Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Grant Griffin]

John W. Stevens wrote:

> Grant Griffin wrote:
> >
> > So why doesn't he like it?--heck, he probably even wrote it himself!  Well, it
> > turns out that its "copyleft" legal virus doesn't infect _other_ software that
> > the user links with the LGPL'ed library (er, I mean "Lesser"); it only applies
> > to modules of the original Lesser.  Fortunately, that isn't a severe loss of
> > freedom to the user, it merely causes users a certain amount of trouble if one
> > makes changes (so one quickly learns not to.)  But likewise, it really doesn't
> > accomplish much of The Good Work of infecting software with Copyleft, so Mr.
> > Stallman would have us abandon it in favor of the "GNU Public License".  (Hey,
> > waitaminute!  Shouldn't that be the "Greater Public License"?!)
>
> The kind of spin you put on this whole thing was why I responded.  I can
> see that you remain unconvinced.

What gave it away? ;-)

>
>
> > >The GPL is not as some have painted it to be.
> >
> > Perhaps.  But fortunately, the GNU web site and the writings of Richard Stallman
> > make the intent of the GPL, and (to a lesser extent) the LGPL very, very clear.
> > Here's a quote from http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html"
>
> If you read the whole thing, you can see that no where does the word
> "infect" occur.

Right.  (Sneaky, ain't it? ;-)

>
>
> > "In the GNU project, our aim is to give all users the freedom to redistribute
> > and change GNU software.
>
> Exactly.  "GNU software".  Not: "To infect closed source software".

OK, I think maybe we've finally found something to agree on: the GPL license should be
used *only* on GNU software.  (It's gonna be a tough sell to all those Linux folks,
though... ;-)

> > If middlemen could strip off the freedom, we might
> > have many users, but those users would not have freedom.
>
> Indeed . . . how many times have you heard the phrase: "Our customers
> use Word, so we *HAVE* to".

Been there, done that.  But this situation has little or nothing to do with "freedom".

> He pretty much hit it right on the head: a loss of freedom.

It's becoming clear to me that you and I have different ideas about what the concept
of "freedom" is.  To me, freedom is something along the lines of "a lack of
unnecessary restrictions".  Therefore, anything that promotes the use of unnecessary
restrictions must be something other than freedom.  (My complaint with the FSFs party
line is largely their misuse of the word "freedom" to promote restrictions.  That just
ain't right.)

> > So instead of putting
> > GNU software in the public domain, we ``copyleft'' it. Copyleft says that
> > anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, *must* <emphasis
> > added> pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees
> > that every user has freedom."
>
> I trust you will note a complete absence of the word "infect" in the
> above paragraph?

Yup--if I put my "literal minded" hat on. ;-)

Believe me, I don't apply the concept of the GPL as a sort of "legal virus" lightly; I
do it because the parallel with a biological (or even computer) virus is exact.  Like
other viruses, its explicit goal is to infect everything it comes in contact with.  It
does so by using the reproductive mechanism of its host; specifically, it gets copied
primarily as a side-effect of users copying GPL'ed software.

Biological viruses are a strange sort of "lifeform": unlike other lifeforms, they
don't use energy, and they don't reproduce (at least by themselves).  In one sense,
they are "information" more than "life".  But what is the "purpose" of a virus?
Clinically speaking, the purpose of any lifeform is to reproduce.   The only thing a
virus (of any kind) does is infect hosts, and use the host's reproductive mechanism to
reproduce itself.  So aside from just "existing", infection/reproduction must be a
virus's purpose.

Now, consider the GPL as a sort of "lifeform".  It consists only of "information".
The GPL doesn't use energy, (that is no one "executes" it on a computer), and it
doesn't reproduce itself; it reproduces only by infecting a host (that is, it gets
copied primarily by people copying the software it infects.  So what is the purpose of
any given single copy of the GPL?  Obvioiusly to infect hosts, to reproduce itself.
(You might find this statement inflamatory or slanted, but it is actually a concise
and accurate summary of some of Richard Stallman's writings: he hopes that eventually
all software will be free--because all software in existence  is licensed under the
GPL.)

Next, let's assume that most authors of free/open software generally want their
software to be copied.  (Conversely, nobody provides software as open source with the
hope that it will be ignored.)  For example, we might reasonably speculate that Guido
continues to spend his time and energy developing and promoting Python not just for
career reasons, but probably even more so for paternal reasons: he probably wants his
baby to be maximally reproduced and used.  From a biological slant, the software
open-source authors create is the "genes" which they wish to be reproduced.

Of all the open-source software "genes" ever created, one is hard pressed to think of
any given example that has been reproduced in more copies than the GPL itself.  Judged
by the number of copies in existence, the GPL is undoubtedly Richard Stallman's most
successful single software creation.  (Ironic ain't it--that he's a programmer, not a
lawyer. ;-)  He has created not just a very effective legal virus, but also a very
appealing and useful set of initial hosts (that is, the "GNU" parts of the "GNU/Linux
System") to carry it.  And beyond that, he has created an appealing (if disingenuous)
marketing scheme by packaging his viral wolf in the sheep's clothing of "freedom".
(No doubt about it: that RMS is one smart dude!)

One of my small missions in life is to educate the gullible and help them take
prophylactic measures against this thing; as recent world-wide experiences with both
biological and computer viruses have shown, it's best for people to individually
protect themselves from these things before they become an epedimic.  (Too bad
"McAffee" doesn't work on this one. ;-)

> > 'must'-is-not-a-convincing-euphemism-for-'freedom'-any-more-than
> >    'lesser'-is-a-convincing-euphemism-for-'library'-ly y'rs,
>
> Must is not a euphism for freedom for the indivdual.  However, 'must' is
> a *requirement* in guaranteeing freedom to the community.
>
> As in "You must not steal/kill/covet, etc."
>
> After all, the bill of rights is simply a list of must not's.
>
> If you disagree, please describe a *free* community to me that has no
> MUST.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit government's freedom to limit the
freedom of individuals, e.g., "Congress shall not establish a law..."  (I suppose one
could say that it limits the freedom of Congressmen, but that just seems silly.)
Limiting government is, of course, A Good And Necessary Thing; experience shows that
governments which have too much freedom inevitably use it to abridge the freedom of
individuals.

In the context of the GPL, I guess you could say that the rights of the user are
abridged to provide freedom to the software.  But clearly, the user (who might even be
A Real Live Human Being, of all things!) should have more freedom than software (which
is nothing more than a collection of bits).

Now, to be fair, the GPL really is more of a "quid pro quo": you give something, you
get something.  It's basically a contract, and it actually has very little with either
preserving or abridging freedom.  And presumably the user gives only if he thinks what
he gets is worth it.

That's all fine and good, so long as the exchange is voluntary (which it is).  But
let's not call that "freedom".  Let's use some other, singlethink term like "quid pro
quo", "consideration", "agreement", "contract" or whatever.  Calling it "freedom",
might mislead some young people into thinking it's something they actually *want*.

(then-again,-maybe-sometimes-old-people-are-gullible-too-<wink>)-ly y'rs,

=g2
--
_____________________________________________________________________

Grant R. Griffin                                       g2 at dspguru.com
Publisher of dspGuru                           http://www.dspguru.com
Iowegian International Corporation       http://www.iowegian.com