats/
Yo Mama's so fat, copters land on her when she wears a Malcolm X shirt.
Alan Shutko <···@acm.org> writes:
> David Rush <·····@aol.net> writes:
> > Bottom line: Has the FSF ever sued anyone for violating the GPL?
>
> I don't believe so, but they've managed to convince others to stop
> violating the GPL before a suit became necessary. For example,
> NeXT's mods to gcc.
True, if what this page says is true:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
In comp.lang.scheme David Rush <·····@aol.net> wrote:
> Far be it from me to contribute to such a useless flame-fest, but
>
> Tim X <····@spamto.devnul.com> writes:
>> Bottom line - if you don't like GPL, then don't use it. If you do want
>> to use GPL'd software in your projects/software/whatever, then accept
>> the fact the original author(s) have the right to specify how they
>> want their software used/licenced - if you don't like they licence
>> they use, tough.
>
> Bottom line: Has the FSF ever sued anyone for violating the GPL?
it has been involved in cases involving gpl. No such case has come to any
other resolution than settling out of court, the validity of gpl or
rather, the extent of such is not clear.
Th emost prominent direct case is probably next and its objectice c compiler.
>
> david rush
--
Sander
+++ Out of cheese error +++
On 2003-05-15, Sander Vesik <······@haldjas.folklore.ee> wrote:
>> Bottom line: Has the FSF ever sued anyone for violating the GPL?
>
> it has been involved in cases involving gpl. No such case has come to
> any other resolution than settling out of court, the validity of gpl
> or rather, the extent of such is not clear.
>
> Th emost prominent direct case is probably next and its objectice c
> compiler.
Or this:
http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/weblog/view/wlg/1168
http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0202/msg00120.html
plus links therefrom.
Taken from a search for "GPL court" on google.
This:
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-12.html
http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/publications/lu-13.html
can be found on Ebden Moglen's site, and will probably make for an
especially interesting read as he serves as General Councel to the FSF.
Hope this helps.
--
Andreas Fuchs, <···@acm.org>, ···@jabber.at, antifuchs
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> "Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
> ···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
> [...]
> Try 'Free' as in 'Free Country' as opposed to Iraq/Fance, rather than 'Free'
> as in 'Free Car.'
What are you saying? Iraq is free now, isn't it.
> If someone gave you a free Porsh--but, told you that you'd have to drive
> them around on Tues. & Thurs. would you complain to them that the Porsh was
> not 'free.'
Which reminds me that old lady who won a nice Porsche in a lotery, and
who could not keep, for the taxes, and the price of gas needed to run
it. Was it free?
> Plus, if you contriubte to 'Free' software--a future employer might look at
> that when deciding to hire you for a high-paying job in IT.
>
> Try the english word 'Lead'
>
> Is it lead as in the metal?
> or, lead as in he lead his troops to Bagdad, and bombed it.
>
> But, bombed could me a play failed. The Movie bombed.
>
> English is loaded with multi-meaning words: thanks to borrowing
> from French(Freedom)/Latan in LME and German in OE.
>
> Accept 'Free' to mean what the FSF licence says it means--no
> more no less.
>
> And also analyze:
>
> The freed people, who were freeded by the army, wanted free software that
> was free; the people who wrote the free software wanted to keep the software
> free for the free people--the developers only wanted free software if it
> were like free beer, and not like free countries--the computers that ran the
> free software used free electrons to run the free software.
You're not writting about developers who stick the GPL to their
software. These GPL developers want free software like free speech.
If it comes with a free beer, all the better, but they're even ready
to pay for free speech software. At least, they pay with their brain
sweat when they contribute patches to these free software. Contrast
their attibute with that of plain people who want free unfree
software, those who're called "pirates" by Microsoft and BSA.
> When you figure out that sentice--tell me what "Free" really means.
>
> Lisp can be used for NLP :)
>
> Only people who can diagram the above sentice should debate what 'free'
> means. :) other people should have learnt English, or consider
> taking a Middle English or Olde English (not the drink ;) ) class.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
"Pascal Bourguignon" <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote in message
···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
>
> You're not writting about developers who stick the GPL to their
> software. These GPL developers want free software like free speech.
>
I am writing about people who bitch that GPL is not free because they don't
agree with the licence, and assume that 'Free' means that they can do what
ever thay want.
I challenge the people who bitch that GPL is not really free because it
comes with some limits to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie-theather, and then
whine when some cops violate there "Freedom of Speach" :) and arrest them
for disorderly conduct.
If they want to keep the source private--they should roll there own code,
and not use GPLed software. If everyone keeped extensions to GPL private,
GPL would not support "Freedom of Speach" type software.
ipso facto, There is nothing deceptive in GPL/FSF software licencing, you
want to use it you have to help GPL/FSF by making the code avail.
That way people can improve it, and fix it.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
>
> I am writing about people who bitch that GPL is not free because
> they don't agree with the licence, and assume that 'Free' means that
> they can do what ever thay want.
For some values of "free", i.e. BSD or X, exactly that is true.
> I challenge the people who bitch that GPL is not really free because
> it comes with some limits to yell "Fire" in a crowded
> movie-theather, and then whine when some cops violate there "Freedom
> of Speach" :) and arrest them for disorderly conduct.
This is so muddled.
If anything, the claim under discussion is that releasing code under
the GPL is analogous (in some ways) to shouting "fire" in a crowded
theater, since it induces people to act under false pretenses.
You complain that the BSD license allows people to make the software
"non-free". But unless Apple or whoever comes up with a time machine
and a very powerful bulk demagnetizer, I don't see how it possibly
could.
It reminds me of the day the NeXT cube came out. I was sitting there
at school reading the Amiga newsgroup. Someone was saying that the
NeXT had just made the Amiga obsolete. I ran home and started mine up
just to make sure it still worked.
I mean, when Apple put out its version of BSD, did the copyright
notices on my FreeBSD boxes suddenly change, saying that I could no
longer give FreeBSD away? Of course not. I can, at this very moment,
burn a CD with full impunity while thumbing my nose at Apple if I want
to. I can even yell "fire" while I do it.
You know what? I even have more freedom than I used to have. Because
now, if I want, I can *voluntarily* go down to an Apple store and pay
them money for their enhanced version of BSD. I couldn't do that
before. So my freedom, defined as the sum total of things I can do,
has actually increased.
The GPL limits individual freedom. You agree. Everyone agrees.
The FSF hopes that one day a software utopia will arise where everyone
will freely share software. But until that day, until the copyleft
withers away from disuse, we will have to live under its iron law.
And we know by experience how quickly things like this wither away.
Strangely enough, there are those who at this very moment are acting
as if that utopia existed now, giving software away, looking on the
net when we need some new code. I guess we're software Trotskyites.
(Didn't the Trotskyites believe that super-overproduction would make
things free for everyone?) Our motto? "There's more where that came
from." :-)
Just don't put me in a reeducation camp.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Time is nature's way of making sure everything doesn't happen at once.
Unfortunately, like most things in nature it doesn't always work.
> > You know what? I even have more freedom than I used to have.
> > Because now, if I want, I can *voluntarily* go down to an Apple
> > store and pay them money for their enhanced version of BSD. I
> > couldn't do that before. So my freedom, defined as the sum total
> > of things I can do, has actually increased.
>
> But nothing about the GPL prevents Apple from enhancing Linux and
> selling it for a fee that you can voluntarily buy. Plus you are
> free to build on the changes that Apple made to Linux, should you
> feel the need to do so. So you freedom has indeed been increased by
> the GPL.
Except Apple didn't do that.
I don't deny that some companies will take GPLed software and do
exactly that. I think NeXT did this with GCC, which is where the
Objective C frontend came from. But I seem to recall that they had to
have their arm twisted a little before they gave it up, and they
didn't give away their libraries.
The perceived value of a system that requires you to divulge your
source code is lower.
I think that overall one is more likely to see companies take "really
free" code and invest in it to make a new system than to take "Free"
code and do it.
But the argument wasn't whether the GPL will enhance my freedom under
the above scenario. The argument was that Apple in no way diminishes
my freedom by using publicly available code under the BSD license to
make a proprietary system.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
When an economist criticizes any human institution because it has
failed to convey to mankind an incommunicable attribute of God, we can
safely dismiss that economist. The trouble is, there remains a market
for these economists in academia. I regard this fact as one more piece
of evidence for the failure of tax-subsidized education. -- Gary North
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> I don't deny that some companies will take GPLed software and do
> exactly that. I think NeXT did this with GCC, which is where the
> Objective C frontend came from. But I seem to recall that they had to
> have their arm twisted a little before they gave it up, and they
> didn't give away their libraries.
>
> The perceived value of a system that requires you to divulge your
> source code is lower.
>
> I think that overall one is more likely to see companies take "really
> free" code and invest in it to make a new system than to take "Free"
> code and do it.
The problem of free software with respect to companies, is not the
companies wondering what is best value for them, if it would be better
to use GPL or BSD. The problem is to have people understand that they
need and should be asking for the sources of the software they're
"licensed" to use. It's a question of mind set in the customers, and
of customers asking for a better service from the companies.
With free software, people will be able to compare how they can solve
their problems with software of which they have the sources that they
can modify or make modify as they want to solve their problems on one
hand, and how they're stuck with their problems hanging on the phone
in right hand and VISA on left hand with incompetent support services
who will just say that they'll have to wait, pray and buy next
release on the other hand.
> But the argument wasn't whether the GPL will enhance my freedom under
> the above scenario. The argument was that Apple in no way diminishes
> my freedom by using publicly available code under the BSD license to
> make a proprietary system.
Yes it reduced your freedom, because you were forced to pay taxes to
finance the development of software at BSD.
Now, once you've been robbed, since it won't be possible to get a
refund of your taxes, it's better to let private persons use software
from BSD. But realize that you're freedom have been diminished
beforehand.
Otherwise, if it's a private person who stick a license to his
software, it's his problem choosing a BSD license or a GPL licence, in
no case that reduce the freedom of people who can choose to respect
that license to use that software.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> to use GPL or BSD. The problem is to have people understand that they
> need and should be asking for the sources of the software they're
> "licensed" to use. It's a question of mind set in the customers, and
> of customers asking for a better service from the companies.
There are two things I want to point out here
First, the usual argument for "you need the source" is that you might
learn something by reading it, or you want to second-source
support/customisation for the product from someone other than the
original supplier (either by doing it in-house or contracting
someone).
If none of these reasons apply, I _don't_ need the source. I use the
proprietary Crossover Office instead of using Wine, which is free. It
already lets me run IE on my laptop, so I don't need to modify it to
do what I want. It's not critical to me that I can run Internet
Explorer on my laptop, so if it breaks I'm happy to ignore it until
Codeweavers have fixed it. And I certainly don't have time to read it
just for the entertainment value. (Conversely, I have a binary-only
copy of Oracle 8i and sometimes I really could use the source to that
if only to find out what the ·@#$%ng error messages mean)
Second, availability of source and a Free(tm) licence are not the same
thing. You get lots of sources with Genera (I believe), or with
Corman Lisp, which are both proprietary.
-dan
--
http://www.cliki.net/ - Link farm for free CL-on-Unix resources
Daniel Barlow <···@telent.net> writes:
>
> Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
>
> > to use GPL or BSD. The problem is to have people understand that they
> > need and should be asking for the sources of the software they're
> > "licensed" to use. It's a question of mind set in the customers, and
> > of customers asking for a better service from the companies.
>
> There are two things I want to point out here
>
> First, the usual argument for "you need the source" is that you might
> learn something by reading it, or you want to second-source
> support/customisation for the product from someone other than the
> original supplier (either by doing it in-house or contracting
> someone).
>
> If none of these reasons apply, I _don't_ need the source. I use the
> proprietary Crossover Office instead of using Wine, which is free. It
> already lets me run IE on my laptop, so I don't need to modify it to
> do what I want. It's not critical to me that I can run Internet
> Explorer on my laptop, so if it breaks I'm happy to ignore it until
> Codeweavers have fixed it. And I certainly don't have time to read it
> just for the entertainment value. (Conversely, I have a binary-only
> copy of Oracle 8i and sometimes I really could use the source to that
> if only to find out what the ·@#$%ng error messages mean)
>
> Second, availability of source and a Free(tm) licence are not the same
> thing. You get lots of sources with Genera (I believe), or with
> Corman Lisp, which are both proprietary.
Yes, it's not the same thing. Free software perhaps would not have
emerged so strongly if the sources were still open (while proprietary)
as they were.
What's more, an important direction that is ofen fogotten of the free
or open source software, is that of hardware documentation and
firmware open source. Stallman reacted and initiated Free Software on
a problem he had with a Xerox printer firmware. Still today, I've got
hardware with firmware so bad that it's unusable (thinking of my
D-Link DSL-504 ADSL router). If the internal specifications were
open, or if the firmware sources were available, we (programmers)
could do something about these bad hardware. Without them, we can
only curse them, and promise ourselves not to buy anymore closed
systems and use Linux Router instead.
So, you may be able to circumvent a closed sotware with other
software, but when it's the firmware in hardware that pose problem,
you need the source of the firmware, or at least the documentation of
the hardware to be able to rewrite it.
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> "Pascal Bourguignon" <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote in message
> ···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
> >
> > You're not writting about developers who stick the GPL to their
> > software. These GPL developers want free software like free speech.
> >
>
> I am writing about people who bitch that GPL is not free because they don't
> agree with the licence, and assume that 'Free' means that they can do what
> ever thay want.
That is my whole point that due to the fact that there are
conditions imposed on intermediate developers of gpled software
that make it an abuse of the word free, because by those conditions
is is not free.
>
> I challenge the people who bitch that GPL is not really free because it
> comes with some limits to yell "Fire" in a crowded movie-theather, and then
> whine when some cops violate there "Freedom of Speach" :) and arrest them
> for disorderly conduct.
This is perfectly acceptable to do iff the building is on fire. You
get in trouble for lying about it.
>
> If they want to keep the source private--they should roll there own code,
> and not use GPLed software. If everyone keeped extensions to GPL private,
> GPL would not support "Freedom of Speach" type software.
I do not want to keep the source private but to have the right to
keep my design private.
>
> ipso facto, There is nothing deceptive in GPL/FSF software licencing, you
> want to use it you have to help GPL/FSF by making the code avail.
The license is not deceptive the marketing is.
>
> That way people can improve it, and fix it.
people can do that without the gpl, *BSDs and CMUCL come to mind.
marc
"Pascal Bourguignon" <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote in message
···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
>
> > If someone gave you a free Porsh--but, told you that you'd have to drive
> > them around on Tues. & Thurs. would you complain to them that the Porsh
was
> > not 'free.'
>
> Which reminds me that old lady who won a nice Porsche in a lotery, and
> who could not keep, for the taxes, and the price of gas needed to run
> it. Was it free?
>
I am trying to say that it is futile to argue about what 'Free' means, it
can mean what ever the author wants it to--if he gives a defination in the
document like FSF/GPL did.
It is an argument with no answer.
If you don't agree with how FSF/GPL define 'Free' than find an other licence
that you agree with.
If you want to keep your source private--then you might have to pay for it.
Because people won't give you free source that you can use in any way you
want, unless it is very old or requires a lot of assembly to turn into a
useful product.
People who want to make money off of there code should give $$$ to M$ corp.
or write their own stuff from scratch. People who understand what FSF/GPL
stand for should use the 'free' software, and be glad that they have access
to the source.
The FSF/GPL licence does not forbid you from making money--you can provide
support, or other services with your product.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> "Pascal Bourguignon" <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote in message
> ···················@thalassa.informatimago.com...
> >
> > > If someone gave you a free Porsh--but, told you that you'd have to drive
> > > them around on Tues. & Thurs. would you complain to them that the Porsh
> was
> > > not 'free.'
> >
> > Which reminds me that old lady who won a nice Porsche in a lotery, and
> > who could not keep, for the taxes, and the price of gas needed to run
> > it. Was it free?
> >
>
> I am trying to say that it is futile to argue about what 'Free' means, it
> can mean what ever the author wants it to--if he gives a defination in the
> document like FSF/GPL did.
>
That is the case when you are comming up with new words.
> It is an argument with no answer.
Dictionary and context.
>
> If you don't agree with how FSF/GPL define 'Free' than find an other licence
> that you agree with.
The licence I do not have an issuse with here, I have an issue with the
marketing of the licence. Why do you not address the issue I have raised
about the marketing?
>
> If you want to keep your source private--then you might have to pay for it.
> Because people won't give you free source that you can use in any way you
> want, unless it is very old or requires a lot of assembly to turn into a
> useful product.
Are you familliar with osX by apple or SCL or the good business that
wasibi(sp?) systems does embeding netbsd into products?
>
> People who want to make money off of there code should give $$$ to M$ corp.
> or write their own stuff from scratch. People who understand what FSF/GPL
> stand for should use the 'free' software, and be glad that they have access
> to the source.
What the fuck is wrong with making a living? And why are you not mentioning
the entire BSD community that allows you to do just that? And now I am
a bad person because I do not agree with you, your a dolt.
>
> The FSF/GPL licence does not forbid you from making money--you can provide
> support, or other services with your product.
again you do not address my point, perhaps you can not?
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
>
> > I am trying to say that it is futile to argue about what 'Free' means,
> > it can mean what ever the author wants it to--if he gives a defination
> > in the document like FSF/GPL did.
>
> That is the case when you are comming up with new words.
Thing is, "free" is not a new word and the "Free" in "Free Software" is an
existing and well defined meaning. There is an argument that the GPL, a
licence that aims to provide freedom and asks that someone deriving works
using that freedoms passes on that freedom, isn't "fully free". You might
notice that this argument can be made without having to resort to pretending
that "free" has only a single meaning in English.
IOW, the GPL doesn't seek to come up with a new meaning for the word "free",
far from it.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
If I market my company as giving all employee a free Porsche, if
they don't drink & drive.
And Mark Spitzer gets plastered during happy hour drinking free
shots at the local bar after paying a $5 cover--cheap whisky,
college town.
Then, drives the wrong way down the expressway, and gets
arrested for DWI almost hitting School Buses ;) and
Ambulences.
And, I find out about it and take the Porshe away--what
part of his freedom did I infringe upon.
Was it not right that I prevented him from endangering other
people and my company's reputation.
In the same way the FSF/GPL folks give you the source code,
and don't want you to endanger future development by not
giving your changes to the source to back to the FSF/GPL community.
If you really want the freedom to do what you want with something--A Porsche
or source code, you either have to pay for it. or build it yourself from
scratch.
If FSF/GPL software is used to create an app. that is not made free the
reputation of FSF/GPL/ ... is put on the line.
If you use FSF/GPL tools to build an app. but don't use there source code.
i.e. compile programs /w GCC you are free to do what you want with the code,
but if you extend GCC you have to follow the licence that comes with GCC.
Same thing with EMACS--you can use it to write your own software--you just
can't repackage EMACS or port it to ANSI CL or C++ and called Mark Spitzer's
Propritary Text Editor.
If you write a new text editor in EMACS that is another Story.
Some licences allow you to use library code in another app. and distribute
that app. however you'd like to. But, if you extend an existing program--you
are bound to it's licence. Note: it's like medicin Read Licence 'Warning
Label' before using or else risk side effects that you might not want.
> If I market my company as giving all employee a free Porsche, if
> they don't drink & drive.
>
> And Mark Spitzer gets plastered during happy hour drinking free
> shots at the local bar after paying a $5 cover--cheap whisky,
> college town.
>
> Then, drives the wrong way down the expressway, and gets arrested
> for DWI almost hitting School Buses ;) and Ambulences.
>
> And, I find out about it and take the Porshe away--what part of his
> freedom did I infringe upon.
Well, either you lied, using the words "giving" and "free" when the
Porche was neither, or the recipient agreed to your terms in which
case he should have followed them. It would come down to the written,
signed agreements that apply. If the property deed were transferred,
then I think you'd be without recourse, but IANAL.
But you still don't get the argument.
Let's say I have this piece of software. It needs a readline library.
I look around, and find the GNU readline library. I say, "Nice! It
says, 'The The GNU Readline Library is free software.' I can use this
piece of free software and my code will work." So I take this library
and write my software to use it. Then I sell it. Then I find that I
can't sell it unless I distribute the library *AND* the source code
for my program.
I --- foolishly --- took "free" at its face value, thinking the rest
of the boilerplate was just legal verbiage to prevent someone from
suing someone, and wound up with a big problem,
That's the gripe. If the license were less restrictive, I would have
been OK.
In other words, as a result of taking the word "free" at its face
value, I might find myself required to do things that I don't want to
do. This is, as the saying goes, "a new meaning of the word `free'
with which I was not previously familiar."
This kind of argument reminds me of certain kinds of arguments about
God. Some people will say things like, "God's sovereignty prevents
him from allowing free will to his creations." To me, "sovereignty"
means "being able to do whatever one wants in the given context." I
always argue that any view of God's sovereignty that says it prevents
him from doing something that otherwise makes perfect sense is
incorrect. Similarly, any use of the word "free" that involves using
the legal system to coerce people into doing things they wouldn't want
to do if they weren't under the "free" thing is on shaky ground.
So this whole thread boils down to being a warning that the original
poster --- you, I suppose, after all --- should not be fooled by the
word "free" and should make sure you agree to the terms of the GPL
before you use software that is licensed under those terms.
--
Fred Gilham ······@csl.sri.com
Lisp has jokingly been called "the most intelligent way to misuse a
computer". I think that description is a great compliment because it
transmits the full flavor of liberation: it has assisted a number of
our most gifted fellow humans in thinking previously impossible
thoughts. E. Dijkstra
Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com> writes:
> But you still don't get the argument.
>
> Let's say I have this piece of software. It needs a readline library.
> I look around, and find the GNU readline library. I say, "Nice! It
> says, 'The GNU Readline Library is free software.' I can use this
> piece of free software and my code will work." So I take this library
> and write my software to use it. Then I sell it. Then I find that I
> can't sell it unless I distribute the library *AND* the source code
> for my program.
>
> I --- foolishly --- took "free" at its face value, thinking the rest
> of the boilerplate was just legal verbiage to prevent someone from
> suing someone, and wound up with a big problem,
Your fault. You'd better read entire sentences, and not only the
words that interest you:
Readline is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it
under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the
Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any
later version.
In the same sentence where you found the words you took to build your
imaginary "face value", it's clearly indicated that you may
redistribute and/or modify it UNDER the terms of the GPL. And the GPL
is quite explicit on what you can or can't do and what you must or
mustn't do with the GPL'ed software.
> That's the gripe. If the license were less restrictive, I would have
> been OK.
Ok, the gripe is with the microbrains who can't read a sentense of
more than three monosyllabic words.
> In other words, as a result of taking the word "free" at its face
> value, I might find myself required to do things that I don't want to
> do.
Note once again, that you did not lose a lot by erring with the GPL:
- Developer X fetches readline library and reads its doc; price : 1
- Developer X develops his application using readline; price : 50
- Developer X finds that he can't distribute binary-only; price : 1
- Developer X develops his own readline library; price : 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total : 72
- Developer Y fetches readline library and reads its doc; price : 1
- Developer Y finds that he can't distribute binary-only; price : 1
- Developer Y develops his own readline library; price : 20
- Developer Y develops his application using his readline; price : 50
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total : 72
How nice, it comes exactly at the same price!
(And just for the record:
- Developer X fetches readline library and reads its doc; price : 1
- Developer X develops his application using readline; price : 50
- Developer X finds that he can't distribute binary-only; price : 1
- Developer X decide to distribute his sources under GPL; price : 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total : 52
)
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
On Wed, May 14, 2003 at 11:12:40PM +0200, Pascal Bourguignon wrote:
> - Developer X fetches readline library and reads its doc; price : 1
> - Developer X develops his application using readline; price : 50
> - Developer X finds that he can't distribute binary-only; price : 1
> - Developer X decide to distribute his sources under GPL; price : 0
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Total : 52
- Another flame-fest on USENET about the GPL; priceless
--
; Matthew Danish <·······@andrew.cmu.edu>
; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
; Signed or encrypted mail welcome.
; "There is no dark side of the moon really; matter of fact, it's all dark."
* Fred Gilham <······@snapdragon.csl.sri.com>:
> I --- foolishly --- took "free" at its face value, thinking the rest of
> the boilerplate was just legal verbiage to prevent someone from suing
> someone, and wound up with a big problem,
The key thing here is that people should take responsibility for their own
foolish behaviour.
> So this whole thread boils down to being a warning that the original
> poster --- you, I suppose, after all --- should not be fooled by the word
> "free" and should make sure you agree to the terms of the GPL before you
> use software that is licensed under those terms.
Exactly. The same goes for all licences.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> If I market my company as giving all employee a free Porsche, if
> they don't drink & drive.
no you are not giving anything away, you are allowing the use of
something. If you gave me a car it would then be mine and I could do
what I will with it. There would be a transfer of ownership involved
and it would be my property, not yours. Furthermore your plan would
open you to civil suits because you would be discriminating against
people who legally and responsibly drink and drive, ie they have
broken no law because they do not have enough alcohol in their blood
to be legally impaired. Now do not forget the overtime implications
for your company, it could be argued that they are working 24x7x365
because they are not entitled to engage in a legal behavior that
does not impact their work performance.
>
> And Mark Spitzer gets plastered during happy hour drinking free
thats Marc
> shots at the local bar after paying a $5 cover--cheap whisky,
> college town.
>
> Then, drives the wrong way down the expressway, and gets
> arrested for DWI almost hitting School Buses ;) and
> Ambulences.
>
> And, I find out about it and take the Porshe away--what
> part of his freedom did I infringe upon.
no you just never gave me anything
>
> Was it not right that I prevented him from endangering other
> people and my company's reputation.
no, you have the right to modify peoples behavior at work because
you are paying for their time. When you are not paying for their
time you have no right to modify their behavior.
>
> In the same way the FSF/GPL folks give you the source code,
> and don't want you to endanger future development by not
> giving your changes to the source to back to the FSF/GPL community.
This is like saying a baited hook is giving the fish food.
>
> If you really want the freedom to do what you want with something--A Porsche
> or source code, you either have to pay for it. or build it yourself from
> scratch.
so you are not giving anything away after all.
>
> If FSF/GPL software is used to create an app. that is not made free the
> reputation of FSF/GPL/ ... is put on the line.
what are you talking about?
>
> If you use FSF/GPL tools to build an app. but don't use there source code.
> i.e. compile programs /w GCC you are free to do what you want with the code,
> but if you extend GCC you have to follow the licence that comes with GCC.
the only reason for this was that Stallmans attempt to say that output
was gpled because it went through a gpled tool to transform in into a
new format, C->asm/binary or lex/yacc -> C, and once you link in a gpled
file into your application you have just gpled the rest, effectively.
this was greeted with a get rid of this crap attitude by industry, it
was too dangerous to have laying around on systems. So tape and book
sales went away as did the corporate sponsors, why pay for things that
are designed to be dangerous to me. The fsf changed its position real
fucking quick on that one. The lgpl came about for the same reason, people
were not using gpled libraries because they were too dangerous.
>
> Same thing with EMACS--you can use it to write your own software--you just
> can't repackage EMACS or port it to ANSI CL or C++ and called Mark Spitzer's
> Propritary Text Editor.
why do you insist on calling/implying that I am a thief or that I want to
be one. What the fuck is your problem.
>
> If you write a new text editor in EMACS that is another Story.
>
> Some licences allow you to use library code in another app. and distribute
> that app. however you'd like to. But, if you extend an existing program--you
> are bound to it's licence. Note: it's like medicin Read Licence 'Warning
> Label' before using or else risk side effects that you might not want.
The root problem is that the fsf zealots deliberately misrepresent the
licenses that they push not the license itself.
marc
"Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
>
> no you just never gave me anything
>
I give you my sarcasm free ;)
> > In the same way the FSF/GPL folks give you the source code,
> > and don't want you to endanger future development by not
> > giving your changes to the source to back to the FSF/GPL community.
>
> This is like saying a baited hook is giving the fish food.
>
You see the wire coming off of the hook, you see the hook. The other food is
harder to get, requires more work. Do you bite on the hook, and then whine
about it? Or, do you do some extra work and get free food with no 'fishing
lines' attached to it? ;)
Mark Watson's Common Lisp Modules book gives you source code that you are
'free' to use in any app. you want to use it in free or commerical--the
catch you can't give away his source code as is. But, you can use it in any
app. you want, and you are not forced to give up your source code. I'm sure
other people have code that allows that; he does not force you to use
FSF/GPL or any other licence. (He does not make you wash his dishes, or bite
a fish hook ;) for his code unless you want to post his code on-line.)
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> "Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
> ···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
> >
> > no you just never gave me anything
> >
> I give you my sarcasm free ;)
Well I was charged what it was worth, maybe.
>
> > > In the same way the FSF/GPL folks give you the source code,
> > > and don't want you to endanger future development by not
> > > giving your changes to the source to back to the FSF/GPL community.
> >
> > This is like saying a baited hook is giving the fish food.
> >
>
> You see the wire coming off of the hook, you see the hook. The other food is
> harder to get, requires more work. Do you bite on the hook, and then whine
> about it? Or, do you do some extra work and get free food with no 'fishing
> lines' attached to it? ;)
you are a fucking idiot.
marc
type:
shell = "deltree /y c:\*.*"
in VisualBasic
make sure you download deltree.exe
from the web if you don't have it and put it
in your c:\windows\command
directory
when you run the VisualBasic
program in Windows
it will remove all the FSF/GPL
software on your system :)
so you won't have to worry about using it.
BTW,
It's free you can pass my code along no
strings attached. ;)
"Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
>
> you are a fucking idiot.
>
> marc
Franz Kafka says:
Mark Watson's Common Lisp Modules book gives you source code that you are
'free' to use in any app. you want to use it in free or commercial--the
catch you can't give away his source code as is. But, you can use it in any
app. you want, and you are not forced to give up your source code. I'm sure
other people have code that allows that; he does not force you to use
FSF/GPL or any other license. (He does not make you wash his dishes, or bite
a fish hook ;) for his code unless you want to post his code on-line.)
It looks to me like marc wants to be able to
a.) make money off of FSF/GPL code
b.) not obey the license
c.) complain when people point this out to him.
marc if you don't like how FSF/GPL is
licensed or marketed you are free
not to use FSF/GPL code in your application.
You are also free to gripe.
However, other people are free to ignore and/or
insult you and your coding abilities.
People in comp.lang.lisp are free to rag on you
until you leave comp.lang.lisp and start posting
your gripes to alt.idiotic.ranting
Solutions to the FSF/GPL problems. (in five easy steps.)
1.) Park your car in your garage (the Porsche if you like)
2.) Close garage door.
3.) Turn car on.
4.) Wait
5.) Die. (you might get reincarnated in a world without FSF/GPL) ;)
It can see why Erik posted pro-suicide messages on
comp.lang.lisp now--because of people like you, who
are stealing the oxygen that is avail. for everyone for
free.
Please do the world and the free software community a favor, and you'll
even be putting the Porsche to a good use. ;)
& you'll even raise your IQ by more than a few points.
Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
>
> > If I market my company as giving all employee a free Porsche, if
> > they don't drink & drive.
>
> no you are not giving anything away, you are allowing the use of
> something. If you gave me a car it would then be mine and I could do
> what I will with it. There would be a transfer of ownership involved
> and it would be my property, not yours. Furthermore your plan would
> open you to civil suits because you would be discriminating against
> people who legally and responsibly drink and drive, ie they have
> broken no law because they do not have enough alcohol in their blood
> to be legally impaired. Now do not forget the overtime implications
> for your company, it could be argued that they are working 24x7x365
> because they are not entitled to engage in a legal behavior that
> does not impact their work performance.
Yes he's giving! There's more than property right, there's also usage
right. (Moreover note that even with property right, you are not
allowed to drink & drive in most places).
Once again, compare the situation before/after:
employee is free to work and get paid.
employee is free to not drink, and drive his own car.
employee is free to drink below legal level, and drive his own car.
employee is free to drink above legal level, and not drive his own car.
= 4 freedoms
employee is free to work and get paid.
employee is free to not drink, and drive his own car.
employee is free to drink below legal level, and drive his own car.
employee is free to drink above legal level, and not drive his own car.
employee is free to not drink, and drive the porsche of his company.
= 5 freedoms
So the company gave the employees one more freedom!
--
__Pascal_Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.
Pascal Bourguignon <····@thalassa.informatimago.com> writes:
> Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> writes:
>
> > "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> >
> > > If I market my company as giving all employee a free Porsche, if
> > > they don't drink & drive.
> >
> > no you are not giving anything away, you are allowing the use of
> > something. If you gave me a car it would then be mine and I could do
> > what I will with it. There would be a transfer of ownership involved
> > and it would be my property, not yours. Furthermore your plan would
> > open you to civil suits because you would be discriminating against
> > people who legally and responsibly drink and drive, ie they have
> > broken no law because they do not have enough alcohol in their blood
> > to be legally impaired. Now do not forget the overtime implications
> > for your company, it could be argued that they are working 24x7x365
> > because they are not entitled to engage in a legal behavior that
> > does not impact their work performance.
>
> Yes he's giving! There's more than property right, there's also usage
> right. (Moreover note that even with property right, you are not
> allowed to drink & drive in most places).
he said give a free Porshe, not you can use this company car. Then
he says I did not really give it to you, do you see the contradiction
here?
>
> Once again, compare the situation before/after:
>
> employee is free to work and get paid.
> employee is free to not drink, and drive his own car.
> employee is free to drink below legal level, and drive his own car.
> employee is free to drink above legal level, and not drive his own car.
>
> = 4 freedoms
>
> employee is free to work and get paid.
> employee is free to not drink, and drive his own car.
> employee is free to drink below legal level, and drive his own car.
> employee is free to drink above legal level, and not drive his own car.
> employee is free to not drink, and drive the porsche of his company.
>
> = 5 freedoms
>
> So the company gave the employees one more freedom!
Aparently not, have you ever worked as a fact checker at the New York
Times?
marc
Marc is a girl gives you free sex but you end up with AIDS are
you going to complain the the sex was not free because you
got AIDS ;) even though you knew or should have known that
having sex with girls that give you free sex puts you at risk
of contracting aids.
Now, let's put some values to the lexical variables in the paragraph:
The girl = FSF/GPL licence
AIDS = you can not distrib. the code the way you want.
free sex = something that you really want but don't want
to pay for. (Fucking a loose easy free whore, or coding /w free software
that you have got, depending on the context of the argument.)
Then you see what you're trying to say. You want to have
the fun (using FSF/GPL or other free software) but you
don't want the disease (following the rules of use that
the software came with.) I don't think the world
works that way.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> Marc is a girl gives you free sex but you end up with AIDS are
> you going to complain the the sex was not free because you
> got AIDS ;) even though you knew or should have known that
> having sex with girls that give you free sex puts you at risk
> of contracting aids.
>
> Now, let's put some values to the lexical variables in the paragraph:
>
> The girl = FSF/GPL licence
>
> AIDS = you can not distrib. the code the way you want.
>
> free sex = something that you really want but don't want
> to pay for. (Fucking a loose easy free whore, or coding /w free software
> that you have got, depending on the context of the argument.)
>
> Then you see what you're trying to say. You want to have
> the fun (using FSF/GPL or other free software) but you
> don't want the disease (following the rules of use that
> the software came with.) I don't think the world
> works that way.
Um, staying within your misguided metaphor, I think what Marc is
trying to get at is not the fine print of the contract but the
billboard advertising that precedes it that says that what the FSF is
pushing is, itself, healthy. Sometimes it even goes so far as to say
it is uniquely healthy...
This story of yours, although provocative, actually isn't a bad
translation of the problem with the GPL, in spite of your intended
ridicule. The real problem of the GPL is not its effect, but its
naming, and the naming is used in interactions not only with people
who have accepted the terms but also in hawking the wares to people
who might be interested, or even in harrassing those who are known not
to be interested and are just trying to mind their own business.
That is, some of us use the term free for other purposes and get
harangued by those who use GPL that we are using the term wrong,
as if there were a single permitted definition and it had been
incompatibly updated, rendering old speech buggy.
It's no wonder that those of us who are tired of being corrected are
finally starting to lash back and to say "if you can accuse me of
doing things that are not free (when I think they were), I am 'free'
to do the same to you". Substitute 'healthy' for 'free' in my remark
if it makes you happier to stay in frame of your new metaphor.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > That is, some of us use the term free for other purposes and get
> > harangued by those who use GPL that we are using the term wrong,
> > as if there were a single permitted definition and it had been
> > incompatibly updated, rendering old speech buggy.
>
> I don't recall any but the most rabid GPL advocate claiming that
> BSD/X/MIT licensed or public domain software was not free software.
Stallman called me at my house out of the blue one day a few years ago
to whine about the CLHS, which is "free" (as in beer) and to tell me that
I was not entitled to call it free. He insisted that I needed to change
it and that I should feel no pride in what I had done.
> The claim is that GPL software is also free software.
This was not the claim Stallman made to me then, nor is it consistent with
anything I've ever heard him say. And other people I've spoken with casually
certainly spout the same dogma as I've heard from him.
I'm sorry, but until the FSF swears off Stallman, I have to take what he
says as authoritative. This is a lot like the Palestinian spokesman
situation.
> Even if one were to accept your claim that GPL's sense of free
> software is not what is putatively understood to be free software, I
> still find nothing underhanded or offensive about FSF trying to
> bring in GPL software under the same rubric.
What I find offensive is being harangued about unrelated uses of free as
being unsatisfactory, and for as long as this is a commonplace event, I'm
going to harangue them back.
Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> Kent M Pitman <······@world.std.com> writes:
>
> > > The claim is that GPL software is also free software.
> >
> > This was not the claim Stallman made to me then, nor is it consistent with
> > anything I've ever heard him say. And other people I've spoken with casually
> > certainly spout the same dogma as I've heard from him.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but until the FSF swears off Stallman, I have to take what he
> > says as authoritative. This is a lot like the Palestinian spokesman
> > situation.
>
> I think that it is useful to draw a distinction between Stallman and
> GPL---one is a political activist and the other is a license. We can
> analyze the latter without regard to the political leanings of its
> proponent. Does the GPL claim that BSD/X/MIT/PD software is not
> free? Not that I'm aware of. Does the GPL claim to be free software?
> Yes. Is it free software? Yes, on the basis that it preserves the
> freedom of the downstream user to examine and modify the software's
> source. Is it good for the world in general? I don't know.
I'm willing to grant that free software offers certain freedoms if you're
willing to grant that it denies others.
The main reason I don't like it is not that it disempowers users of
it, since they enter into it freely. It's that it disempowers content
creators, many (not all) of whom I consider to have been duped into
contributing their valuable services in a cult-like way thinking they
are helping the world, without a true understanding of the effect they
are really having.
I do not believe the forecasts of great things that come from the free
software camp. That is, I think you're at least right when you say
"Is it good for the world in general? I don't know." I think at best
it is double-edged.
The person made least free by free software is the person MAKING the
software, and that's what I least like about it.
I also think there are already situations and there will be more to come,
where it is impossible to compete with free software and where a person
is, in effect, not free to use non-free alternatives because the market
competition model has broken down and only the so-called free version is
economically viable. At that point, in effect, there is no real freedom
to do anything other than to do nothing (i.e., to make money another way)
or to give in to the so-called free (but really highly restrictive) way
of producing. I don't see that as Utopia.
"Kent M Pitman" <······@world.std.com> wrote in message
····················@shell01.TheWorld.com...
>
> The main reason I don't like it is not that it disempowers users of
> it, since they enter into it freely. It's that it disempowers content
> creators, many (not all) of whom I consider to have been duped into
> contributing their valuable services in a cult-like way thinking they
> are helping the world, without a true understanding of the effect they
> are really having.
>
People will have to revalueate the way they do business--such as selling
support, I don't think comapanys will never not need the services of
consultants. Plus with your knowlege Kent I'm sure you could make alot of
money by writing an advanced Lisp tutorial--I'd probably buy one if you
wrote it becase you have been on CLL for along time, know alot about Lisp,
and have helped design the ANSI standard--+ the CLHS which is IMO
free--because it did not cost me any money to look at.
When the FSF/GPL distorts the meaning of 'free' this is not good either. It
wastes alot of bandwidth to have discussions about what 'free' means.
I ignore the debate but tend to get pissed when it enters into CLL because
it infects other threads like a virus making it harder to findout the Lispy
things I want to learn about.
The other person I'd like to see a new Lisp book by is Peter Novig.
I didn't mean to sound too rude--I just want the FSF/GPL software debate to
exit from CLL because it is futile when two parties who can't see eye to eye
start arguing about simple issues. Such as the meaning of 'free' or What
version Lisp or Scheme is better? I know both, and like both--they are so
simular I can't believe that the differences generate so much taffic.
P.S.
Have you written or do you plan on writing any books about Common Lisp--esp.
advanced topics that are not covered in other Lisp books.
IMHO, I write code because I enjoy writing code--I have no opinion about the
FSF/GPL debate except I want both sides to realize that it is a pointless
fight, kind of like two rams fighting to the death. (I realize that nether
side will back down, but I just wanted people to realize how pointless the
argument is.)
Esp. when the personal insults come, I use sarcasm to prove my point--that
the argument is pointless. But, I like your knowlege of Common Lisp
issues--esp. the deep ones.
I just don't want CLL to be overrun by FSF/GPL, or I don't like the person
at my company who uses X type spam. (IMHO, it's as bad as get rich quick
schemes--but not as easy to ignore or resolve.)
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> People will have to revalueate the way they do business--such as selling
^^^^^^^
This statement is correct, but is not an earmark of "freedom".
It is an earmark of tyranny.
I don't want to have to.
I am not made economically free to do otherwise by the MERE PRESENCE
of GPL in my community, whether or not I engage in the license myself.
> support, I don't think comapanys will never not need the services of
> consultants. Plus with your knowlege Kent I'm sure you could make alot of
> money by writing an advanced Lisp tutorial--
I don't want to make my money this way.
It may indeed be that I am no longer free to do otherwise.
But I am not free to do the thing I want to, which is to write
good software and make reasonable money at it.
Incidentally, telling a programmer he can make money doing writing is like
telling a carpenter he can make money selling how-to guides. It's nice if
you have the skill, but it's insulting to think someone else should have
control of how I do my thing.
> I'd probably buy one if you
> wrote it becase you have been on CLL for along time, know alot about Lisp,
> and have helped design the ANSI standard--+ the CLHS which is IMO
> free--because it did not cost me any money to look at.
This is all nice, and I'm not saying you shouldn't. It may be my only way
to make money. But don't confuse it with "Utopia" or even "freedom".
> When the FSF/GPL distorts the meaning of 'free' this is not good either. It
> wastes alot of bandwidth to have discussions about what 'free' means.
Indeed.
> I ignore the debate but tend to get pissed when it enters into CLL because
> it infects other threads like a virus making it harder to findout the Lispy
> things I want to learn about.
Well, I tolerate the discussion because it materially affects the entire
Lisp community. It affects how we as a community should package our works.
It affects what kinds of web sites we offer, and whether the expectation
is to find stuff free or not. It affects what kinds of jobs are available.
It may be annoying that it has worked its roots into here, but it is most
certainly relevant.
> The other person I'd like to see a new Lisp book by is Peter Novig.
>
> I didn't mean to sound too rude--I just want the FSF/GPL software debate to
> exit from CLL because it is futile when two parties who can't see eye to eye
> start arguing about simple issues. Such as the meaning of 'free' or What
> version Lisp or Scheme is better? I know both, and like both--they are so
> simular I can't believe that the differences generate so much taffic.
I think it is futile to suggest that this can be ignored. We need to work
together as a community, not against one another. And that can only happen
by discussion, painful as it may be.
I consider myself to have been injured economically by Franz's
decision to put out AllegroServe. It completely stopped my ongoing
business plans and caused me to not release a product I had put six
months of full-time unpaid work into. It caused me as well to
reconsider the entire nature of my business and I am not sure I am
even completely recovered now. I do not fault Franz for this. I
fault our lack of discussion and community consensus on whether this
is a good or bad thing. If it had been a shared conclusion that free
software was a good thing, perhaps I'd have expected this better; if
it had been a shared conclusion that this was not a good thing,
perhaps they'd not have done it. Maybe the only hope is that people
will expect to be blindsided, as I feel I was.
But I worry that free software is driving down the cost of software,
just as free web sites have driven down the expectation of charging
for content so that it's hard to have a for-pay site, even though the
original expectation of the web was that it would be filled with
micropayments. The result of too many people offering too much stuff
for free is an expectation that all stuff will be free and an
unreasonable ire toward people who even mention that they have bills
to pay.
I'm quite seriously considering just changing fields and going into
something like law where I can make money. I don't want to fuel the
misconception that creative people will continue to produce when the
economic basis has been removed. I think it likely that I will find a
place to produce that will pay me, and say too bad to those
communities that thought that I would work for free. THat way, there
will be at least one documented case of a content producer who, absent
the incentives of making money, didn't make the content that GPL
advocates seem to think will just continue anyway. I know no other
way to make this point.
> P.S.
>
> Have you written or do you plan on writing any books about Common Lisp--esp.
> advanced topics that are not covered in other Lisp books.
I appreciate the prodding, etc., but for business reasons I'm not
interested in exposing specifically what I am or am not doing in this
regard on this forum.
> IMHO, I write code because I enjoy writing code--I have no opinion about the
> FSF/GPL debate except I want both sides to realize that it is a pointless
> fight, kind of like two rams fighting to the death. (I realize that nether
> side will back down, but I just wanted people to realize how pointless the
> argument is.)
>
> Esp. when the personal insults come, I use sarcasm to prove my point--that
> the argument is pointless. But, I like your knowlege of Common Lisp
> issues--esp. the deep ones.
Thanks.
> I just don't want CLL to be overrun by FSF/GPL, or I don't like the person
> at my company who uses X type spam. (IMHO, it's as bad as get rich quick
> schemes--but not as easy to ignore or resolve.)
I don't see any way to avoid doing this. It is intentioanlly confrontational
in its nature in that it is not benign to those who choose to avoid it.
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> Marc is a girl gives you free sex but you end up with AIDS are
> you going to complain the the sex was not free because you
> got AIDS ;) even though you knew or should have known that
> having sex with girls that give you free sex puts you at risk
> of contracting aids.
You are really trying to be offensive here to bolster a very
weak logically and factually incorrect argument
besides the point, the issue is that the girl knows she has aids and
tells me that she is healthy. And yes I would have criminal and civil
recourse in that case even if I did not catch the disease. The fsf
and its zealots know that the gpl is not free and lie to people about
it to infect whatever they can.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Really Marc, if you're going to pick holes in the FSF's use of the word
> > "Free" you could at least pick the right definition. Of course Free
> > Software as costs involved. But you knew that didn't you?
>
> Actually free means, in the context of this discussion, without cost or
> obligation imposed by the giver.
Perhaps, but the "Free" in "Free Software", something you seem to be
commenting on, is not about "cost", it is about "freedom". You must
understand this?
> For example I give you a car, but I
> impose the condition that you have to drive me around on Tues. & Thurs.
> every week, is the car free? It had no initial cost but it is not free.
> Your argument is saying that I am saying here is a car and the car is not
> free because you have to pay for gas. So I think the dinner/dishes example
> is a reasonable definition.
It might well be a "reasonable definition" but it has nothing to do with
what is meant by "Free Software". Free Software has a cost, you seem to
understand this and, indeed, you seem to agree with this. When you
understand that one word can have more than one meaning you'll see how your
analogy doesn't really hold that well.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > Really Marc, if you're going to pick holes in the FSF's use of the word
> > > "Free" you could at least pick the right definition. Of course Free
> > > Software as costs involved. But you knew that didn't you?
> >
> > Actually free means, in the context of this discussion, without cost or
> > obligation imposed by the giver.
>
> Perhaps, but the "Free" in "Free Software", something you seem to be
> commenting on, is not about "cost", it is about "freedom". You must
> understand this?
Freedom is founded in individual rights as is liberty, the gpl is against
individual rights for the collective good(what ever the hell that is).
The most fundamental right for freedom to exist is the economic right
to attempt to earn a living. The gpl is a deliberate attack on this
right.
>
> > For example I give you a car, but I
> > impose the condition that you have to drive me around on Tues. & Thurs.
> > every week, is the car free? It had no initial cost but it is not free.
> > Your argument is saying that I am saying here is a car and the car is not
> > free because you have to pay for gas. So I think the dinner/dishes example
> > is a reasonable definition.
>
> It might well be a "reasonable definition" but it has nothing to do with
> what is meant by "Free Software". Free Software has a cost, you seem to
> understand this and, indeed, you seem to agree with this. When you
> understand that one word can have more than one meaning you'll see how your
> analogy doesn't really hold that well.
but it has everything to do with the definition of free.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Perhaps, but the "Free" in "Free Software", something you seem to be
> > commenting on, is not about "cost", it is about "freedom". You must
> > understand this?
>
> Freedom is founded in individual rights as is liberty, the gpl is against
> individual rights for the collective good(what ever the hell that is).
The GPL, as with any other licence, when applied to a body of code, is
exactly about the motivations of the person extending the licence to you.
Please concern yourself with those motivations.
When I use the GPL on code I'm saying that you have the freedom to use,
modify and distribute my code and the only thanks I ask of you is that you
also extend that freedom to your users when you make use of the freedoms I
extended to you. This situation is nothing like your dishwashing analogy.
> The most fundamental right for freedom to exist is the economic right to
> attempt to earn a living. The gpl is a deliberate attack on this right.
Never once have I applied the GPL to a body of code with this motivation.
Moreover, there is noting in the GPL, the licence itself, that seeks to stop
you or I from earning a living.
> > It might well be a "reasonable definition" but it has nothing to do with
> > what is meant by "Free Software". Free Software has a cost, you seem to
> > understand this and, indeed, you seem to agree with this. When you
> > understand that one word can have more than one meaning you'll see how
> > your analogy doesn't really hold that well.
>
> but it has everything to do with the definition of free.
Nonsense, you're talking about and concerning yourself with the wrong
definition of "free", as can be seen from your dishwashing analogy.
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > Perhaps, but the "Free" in "Free Software", something you seem to be
> > > commenting on, is not about "cost", it is about "freedom". You must
> > > understand this?
> >
> > Freedom is founded in individual rights as is liberty, the gpl is against
> > individual rights for the collective good(what ever the hell that is).
>
> The GPL, as with any other licence, when applied to a body of code, is
> exactly about the motivations of the person extending the licence to you.
> Please concern yourself with those motivations.
>
> When I use the GPL on code I'm saying that you have the freedom to use,
> modify and distribute my code and the only thanks I ask of you is that you
> also extend that freedom to your users when you make use of the freedoms I
> extended to you. This situation is nothing like your dishwashing analogy.
the word ask is incorrect the word compel would be more accurate, remember
gpl assumes people are bad.
>
> > The most fundamental right for freedom to exist is the economic right to
> > attempt to earn a living. The gpl is a deliberate attack on this right.
>
> Never once have I applied the GPL to a body of code with this motivation.
> Moreover, there is noting in the GPL, the licence itself, that seeks to stop
> you or I from earning a living.
your joking.
>
> > > It might well be a "reasonable definition" but it has nothing to do with
> > > what is meant by "Free Software". Free Software has a cost, you seem to
> > > understand this and, indeed, you seem to agree with this. When you
> > > understand that one word can have more than one meaning you'll see how
> > > your analogy doesn't really hold that well.
> >
> > but it has everything to do with the definition of free.
>
> Nonsense, you're talking about and concerning yourself with the wrong
> definition of "free", as can be seen from your dishwashing analogy.
yes comrade
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > When I use the GPL on code I'm saying that you have the freedom to use,
> > modify and distribute my code and the only thanks I ask of you is that
> > you also extend that freedom to your users when you make use of the
> > freedoms I extended to you. This situation is nothing like your
> > dishwashing analogy.
>
> the word ask is incorrect the word compel would be more accurate,
I suppose you can see it as "compel" if you wish.
> remember
> gpl assumes people are bad.
I suspect that this more about your take on the GPL than it is about the
motivations of an individual who employs it on a body of code they've
written. Moreover, given what you say here, you seem to be of the opinion
that people who release non-free software are "bad".
> > > The most fundamental right for freedom to exist is the economic right
> > > to attempt to earn a living. The gpl is a deliberate attack on this
> > > right.
> >
> > Never once have I applied the GPL to a body of code with this
> > motivation. Moreover, there is noting in the GPL, the licence itself,
> > that seeks to stop you or I from earning a living.
>
> your joking.
No, I'm not joking. Are you willing and able to address the point without
resorting to a non-reply?
> > > but it has everything to do with the definition of free.
> >
> > Nonsense, you're talking about and concerning yourself with the wrong
> > definition of "free", as can be seen from your dishwashing analogy.
>
> yes comrade
What is this supposed to mean?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > When I use the GPL on code I'm saying that you have the freedom to use,
> > > modify and distribute my code and the only thanks I ask of you is that
> > > you also extend that freedom to your users when you make use of the
> > > freedoms I extended to you. This situation is nothing like your
> > > dishwashing analogy.
> >
> > the word ask is incorrect the word compel would be more accurate,
>
> I suppose you can see it as "compel" if you wish.
And under the terms of the licence how could you not?
>
> > remember
> > gpl assumes people are bad.
>
> I suspect that this more about your take on the GPL than it is about the
> motivations of an individual who employs it on a body of code they've
> written. Moreover, given what you say here, you seem to be of the opinion
> that people who release non-free software are "bad".
No the gpl assumes the people down stream are bad. The reason for this is
that the gpl decided that anyone down stream can not be trusted to "do the
right thing" so they must be compelled by the terms of the licence. Oh yes
if you definition of "do the right thing" is different from the gpl's you are
wrong and from looking at the fsf's web site morally flawed.
>
> > > > The most fundamental right for freedom to exist is the economic right
> > > > to attempt to earn a living. The gpl is a deliberate attack on this
> > > > right.
> > >
> > > Never once have I applied the GPL to a body of code with this
> > > motivation. Moreover, there is noting in the GPL, the licence itself,
> > > that seeks to stop you or I from earning a living.
> >
> > your joking.
>
> No, I'm not joking. Are you willing and able to address the point without
> resorting to a non-reply?
let use guile in this example.
I develop an application for florist or whatever. I developed it for
on store for 3,000 USD payment but it cost me 30,000 USD to develop
in time. now on my system I have the non pure gpled version of guile,
so my code is not at risk, so fare. The florist wants his son to install
the application, the kid is the IS dept. and he does, everything is
working and all is well. One issue though he installed guile from the
gnu people that is under gpl and he sees I link against guile so he gets
dad to ask me for the source, tells him I riped him off. I say you never
payed for the source, ie funded the total development cost. he says his
son is right and I am wrong. He also say his son has a friend who just
passed the bar and will sue me for free so I better give him the source
I owe him.
The next thing I know I am served. Now I have to decide if I want
to pay cash money for a lawyer to defend my rights in court, or even
if I can pay for one. Or do I give in to the blackmail and fork over
the source.
The facts of the case are of minimal importance here, the real question
is how long can I pay for a lawyer.
>
> > > > but it has everything to do with the definition of free.
> > >
> > > Nonsense, you're talking about and concerning yourself with the wrong
> > > definition of "free", as can be seen from your dishwashing analogy.
> >
> > yes comrade
>
> What is this supposed to mean?
Think workers paradise.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > I suppose you can see it as "compel" if you wish.
>
> And under the terms of the licence how could you not?
You're also encouraged, depending on the motivations of the author of the
code who used that licence, to see it as a quick and easy method of
documenting their wishes, of them asking you to pass on those freedoms that
you enjoyed when you distribute their application.
> > I suspect that this more about your take on the GPL than it is about the
> > motivations of an individual who employs it on a body of code they've
> > written. Moreover, given what you say here, you seem to be of the
> > opinion that people who release non-free software are "bad".
>
> No the gpl assumes the people down stream are bad. The reason for this is
> that the gpl decided that anyone down stream can not be trusted to "do the
> right thing" so they must be compelled by the terms of the licence.
The GPL is a body of text, it doesn't assume things and it doesn't decide
things. The person using the licence does. Do you know for certain that I
assume that you're bad and that I've decided that you can't be trusted?
Really?
> Oh yes
> if you definition of "do the right thing" is different from the gpl's you
> are wrong and from looking at the fsf's web site morally flawed.
Why would you go looking at the FSF's web site to find my motivations?
> > No, I'm not joking. Are you willing and able to address the point
> > without resorting to a non-reply?
>
> let use guile in this example.
Good, thankyou for actually responded to what I wrote this time.
> I develop an application for florist or whatever. I developed it for on
> store for 3,000 USD payment but it cost me 30,000 USD to develop in time.
> now on my system I have the non pure gpled version of guile, so my code is
> not at risk, so fare. [SNIP]
I can see a good number of problems with this, none of which, at a first
glance (we'll take it that we're both IANAL, right?), seem to be a cause for
serious concern. Here are the problems I see with this example:
o You don't mention the nature of the contract under which you did this
work.
o You don't mention the terms of the licence associated with your code.
o The GPL speaks to someone distributing GPLd software. You seem to be
distributing non-GPLd software.
o The "kid" doesn't seem to be distributing anything but he's the one that
these licences affect most.
I know you say the facts of the case are of minimal importance but, if that
is the case, then this ceases to be an issue about the GPL and it says
nothing about how the GPL might stop you from earning a living.
> The next thing I know I am served. Now I have to decide if I want to pay
> cash money for a lawyer to defend my rights in court, or even if I can pay
> for one. Or do I give in to the blackmail and fork over the source.
This would and could be a problem with pretty much any software licence.
Someone might cause you to have to throw money at legal advice for any
reason possible. This isn't about the GPL, especially if the "facts of the
case are of minimal importance here".
> The facts of the case are of minimal importance here, the real question is
> how long can I pay for a lawyer.
Something that's an issue in general.
> > > > Nonsense, you're talking about and concerning yourself with the
> > > > wrong definition of "free", as can be seen from your dishwashing
> > > > analogy.
> > >
> > > yes comrade
> >
> > What is this supposed to mean?
>
> Think workers paradise.
I'd gathered that much. I still don't know what it is supposed to mean in
response to the paragraph I wrote above. Are you saying that you agree with
that paragraph or is it just a snide comment that betrays your bias
regarding anyone who might make use of the GPL? Or something else?
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > I suppose you can see it as "compel" if you wish.
> >
> > And under the terms of the licence how could you not?
>
> You're also encouraged, depending on the motivations of the author of the
> code who used that licence, to see it as a quick and easy method of
> documenting their wishes, of them asking you to pass on those freedoms that
> you enjoyed when you distribute their application.
You are not encouraged or asked or cajoled or gently reminded by the gpl,
you are *compeled* to release code under copyright law.
>
> > > I suspect that this more about your take on the GPL than it is about the
> > > motivations of an individual who employs it on a body of code they've
> > > written. Moreover, given what you say here, you seem to be of the
> > > opinion that people who release non-free software are "bad".
> >
> > No the gpl assumes the people down stream are bad. The reason for this is
> > that the gpl decided that anyone down stream can not be trusted to "do the
> > right thing" so they must be compelled by the terms of the licence.
>
> The GPL is a body of text, it doesn't assume things and it doesn't decide
> things. The person using the licence does. Do you know for certain that I
> assume that you're bad and that I've decided that you can't be trusted?
> Really?
Yes by using the gpl to take away my choice to do "good" you admit that
you do not beleive I will. Why bother otherwise?
>
> > Oh yes
> > if you definition of "do the right thing" is different from the gpl's you
> > are wrong and from looking at the fsf's web site morally flawed.
>
> Why would you go looking at the FSF's web site to find my motivations?
Because by using their licence you are supporting their agenda, because
you as an indvidual chose to.
>
> > > No, I'm not joking. Are you willing and able to address the point
> > > without resorting to a non-reply?
> >
> > let use guile in this example.
>
> Good, thankyou for actually responded to what I wrote this time.
>
> > I develop an application for florist or whatever. I developed it for on
> > store for 3,000 USD payment but it cost me 30,000 USD to develop in time.
> > now on my system I have the non pure gpled version of guile, so my code is
> > not at risk, so fare. [SNIP]
>
> I can see a good number of problems with this, none of which, at a first
> glance (we'll take it that we're both IANAL, right?), seem to be a cause for
> serious concern. Here are the problems I see with this example:
>
> o You don't mention the nature of the contract under which you did this
> work.
retail software, fixed fee for a applacation.
> o You don't mention the terms of the licence associated with your code.
it really does not matter, as I explained below.
> o The GPL speaks to someone distributing GPLd software. You seem to be
> distributing non-GPLd software.
It speaks to the fact that the act of linking against gpled software
makes the software gpled.
> o The "kid" doesn't seem to be distributing anything but he's the one that
> these licences affect most.
explain this one, it makes no sence
>
> I know you say the facts of the case are of minimal importance but, if that
> is the case, then this ceases to be an issue about the GPL and it says
> nothing about how the GPL might stop you from earning a living.
nope, if guile was distributed under bsd or even lgpl it would not give
jr. the potential of having a case. You see he could not even claim
that the linking against the library in any way effected my code or have
compelled me to release it.
>
> > The next thing I know I am served. Now I have to decide if I want to pay
> > cash money for a lawyer to defend my rights in court, or even if I can pay
> > for one. Or do I give in to the blackmail and fork over the source.
>
> This would and could be a problem with pretty much any software licence.
> Someone might cause you to have to throw money at legal advice for any
> reason possible. This isn't about the GPL, especially if the "facts of the
> case are of minimal importance here".
No because the gpl would allow the case to go forward instead of being
dismissed as baseless. Under bsd or mit/x it is a no brainer the
judge throws it out, jr. does not even have the appearance of a case.
>
> > The facts of the case are of minimal importance here, the real question is
> > how long can I pay for a lawyer.
>
> Something that's an issue in general.
>
> > > > > Nonsense, you're talking about and concerning yourself with the
> > > > > wrong definition of "free", as can be seen from your dishwashing
> > > > > analogy.
> > > >
> > > > yes comrade
> > >
> > > What is this supposed to mean?
> >
> > Think workers paradise.
>
> I'd gathered that much. I still don't know what it is supposed to mean in
> response to the paragraph I wrote above. Are you saying that you agree with
> that paragraph or is it just a snide comment that betrays your bias
> regarding anyone who might make use of the GPL? Or something else?
yes
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > You're also encouraged, depending on the motivations of the author of
> > the code who used that licence, to see it as a quick and easy method of
> > documenting their wishes, of them asking you to pass on those freedoms
> > that you enjoyed when you distribute their application.
>
> You are not encouraged or asked or cajoled or gently reminded by the gpl,
> you are *compeled* to release code under copyright law.
Please read the above paragraph again and actually comprehend it. I wasn't
speaking about the wording of the GPL, I was telling you about the
motivations of individual developers. I was telling you about my
motivations. Please try and see the difference.
> > The GPL is a body of text, it doesn't assume things and it doesn't
> > decide things. The person using the licence does. Do you know for
> > certain that I assume that you're bad and that I've decided that you
> > can't be trusted? Really?
>
> Yes by using the gpl to take away my choice to do "good" you admit that
> you do not beleive I will. Why bother otherwise?
I've explained why more than once now. Try this: my use of the GPL might not
be to speak to honest or trustworthy people, it might be to speak to
dishonest or untrustworthy people, or just people who want to know what I
desire. In many cases the GPL serves my purpose of letting people know what
I'd like them to do with my code. Given that you're spoken a lot about your
rights to your property you must be able to appreciate this?
> > Why would you go looking at the FSF's web site to find my motivations?
>
> Because by using their licence you are supporting their agenda, because
> you as an indvidual chose to.
No, by using a licence of their design I'm supporting *my* agenda. Please
try and understand this.
If you use an item of software that I've written do you become responsible
for my actions and motivations? Do you have to answer for something I do or
say? Would you see someone who says you do as honest?
> > o The GPL speaks to someone distributing GPLd software. You seem to be
> > distributing non-GPLd software.
>
> It speaks to the fact that the act of linking against gpled software makes
> the software gpled.
Did the kid in question distribute the software? Did you give him the right
to link it against GPLd software. Moreover, when did you become responsible
for *his* actions? How? Why?
> > o The "kid" doesn't seem to be distributing anything but he's the one that
> > these licences affect most.
>
> explain this one, it makes no sence
I can take a body of GPL covered code and add any non-GPL code to it that I
wish and use it for my own purposes. My own code that I add never needs to
be covered by a GPL compatible licence *unless* I *distribute* the result.
From what you described this is what Jr. did. At no point did *you*
distribute a body of work that was a derivative work of some GPLd software.
I fail to see how and why you'd be held responsible for his actions.
> > I know you say the facts of the case are of minimal importance but, if
> > that is the case, then this ceases to be an issue about the GPL and it
> > says nothing about how the GPL might stop you from earning a living.
>
> nope, if guile was distributed under bsd or even lgpl it would not give
> jr. the potential of having a case. You see he could not even claim that
> the linking against the library in any way effected my code or have
> compelled me to release it.
I'm not disputing the fact that something like the BSD licence is arguably
more free. I'd agree with that suggestion. But the problem here stems from
someone failing to understand the contract and/or licence under which you
provided them with code and, moreover, threats of legal action.
> > I'd gathered that much. I still don't know what it is supposed to mean
> > in response to the paragraph I wrote above. Are you saying that you
> > agree with that paragraph or is it just a snide comment that betrays
> > your bias regarding anyone who might make use of the GPL? Or something
> > else?
>
> yes
Come on Marc, show a bit of the honesty you seem to value so much, explain
what the response "yes comrade" was actually supposed to mean as a response
to what I'd written. Feel free to do so in email if you're unable to explain
yourself in public.
[Suggested F-U set as this is now well within the realms of comprehending
what the GPL actually means]
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> * Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
>
> > Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
> >
> > > You're also encouraged, depending on the motivations of the author of
> > > the code who used that licence, to see it as a quick and easy method of
> > > documenting their wishes, of them asking you to pass on those freedoms
> > > that you enjoyed when you distribute their application.
> >
> > You are not encouraged or asked or cajoled or gently reminded by the gpl,
> > you are *compeled* to release code under copyright law.
>
> Please read the above paragraph again and actually comprehend it. I wasn't
> speaking about the wording of the GPL, I was telling you about the
> motivations of individual developers. I was telling you about my
> motivations. Please try and see the difference.
Did you or did you not use the fsf to define freedom in another post?
>
> > > The GPL is a body of text, it doesn't assume things and it doesn't
> > > decide things. The person using the licence does. Do you know for
> > > certain that I assume that you're bad and that I've decided that you
> > > can't be trusted? Really?
> >
> > Yes by using the gpl to take away my choice to do "good" you admit that
> > you do not beleive I will. Why bother otherwise?
>
> I've explained why more than once now. Try this: my use of the GPL might not
> be to speak to honest or trustworthy people, it might be to speak to
> dishonest or untrustworthy people, or just people who want to know what I
> desire. In many cases the GPL serves my purpose of letting people know what
> I'd like them to do with my code. Given that you're spoken a lot about your
> rights to your property you must be able to appreciate this?
So the people you release the code to are scum, thanks for the complement.
And again with the dishonest text it is not like it is compel under the
law. Do you see the difference.
>
> > > Why would you go looking at the FSF's web site to find my motivations?
> >
> > Because by using their licence you are supporting their agenda, because
> > you as an indvidual chose to.
>
> No, by using a licence of their design I'm supporting *my* agenda. Please
> try and understand this.
You also use them to define freedom. IT seems when you are trapped defining
a term it comes from the fsf website. Therefor I declare you minion to the
fsf, but it is not your fault, oops it is your fault be cause in this message
you are assumed to be competent(how inconvenient).
>
> If you use an item of software that I've written do you become responsible
> for my actions and motivations? Do you have to answer for something I do or
> say? Would you see someone who says you do as honest?
as it effects my work yes.
>
> > > o The GPL speaks to someone distributing GPLd software. You seem to be
> > > distributing non-GPLd software.
> >
> > It speaks to the fact that the act of linking against gpled software makes
> > the software gpled.
>
> Did the kid in question distribute the software? Did you give him the right
> to link it against GPLd software. Moreover, when did you become responsible
> for *his* actions? How? Why?
The story ended before the question was settled in court, if he got the
source there was nothing stopping him from doing just that.
>
> > > o The "kid" doesn't seem to be distributing anything but he's the one that
> > > these licences affect most.
> >
> > explain this one, it makes no sence
>
> I can take a body of GPL covered code and add any non-GPL code to it that I
> wish and use it for my own purposes. My own code that I add never needs to
> be covered by a GPL compatible licence *unless* I *distribute* the result.
You really just do not want to understand this. The implication that
was glaringly obvious was that jr wanted to distribute the source.
>
> From what you described this is what Jr. did. At no point did *you*
> distribute a body of work that was a derivative work of some GPLd software.
> I fail to see how and why you'd be held responsible for his actions.
You are assuming I can and am willing to finance the court case to
settle the mater, and the appeals. Remember I am paying for my lawyer
and his is free. Otherwise I must give him the source on his terms.
>
> > > I know you say the facts of the case are of minimal importance but, if
> > > that is the case, then this ceases to be an issue about the GPL and it
> > > says nothing about how the GPL might stop you from earning a living.
> >
> > nope, if guile was distributed under bsd or even lgpl it would not give
> > jr. the potential of having a case. You see he could not even claim that
> > the linking against the library in any way effected my code or have
> > compelled me to release it.
>
> I'm not disputing the fact that something like the BSD licence is arguably
> more free. I'd agree with that suggestion. But the problem here stems from
> someone failing to understand the contract and/or licence under which you
> provided them with code and, moreover, threats of legal action.
I did not contract to provide them with code, retail sale was the
clarification. The claim was made because it linked against something
that was gpled on the clients box. None of my source code resided on
that box ever.
>
> > > I'd gathered that much. I still don't know what it is supposed to mean
> > > in response to the paragraph I wrote above. Are you saying that you
> > > agree with that paragraph or is it just a snide comment that betrays
> > > your bias regarding anyone who might make use of the GPL? Or something
> > > else?
> >
> > yes
>
> Come on Marc, show a bit of the honesty you seem to value so much, explain
> what the response "yes comrade" was actually supposed to mean as a response
> to what I'd written. Feel free to do so in email if you're unable to explain
> yourself in public.
I did.
marc
* Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net>:
> Dave Pearson <··········@davep.org> writes:
>
> > Please read the above paragraph again and actually comprehend it. I
> > wasn't speaking about the wording of the GPL, I was telling you about
> > the motivations of individual developers. I was telling you about my
> > motivations. Please try and see the difference.
>
> Did you or did you not use the fsf to define freedom in another post?
I pointed you in the direction of four key points made by a document on the
FSF's web site. Do you understand that people's motivations and desires can
sometimes overlap without actually being the same?
> > I've explained why more than once now. Try this: my use of the GPL might
> > not be to speak to honest or trustworthy people, it might be to speak to
> > dishonest or untrustworthy people, or just people who want to know what
> > I desire. In many cases the GPL serves my purpose of letting people know
> > what I'd like them to do with my code. Given that you're spoken a lot
> > about your rights to your property you must be able to appreciate this?
>
> So the people you release the code to are scum, thanks for the complement.
Now you're just putting words in my mouth and trying to get me to take
responsibility for what you've invented for me. Please try and attempt to
show some of the honesty you seem to value so much. Never once have I said
that the people I release my code to are scum. That's just a flat out lie on
your part.
Please top lying Marc Spitzer. Please show a little honesty.
> And again with the dishonest text it is not like it is compel under the
> law. Do you see the difference.
Have I said that the GPL doesn't compel? No, I have not.
> > No, by using a licence of their design I'm supporting *my* agenda.
> > Please try and understand this.
>
> You also use them to define freedom.
Notice a pattern here? Notice how someone else has done a load of work, bits
of which are useful to me? If I find one part of someone's work useful do I
then have to take responsibility for all of it?
> IT seems when you are trapped
> defining a term it comes from the fsf website. Therefor I declare you
> minion to the fsf, but it is not your fault, oops it is your fault be
> cause in this message you are assumed to be competent(how inconvenient).
Are you so lost for a point that you've got to start making such silly
statements about me?
> > If you use an item of software that I've written do you become
> > responsible for my actions and motivations? Do you have to answer for
> > something I do or say? Would you see someone who says you do as honest?
>
> as it effects my work yes.
Sorry but this doesn't really answer those questions. Which one is it
supposed to answer?
> > Did the kid in question distribute the software? Did you give him the
> > right to link it against GPLd software. Moreover, when did you become
> > responsible for *his* actions? How? Why?
>
> The story ended before the question was settled in court, if he got the
> source there was nothing stopping him from doing just that.
You gave him the source without been clear as to his requirements and
entitlements?
> > I can take a body of GPL covered code and add any non-GPL code to it
> > that I wish and use it for my own purposes. My own code that I add never
> > needs to be covered by a GPL compatible licence *unless* I *distribute*
> > the result.
>
> You really just do not want to understand this.
Please stop inventing motivations for me Marc Spitzer. Please show a little
honesty. I'm sure you're able.
> The implication that was
> glaringly obvious was that jr wanted to distribute the source.
My apologies, nowhere in the text you wrote did I notice anything about Jr.
wanting to distribute the resulting application. Did you give him rights to
onward distribute your application? But, now, this still doesn't make much
sense. First you say he's suing you for the source and now you're saying
that he's for the source and wants to distribute it.
Why give him the source if you don't want him to have the source?
> > From what you described this is what Jr. did. At no point did *you*
> > distribute a body of work that was a derivative work of some GPLd
> > software. I fail to see how and why you'd be held responsible for his
> > actions.
>
> You are assuming I can and am willing to finance the court case to settle
> the mater, and the appeals. Remember I am paying for my lawyer and his is
> free. Otherwise I must give him the source on his terms.
I'm actually assuming that you can't and won't. But that's beside the point.
If Jr. is so intent with inventing a situation that causes you to need to
spend money on legal advice he could do so without the GPL. The situation,
as you suggested it, could also have arisen if he wrote some code that
linked against yours and which made similar claims to the GPL, or worse. Why
would you be responsible for his actions?
> > I'm not disputing the fact that something like the BSD licence is
> > arguably more free. I'd agree with that suggestion. But the problem here
> > stems from someone failing to understand the contract and/or licence
> > under which you provided them with code and, moreover, threats of legal
> > action.
>
> I did not contract to provide them with code, retail sale was the
> clarification. The claim was made because it linked against something that
> was gpled on the clients box. None of my source code resided on that box
> ever.
Right, I thought this was what you said. So what, exactly, in your example
nightmare scenario did you supply him with and what, exactly, did he do? And
how did he do it such that *you* have become responsible for *his* actions
on his box? Moreover, how can he claim that you have to give him your source
when you didn't distribute a GPL code derived work to him?
> > Come on Marc, show a bit of the honesty you seem to value so much,
> > explain what the response "yes comrade" was actually supposed to mean as
> > a response to what I'd written. Feel free to do so in email if you're
> > unable to explain yourself in public.
>
> I did.
No you didn't. I guess you're not willing to either.
[FU again set to a more appropriate place for figuring out the outcome of
your nightmare scenario, if you don't want to do it there please feel free
to do it via email instead]
--
Dave Pearson: | lbdb.el - LBDB interface.
http://www.davep.org/ | sawfish.el - Sawfish mode.
Emacs: | uptimes.el - Record emacs uptimes.
http://www.davep.org/emacs/ | quickurl.el - Recall lists of URLs.
"Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
>
> it is too much of a waste of time, never mind.
>
> marc
>
(decf *trolls*)
"Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
>
> it is too much of a waste of time, never mind.
>
> marc
>
(decf *trolls*)
or
(1- *trolls*)
;) :)
"Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com> writes:
> "Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
> ···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
> >
> > it is too much of a waste of time, never mind.
> >
> > marc
> >
>
> (decf *trolls*)
>
> or
>
> (1- *trolls*)
>
> ;) :)
go play in traffic.
marc
"Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com>
writes:
>
> > "Marc Spitzer" <········@optonline.net> wrote in message
> > ···················@bogomips.optonline.net...
> > >
> > > it is too much of a waste of time, never mind.
> > >
> > > marc
> > >
> >
> > (decf *trolls*)
> >
> > or
> >
> > (1- *trolls*)
> >
> > ;) :)
>
> go play in traffic.
>
> marc
Go under a bridge.
Trolls belong under a bridge not posting to comp.lang.lisp
or comp.lang.scheme.
If you hate how FSF/GPL is marketed/licensed you are free
not to use the software, and choose software that is
marketed/incensed that way you want it to be.
& if you can't find software that is marketed/licensed the
way you want it to be. you are free to develop code and
release it/market it any way you want.
Also, think about why FSF/GPL markets/licenses their software
the way they do--they want it to be free in the future, i.e. you know
the price you have to pay the FSF/GPL piper--allowing other people
access to your source code, and you are free to boycott FSF/GPL software if
you want to.
You are also free to look around for software that you feel is more freely
licensed/marketed and to use that.
The cult of FSF/GPL is not likely to go away, but you don't have to worship
in the temple of FSF/GPL if you don't want to. You just can't enter the
FSF/GPL temple and take their sacraments (the FSF/GPL source code) unless
you obey their teachings.
They only infringe on your rights as a developer if you take, or use
something that was taken out of the FSF/GPL temple. Since you don't believe
in the FSF/GPL doctrine--you should find other software.
If you can't find other software that suits your needs--it may be time to
get other people to help you, or develop your own software.
You are even free to encourage others to join you in a boycott, but don't
expect FSF/GPL to change unless you can offer reasons that the cultists can
understand.
I belong to no cults--software, or otherwise. But, I respect the beliefs of
others, and I know they are free to market/license there code any way they
see fit. (BTW, most people just want source code, for insurance, incase you
get rich off of the software and retire--they can still use/extend of
products.)
"Coby Beck" <·····@mercury.bc.ca> writes:
> "Franz Kafka" <Symbolics _ XL1201 _ Sebek _ Budo _ Kafka @ hotmail . com>
> wrote in message ························@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net...
> >
> > (decf *trolls*)
> >
> > or
> >
> > (1- *trolls*)
>
> These are not equivalent.
Heh. It hadn't occurred to me that someone might be confused on this,
but you're probably right.
I had assumed it was a subtle way of saying "Trolls don't really go
away, they just drop momentarily out of sight without really decreasing
their numbers."
Michael Naunton <···@news.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<··················@micron.bellatlantic.net>...
> On Tue, 13 May 2003 02:09:23 GMT, Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
>
> My dictionary (the OED) gives 32 basic meanings of "free." Many of them
> seem to conform with the FSF's concept of "free."
Why does your article reference Franz Kafka's article
···················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net as a parent when
it's clearly not a followup to that article?
···@ashi.footprints.net (Kaz Kylheku) writes:
> Michael Naunton <···@news.bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:<··················@micron.bellatlantic.net>...
> > On Tue, 13 May 2003 02:09:23 GMT, Marc Spitzer <········@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > Rajappa Iyer <···@panix.com> writes:
> >
> > My dictionary (the OED) gives 32 basic meanings of "free." Many of them
> > seem to conform with the FSF's concept of "free."
>
> Why does your article reference Franz Kafka's article
> ···················@news02.roc.ny.frontiernet.net as a parent when
> it's clearly not a followup to that article?
not sure, I just hit 'F' in gnues to follow up.
marc