From: d...@lilac.kitenet.net (Dylan Paul Thurston)
Subject: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/09
Message-ID: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633159706
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.6.2 (Linux)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
X-Complaints-To: newsabuse@supernews.com
In Richard Stallman's latest piece (on the fake free release of
Motif), he says
> ... However, the new Motif license does not fit either the
> definition of free software, or the looser definition of open source
> software.
I was somewhat surprised by this; I wasn't aware of a practical
difference between free software and open source. At
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html, there is a definition of
Free Software a la Stallman. This seems very comparable to the Debian
Free Software Guidlines at http://www.debian.org/social_contract,
which are, as far as I know, the same as the definition of Open Source
at http://www.opensource.org.
(After reading them, I think Stallman's definition is better written
and addresses the fundamentals better; but it's also a little vaguer.)
Is there any specific instance of software that is "open source" but
not "free software"?
Thanks,
Dylan Thurston
From: jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/09
Message-ID: <slrn8k2p2e.b9g.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633202611
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-Trace:
sv2-kzoBg5vXJMGu7quNLa7VsnowViSiSS6sq5E6cFF+u8K5LY5GG0qNwfimVU0WGqkxp9jJFsF8ywxuynC!
dh9p5n0kfibdEj8bu6k7
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX)
Reply-To: jmayn...@conmicro.cx
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 16:40:27 CDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On Fri, 09 Jun 2000 18:53:43 GMT, Dylan Paul Thurston
<d...@lilac.kitenet.net> wrote:
>Is there any specific instance of software that is "open source" but
>not "free software"?
Sure. Anything that's not GPVed isn't "free" as the FSF (read, RMS) defines
it.
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Pinard?= <pin...@iro.umontreal.ca>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/09
Message-ID: <vrem66berh.fsf@bor.IRO.UMontreal.CA>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633245608
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: pin...@bor.IRO.UMontreal.CA
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<slrn8k2p2e.b9g.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Complaints-To: abuse@umontreal.ca
X-Face: "b_m|CE6#'Q8fliQrwHl9K,]PA_o'*S~Dva{~b1n*)K*A(BIwQW.:LY?t4~xhYka_.LV?Qq `}X|
71X0ea&H]9Dsk!`kxBXlG;q$mLfv_vtaHK_rHFKu]4'<*LWCyUe@ZcI6"*wB5M@[m<Ok5/cC^= CxDhg=TJi^o[E
X-Trace: carnaval.risq.qc.ca 960594306 132.204.24.41 (Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:45:06 EDT)
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) Emacs/20.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Jun 2000 19:45:06 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> >Is there any specific instance of software that is "open source" but
> >not "free software"?
> Sure. Anything that's not GPVed isn't "free" as the FSF (read, RMS) defines
> it.
You mean GPL'ed? Spell it correctly. There is no use being derogatory.
There are many ways for software to be free, and the GPL is just one
among others. A good one in my opinion. Yet, the FSF does not hold a
monopoly over free software. Let's take this for granted.
I do not know if there is a meticulous definition of Open Source, but I
read that Open Source software is any software which makes all its sources
available to peruse. Open Source may be free software, but not necessarily.
For example, I may well show you my sources, and retain strong copyrights
on them, forbidding force you to copy them, alter them without my consent,
redistribute them, nor use the ideas they contain. Of course, you may
select to ignore my copyright and steel the sources anyway, but this does
not become legal merely because I showed the sources to you.
Similar examples abound. Books, music and other arts may be widely
disseminated, but yet not reproduced without permission. Patents have to
be published for being granted. Patents are inherently Open Source! :-)
A lot of Open Source software is also Free software, hopefully, and it
is tempting to make things simple and confuse them all. Yet, some Open
Source is only free in that it can be stolen or abused, and when that is
its only freedom, it does not look like a great one. :-)
--
François Pinard http://www.iro.umontreal.ca/~pinard
From: Peter Wayner <p...@wayner.org>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/12
Message-ID: <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633627932
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net 960830080 38.30.134.141
(Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:14:40 PDT)
Organization: No Spammers allowed.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: p...@wayner.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:14:40 PDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
>
>
> (After reading them, I think Stallman's definition is better written
> and addresses the fundamentals better; but it's also a little vaguer.)
>
> Is there any specific instance of software that is "open source" but
> not "free software"?
>
> Thanks,
> Dylan Thurston
The term "Free Software" is usually associated with Richard Stallman
and his GNU project. The term "Open Source" was started by a few
other folks like Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. They got together
with a few other folks, whose names slip my mind at this moment,
to create a term that wouldn't confuse people about the cost (free!=no
money)
and wouldn't be as radical.
BSD software, for instance, is covered by a much looser license
that does not require a user to publish any modifications no
matter what the cirucmstances. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
and the Apache software are just several projects that are protected
by this license.
They're in the set of open source without being in the set free software.
--
-=-=-=-
Peter Wayner-- Turn to http://wwww.wayner.org/books/ffa/
for info on _Free for All_, a book about the open source/free
software movement. It will be published in July by HarperBusiness.
From: "John S. Dyson" <dy...@iquest.net>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/12
Message-ID: <39454D24.7A649279@iquest.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633695506
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.iquest.net 960843044 198.70.149.90 (Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:50:44 EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 15:50:44 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Peter Wayner wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > (After reading them, I think Stallman's definition is better written
> > and addresses the fundamentals better; but it's also a little vaguer.)
> >
> > Is there any specific instance of software that is "open source" but
> > not "free software"?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Dylan Thurston
>
> The term "Free Software" is usually associated with Richard Stallman
> and his GNU project. The term "Open Source" was started by a few
> other folks like Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. They got together
> with a few other folks, whose names slip my mind at this moment,
> to create a term that wouldn't confuse people about the cost (free!=no
> money)
> and wouldn't be as radical.
>
> BSD software, for instance, is covered by a much looser license
> that does not require a user to publish any modifications no
> matter what the cirucmstances. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
> and the Apache software are just several projects that are protected
> by this license.
>
> They're in the set of open source without being in the set free software.
>
Actually, BSD software is in the set of free software, whereby the use
and disposition of the software is not prejudiced against developers or
any other group. There are other types of licenses which are indeed
less free. BSD is about as free as one can get.
Now, if someone wants to define free as something 'less free', then
GPL software becomes a subset of 'free.'
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
| and it irritates the pig.
From: Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/12
Message-ID: <_9d15.37$Hc5.1104@burlma1-snr2>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633730019
Distribution: world
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<slrn8k2p2e.b9g.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> <vrem66berh.fsf@bor.IRO.UMontreal.CA>
<sk7es3t7h5160@corp.supernews.com>
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gtei.net
X-Trace:
/KHlxOoulhLxfc+ZZAAubHi9wAhw1VLwHbykE2xFOVeaz7IhniZ0n9Sk9cLBaIbrm9Y56J2WhsoR!
sejIQz+VsaXfNuyzQHtr6qPBDJwTy6vCA34KCmHvoC4PVeICDbdPHFhrO14=
Organization: Genuity, Cambridge, MA
X-Copies-To: never
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:06:50 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Originator: bar...@genuity.net (Barry Margolin)
In article <sk7es3t7h5...@corp.supernews.com>,
Dylan Paul Thurston <d...@lilac.kitenet.net> wrote:
>In article <vrem66berh....@bor.IRO.UMontreal.CA>, François Pinard wrote:
>>I do not know if there is a meticulous definition of Open Source, but I
>>read that Open Source software is any software which makes all its sources
>>available to peruse. Open Source may be free software, but not necessarily.
>
>For a meticulous definition of Open Source, see
>http://www.opensource.org/osd.html . It is more stringent than you
>suggest, though (as usual) the media is not very good at understanding
>it, so it's not surprising people get confused.
The phrase "open source" is definitely confusing. The fact that it
includes the word "source" suggests that it only controls access to source
code. The actual definition on the web page you mention is much more like
Stallman's free software, since it includes the requirement that
redistribution of the executable and derivative works be unrestricted.
Also, the fact that the open source movement came up with a new term
suggests that there are significant differences between them. But in fact,
the difference between the two groups is more philosophical and political
than technical.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
From: jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/12
Message-ID: <slrn8kaogq.fio.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633726070
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<slrn8k2p2e.b9g.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx> <vrem66berh.fsf@bor.IRO.UMontreal.CA>
<sk7es3t7h5160@corp.supernews.com> <_9d15.37$Hc5.1104@burlma1-snr2>
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To: abuse@GigaNews.Com
X-Trace: sv2-wqicfSIq3ly6sh+kpaQQIpFqUMWRrj8yIyH8P71llo5Tix3nQcb0/cQKf/
7oBlfTq6c1YSy0BEOSaU0!fcHxh7l2TMqaBVstwwbU
Organization: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX)
Reply-To: jmayn...@conmicro.cx
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:20:07 CDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:06:51 GMT, Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net> wrote:
>Also, the fact that the open source movement came up with a new term
>suggests that there are significant differences between them. But in fact,
>the difference between the two groups is more philosophical and political
>than technical.
Since the biggest problem with the free software movement is RMS' radical
leftist politics, this is entirely appropriate.
From: Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/12
Message-ID: <6Gd15.44$Hc5.1159@burlma1-snr2>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633733886
Distribution: world
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <sk7es3t7h5160@corp.supernews.com>
<_9d15.37$Hc5.1104@burlma1-snr2> <slrn8kaogq.fio.jmaynard@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gtei.net
X-Trace:
/Kkf2Oi9B6GknW3N/HYbn99TR54IMLXLC3d8dnvPjeoFTaza1bYh5cBjMqaYpbuhGue00s8k9P+f!
UoK4m9txfhJyf/WJfD56oKnZ2aYztIhAL6gtOmuahGZOt5v1dyxCbRKpLpc=
Organization: Genuity, Cambridge, MA
X-Copies-To: never
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:41:06 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Originator: bar...@genuity.net (Barry Margolin)
In article <slrn8kaogq.fio.jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx>,
Jay Maynard <jmayn...@conmicro.cx> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 22:06:51 GMT, Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net> wrote:
>>Also, the fact that the open source movement came up with a new term
>>suggests that there are significant differences between them. But in fact,
>>the difference between the two groups is more philosophical and political
>>than technical.
>
>Since the biggest problem with the free software movement is RMS' radical
>leftist politics, this is entirely appropriate.
That may be true, but people outside the two camps don't know that. And
the choice of terms makes it seem like there's more than just an
ideological difference.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
From: pac...@defiant.cqc.com (Alan Curry)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/12
Message-ID: <Mtd15.671$vH2.19583@news-east.usenetserver.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633739433
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
<39454D24.7A649279@iquest.net>
Organization: Internet In Your Pants
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:27:56 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To: support@usenetserver.com
In article <39454D24.7A649...@iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <dy...@iquest.net> wrote:
>Actually, BSD software is in the set of free software, whereby the use
>and disposition of the software is not prejudiced against developers or
>any other group. There are other types of licenses which are indeed
Aha, that's a description I haven't heard before. (Quite rare, seeing
something new in one of these threads.) Now I've got to make sure you aren't
fooling anyone with it.
You can't be completely non-prejudiced, unless you are unaware that
proprietary software exists and that it sometimes takes advantage of free
code. If you know these things, then you know your free code may be included
in a proprietary software package whose users are denied the freedom to
improve and share it.
If you deliberately allow that to happen, then you are prejudiced against
those users. If you forbid it, then you are prejudiced against the
proprietary software makers. There is no neutral position. People who use the
GPL have decided they'd rather support the users against the proprietary
software makers. People like you who reject the GPL have decided the
opposite.
--
Alan Curry |Declaration of | _../\. ./\.._ ____. ____.
pac...@cqc.com|bigotries (should| [ | | ] / _> / _>
--------------+save some time): | \__/ \__/ \___: \___:
Linux,vim,trn,GPL,zsh,qmail,^H | "Screw you guys, I'm going home" -- Cartman
From: "John S. Dyson" <dy...@iquest.net>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/12
Message-ID: <39456BD9.19167DB8@iquest.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633744186
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
<39454D24.7A649279@iquest.net> <Mtd15.671$vH2.19583@news-east.usenetserver.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.iquest.net 960850906 198.70.149.90 (Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:01:46 EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 18:01:46 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Alan Curry wrote:
>
> If you deliberately allow that to happen, then you are prejudiced against
> those users. If you forbid it, then you are prejudiced against the
> proprietary software makers. There is no neutral position. People who use the
> GPL have decided they'd rather support the users against the proprietary
> software makers. People like you who reject the GPL have decided the
> opposite.
>
I wouldn't think that I am always for someone supporting proprietary developers
(or in actuality ALL developers) in lieu of end users (or more importantly
marketeers and other usurpers of the work product of developers. Users are
the innocents in the game of controlling the developers' work product.) I would
suggest that the ramifications of license terms be more clearly stated in
'casual' conversation, thereby avoiding easily redefined terms such as
'free.' Perhaps avoiding the term 'free' is wise, since the usage in
GPL terms is often very contrary to the a notion that add-on developers
can have the same freedoms with their development skills as marketeers
with their marketeering skills. (Perhaps 'free' implies a more
egalitarian scheme than GPL supports.)
IMO, the opensource group has done a wise thing by 'coining' a previously
very undefined and definitly nebulous phrase, and defining it. The GPL
use of the term 'free' is different from more common usage, yet is indeed
clearly more restrictive. (Given the GNU community definition that GPLed
software is 'free.' There is obviously software out there that is more
'free', yet isn't considered 'free.' There is a contradiction of definitions
here.) Perhaps GNU usage of the term 'free' should at least be capitalized
or treated directly as some sort of coined or proper noun.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
| and it irritates the pig.
From: Phillip Lord <pl...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/13
Message-ID: <okitvd28yx.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633911232
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
<39454D24.7A649279@iquest.net> <Mtd15.671$vH2.19583@news-east.usenetserver.com>
<39456BD9.19167DB8@iquest.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: news@net.bio.net
X-Trace: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk 960890677 29263 193.62.192.35
(13 Jun 2000 10:04:37 GMT)
Organization: BIOSCI/MRC Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.4
NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Jun 2000 10:04:37 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
>>>>> "John" == John S Dyson <dy...@iquest.net> writes:
John> IMO, the opensource group has done a wise thing by 'coining' a
John> previously very undefined and definitly nebulous phrase, and
John> defining it. The GPL use of the term 'free' is different from
John> more common usage, yet is indeed clearly more restrictive
Sadly though "open source" is made from two words, "open" and
"source", which both have common meanings. Its is quite possible to
draw a different meaning from open source than the one intended.
There is no common usage of the word "free". It has many
usages, because like much of the rest of the English language it is
extremely complex. If you look at it's usage throughout history you
will see that it has often be used by both sides of an argument at the
same time! From British history I have seen examples where
revolutionary songs from one side went "lets chop the kings head off
and redistribute land so that we can be free", whilst the other side
said "we are free because we have a king". My vote goes with the
former, but still it shows that there is no necessarily obvious use of
"free".
To an extent this is what is going on here. But there is
a large difference I think. Both the BSD license, and the GPL license
are aimed in the roughly the same direction. It is true that the GPL
restricts freedom more than the BSD license, but the aim of this is to
ensure freedom in the future. You may disagree that this is the
practical upshot, but the fact of the intention means that BSD
advocates have far more in common with GPL advocates than they have
differences.
John> There is obviously software out there that is more
John> 'free', yet isn't considered 'free.'
I don't think that anyone who writes GPL software would
consider BSD licensed software to not be free, just not GPL. Naturally
those who write GPL software consider the GPL to be the better
license, or they would use BSD!
John> Perhaps GNU usage of the term 'free' should at least be
John> capitalized or treated directly as some sort of coined or
John> proper noun.
It would not help. The fundamental problem here is the attempt
to reduce a complex social, legal and computing problem to a single
word. If you want to get the right idea, then "free" is a perfectly
reasonable word. If you want to know exactly read the GPL, BSDL and
the millions of lines of discussions that go with it.
Phil
From: "John S. Dyson" <dy...@iquest.net>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/13
Message-ID: <394638FB.FCB79C90@iquest.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 633972596
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
<39454D24.7A649279@iquest.net> <Mtd15.671$vH2.19583@news-east.usenetserver.com>
<39456BD9.19167DB8@iquest.net> <okitvd28yx.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.iquest.net 960903419 198.70.149.90 (Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:36:59 EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 08:36:59 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Phillip Lord wrote:
>
> John> Perhaps GNU usage of the term 'free' should at least be
> John> capitalized or treated directly as some sort of coined or
> John> proper noun.
>
> It would not help. The fundamental problem here is the attempt
> to reduce a complex social, legal and computing problem to a single
> word. If you want to get the right idea, then "free" is a perfectly
> reasonable word. If you want to know exactly read the GPL, BSDL and
> the millions of lines of discussions that go with it.
>
In another thread, there was actually someone who had the b*lls to claim
that licenses like BSD weren't free, but were only open source!!! If
someone is willing to claim that BSD was free and GPL is free, but BSD
is 'freer', then that is hard to argue with. However, when 'free' is
used in a specific way (almost as a noun), then it is really wrong to
claim that 'GPL is free'... It isn't because it is technically true,
but it is because that somehow the term 'free' seems to be reserved by
some of the (religious) crowd as a rallying point. By claiming that
GPL is somehow 'free' and BSD isn't 'free' is almost Clintonesque.
--
John | Never try to teach a pig to sing,
dy...@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid
| and it irritates the pig.
From: ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk (phil hunt)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/14
Message-ID: <slrn8kdg86.om1.philh@vision25.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 634340204
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: vision25.demon.co.uk:194.222.41.126
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 960973238 nnrp-02:8015 NO-IDENT vision25.demon.co.uk:
194.222.41.126
Organization: Comuno
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.7 (UNIX)
Reply-To: p...@comuno.com
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:14:40 GMT, Peter Wayner <p...@wayner.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> (After reading them, I think Stallman's definition is better written
>> and addresses the fundamentals better; but it's also a little vaguer.)
>>
>> Is there any specific instance of software that is "open source" but
>> not "free software"?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dylan Thurston
>
>The term "Free Software" is usually associated with Richard Stallman
>and his GNU project. The term "Open Source" was started by a few
>other folks like Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens. They got together
>with a few other folks, whose names slip my mind at this moment,
>to create a term that wouldn't confuse people about the cost (free!=no
>money)
>and wouldn't be as radical.
>
>BSD software, for instance, is covered by a much looser license
>that does not require a user to publish any modifications no
>matter what the cirucmstances. FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD,
>and the Apache software are just several projects that are protected
>by this license.
>
>They're in the set of open source without being in the set free software.
Not true. The BSD-type licence (without advertising clause) is free software
by Stallman's definition.
--
***** Phil Hunt ***** send email to p...@comuno.com *****
Moore's Law: hardware speed doubles every 18 months
Gates' Law: software speed halves every 18 months
From: Jan D. <Jan.Dj...@mbox200.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/14
Message-ID: <aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 634582469
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <39456BD9.19167DB8@iquest.net>
<okitvd28yx.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk> <394638FB.FCB79C90@iquest.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net
X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 961013446 212.151.122.186
(Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:10:46 MET DST)
Organization: -
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:10:46 MET DST
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
In article <394638FB.FCB79...@iquest.net>,
John S. Dyson <dy...@iquest.net> wrote:
> some of the (religious) crowd as a rallying point. By claiming that
> GPL is somehow 'free' and BSD isn't 'free' is almost Clintonesque.
But who claims that? FSF certanly doesn't according to their
pages at www.gnu.org. Do you have a quote from someone that does?
Jan D.
From: Jan D. <Jan.Dj...@mbox200.swipnet.se>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/14
Message-ID: <bFR15.2872$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 634582470
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
<slrn8kdg86.om1.philh@vision25.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
X-Complaints-To: news-abuse@swip.net
X-Trace: nntpserver.swip.net 961013447 212.151.122.186
(Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:10:47 MET DST)
Organization: -
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 22:10:47 MET DST
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
In article <slrn8kdg86.om1.ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk>,
phil hunt <p...@comuno.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:14:40 GMT, Peter Wayner <p...@wayner.org> wrote:
> >
> >They're in the set of open source without being in the set free software.
>
> Not true. The BSD-type licence (without advertising clause) is free software
> by Stallman's definition.
Even with the advertising clause it is free software according to
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html:
The original BSD license.
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license
with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''.
The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software
non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including
incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
Jan D.
From: Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/15
Message-ID: <E0V15.84$Nf7.2304@burlma1-snr2>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 634665837
Distribution: world
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <394519E8.B9F6C657@wayner.org>
<slrn8kdg86.om1.philh@vision25.demon.co.uk>
<bFR15.2872$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gtei.net
X-Trace:
/ba9QfFAn/VdtFPGVD/EKC+pHGMcOzrosqsjBkkfd4cvwQcIfDzheKLYEpV35A2BKo43H9LQFt+P!I/
HkyZM+PRkE3PEmnAoLNJQUT/btfZKuaesPUDKsjTpUFZV5ukPjk/786I0=
Organization: Genuity, Cambridge, MA
X-Copies-To: never
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 00:00:36 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Originator: bar...@genuity.net (Barry Margolin)
In article <bFR15.2872$rH5.6...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
Jan D. <Jan.Dj...@mbox200.swipnet.se> wrote:
>In article <slrn8kdg86.om1.ph...@vision25.demon.co.uk>,
>phil hunt <p...@comuno.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2000 17:14:40 GMT, Peter Wayner <p...@wayner.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >They're in the set of open source without being in the set free software.
>>
>> Not true. The BSD-type licence (without advertising clause) is free software
>> by Stallman's definition.
>
>Even with the advertising clause it is free software according to
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html:
>
> The original BSD license.
> This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license
> with a serious flaw: the ``obnoxious BSD advertising clause''.
> The flaw is not fatal; that is, it does not render the software
> non-free. But it does cause practical problems, including
> incompatibility with the GNU GPL.
Notice the qualifier "original". The current BSD license doesn't have this
clause, which is why it is now compatible with the GPL and RMS considers it
to be "free".
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.
From: se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/15
Message-ID: <39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 634705007
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<okitvd28yx.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk> <394638FB.FCB79C90@iquest.net>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@plethora.net
X-Trace: 961036216 gemini.plethora.net 36232 se...@205.166.146.8
Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam!
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
In article <aFR15.2871$rH5.6...@nntpserver.swip.net>,
Jan D. <Jan.Dj...@mbox200.swipnet.se> wrote:
>In article <394638FB.FCB79...@iquest.net>,
>John S. Dyson <dy...@iquest.net> wrote:
>> some of the (religious) crowd as a rallying point. By claiming that
>> GPL is somehow 'free' and BSD isn't 'free' is almost Clintonesque.
>But who claims that? FSF certanly doesn't according to their
>pages at www.gnu.org. Do you have a quote from someone that does?
Go read slashdot for a few minutes. :) There are *lots* of people who claim
either:
1. That BSD is "less free" than GPL.
or
2. BSD is "non-free".
The former turns out to be equivalent to the claim that there is a way in
which BSD isn't free, and GPL is.
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
From: Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/15
Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 634884966
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<okitvd28yx.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk> <394638FB.FCB79C90@iquest.net>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net> <39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 961077014 198.53.192.2 (Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:50:14 EDT)
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:50:14 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On 15 Jun 2000, Peter Seebach wrote:
> Jan D. <Jan.Dj...@mbox200.swipnet.se> wrote:
>> John S. Dyson <dy...@iquest.net> wrote:
>>> some of the (religious) crowd as a rallying point. By claiming that
>>> GPL is somehow 'free' and BSD isn't 'free' is almost Clintonesque.
>> But who claims that? FSF certanly doesn't according to their
>> pages at www.gnu.org. Do you have a quote from someone that does?
> Go read slashdot for a few minutes. :) There are *lots* of people
> who claim either:
> 1. That BSD is "less free" than GPL.
> or
> 2. BSD is "non-free".
>
> The former turns out to be equivalent to the claim that there is a
> way in which BSD isn't free, and GPL is.
Of course, that claim comes from the copyleft status as well as the
'free'ness. Many people only consider copyleft + 'free' to be 'free',
when I consider copyleft to be an unnecessary and irresponsible
restriction.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
From: m...@kithrup.com (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <Fw88sr.8E1@kithrup.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635167863
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
<39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
In article <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100...@psyche.the-wire.com>,
Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> wrote:
>Many people only consider copyleft + 'free' to be 'free', when I
>consider copyleft to be an unnecessary and irresponsible restriction.
Why do you hang out here? I mean, isn't that like I person that hates
swimming subscribing to rec.swimming, and then doing nothing but
claiming that swimming is bad... wrong...?
Go create atl.gpl.die.die.die and hang out there.
I don't get it.
From: Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006160817440.28611-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635302986
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
<39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<Fw88sr.8E1@kithrup.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 961157891 198.53.192.2 (Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:18:11 EDT)
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 08:18:11 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On Fri, 16 Jun 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> wrote:
>> Many people only consider copyleft + 'free' to be 'free', when I
>> consider copyleft to be an unnecessary and irresponsible restriction.
> Why do you hang out here? I mean, isn't that like I person that hates
> swimming subscribing to rec.swimming, and then doing nothing but
> claiming that swimming is bad... wrong...?
>
> Go create atl.gpl.die.die.die and hang out there.
Because this is a place that facts and opinions about the GNU project
-- including the GPL -- are discussed. The GPL itself is excessively
political and imposes its copyleft restriction capriciously and
excessively.
In the name of freedom, GPL activists pretend that the taking of
freedoms is a good thing. It isn't; not when the LGPL is a far better
(more free, just as protective, less stupid) licence.
I hang out to make sure that GPL activists aren't the only voice to
talk to those who have questions about the various open source
licences. In this way, the seductive lies told by extreme GPL activists are
countered.
> I don't get it.
No, you obviously don't.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
From: Phillip Lord <pl...@hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <okaeglu7r4.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635307728
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
<39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<Fw88sr.8E1@kithrup.com> <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006160817440.28611-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: news@net.bio.net
X-Trace: niobium.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk 961158765 20024 193.62.192.35 (16 Jun 2000 12:32:45 GMT)
Organization: BIOSCI/MRC Human Genome Mapping Project Resource Centre
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0803 (Gnus v5.8.3) Emacs/20.4
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Jun 2000 12:32:45 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
>>>>> "Austin" == Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
Austin> I hang out to make sure that GPL activists aren't the only
Austin> voice to talk to those who have questions about the various
Austin> open source licences. In this way, the seductive lies told
Austin> by extreme GPL activists are countered.
Or alternatively you just it just to piss people off.
For "seductive lies" replace with "ideas that Austin does not
agree with".
For "extreme activists" replace with "people who have ideas
that Austin does not agree with".
That would have made your statement perfectly reasonable,
rather than the puerile self-serving arrogant rant that it was.
Cheers
Phil
From: Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161229410.28895-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635395825
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
<39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<Fw88sr.8E1@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006160817440.28611-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<okaeglu7r4.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 961173541 198.53.192.2 (Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:39:01 EDT)
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:39:01 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On 16 Jun 2000, Phillip Lord wrote:
>>>>>> "Austin" == Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
> Austin> I hang out to make sure that GPL activists aren't the only
> Austin> voice to talk to those who have questions about the various
> Austin> open source licences. In this way, the seductive lies told
> Austin> by extreme GPL activists are countered.
> Or alternatively you just it just to piss people off.
Nope.
> For "seductive lies" replace with "ideas that Austin does not
> agree with".
I don't particularly agree with a lot of people, but I don't suggest
that they tell seductive lies. I do say that about RMS and a *lot* of
GPV advocates -- because they don't tell the truth about the GPL and
its viral nature (which may be an advantage in their eyes) and the fact
that it completely discounts the value of initial implementation over
support. The primary seductive lie is that copyleft + 'free' is "more
free" and advantageous in all cases.
(Frankly, I don't agree with the folks who want a time-delayed GPL,
either -- but they are much more reasonable than pure GPL advocates
tend to be.)
> For "extreme activists" replace with "people who have ideas
> that Austin does not agree with".
Nope. You can replace extreme activists with a few other folks that
I've tangled with here (I don't have the name, offhand, of one loon
that I dealt with) and with folks like RMS ... you might even be able
to include yourself, given the responses that I've seen you make so
far. But I'm not really sure about that.
> That would have made your statement perfectly reasonable,
> rather than the puerile self-serving arrogant rant that it was.
Funny. The only puerile rant that I've seen is yours, Hunt. I'm telling
it like it is.
-f, thinks that if the GPL is so good, it should be sold with the warts
and not with the lies
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
From: Hyman Rosen <hy...@prolifics.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <t766r91rtu.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635403459
Sender: hy...@calumny.jyacc.com
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
<39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<Fw88sr.8E1@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006160817440.28611-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<okaeglu7r4.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161229410.28895-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 961174969 27588 209.49.126.226 (16 Jun 2000 17:02:49 GMT)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) Emacs/20.6
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Jun 2000 17:02:49 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
> the fact that it completely discounts the value of initial
> implementation over support.
It doesn't count the value of the initial implementation, and it doesn't
count the value of support. It doesn't count value at all. It is simply
the case that for software distributed under the GPL, it is difficult to
collect money for having developed a piece of code, because that code may
be freely redistributed. The FSF suggests then, that if you wish to try
to make money from software, an alternate approach might be to offer
support in exchange for money.
It is a happenstance of technology and law that certain people are able
to do a piece of work once and then be paid for it many times. It is not
a law of nature, and therefore it does not have to continue to be the
case in the future. Time will tell.
From: Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635447173
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
<39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<Fw88sr.8E1@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006160817440.28611-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<okaeglu7r4.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161229410.28895-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t766r91rtu.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 961181938 198.53.192.2 (Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:58:58 EDT)
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 14:58:58 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On 16 Jun 2000, Hyman Rosen wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
>> the fact that it completely discounts the value of initial
>> implementation over support.
> It doesn't count the value of the initial implementation, and it doesn't
> count the value of support. It doesn't count value at all. It is simply
> the case that for software distributed under the GPL, it is difficult to
> collect money for having developed a piece of code, because that code may
> be freely redistributed. The FSF suggests then, that if you wish to try
> to make money from software, an alternate approach might be to offer
> support in exchange for money.
Which means that the value of initial implementation is discounted. Thank
you for proving my point and completely missing that you've done so.
> It is a happenstance of technology and law that certain people are able
> to do a piece of work once and then be paid for it many times. It is not
> a law of nature, and therefore it does not have to continue to be the
> case in the future. Time will tell.
Gee. Nice to know that you think that novelists are in the same boat. This
is precisely why I don't trust the seductive lies of GPV extremists.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
From: Hyman Rosen <hy...@prolifics.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635461033
Sender: hy...@calumny.jyacc.com
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<aFR15.2871$rH5.6620@nntpserver.swip.net>
<39483fb7$0$36232$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006150949020.26773-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<Fw88sr.8E1@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006160817440.28611-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<okaeglu7r4.fsf@arginine.sbc.man.ac.uk>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161229410.28895-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t766r91rtu.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 961184198 689 209.49.126.226 (16 Jun 2000 19:36:38 GMT)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) Emacs/20.6
NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 Jun 2000 19:36:38 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
> Which means that the value of initial implementation is
> discounted. Thank you for proving my point and completely missing
> that you've done so.
Under the GPL, the value which exists in being able to control the
distribution of software disappears. I don't see how anyone could
argue otherwise. But advocates of the GPL are not concerned about
that, or at least think that the goals of the GPL are more important.
> Gee. Nice to know that you think that novelists are in the same
> boat. This is precisely why I don't trust the seductive lies of GPV
> extremists.
But novelists, and especially musicians, *are* in the same boat.
This has nothing to do with the GPL. The fact is that technology
has made the sharing of copies of information trivially easy,
and many people have no ethical compunction against such sharing
regardless of the wishes of the creators of the information. It's
been the case until now that sharing music and novels was hard
enough so that when it was done illegally there were physical
choke points which could be attacked to stop that sharing. That
is becoming less and less true, and will have a corresponding
impact upon those people who rely on being paid in perpetuity
for a piece of work done once.
The GPL encourages sharing within the law, and indeed relies on
the law for its "viral" aspects. It's as likely to be impacted
negatively as positively by the new regime of unbounded sharing.
From: se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/16
Message-ID: <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635493495
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com> <t766r91rtu.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@plethora.net
X-Trace: 961189671 gemini.plethora.net 36223 se...@205.166.146.8
Organization: Plethora . Net - More Net, Less Spam!
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
In article <t71z1x1kpm....@calumny.jyacc.com>,
Hyman Rosen <hy...@prolifics.com> wrote:
>But novelists, and especially musicians, *are* in the same boat.
>This has nothing to do with the GPL. The fact is that technology
>has made the sharing of copies of information trivially easy,
>and many people have no ethical compunction against such sharing
>regardless of the wishes of the creators of the information.
Yes. And as long as this is the case, we can be fairly sure that we will
eventually run out of artists.
>It's
>been the case until now that sharing music and novels was hard
>enough so that when it was done illegally there were physical
>choke points which could be attacked to stop that sharing.
I object to the use of the term "sharing" for the same reasons that you'd
probably object to the use of the term "piracy". You are assuming your
conclusion.
>That
>is becoming less and less true, and will have a corresponding
>impact upon those people who rely on being paid in perpetuity
>for a piece of work done once.
Such as anyone who tries to do creative work for a living. If you can copy
my work freely, I can't make any money at it. Imagine that, instead of
writing novels, I write, say, a column. How do I make money? Presumably,
someone pays me for the column. Why? They can just steal a column from
another site. For that matter, what good does the column do it? The moment
they display it, everyone else will have a copy.
You certainly *can* destroy all incentive for creative work. It's not clear
that this is the right thing to do.
>The GPL encourages sharing within the law, and indeed relies on
>the law for its "viral" aspects. It's as likely to be impacted
>negatively as positively by the new regime of unbounded sharing.
Indeed. Do you consider it "sharing" if someone takes a GPL'd piece of code,
shoves it into a proprietary piece of code, and ignores the license?
-s
--
Copyright 2000, All rights reserved. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Get paid to surf! No spam. http://www.alladvantage.com/go.asp?refid=GZX636
From: m...@kithrup.com (Mike Stump)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/17
Message-ID: <FwA6v7.6MI@kithrup.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 635605247
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
In article <394a9727$0$36223$3c090...@news.plethora.net>,
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>as long as this is the case, we can be fairly sure that we will
>eventually run out of artists.
GPL renders software programmers obsolete, film at 11!
I suggest that the GPL cannot ever render software programmers
obsolete. This claim sounds like a grand, the sky is falling type of
claim. While you can easily make the claim, I think only a fool
should believe it.
Artists will always be subject to supply and demand. Demand them, and
they will appear, as if from nowhere. Don't demand them, and they
will go away. Personally, I wanted gcc at Cygnus to eventually get so
good, that we'd be out of a job, and that no person in their right
mind would give us money for gcc, I was sure it was going to happen.
Guess what. It hasn't. I wanted it to, I believed it. I did. I no
longer do. The world constradicted me, and I lost. TI feels
compelled to do up a new DSP (why does the world need another DSP? I
can't figure it out), new mips and ppc variants appear each week;
what's a frc or mcore good for anyway? Life goes on. My thoery was
that we'd just go on, having solved the notion of generating code, and
solve new, more interesting problems for the same old customer base,
thus retaining the income, but growing the software base. Need an OS,
sure. What about Office? Need a RDBM next, sure.
The GPL can't take away demand for artists, by itself. What can
remove the need for an artists, is demand. Why create an artificial
demand for artists by not using the GPL when it insn't necessary?
But even if you're right. This is actually a benefit. By removing
the demand (for somethings), we can then progress, and have our
customers demand new, more interesting things. Don't fear it, embrace
it.
>Such as anyone who tries to do creative work for a living. If you
>can copy my work freely, I can't make any money at it.
While you may in fact be incompetent enough to not be able to make
money at it, lots of other folks are no so disadvantaged.
That you are (or might be), isn't the GPL's fault.
>Imagine that, instead of writing novels, I write, say, a column. How
>do I make money? Presumably, someone pays me for the column. Why?
Because they want it.
>They can just steal a column from another site.
Sure, they could, if they had the time to do this. If another site
had the article they wanted. If they wanted to be known as yesterdays
recycled articles ripped off from other sites. But that isn't the
type of site that would pay you money to write an article.
From: Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/21
Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006171207010.530-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637184292
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<FwA6v7.6MI@kithrup.com>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 961589605 198.53.192.2 (Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:13:25 EDT)
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 08:13:25 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Mike Stump wrote:
> Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>> as long as this is the case, we can be fairly sure that we will
>> eventually run out of artists.
> GPL renders software programmers obsolete, film at 11!
That's not what he said, Mr Stump, and your love for the GPL is
blinding you to the real impact of the *goals* of the GPL and the FSF.
RMS is hostile to intellectual property rights. If his hostility were
not part of the GPL itself (his rant), there wouldn't be as much of a
problem. Unfortunately, it *is, and there are others who believe that
because intellectual property rights are 'immoral', it's okay to copy
anything they want.
There is a significant investment of time and money involved in the
creation of new works. Surely, you do actually understand this. If an
artist (say, a novelist or a painter) creates a new work and it is
'forced' under a GPL-like scheme[1], there is no way that the artist
can actually recoup the investment of the work after selling it to the
*first* person.
The GPV favours performance artists (software support folks,
performance musicians, dancers, etc.) over creative artists (software
designers and first implementers, composers, coreographers, novelists,
etc.) by a wide margin -- and nothing you say can change this *fact*.
> I suggest that the GPL cannot ever render software programmers
> obsolete. This claim sounds like a grand, the sky is falling type of
> claim. While you can easily make the claim, I think only a fool
> should believe it.
Except that the only person who has made that claim is you -- because
it makes you look like you're actually arguing something reasonable.
[...]
>> Such as anyone who tries to do creative work for a living. If you
>> can copy my work freely, I can't make any money at it.
> While you may in fact be incompetent enough to not be able to make
> money at it, lots of other folks are no so disadvantaged.
> That you are (or might be), isn't the GPL's fault.
Mr Stump, I'd like to hear your suggestion on how a novelist can make
money if they cannot recover beyond the first sale? (Remember that the
argument is *beyond* mere software! This goes to the fundamental
hostility toward the concept of IP that is held by the FSF, RMS, and
far too many of its supporters.)
-f
[1] After all, Stallman's *real* goal is to get rid of copyright
entirely so that the GPL isn't required and he doesn't have to
'sleep with the enemy' in order to semi-accomplish his goals now.
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
From: brls...@sperience.com
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/21
Message-ID: <nm94s6nt60s.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637248990
Sender: brle...@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<FwA6v7.6MI@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006171207010.530-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
X-Trace: dreaderd 961600835 9435 18.184.0.39
Organization: MIT Alumni
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
> The GPV favours performance artists (software support folks,
> performance musicians, dancers, etc.) over creative artists (software
> designers and first implementers, composers, coreographers, novelists,
> etc.) by a wide margin -- and nothing you say can change this *fact*.
Free clue for you: I am a software designer and first implementer, and
I get paid. My company pays me for my time making apps specific to
them, and is happy to have me release the tools I develop along the way
as free software to encourage better standardization.
My paycheck is a fact. Your assertions are not facts.
Another free clue: your rant is against all kinds of free software, so
calling it the "GPV" is useless to you. Other free software licenses
also make it more difficult for "first implementers" to collect ongoing
license fees. The only difference is that the GPL makes it harder for
somebody else to collect license fees for my work.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
From: Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/21
Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211204550.7374-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637268989
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<FwA6v7.6MI@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006171207010.530-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<nm94s6nt60s.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 961603799 198.53.192.2 (Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:09:59 EDT)
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 12:09:59 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On 21 Jun 2000 brls...@sperience.com wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
>> The GPV favours performance artists (software support folks,
>> performance musicians, dancers, etc.) over creative artists (software
>> designers and first implementers, composers, coreographers, novelists,
>> etc.) by a wide margin -- and nothing you say can change this *fact*.
> Free clue for you: I am a software designer and first implementer, and
> I get paid. My company pays me for my time making apps specific to
> them, and is happy to have me release the tools I develop along the way
> as free software to encourage better standardization.
*shake head* You get paid a fraction of the possible value of your
work, and likely a fraction of the value your company gets from it. In
the meantime, RMS pushes for an environment where *everyone* has to do
work for hire. (I choose to do work for hire; others do not and want
their copyrights protected.)
> My paycheck is a fact. Your assertions are not facts.
Your paycheck is a fact that your employer, as first implementer, is
granting you (the typist) the right to give away their software and
your work. My assertions are quite factual.
> Another free clue: your rant is against all kinds of free software, so
> calling it the "GPV" is useless to you. Other free software licenses
> also make it more difficult for "first implementers" to collect ongoing
> license fees. The only difference is that the GPL makes it harder for
> somebody else to collect license fees for my work.
The GPV makes it *significantly* harder than most other licences to
collect ongoing fees, and not just for first implementers.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
From: brls...@sperience.com
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/21
Message-ID: <nm9wvjisyoz.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637306372
Sender: brle...@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<FwA6v7.6MI@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006171207010.530-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<nm94s6nt60s.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211204550.7374-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
X-Trace: dreaderd 961610332 9435 18.184.0.39
Organization: MIT Alumni
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
> *shake head* You get paid a fraction of the possible value of your
> work, and likely a fraction of the value your company gets from it. In
> the meantime, RMS pushes for an environment where *everyone* has to do
> work for hire. (I choose to do work for hire; others do not and want
> their copyrights protected.)
Those who live off license fees also get only a fraction. Marketing,
legal, and accounting work must also be paid for. Most software
ventures fail. My money's in the bank. Your assertion that free
software is biased against creative workers is bogus.
> The GPV makes it *significantly* harder than most other licences to
> collect ongoing fees, and not just for first implementers.
You're trying to deflect my point. I agree that the GPL makes it harder
for people other than the original author to collect fees for somebody
else's work. My point is that for one's own work, GPL or other license
makes no difference.
--
Bruce R. Lewis http://brl.sourceforge.net/
From: Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/21
Message-ID: <Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211444070.7800-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637327368
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<FwA6v7.6MI@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006171207010.530-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<nm94s6nt60s.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211204550.7374-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<nm9wvjisyoz.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Trace: nnrp1.uunet.ca 961613229 198.53.192.2 (Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:47:09 EDT)
Organization: UUNET Canada News Reader Service
MIME-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:47:09 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On 21 Jun 2000 brls...@sperience.com wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
>> *shake head* You get paid a fraction of the possible value of your
>> work, and likely a fraction of the value your company gets from it. In
>> the meantime, RMS pushes for an environment where *everyone* has to do
>> work for hire. (I choose to do work for hire; others do not and want
>> their copyrights protected.)
> Those who live off license fees also get only a fraction. Marketing,
> legal, and accounting work must also be paid for. Most software
> ventures fail. My money's in the bank. Your assertion that free
> software is biased against creative workers is bogus.
Not necessarily. This largely depends on the size of the software
venture. The shareware market is a reasonably good example of this.
Given that some shareware companies have become mini-powerhouses based
on the work of one person, I'd suggest that it's your assertion that is
bogus -- not mine.
>> The GPV makes it *significantly* harder than most other licences to
>> collect ongoing fees, and not just for first implementers.
> You're trying to deflect my point. I agree that the GPL makes it harder
> for people other than the original author to collect fees for somebody
> else's work. My point is that for one's own work, GPL or other license
> makes no difference.
You have it precisely backwards -- the GPV makes it easier for
redistributors to make money on anyone's work without paying the
author(s), whereas it makes it harder for the author(s) to make money from
their own works.
There's no deflection of the point -- the point is that the marketer
has all the power in the GPV world, and the author has very little.
Despite the religious protestations otherwise.
-f
--
austin ziegler * fant0me(at)the(dash)wire(d0t)c0m * Ni bhionn an rath ach
ICQ#25o49818 (H) * aziegler(at)s0lect(d0t)c0m * mar a mbionn an smacht
ICQ#21o88733 (W) * fant0me526(at)yah00(d0t)c0m * (There is no Luck
AIM Fant0me526 *-s/0/o/g--------&&--------s/o/0/g-* without Discipline)
Toronto.ON.ca * I speak for myself alone *-----------------------
PGP *** 7FDA ECE7 6C30 2356 17D3 17A1 C030 F921 82EF E7F8 *** 6.5.1
From: Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/21
Message-ID: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637488980
References: <sk2f9neh5112@corp.supernews.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006161457040.29091-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<t71z1x1kpm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <394a9727$0$36223$3c090ad1@news.plethora.net>
<FwA6v7.6MI@kithrup.com>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006171207010.530-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<nm94s6nt60s.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211204550.7374-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
<nm9wvjisyoz.fsf@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.mit.edu>
<Pine.GSU.4.05.10006211444070.7800-100000@psyche.the-wire.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Organization: The Eyrie
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0802 (Gnus v5.8.2) XEmacs/21.1 (Biscayne)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Austin Ziegler <azieg...@the-wire.com> writes:
> Not necessarily. This largely depends on the size of the software
> venture. The shareware market is a reasonably good example of this.
> Given that some shareware companies have become mini-powerhouses based
> on the work of one person, I'd suggest that it's your assertion that is
> bogus -- not mine.
The existence of individual capitalist successes does not make the success
of every capitalist some sort of inherent right. This is some sort of
bizarre socialistic capitalism that I don't think I've seen before.
One of the whole points of how capitalism works is that what you get paid
for something *is* its true price. The market price *is* the value of a
good. If you're rejecting that (which you're certainly entitled to;
capitalism isn't the only model of markets), what standard of value *are*
you using?
> You have it precisely backwards -- the GPV makes it easier for
> redistributors to make money on anyone's work without paying the
> author(s), whereas it makes it harder for the author(s) to make money
> from their own works.
So those authors who don't want to see that effect shouldn't use the GPL.
Duh. No one's forcing them to use the GPL for their own original work.
--
Russ Allbery (r...@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
From: jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/22
Message-ID: <509D8469E13142C9.4D5930461D914D5E.787CF5E5F6D1F9A3@lp.airnews.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637653472
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
X-Orig-Message-ID: <slrn8l4ap9.455.jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
NNTP-Posting-Time: Thu Jun 22 10:05:01 2000
Organization: Neosoft (using Airnews.net!)
X-A-Notice: References line has been trimmed due to 512 byte limitation
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: 204.181.96.50
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX)
Reply-To: jmayn...@conmicro.cx
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On 21 Jun 2000 21:04:31 -0700, Russ Allbery <r...@stanford.edu> wrote:
>No one's forcing them to use the GPL for their own original work.
This is the crux of the disagreement. I contend the GPV does exactly that:
if my original work happens to depend on another's GPVed work, then my own
original work - that software which I have written by myself, on my own
time, on my own equipment - is forced into the GPV.
You will, no doubt, argue that that does not fit the definition of "my own
original work". Hogwash. I wrote it. It's mine. You have no right to tell me
what I may do with it. To attempt to do so is coercion no less than
attempting to control what I may do with my newspapers because I used your
paper mill's output to print them on.
This is what makes the GPV wrong: it dictates to others what they must do.
It is the antithesis of programming freedom, traveling under false colors.
From: Hyman Rosen <hy...@prolifics.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/22
Message-ID: <t77lbhjzcs.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 637743584
Sender: hy...@calumny.jyacc.com
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
<509D8469E13142C9.4D5930461D914D5E.787CF5E5F6D1F9A3@lp.airnews.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 961701657 10160 209.49.126.226 (22 Jun 2000 19:20:57 GMT)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) Emacs/20.6
NNTP-Posting-Date: 22 Jun 2000 19:20:57 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> This is the crux of the disagreement. I contend the GPV does exactly that:
> if my original work happens to depend on another's GPVed work, then my own
> original work - that software which I have written by myself, on my own
> time, on my own equipment - is forced into the GPV.
Not at all.
> You will, no doubt, argue that that does not fit the definition of "my own
> original work". Hogwash. I wrote it. It's mine. You have no right to tell me
> what I may do with it. To attempt to do so is coercion no less than
> attempting to control what I may do with my newspapers because I used your
> paper mill's output to print them on.
Absolutely correct. You are completely free to base your work on GPLed
code, and then do whatever you want with it, and not be coerced into
doing anything.
Of course, if you want to distribute a combined work, you must meet the
licensing requirements of all the components. There are no restrictions
on your own code, since you own it, but you do not own the GPLed code.
> This is what makes the GPV wrong: it dictates to others what they must do.
> It is the antithesis of programming freedom, traveling under false colors.
The GPL is designed so that users of the program may obtain its source
code, modify it, and redistribute the results, and for those recipients
to be able to do the same. The freedom provided is for the users of the
software, not for the developers. The developers must indeed be restricted
if the users are not to be.
The freedom you do not have is to distribute a non-free program which
incorporates GPLed code. Since being able to do such a thing is only
to your benefit and not to your users, I doubt that they will cry for
you overmuch.
From: jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/23
Message-ID: <7A78DD8ECEE80852.BCB97EA304449A1A.2F314693D4D9D4AA@lp.airnews.net>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 638124219
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
<509D8469E13142C9.4D5930461D914D5E.787CF5E5F6D1F9A3@lp.airnews.net>
<t77lbhjzcs.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
X-Orig-Message-ID: <slrn8l75o2.6ck.jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx>
NNTP-Posting-Time: Fri Jun 23 11:57:35 2000
Organization: Neosoft (using Airnews.net!)
NNTP-Proxy-Relay: library2.airnews.net
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.5.4 (UNIX)
Reply-To: jmayn...@conmicro.cx
Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
On 22 Jun 2000 15:21:39 -0400, Hyman Rosen <hy...@prolifics.com> wrote:
>The GPL is designed so that users of the program may obtain its source
>code, modify it, and redistribute the results, and for those recipients
>to be able to do the same. The freedom provided is for the users of the
>software, not for the developers. The developers must indeed be restricted
>if the users are not to be.
This is the classic leftist definition of "freedom": "You are free to do
those things which I, in my Big Brother benevolence, have decided you may be
free to do."
Your idea of freedom is not freedom, it's merely a hollow shell.
>The freedom you do not have is to distribute a non-free program which
>incorporates GPLed code. Since being able to do such a thing is only
>to your benefit and not to your users, I doubt that they will cry for
>you overmuch.
When the balance tips to a choice between having a "non-free" (by your
definition, not mine) program, and not having a program at all, who benefits
by the absence of the program? What you and the rest of the GPV types fail
to realize is that, often, customers don't care if the code is "free" (by
your definition) or not; they just want to get their jobs done. In your
utopia, a lot of software that's of commercial use but of no hacker interest
would never get written, because the lack of any commercial value for the
code means that there's no way to recoup the investment that went into it.
Nobody wins in that scenario.
From: Hyman Rosen <hy...@prolifics.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/23
Message-ID: <t71z1ogtmm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 638148871
Sender: hy...@calumny.jyacc.com
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
<509D8469E13142C9.4D5930461D914D5E.787CF5E5F6D1F9A3@lp.airnews.net>
<t77lbhjzcs.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
<7A78DD8ECEE80852.BCB97EA304449A1A.2F314693D4D9D4AA@lp.airnews.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com
X-Trace: news.panix.com 961783518 4745 209.49.126.226 (23 Jun 2000 18:05:18 GMT)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Mime-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0806 (Gnus v5.8.6) Emacs/20.7
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Jun 2000 18:05:18 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> This is the classic leftist definition of "freedom": "You are free to do
> those things which I, in my Big Brother benevolence, have decided you may be
> free to do."
On the contrary, this is the classic definition of private property:
"I own this, and if you would like to use it, you must agree to my
conditiions."
> Your idea of freedom is not freedom, it's merely a hollow shell.
As I said, this is freedom for the users of the code, not for those
who seek to take the private property of others against their will.
> When the balance tips to a choice between having a "non-free" (by
> your definition, not mine) program, and not having a program at all,
> who benefits by the absence of the program?
That's not the problem of the person who has made the choice of using
the GPL. You seem to be saying that the developer of the non-free code
has some sort of moral right to demand that the author of the GPLed
code provide free labor with no compensation. Talk about communism!
> What you and the rest of the GPV types fail to realize is that,
> often, customers don't care if the code is "free" (by your
> definition) or not; they just want to get their jobs done.
Of course I realize this. Those customers are perfectly free choose
between free and non-free alternatives. However, the fact that there
exist people who do not care whether their software is free or
non-free imposes no obligation upon other people to help develop
non-free programs, if they don't want to.
> In your utopia, a lot of software that's of commercial use but of no
> hacker interest would never get written, because the lack of any
> commercial value for the code means that there's no way to recoup
> the investment that went into it. Nobody wins in that scenario.
Boring but useful software would need to be written by programmers who
are paid by the people who need that software. This is, of course, the
case now. Thousands of programmers work for banks and investment
firms, writing software which is used only internally by the company,
and which is never distributed or resold.
From: John Dyson <t...@dyson.jdyson.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/24
Message-ID: <39545367.1419F90D@dyson.jdyson.com>
X-Deja-AN: 638350722
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
<509D8469E13142C9.4D5930461D914D5E.787CF5E5F6D1F9A3@lp.airnews.net>
<t77lbhjzcs.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
<7A78DD8ECEE80852.BCB97EA304449A1A.2F314693D4D9D4AA@lp.airnews.net>
<t71z1ogtmm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.iquest.net 961827689 198.70.149.90 (Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:21:29 EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: dy...@iquest.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000 01:21:29 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Hyman Rosen wrote:
>
> jmayn...@thebrain.conmicro.cx (Jay Maynard) writes:
> > This is the classic leftist definition of "freedom": "You are free to do
> > those things which I, in my Big Brother benevolence, have decided you may be
> > free to do."
>
> On the contrary, this is the classic definition of private property:
> "I own this, and if you would like to use it, you must agree to my
> conditiions."
>
> > Your idea of freedom is not freedom, it's merely a hollow shell.
>
> As I said, this is freedom for the users of the code, not for those
> who seek to take the private property of others against their will.
>
> > When the balance tips to a choice between having a "non-free" (by
> > your definition, not mine) program, and not having a program at all,
> > who benefits by the absence of the program?
>
> That's not the problem of the person who has made the choice of using
> the GPL. You seem to be saying that the developer of the non-free code
> has some sort of moral right to demand that the author of the GPLed
> code provide free labor with no compensation. Talk about communism!
>
He isn't saying that developers of non-free code have any moral right
to GPLed code. It is true that if code is called 'free', then the
developer should be able to freely use and re-use the code as if
it is really free. Of course, people like you (and that isn't
meant to be prejudicial) believe that GPLed code is free, which
it isn't.
The mistake being made here (over and over again) is misuse of
the term 'freedom' because of the rather slippery slope of the
misdefinition (or misuse) of the term free in relation to the
grants of selective use and reuse as provided by the GPL.
The problem here (and made over and over again) is that some people
(most often GPL advocates) accept a rather selective usage of the
term 'free', simply because they don't judge that add-on developers
should have the same freedom (note the careful use) in utilization of
their skills for profit purposes as directly as marketeers or
developers of the seed code. This puts add-on developers (who
often provide a more significant contribution) in a relatively
weaker position, and it is the rather narrow judgement of
certain individuals (most-often GPL advocates, but happily not
all of the GPL advocates) that add-on developers should be
second class citizens.
It is indeed important that add-on developers be carefully informed
as to the restrictiveness and weakness of the term 'free' as used
by advocates who apparently don't care very much for fairness
to add-on developers. As long as the choice of license (or choice
of seed software) is made carefully (considering both software
and licensing aspects as features), then the consequences of the
choice are truely a result of an informed choice of the add-on
developer.
Suggesting that GPLed code is 'free', in the context where an
add-on developer would want to add on and control the added-on
code as if it was truly their own, is misinformation and shows
a lack of respect for potential accomplishments of that developer
of that added code.
This all shows a difference in values, where the opportunity
cost for a developer of add-on code isn't considered to be 'worthy'
in the consideration of a definition of the usage of the term
'free' as in free software. Fair thinking people respect the
work product (and opportunity cost) of those who actually
provide the work product, and believe that both the seed code
and the add-on works have equal standing. GPL and advocates who
really believe that GPL defines a license of 'free software'
obviously don't respect that equal standing, and it is a matter
for the add-on developers to understand. This certainly
helps the add-on developer to evaluate their opportunity cost,
and allows them to judge whether or not GPLed works are able
to provide as much profit by directly applying their development
skills as software licensed by other schemes. In some cases,
even commercial software can provide more flexibility to an
add on software developer than GPLed code... Of course, seldom
do marketeers of commercial code call their works 'free' :-).
The odd thing is that some advocates of GPLed code can even
have the b*lls to call GPLed code free, while claiming that
truly free code isn't free :-)... Clintonism isn't just for
politics anymore -- in fact didn't the Clintonism of the GPL
usage of the term free predate Clinton in the White House?
I wonder if this is where Mr. Clinton got his ideas of redefinition
and doublespeak? :-).
John
From: Eric 'Alibut <torxh...@CX937045-A.lncln1.ri.home.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/26
Message-ID: <23M55.237$mZ.647413@news1.onlynews.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 639147822
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
<509D8469E13142C9.4D5930461D914D5E.787CF5E5F6D1F9A3@lp.airnews.net>
<t77lbhjzcs.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
<7A78DD8ECEE80852.BCB97EA304449A1A.2F314693D4D9D4AA@lp.airnews.net>
<t71z1ogtmm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <39545367.1419F90D@dyson.jdyson.com>
X-Trace: onlyNews customer
Organization: loggerheads with himself
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990216 ("Styrofoam") (UNIX) (OpenBSD/2.7 (i386))
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 10:05:02 PDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
John Dyson <t...@dyson.jdyson.com> wrote:
> The problem here (and made over and over again) is that some people
> (most often GPL advocates) accept a rather selective usage of the
> term 'free', simply because they don't judge that add-on developers
> should have the same freedom (note the careful use) in utilization of
> their skills for profit purposes as directly as marketeers or
> developers of the seed code.
A phrase repeated often enough, such as "add-on developer," has a
mesmerizing effect; it lends a false credibility to what otherwise is simply
an oxymoron.
--
Bob Bernstein
From: John Dyson <t...@dyson.jdyson.com>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/26
Message-ID: <3957D8C0.6D2595CF@dyson.jdyson.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 639312979
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
<509D8469E13142C9.4D5930461D914D5E.787CF5E5F6D1F9A3@lp.airnews.net>
<t77lbhjzcs.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com>
<7A78DD8ECEE80852.BCB97EA304449A1A.2F314693D4D9D4AA@lp.airnews.net>
<t71z1ogtmm.fsf@calumny.jyacc.com> <39545367.1419F90D@dyson.jdyson.com>
<23M55.237$mZ.647413@news1.onlynews.com>
X-Accept-Language: en
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news1.iquest.net 962058433 198.70.149.90 (Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:27:13 EDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: dy...@iquest.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:27:13 EDT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Eric 'Alibut wrote:
>
> John Dyson <t...@dyson.jdyson.com> wrote:
>
> > The problem here (and made over and over again) is that some people
> > (most often GPL advocates) accept a rather selective usage of the
> > term 'free', simply because they don't judge that add-on developers
> > should have the same freedom (note the careful use) in utilization of
> > their skills for profit purposes as directly as marketeers or
> > developers of the seed code.
>
> A phrase repeated often enough, such as "add-on developer," has a
> mesmerizing effect; it lends a false credibility to what otherwise is simply
> an oxymoron.
>
Sorry, there are many cases of code and development added on to a
project
more substantial than the original works. Please refer to the FreeBSD
work
in general for example, where it is much more sophisiticated than the
orignal
BSD code. The add-on work is quite substantial, and it is cool that
those
who have worked on it could (and have) control their own add-on work.
But, again, there are those who don't believe (because of a prejudice of
time of occurance) that add-on developers are worth anything, right? In
fact, that makes the entire GNU movement, which is mostly made up of
un-original, reimplementations somewhat irrelevant, except in the sense
of the unfair copyright laws...
John
From: Barry Margolin <bar...@genuity.net>
Subject: Re: Free software vs. open source?
Date: 2000/06/26
Message-ID: <s8R55.31$ya2.2381@burlma1-snr2>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 639321364
Distribution: world
References: <yln1keicog.fsf@windlord.stanford.edu>
<39545367.1419F90D@dyson.jdyson.com> <23M55.237$mZ.647413@news1.onlynews.com>
<3957D8C0.6D2595CF@dyson.jdyson.com>
X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Complaints-To: abuse@gtei.net
X-Trace:
/KHlxMbLCfWGPqiAq18rTPoZyX63IhwGgXLeCuuBKAUmc0TvoHTe/VVRBFo3ERAdvtPlqRKsGhKd!
1Wn0NcC1s+0epU8P9HoE/cvwLqR7Li1RDZKbhMj+hD3fx6FqAuzqOfeEtf8=
Organization: Genuity, Cambridge, MA
X-Copies-To: never
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:52:08 GMT
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Originator: bar...@genuity.net (Barry Margolin)
In article <3957D8C0.6D259...@dyson.jdyson.com>,
John Dyson <dy...@iquest.net> wrote:
>Sorry, there are many cases of code and development added on to a
>project
>more substantial than the original works. Please refer to the FreeBSD
>work
>in general for example, where it is much more sophisiticated than the
>orignal
>BSD code. The add-on work is quite substantial, and it is cool that
>those
>who have worked on it could (and have) control their own add-on work.
Just because the add-on is significantly larger than the original doesn't
mean that the original author's wishes are irrelevant, either.
In the movie industry, someone might show up at a producer's office with a
"treatment", which is a short summary of a proposed movie. The studio
might then hand this off to a screenwriter to flesh it out into a full
script, going from a handful of pages to hundreds. Despite this
significant difference in size, the script is a derivative work of the
treatment, the the final film a derivative of that. Unless the author of
the treatment agrees to the contract, none of these can be made.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@genuity.net
Genuity, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.