Still no new license -- but draft text available

[John W. Stevens]

Gary Momarison wrote:
> 
> Courageous <jkraska1 at san.rr.com> writes:
> 
> > Stallman has fairly well soured on his whole "copyleft" notion
> > anyway.
> 
> Please tell us where we'd find some evidence of that welcome news.
> 
> Comment on the previous post: The "obsession" that motivates copyleft
> and which draws so many to the GPL is an obsessional desire for
> FAIRNESS, which Stallman's propaganda UNFAIRLY exploits and which, like
> his promotional misuse of the software freedom concept, is less well
> achieved by the GPL than by old-Python, BSD, X11, and similar licenses.

The whole point of the GPL is indeed fairness.  I don't see how BSD, or
the X11 licenses, or the old-style Python license, achieve this end as
well as the GPL/LGPL do.

> A suprising number of people are captivated by the thought that someone
> should only be allowed to use their work if that someone will
> reciprocate.

Umm . . . no.  The GPL/LGPL is based on a very simple concept: if you
are of a cooperative mentality, use the L\GPL license, and use L\GPL
code.  If you aren't a cooperative type, don't use 'em.

> Everyone feels a bit of outrage when someone refuses to
> share equaly, but it's sad to find that so few can stiffle that
> uncivilized emotion

. . . interesting.  So outrage over unfairness is "uncivilized"?

> and share unconditionaly, especially when so many
> seem so proud of their generosity in using the GPL.

Nope.  It's not "generosity" that motivates use of the GPL, it's the
desire to form a "cooperative".

> And what is fair
> about exchanging the disclosure of my office suite for the use of your
> word counting routine?

FUD.  You know very well that this is FUD, too.  If you don't want to
cooperate, don't.  What is fair about you taking and using a product
that was offered as a contribution to the "co-op", then refusing to
cooperate?

> Stallman's obsession probably started as a desire to minimize/maximize
> the amount of software he wasn't/was allowed to control

Nope.  Stallman's "obsession" (I really, really disklike your use of
emotionally laden terms . . . are you obsessed with money and control,
or are you simply making a philisophical choice?) is based on what he
saw as the obvious advantage over cooperatively based competition,
instead of artificially restricted competition.

> But
> the method of implementing the obsession is to propagandize

More emotionally laden terms?  Guido "propagandizes", as well.  In less
emotionally-spun terms, RMS and Guido both "evangelize".  Don't like
Python?  Don't use it.  Don't want to cooperate?  Don't.

What's the big deal?  You makes your philisophical choices, and you
lives with 'em, and a part of every philisophy is "evangelizing".

> about things
> like the supposed freedom of the software and the horrors of letting
> someone use (even PROFIT - oh, the humanity) YOUR open code as part of
> their closed code.

There is nothing in the GPL that restricts your ability to make a
profit.  See: RedHat for an example of this.

-- 

If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!

John Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com