Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Kalle A. Pahajoki]

Grant Griffin <g2 at seebelow.org> wrote:
>> but I think this reveals a high level of ignorance
>
>(Now let's not rush to judgement...haven't you been reading this thread?
>;-)
I have now and have reached the conclusion that misunderstanding (or
maybe, as you say, simple disagreement) might be a better word.

>Much of "marketing" boils down to what you focus on and how you present
>it.

Yes. But, in your message you imply that the fundamental difference
between your philosophy and that of Stallman's is a poor marketing
insight on Stallman's part. This is what I objected to.

[Now look what you've done. You dragged me into this; and all I ment
to do was object to a single sentence of yours) ;-)]

>In GNUspeak, the "free" part means both "free in a cost sense" and "free
>in a freedom sense". 

With a strong emphasis on "free in a freedom sense" (quoting "What is
Free software" by GNU project):
`Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the
 concept, you should think of `free speech'', not `free beer.''

No-one (AFAIK) has argued that GNU software is always completely
gratis. In practice, the costs are so minimal that I have not heard
anyone bitch about them. A point that we should not ignore is that
when you have once obtained a piece of free software, you can
legally copy that to as many friends of yours as possible. When the
the amount of your friends (that you have copied the software)
approaches infinite, the cost of that piece of free software
approaches zero.

>Yet GPL software is manifestly not "free" in
>either sense.  

I think it is cheap to complain about the price of GNU software. If
you have any practical complaints, then please state them.

>(BTW, I remain baffled why so many highly intelligent,
>literate, and educated people fail to notice this--especially when I
>repeatedly point it out. ;-)

Maybe they simply disagree with you.

>Users of GPL source code
>must provide source code copies to their software's users.  This
>certainly is a "cost"--in terms of distribution disks, web sites, legal
>vetting, or whatever.

I think you are referring to the part about GPL that says you must
provide the sources for your software for three years (if requested),
if you distribute your software as binaries. It is explicitly stated
that you can charge for the media costs. 

>But for us commercial users, probably a much more
>*significant* cost is in terms of having to disclose the remainder of
>our application's source code; then we undertake a little cost called
>"competitive advantage".  So the idea that GPL software is "free of
>cost" is manifestly false: real and substantial costs are involved.

That is the way GPL works. There are other, less "restrictive"
licenses. I can understand that you might not be prepared to release your
product's source code. In that case, the problem is yours; not GPL's
and certainly not those who use GPL. Within the community, the license
works perfectly.

>The GPL somehow is supposed to
>preserve _user's_ freedom (or _software's_ freedom--I'm not quite sure
>which) by placing restrictions on how users (authors) can use it, per
>the above. It is axiomatic that freedom is not created by restricting
>freedom.

Repeating your (false) mantra does not make it true, regardless of how
many times you repeat it.

We need to separate the concepts of negative freedom and positive
freedom (I knew those philosophy courses would pay off ;-)). Negative
freedom is the freedom to do anything one pleases. Positive freedom
guarantees everyone the possibility to do something. In your writings
you are using the word freedom to refer to the concept of negative
freedom. In effect, your are applying "a broad term in a narrow
sense". 

Yes, GPL restricts some of your negative freedoms. This is the
fundamental nature of GPL. I think it is pointless to complain about
it. There are places where LGPL or even less restrictive license might
be better (GNU acknowledges this too[1]). 

By writing a piece of free software and placing it under GPL, the
author is in a way protecting his right to the source code, much the
same way you feel you have to protect your code (from competitors)

>Therefore, whatever the practical merits of the GPL's
>obligations may be, we can at least, by definition, state that they do
>not preserve freedom.

It preserves the freedom for everyone in the community to access that
source code. This can be seen as a positive freedom that GPL enforces.
Those who support GPL see this as a greater good than the possible
drawbacks.

>But frankly, I think there's every reason to be
>suspicious when really smart guys like Richard Stallman tell you things
>that you can easily prove for yourself are simply false.

Understanding is a three-edged sword.  Your side, their side and the
truth. I do not claim that I know what the truth is, but I
try to apply some critical thinking before jumping into any ideology.

>But from strictly a marketing perspective, it
>certainly has a powerful appeal, since it's an idealogy.  After all, who
>but a turd wouldn't want to be part of a movement? <wink>.  

I would be inclined to agree, but I thought that strong ideologies
(particularily when they are somehow  associated with
*COMMUNISM*) are not very good selling points in America. I am
surprised that any big companies -- not to name any names <subliminal
naming of names[2]: Microsoft> -- are not already using this 
for FUD (and let's not get into any argument about communism here).

>Copyleft has had some major
>successes (e.g. Linux...er, "The Gnu/Linux System"), but, contrariwise,
>many other good things like Python seem to do just fine without it.

So can we not keep both systems?

[1] _Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library_,
Richard Stallman 1999
[2] Is this a Seinfeld-reference?
-- 
Kalle Pahajoki <pahajoki at voimax.cygnnet.jkl.fi>
	"We can't take the future of freedom for granted. Don't take it for
	granted! If you want to keep your freedom, you must be prepared to
	defend it."	-- Richard Stallman