Still no new license -- but draft text available

[Grant Griffin]

Kalle A. Pahajoki wrote:
> 
> Grant Griffin <g2 at seebelow.org> wrote:
> >Assuming Guido feels the
> >same way you do, you seem to be confirming my suspicion that Python's
> >freedom to be used commercially is based partly on a degree of marketing
> >insight which certain other big names in free/open software--not to name
> >any names <subliminal naming of names: _Richard Stallman_>--never
> >achieved.
> 
> <soapbox>
> No offence,

None taken.

> but I think this reveals a high level of ignorance

(Now let's not rush to judgement...haven't you been reading this thread?
;-)

> concerning Free software (as defined by the GNU project). The work of Richard
> Stallman on free software "is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading
> freedom and cooperation."[1] For RMS, it is not a question of marketing. You
> might want to read about the philosophy behind the GNU project
> (http://www.gnu.org), especially on how Free software differs from
> Open source.
> </soapbox>

I have--long ago.  I have read everything I can find on the GNU web site
about the GNU philosophy (except the foreign-language translations of
the GPL. ;-)  I've also gone through the OSI site, and read all of Eric
S. Raymond's work (which may or may not apply).  So if I remain ignorant
on GPL/copyleft, it's probably some sort of fault in my genes. <wink>

Then again, maybe I simply disagree with you and Mr. Stallman.

Your quote above is entirely accurate.  And perhaps he/they even
sincerely and fervently believe it.  But beware that the sincere,
fervent idealists of the world are among the most dangerous Used Car
Salemen you will ever meet. <0.1 wink>

Please note that Richard Stallman's evident sincerity is not
incompatible with what I have been saying; someone can have (and likely
_does have_) multiple goals in an endeavor. "Idealism" and "egotism" may
be unlikely bedfellows, but so long as neither one snores, they can
probably both get some shut-eye. <pointed joke>

Much of "marketing" boils down to what you focus on and how you present
it.  Some degree of marketing and organizational acumen is partly (or
even largely) responsible for nearly every "big" thing you will come in
contact with in life; few things are so meritorious in-and-of-themselves
that they can become big with no marketing.  (Though perhaps Mother
Theresa and Richard Stallman are exceptions. ;-)

The marketing slant on Copyleft--which likely is quite sincere--is that
of an idealogy.  And proselytizing is literally written into the very
fabric of it: the express purpose of the GPL is to make converts.  We
see the makings, then, of a Brave New World Religion.

I believe that the GNU idealogy--admirable though it may be for its
zeal--is logically flawed.  Consider the all-important concept of "free
software".  Note that this term is a bit of a marketing distortion in
itself: the GNU folks apply a broad term in a narrow sense; the
subliminal message here is that all "free software" (in the broad sense)
presumably is--or at least should be--"free software" (in the GNU
sense.)

In GNUspeak, the "free" part means both "free in a cost sense" and "free
in a freedom sense".  Yet GPL software is manifestly not "free" in
either sense.  (BTW, I remain baffled why so many highly intelligent,
literate, and educated people fail to notice this--especially when I
repeatedly point it out. ;-)

GPL software is not "free in a cost sense".  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.  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.

Next, is GPL software "free in a freedom sense"?  (Class, let's all say
it together:) "No, Miss Landers."  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.  The arguments we hear to the contrary consist only of a sort
of "freedom shifting", wherein the freedom of one type of software
user--the end user--is supposedly preserved by restricting the freedom
of another type of software user--the software publisher.  The flaw in
the GNU argument, then, is that "freedom shifting" somehow *preserves*
freedom.  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. 

So, should you believe the _other_ proclaimations of Well-Meaning
Idealogues who tell you manifest untruths?  (Even when it's me? ;-) 
Well, that's up to you.  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.

Next, whether or not the GPL/copyleft concept is a "good" thing is a
matter of personal taste.  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>.  Whether or
not the GPL will accomplish it's goals of spreading the use of "free
software" (meaning software which is manifestly not "free" in either a
cost or a freedom sense ;-) is arguable; both pro and con arguments can
be made.  And the empirical data is mixed: 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.

Personally, I'm convinced that Copyleft is just a fad...

idealism-without-truth-is-far-from-ideal-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