Please note that linux-kernel is a highly technical list, it's
not a list to discuss software development ethics.
A technical issue or project sometimes raises ethical issues. When
that happens, discussing the ethical issues is an essential part of
the technical discussion. A discussion which ignores the ethical
aspect of the issue is severely incomplete.
That does not happen often. Most of the decisions in a technical
project are purely technical, and whatever is technically best is
really best. After many such issues, it is easy to start thinking
that raising ethical issues in a technical issue is improper, that
there is some virtue in keeping technical decisions away from ethics.
That is a the worst mistake an engineer can make.
Freedom includes
for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or
written myself) without people complaining about it publically.
You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
freedom, that is a power.
> Freedom includes
> for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or
> written myself) without people complaining about it publically.
>
> You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
> freedom, that is a power.
Richard, the day that the GPL doesn't use it's power to force people to
do things they may not want to do is the day that you get to make the
above statement in public without getting flamed. Today is not that day.
Just admit that the GPL forces people to do things just the same as a
traditional license forces people to do things. You speak of freedom
yet you took that freedom away with the GPL. If you really believed
in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain.
*That's* freedom. The BSD license is far closer to a truly free license,
the GPL isn't even remotely close to a free license.
Your position seems to say "I, Richard Stallman, know what is the right
answer for the world. So the rights I took away in the GPL are OK but
the rights that other people take away in other licenses are not OK".
A tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
I have no problem with the GPL, I think it's a fine license if your
goal is to have things done out in the open with no hoarding. A great
license, in fact. But I have a big problem with this constant harping
on the term "freedom". The GPL absolutely positively does not grant me
all the rights I want, it took substantial portions of my freedom away.
I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone
else.
I'm OK with you having a free license, go make one. I'm OK with you
sticking with the GPL, but then you get admit that it is not a free
license and stop kidding yourself and others.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Hi,
On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
> > freedom, that is a power.
>
> [..]
> I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone
> else.
Now I'd really like to know, how Richard forces you to use GPL software...
bye, Roman
On Sat, Oct 19, 2002 at 06:45:37PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Somebody that Richard did not consider worth properly quoting wrote:
> > Freedom includes
> > for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or
> > written myself) without people complaining about it publically.
> You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
> freedom, that is a power.
He is asking for the freedom to not be JUDGED based on the toolset
that he prefers to use.
An open minded individual would not confuse this with power.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
On Sun, Oct 20, 2002 at 01:48:34AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Oct 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > > You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
> > > freedom, that is a power.
> > [..]
> > I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone
> > else.
> Now I'd really like to know, how Richard forces you to use GPL software...
Don't make it so easy. Look at what Richard wrote.
He thinks people are bad for using Bit Keeper, because the Bit Keeper
license disagrees with his personal persuasions. He leaves no option for
people to choose based on functionality. Instead, they must choose based
on the ideals of Richard Stallman.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
> Freedom includes
> for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or
> written myself) without people complaining about it publically.
>
> You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
> freedom, that is a power.
You responded to this point by changing the subject completely, so it
looks like you have no argument against the point itself.
Richard, the day that the GPL doesn't use it's power to force people to
do things they may not want to do is the day that you get to make the
above statement in public without getting flamed.
Alas, by flaming me now you have made your own statement untrue.
The GPL protects the crucial freedoms for every user, which means that
middlemen cannot pass along our code but strip off the freedom. It
doesn't let Mr. Bill use our code in the way he would like to, and
perhaps it doesn't let you use our code in the way you would like to,
but it doesn't force you to do anything. The GPL, like other free
software licenses, respects for the users the essential freedoms that
all software users should have. This the crucial ethical difference
between the GPL (and other free software licenses) and a non-free
license.
If you really believed
in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain.
This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom
to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license
often make. It is a word game intended to render the concept of
freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more. Once
people see through this, it loses its effect.
I refer people to http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html for more
discussion of this issue.
Your position seems to say "I, Richard Stallman, know what is the right
answer for the world. So the rights I took away in the GPL are OK but
the rights that other people take away in other licenses are not OK".
A tad hypocritical, wouldn't you say?
My position is rather different from that. What I say is that
computer users are entitled to the freedom to study, change, and
redistribute the software they use. See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html for a discussion of
this issue.
The existing legal system for software is unjust because it is
designed to help developers to deny users those freedoms. However,
using it in turnabout, to protect those freedoms, is a proper response
to the situation as it exists. (This is the basic concept of
copyleft.) See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html for
more explanation.
The GPL prohibits trampling the freedom of others. Those who wish to
make non-free software, those who would not respect the freedom of
others, often cry bloody murder about this "restriction". But even as
they complain that they cannot put our code into their non-free
products, they are refusing to let us put their code into our free
software packages. More than a tad hypocritical, I would say.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
[snip]
>
> This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom
> to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license
> often make. It is a word game intended to render the concept of
> freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more. Once
> people see through this, it loses its effect.
>
Agreed. To me, freedom absolutely does _not_ mean the freedom to deny
freedom. Freedom is something that _must_ be protected by any means
necessary.
Some people would like to think that it's possible to write code without
it being "politicized." This is, most certainly, not the case. Any project
as major as what the GNU project writes, what the kernel developers write,
or what proprietary developers such as Microsoft write are political
projects. When large companies develop proprietary software, that's making
a statement: "we believe it's okay to deny our users freedom."
When developers write free software, that's also making a statement: "we
believe users are just as deserving of rights as authors."
The issue here is using non-free software to develop free software. This,
too, makes a political statement: "we don't mind if freedom is being
denied as long as we're able to work efficiently."
Would it be okay to use Microsoft products to develop free software as
long as said products made development efficient? In my opinion, Bitkeeper
is no better than Microsoft due to the 'you may not use this if your
company develops competing software' issue. This is heavy-handed
authoritarianism.
I can understand denying those individuals who develop
competing software a free seat; I most certainly don't agree with it, but
I can understand it. What about people who work for large companies that
may, in fact, have a product that could compete with Bitkeeper?
Larry McVoy <[email protected]> writes:
> > Freedom includes
> > for me that I can use any software that I have legally licensed (or
> > written myself) without people complaining about it publically.
> >
> > You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
> > freedom, that is a power.
>
> Richard, the day that the GPL doesn't use it's power to force people to
> do things they may not want to do is the day that you get to make the
> above statement in public without getting flamed. Today is not that day.
Richard has seems not to have a precise edge in meaning, which makes his comments
rather inappropriate for a technical list, but otherwise he is not far
off the mark.. Implementing a system with freedom always means
finding a compromise between being able to do anything yourself, and
not allowing other people to do nasty things to you.
> Just admit that the GPL forces people to do things just the same as a
> traditional license forces people to do things. You speak of freedom
> yet you took that freedom away with the GPL. If you really believed
> in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain.
> *That's* freedom. The BSD license is far closer to a truly free license,
> the GPL isn't even remotely close to a free license.
Hogwash. The BSD license has not provisions to keep the source code
freely available. Consider what the world would be like if anyone was
allowed to do anything to you they wanted, if murder was legal.
The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
covered. That is still a power, but used in a good way. The power
to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
freedom.
> I have no problem with the GPL, I think it's a fine license if your
> goal is to have things done out in the open with no hoarding. A great
> license, in fact. But I have a big problem with this constant harping
> on the term "freedom". The GPL absolutely positively does not grant me
> all the rights I want, it took substantial portions of my freedom away.
> I am not free to use GPL source in any way I wish and neither is anyone
> else.
I want the right to murder you can I have that?
Freedom is not about having the ability to do anything, without
punishment. Only about having that ability so long as it does not
restrict the freedom of others. Anti-hoarding seems to fit that
definition for me.
I do agree that the GPL is an imperfect enforcer of freedom. It makes
it hard to mix and match GPL'd code with code that comes from another
source.
> I'm OK with you having a free license, go make one. I'm OK with you
> sticking with the GPL, but then you get admit that it is not a free
> license and stop kidding yourself and others.
All that needs to be admitted is that freedom has teeth.
Eric
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> The issue here is using non-free software to develop free software. This,
> too, makes a political statement: "we don't mind if freedom is being
> denied as long as we're able to work efficiently."
Or more accurately: "we're using a non-free piece of software
because none of the free software fanatics have gotten away
from their flame^Wmail reader for a moment to create a suitable
piece of free software."
If you _really_ care about the Linux developers using a non-free
piece of software and you want to change the situation, the only
thing you need to do is write a suitable replacement that is free.
cheers,
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Jon Portnoy wrote:
> Would it be okay to use Microsoft products to develop free software as
> long as said products made development efficient? In my opinion, Bitkeeper
> is no better than Microsoft due to the 'you may not use this if your
> company develops competing software' issue. This is heavy-handed
> authoritarianism.
As Larry McVoy said before, they may not use the free version. They can
buy the commercial version.
> I can understand denying those individuals who develop
> competing software a free seat; I most certainly don't agree with it, but
> I can understand it. What about people who work for large companies that
> may, in fact, have a product that could compete with Bitkeeper?
As Larry McVoy said before, they can apply for an exemption.
--
-- John E. Jasen ([email protected])
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.
On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Jon Portnoy wrote:
|>On Sun, 20 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
|>> This is the old "We're not free unless we are `free' to deny freedom
|>> to others" argument that some (not all) advocates of the BSD license
|>> often make. It is a word game intended to render the concept of
|>> freedom so confused that people can't think about it any more. Once
|>> people see through this, it loses its effect.
It seems like people have lost their marbles on this issue.
Using the BSD license gives the receiver certain freedoms. I'm all
for that -- if someone takes my BSD licensed code and never releases
modifications back to me (or anyone else), that's okay. I chose
that license because that's what I intended and should even expect
to happen.
Using the GNU GPL means imposing your idea of freedom on others,
which in some cases I'm all for. Either it's required of me (because
I've modified GPL code and released it) or I think that people
will benefit from being able to use it and expand upon it openly.
There's plenty of cases where that's a good thing to do.
Using a proprietary license means protecting interests, regardless
of freedoms for anything. That's okay as well -- some people like
to earn a paycheck and/or preserve their investments. When it
comes down to putting food on your family's table, or putting a
roof over their heads, in those cases it's the right thing to do.
That applies to the mom and pop development companies all the way
up to a company the size of Microsoft. Sometimes it's a good thing
to be paid for you and your company's efforts.
I wish more people would stop and think about why they write code
in the first place. If you write code to make a living, or write
code to help others (like a volunteer might do), or if you write
code just because you feel like it, each may need a different
license. Nobody's wrong to use BSD, GNU GPL, or any other license.
Nobody's evil or stupid or naive just because they make a certain
licensing choice.
Back to writing code (which I'm "free" to do) ... :)
--Matt
> > Just admit that the GPL forces people to do things just the same as a
> > traditional license forces people to do things. You speak of freedom
> > yet you took that freedom away with the GPL. If you really believed
> > in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain.
> > *That's* freedom. The BSD license is far closer to a truly free license,
> > the GPL isn't even remotely close to a free license.
>
> Hogwash. The BSD license has not provisions to keep the source code
> freely available. Consider what the world would be like if anyone was
> allowed to do anything to you they wanted, if murder was legal.
>
> The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
> covered. That is still a power, but used in a good way. The power
> to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
> freedom.
Hogwash indeed. Free means the freedom to do whatever you want.
Consider the US free speech. Nobody says "this sort of speech is good
for the world, therefor it is the sanctioned form of free speech and
all other forms are prohibited". That's not freedom, that's someone
playing God. The GPL is *not* about freedom it is about forcing the
source code to be freely available. And it does a fairly poor job of
that, if it really wanted to do so it would be far more simplistic about
it and say "any changes you make must be published within 24 hours or
your license is revoked".
All you are doing is saying that your goals are better than other goals.
That's not freedom, that is you deciding what is best for the world.
You may well be right, your goals may be what is best for the world.
None the less, that's not freedom. That's Big Brother making decisions
for all "the little people" in the world. And, surprise surprise, you
may not be right. Freedom is about everyone have equal rights to make
their own choices, nobody died and elected you God.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
Larry McVoy <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Just admit that the GPL forces people to do things just the same as a
> > > traditional license forces people to do things. You speak of freedom
> > > yet you took that freedom away with the GPL. If you really believed
> > > in freedom then the GPL would just be the same as the public domain.
> > > *That's* freedom. The BSD license is far closer to a truly free license,
> > > the GPL isn't even remotely close to a free license.
> >
> > Hogwash. The BSD license has not provisions to keep the source code
> > freely available. Consider what the world would be like if anyone was
> > allowed to do anything to you they wanted, if murder was legal.
> >
> > The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
> > covered. That is still a power, but used in a good way. The power
> > to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
> > freedom.
>
> Hogwash indeed. Free means the freedom to do whatever you want.
> Consider the US free speech. Nobody says "this sort of speech is good
> for the world, therefor it is the sanctioned form of free speech and
> all other forms are prohibited". That's not freedom, that's someone
> playing God.
In the US it is illegal to yell fire in a theater if there is no
fire. That is there are forms of speech that are clearly bad.
> The GPL is *not* about freedom it is about forcing the
> source code to be freely available.
And freely modifiable. Which sounds like freedom to me to do pretty
much what I want with the a program.
Code available under the BSD license is freely modifiable, but not
necessarily freely available.
Not being able to get the code sounds a lot less free to me.
> And it does a fairly poor job of
> that, if it really wanted to do so it would be far more simplistic about
> it and say "any changes you make must be published within 24 hours or
> your license is revoked".
>
> All you are doing is saying that your goals are better than other goals.
> That's not freedom, that is you deciding what is best for the world.
> You may well be right, your goals may be what is best for the world.
> None the less, that's not freedom. That's Big Brother making decisions
> for all "the little people" in the world. And, surprise surprise, you
> may not be right. Freedom is about everyone have equal rights to make
> their own choices, nobody died and elected you God.
Given I haven't forced anyone to use GPL'd software I am not forcing anyone
to do anything, unless they want to use my software. Nor are you
forcing anyone to anything with BitKeeper. And the kernel is setup so
no one has to use BitKeeper to develop the kernel.
Using the Linux kernel as a tool to advocate only GPL'd software seems
inappropriate as those are not the aims of the kernel maintainers. If
RMS wants that he is free to fork the kernel, or write a kernel that
with a license that prohibits people from using software you don't
like.
Eric
On 20 Oct 2002, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Using the Linux kernel as a tool to advocate only GPL'd software seems
> inappropriate as those are not the aims of the kernel maintainers. If
> RMS wants that he is free to fork the kernel, or write a kernel that
> with a license that prohibits people from using software you don't
> like.
Having seen the software written by RMS, I'd say that you've missed one
crucial detail: s/write/write (and find suckers who would use)/.
RMS opinion might weight a lot more if he (and FSF programmers in general)
were capable of writing programs without terminal bloat and without huge
amount of security holes. As it is, I'm willing to give them exactly the
same respect I give to other people writing code of such quality - Microsoft
employees. Gates is kooky in one way, Stallman - in another, but both
can't write decent software, both are utterly devoid of taste and both profess
"features over fixing bugs" beliefs.
On Sunday 20 October 2002 21:42, Larry McVoy wrote:
> > The GPL forces people to respect others freedom to use a work so
> > covered. That is still a power, but used in a good way. The power
> > to silence criticism is definitely not a power that enhances anyones
> > freedom.
>
> Hogwash indeed. Free means the freedom to do whatever you want.
> Consider the US free speech. Nobody says "this sort of speech is good
> for the world, therefor it is the sanctioned form of free speech and
> all other forms are prohibited".
Actually, they do. Commercial speech can be more heavily regulated than
non-commercial speech, and then of course there's the old "obscenity" bit.
And of course the test of yelling "movie" in a crowed firehouse... :)
There are several important supreme court cases on this, attempting to
delineate the bounds of the first amendment.
> playing God. The GPL is *not* about freedom it is about forcing the
> source code to be freely available.
The GPL is about giving free software an immune system so that Forker du jour
can't hire all your developers away to work on a closed fork of the codebase
the way netscape gutted Mosaic, BSDi shredded the berkeley CSRG, and the two
Lisp companies drained the original MIT AI lab.
Technically speaking, the bill of rights is a list of restrictions. Can't
shut people up, can't take the guns away, can't impose a religion on
people...
> And it does a fairly poor job of that
Seems to have worked fine so far. :)
> if it really wanted to do so it would be far more simplistic about
> it and say "any changes you make must be published within 24 hours or
> your license is revoked".
Wouldn't hold up in court, for a number of reasons.
> All you are doing is saying that your goals are better than other goals.
Stallman isn't saying you can't put your code under the license you like.
He's not really addressing you. (I think he's written you off as a lost
cause.) He was talking to the rest of the kernel development list and going
"What are you, NUTS? There be strings attached!" And they went "So why
doesn't the FSF sponsor a bitcreeper replacement?" And he has studiously
chosen to ignore this, it seems. Either that or his inbox runneth over...
> That's not freedom, that is you deciding what is best for the world.
> You may well be right, your goals may be what is best for the world.
> None the less, that's not freedom. That's Big Brother making decisions
> for all "the little people" in the world.
The same could be said about the founding fathers and the constitution...
> And, surprise surprise, you
> may not be right. Freedom is about everyone have equal rights to make
> their own choices, nobody died and elected you God.
If freedom is about everyone having equal rights, then if everybody is locked
up in the same size cell, we're all free. (In prison you get to make any
choice you want. Whether or not you can act on it is another matter, but
that's a pragmetic concern wherever you go. It's easy to choose how to spend
a million dollars...)
The difference between the utopian ideal of putting all your code in the
public domain and licensing it under the GPL, is that the GPL works and
putting our code in the public domain means, under our legal system, people
can sue you if your "hello world" fails to cure cancer for them.
Who are you to take away their freedom to sue you by putting clauses in your
license forbidding it? :)
Rob
Larry,
I visited:
http://www.bitkeeper.com/
clicked on products, then clicked on downloads & status, and then
clicked on the link to the free use license, which links to:
http://www.bitkeeper.com/Sales.Licensing.Free.html
Presumably this can be considered a typical way to navigate through
the site.
The license I was presented with was the BitKeeper License version
1.37, 02/18/02. This does not include the clause about the license
being unavailable to people who are developing a competing product to
Bitkeeper.
I pointed this out to you in a private E-Mail, but I didn't receive a
response - I think it is very confusing for people to believe that
they are licensed to use the product, only to later be told that they
are not.
John.
> The license I was presented with was the BitKeeper License version
> 1.37, 02/18/02. This does not include the clause about the license
> being unavailable to people who are developing a competing product to
> Bitkeeper.
>
> I pointed this out to you in a private E-Mail, but I didn't receive a
> response - I think it is very confusing for people to believe that
> they are licensed to use the product, only to later be told that they
> are not.
We've been working with IBM to try and come up with a revision of the license
which addresses some of the problems. When we get done we'll update the
website.
By the way, the non-compete clause was put in because I figured the standard
"no reverse engineering" clause would cause even more fuss. Little did
I know.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
> You are asking for the power to silence criticism. That is not
> freedom, that is a power.
He is asking for the freedom to not be JUDGED based on the toolset
that he prefers to use.
He is not entitled to control how others judge him. Nobody is
entitled to that. The "freedom not to be judged" would mean the power
to shut off debate about your actions.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
> He is not entitled to control how others judge him. Nobody is
> entitled to that. The "freedom not to be judged" would mean the power
> to shut off debate about your actions.
True.
Now please just understand that people are not entitled to agree with you or
follow your advice.
As you just demonstrated above you can't disconnect "freedom" and "power".
To have the freedom to use free software you need the power to do so.
Of course people have the power to ignore you, but it's their freedom to do
so.
Aren't we making circles here?
Richard, please, stop making a fool of yourself. The only power behind the
GPL is actual code. If it wasn't because of the existence of the GNU/Linux
_code_ then Microsoft wouldn't care a whit about the GPL like it does now.
Therefore the only real lever you have against BitKeeper or whatever else is
to write a GPL equivalent. Until it happens please assume that those who
chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom since it was
made certain that no one is forced into using BK for Linux development
already.
Nicolas
Nobody's evil or stupid or naive just because they make a certain
licensing choice.
It is a stretch to conclude anything about the general attitude or
character of a person from one action, so I would not say the people
who distribute non-free software are "evil people" in a general sense.
I will say they have done one thing that is evil: distributing a
non-free program.
Non-free software licenses are designed to divide and dominate the
users, denying them the basic freedoms for software users. That's
what makes them non-free, and that is what makes it wrong. Non-free
software is a social problem, one that we need to solve if computer
users are to have freedom.
There are many different ways people make money; some are ethical
while others involve mistreating others. If we accept "making a
living" as a valid excuse to mistreat people, we will be mistreated
constantly. There comes a time when we have to say that we are not
impressed by the argument that "We need to do this to people in order
to make a living."
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Richard Stallman wrote:
> If we accept "making a living" as a valid excuse to mistreat people, we
> will be mistreated constantly.
How about "funding the implementation of the items on the TODO list" ?
Rik
--
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap: <a href=mailto:"[email protected]">[email protected]</a>
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 11:12:53PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> Nobody's evil or stupid or naive just because they make a certain
> licensing choice.
>
> It is a stretch to conclude anything about the general attitude or
> character of a person from one action, so I would not say the people
> who distribute non-free software are "evil people" in a general sense.
> I will say they have done one thing that is evil: distributing a
> non-free program.
>
> Non-free software licenses are designed to divide and dominate the
> users, denying them the basic freedoms for software users. That's
> what makes them non-free, and that is what makes it wrong. Non-free
> software is a social problem, one that we need to solve if computer
> users are to have freedom.
>
> There are many different ways people make money; some are ethical
> while others involve mistreating others. If we accept "making a
> living" as a valid excuse to mistreat people, we will be mistreated
> constantly. There comes a time when we have to say that we are not
> impressed by the argument that "We need to do this to people in order
> to make a living."
It's a simple concept. I produced it, it's mine until I say otherwise.
You grant other laborers the right to profit from their labors, do you
not? Setting standards the way you have is arbitrary and high-handed.
Calling people (or their actions) "evil" because they prefer to code
for a living rather than dig ditches or answer telephones is rather
arrogant and self-righteous. My charging for software *I* write is not
immoral or unethical - it is what I do and it is perfectly legitimate.
It is NOT the same as claiming a criminal/immoral/unethical act - you
still want me to produce software - you just want me to do it for free.
And no, I am not doing anything to people - they are free to not use my
software. The majority of the world gets along just fine without it.
--
Murray J. Root
------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
------------------------------------------------
Mandrake on irc.freenode.net:
#mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies
#mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
>It is NOT the same as claiming a criminal/immoral/unethical act - you
>still want me to produce software - you just want me to do it for free.
I think RMS has made this clear a number of times. He doesn't expect
programmers to produce software for free, he expects them to produce software
that the end user can easily modify for their own applications, without legal
or technical hassles.
He's happy for them to be paid for this work.
--
Performance is impersonal yet intimate.
http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 01:26:20AM -0400, Hacksaw wrote:
> >It is NOT the same as claiming a criminal/immoral/unethical act - you
> >still want me to produce software - you just want me to do it for free.
>
> I think RMS has made this clear a number of times. He doesn't expect
> programmers to produce software for free, he expects them to produce software
> that the end user can easily modify for their own applications, without legal
> or technical hassles.
>
> He's happy for them to be paid for this work.
Without selling it? Rather tricky to accomplish. And yes, he does effectively
say selling it is wrong - when he says that users should be allowed to give
it away. If you can get it for free, why would you pay me? Don't tell me for
support - someone else does the support. I do the writing.
Basically, he's trying to set limits on what I do with what I created. There is
no justification for that.
I contribute time and effort to open source because I want to return something
for all the benefit I get out of it, not because some self-appointed arbiter of
morals tells me I should.
--
Murray J. Root
------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/stupid-disclaimers/
------------------------------------------------
Mandrake on irc.freenode.net:
#mandrake & #mandrake-linux = help for newbies
#mdk-cooker = Mandrake Cooker
Hang on a moment,
> Basically, he's trying to set limits on what I do with what I created.
But so do proprietary licences...and therein lies the problem. In fact
virtually any licence will set limits on what you can do with what you
created for some dfinition of "setting limits".
> I contribute time and effort to open source because I want to return
> something for all the benefit I get out of it, not because some
> self-appointed arbiter of morals tells me I should.
And therein lies the answer to the problem. Rather than stand around and
have a good old, foot stomping, nonsensical discussion which has
already been done to death before, let's just step aside and acknowledge
we're here because we want to be.
If some self-appointed arbiter decides to tell me I should be here, then
let him or her have his or her flights of fancy. Shockingly enough I
might actually agree with some or all of what that arbiter says. If I
don't agree with the reasons, surely the effects are the same: I am here
but not for the reasons given.
I've watched this thread silently and everyone--Stallman, Larry and all
the rest of us--are making perfect sense for our own world views. I
don't agree totally with any of them, I'll be modernist and pick and
choose from all of the view put forward and believe what I want. But the
effects are the same: I am here.
We need people with strong points of view, with a capability of putting
forward these points of views. The answer is to listen carefully to what
they really are saying and to follow what we believe is right.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
I'd be willing to invite Stallman or any other colourful characters who
apparently should be banned from the kernel mailing list to dinner and
discussion. I'm sure at the end of the night I'd find I couldn't support
all of their arguments in their entirety but I'd be a more well-informed
participant because of it.
DSL
-- The Linux C Programming
Lists: * http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/linuxcprogramming/
The Linux C++ Programming Lists:
* http://lists.linux.org.au/listinfo/tuxcpprogramming/
> Without selling it? Rather tricky to accomplish. And yes, he does effectively
> say selling it is wrong - when he says that users should be allowed to give
> it away.
You know, I could come up with a bunch of ways to reply to this, but not without essentially regurgitating a lot of writing that available as a FAQ. And I'm sure that you could come up with a bunch of answers to that, and it all comes down to religion.
Never the less we are now very off topic.
--
A completion is a new beginning.
http://www.hacksaw.org -- http://www.privatecircus.com -- KB1FVD
Hi,
On Mon, 21 Oct 2002, Murray J. Root wrote:
> It's a simple concept. I produced it, it's mine until I say otherwise.
> You grant other laborers the right to profit from their labors, do you
> not?
Software isn't a product like others, once you've written it, you can
reproduce it indefinitely with almost no further costs. Profit is defined
as difference between the costs and the price you can realize on the
market. The market price is determined by supply and demand. What happens
now if a product is indefinitely available? The price drops until no
significant profit can be made anymore. (*)
So how is it possible to still make profit from an indefinitely available
product? The supply must be artifically limited by disallowing free trade
and withdrawing it from the free market. Whether this product is called
software, music, movie or information doesn't matter, they can only be
profitable, if access to it is limited.
The romantic picture of the kids one has to feed and which one wants to
take to the games is only useful to silence criticism. Larry should rather
be worried about their future, how will they access information? Can they
afford the in-depth information or has the base package to be enough, can
they easily share it with their friends?
We have to find ways now to keep information free and still allow the
people, who produce information (software, music or movies) to make a
living. Either that or we have to pay with our freedom.
bye, Roman
PS: (*) That's of course very simplified, in the short term these
mechanisms can be influenced, but hardly in the long term.
PPS: http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_3/soderberg/index.html
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Roman Zippel wrote:
> We have to find ways now to keep information free and still allow the
> people, who produce information (software, music or movies) to make a
> living. Either that or we have to pay with our freedom.
That tool is called copyright. The author releases the work
and in exchange for that a TEMPORARY government protected
monopoly on commercial replication of that work is granted.
The main problem nowadays seems to be that:
1) the "temporary" has been extended by politicians into
an effectively infinite time
2) the copyright holder has much more rights than those
granted by copyright legislation (due to eg. DMCA and
a on of other bought laws)
3) the work could be binary, it would be nice if the source
code would also have to be released into the public domain
after the copyright has expired
Rik
--
A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?
http://www.surriel.com/ http://distro.conectiva.com/
On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:56:05PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> Now please just understand that people are not entitled to agree with you or
> follow your advice.
"People" are entitled to agree with whomever they wish, including
Stallman.
> As you just demonstrated above you can't disconnect "freedom" and "power".
No such thing was demonstrated. That someone lacks the power to
silence critics does not imply that they lack the freedom to do
things that others criticize.
> To have the freedom to use free software you need the power to do so.
>
> Of course people have the power to ignore you, but it's their freedom to do
> so.
>
> Aren't we making circles here?
Indeed, you are.
<snip>
> Therefore the only real lever you have against BitKeeper or whatever else is
> to write a GPL equivalent. Until it happens please assume that those who
> chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom since it was
> made certain that no one is forced into using BK for Linux development
> already.
The ability to participate in Linux development without using BK
is not some benevolent gift, granted from on-high by Linus as a
favor to those who object to BK. It is assured by the GPL regardless
of some specific developers policy with regard to what tools are
used. No one had to "make certain that no one is forced." The
power to "force" doesn't exist.
--
Allen Campbell | Lurking at the bottom of the
[email protected] | gravity well, getting old.
On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Allen Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2002 at 01:56:05PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Therefore the only real lever you have against BitKeeper or whatever else is
> > to write a GPL equivalent. Until it happens please assume that those who
> > chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom since it was
> > made certain that no one is forced into using BK for Linux development
> > already.
>
> The ability to participate in Linux development without using BK
> is not some benevolent gift, granted from on-high by Linus as a
> favor to those who object to BK. It is assured by the GPL regardless
> of some specific developers policy with regard to what tools are
> used. No one had to "make certain that no one is forced." The
> power to "force" doesn't exist.
Whatever.
So what's your own particular problem with BK again if you don't have to use
it?
I hope you still have the hability to write and contribute GPL'ed code.
Nicolas
On Tue, Oct 22, 2002 at 04:32:54PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> So what's your own particular problem with BK again if you don't have to use
> it?
I didn't mention that I had a problem with it. I do have some
questions.
If I one day had the idea of building a filesystem where version
control is inherent, could this be done with BK? Further, I
understand the design of EXT3 uses a form of multiversion concurrency
to ensure metadata integrity. Does this constitute "substantially
similar capabilities?" That's pretty damn vague.
> I hope you still have the hability to write and contribute GPL'ed code.
--
Allen Campbell | Lurking at the bottom of the
[email protected] | gravity well, getting old.
People who disagree with my views about free software often say that
it is ineffective for me to talk about them. The ways they say this
are as boundless as human imagination, but the message is the same:
"No one agrees with you, no one cares, you are wasting your time, your
efforts are totally ineffective."
However, other evidence shows that some people are paying attention
even if others are not. Talking about principles encourages people to
think about them, and that has an influence. In the long run, it has
been very effective--merely writing code would have achieved little.
I conclude that the reason people insist so strongly that no one is
listening is precisely because that isn't so. The aim of these
messages is to cause discouragement. After recognizing this, one can
easily avoid believing them.
Until it happens please assume that those who
chose to use the tool they want are exercising their freedom
They are exercising a legal right to do something foolish and
harmful. Freedom does not mean nobody can criticize you.
On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 03:10:38AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> However, other evidence shows that some people are paying attention
> even if others are not. Talking about principles encourages people to
> think about them, and that has an influence. In the long run, it has
> been very effective--merely writing code would have achieved little.
On the contrary - without code, GPL means very little.
mark
--
[email protected]/[email protected]/[email protected] __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...
http://mark.mielke.cc/
> even if others are not. Talking about principles encourages people to
> think about them, and that has an influence. In the long run, it has
> been very effective--merely writing code would have achieved little.
On the contrary - without code, GPL means very little.
That does not contradict what I said. You're talking about a
different though related question.
Any software license gets its main effect from being applied to
certain code. But the code alone would not spread the philosophy of
free software. To do that, we must talk about the philosophy. If I
had only written free software, and not explained about the freedom it
gives you, the code might have contributed to the advance of
technology but it would not have contributed much to the advance of
human freedom.