Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Scott Moore Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 01:54 pm The standard Stallmanistic distortions. Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Joe Butler wrote: > > (In the following response, I'm paraphrasing what I understand to be > Stallman's position on the matter --- what I write isn't necessarily what > I personally believe. Personally, I'm ambivalent but leaning toward > Stallman's view.) > > >>So, what's the reasoning behind these licences that don't allow a commercial >>(closed source) apps from using them? > > > Software should be free. If Microsoft (for example) distributes an > operating system that the user can't tweak, check for security holes, or No, programmers are allowed to make a living as well. Its an honorable profession. If Mr. Stallman has a problem with that, then he can find another profession, or produce freeware, which he is. He just also feels compelled to tell others how to live their lives. > give to his friends, that's just plain wrong. This kind of exploitative > software needs to be stamped out permanently --- one simple way to do that > is make lots of good /free/ software, which will drive out the bad. And by Then make free software. If that eliminates the need to have paid software, thats fine. If free software and commercial software can live side by side, also fine. This "war" between freeware and "bad" commercial software is only in your mind. > putting everything under the GPL, we ensure that the bad software makers > will never be able to come back, since they can't pull the same > "steal the code, tweak it, and release it as closed source" tricks they > did back in the '80s. Nonsense. Releasing code that incorporates free code does not make the free code "stolen" (free is free) nor does it remove the freeware/openware from use, just the authors modifications to it. There have been cases in the past (AT&Ts suit against MIT) where a commercial app claimed the free code as their own, but this was based on the freeware authors inability to produce proof of having written the freeware code. This is an easy factor to overcome, especially in the internet age. > > >>In once sense, if the idea behind the GPL, etc. is to benefit others, this >>is a limitation that will reduce the number of people that can actually >>benefit from it. GPL is designed to prevent commercial use, since Stallman didn't want to "help" commercial wares, because commercial is "bad". We all respect that aside from any merits in the argument. If the GPL says that users have to paint their heads red, then fine, they wrote the software. But, despite Mr. Stallmans assertions, this actually TAKES AWAY freedom from the software. Authors are not free to use the software to make a profit, to advance the state of software in general. When Mr. Stallman says he wants freedoms, he means HIS freedoms, not others. > > > So? People shouldn't use closed-source software, because it's wrong. If > the GPL makes it harder to develop closed-source software, that is a > /benefit/, not a drawback. If you like open source software, use it make it, boycott paidware, whatever. But that doesen't make paidware bad, that just makes your arguments petty. Do you purchase goods? Do you participate in a capitolist economy? This system works, communisim failed. The problem is between your ears, not with the system, which works fine. > So it'll take longer for the free world to catch up to the evil > closed-source guys. So what? You can't wait two extra years for your free > e-mail client? > > >> A closed source app is not going to open its source just >>so it can use some GPL. If the source was allowed to be used by all, >>without the restrictions on commercial apps, that would benefit a lot more >>people, wouldn't it? > > > No, because then Microsoft (for example) would take it, improve it, and > release the improved version as closed-source. Everybody loses. > The standard distortion. Nobody, from Microsoft to IBM, can take free/openware and make it private. If they incorporated it, then only their changes would be proprietary. They can't erase the free/openware from your website. And, if you have proven that your openware was written by you and placed prior to their use of it, they cannot legally do anything about it either. And this is very simply proven. The "wayback" web site has in fact been used in courts to prove origination of web articles, and it is an easy matter to certify it yourself. > >>You'd have commercial apps integrating GPL stuff that people would buy if >>they offered something that the free alternatives didn't offer. You have >>all the free stuff, just as if the commercial app didn't exist (except that >>you might have fewer users due to some of them prefering the commercial >>alternative). You'd still have the open source 'community' that could >>emulate the commercial app, if they wanted to. > > > By the same argument, it's okay if I murder a bunch of people, because > there will still be a living 'community' just as if I weren't killing > people. That's just stupid. Murder is wrong, no matter how many people you > /don't/ kill. Nice logic. > > (Tangent: Stallman uses the murder-is-wrong analogy to ridicule those > programmers who complain that they can't write free software because they > need a commercial salary. "So it's okay to kill someone and take their > money, because you need money?" No! A big salary doesn't excuse > wrongdoing! And if you really can't make an honest living in /free/ > software design, you should go do something else for a few years. Build > houses, or become a policeman, or do something else that's not > intrinsically immoral.) So wild, wrong statements are proof ? Programming is "murder" ? > > >>I think if I were producing a commercial app and wanted to use some GPL, I'd >>just write an open source wrapper around the GPL stuff and release the >>wrapper so that commercial apps were allowed to use it - the wrapper might >>be a bit of a dog to use though ;-) Would that layer circumnavigate the >>restrictions? > > > No. The GPL is highly viral, and designed to be that way, for all the > reasons I mentioned above. > > However, releasing the original library under the LGPL would probably > take care of your concerns. It's not nearly as viral. > > HTH, > -Arthur Give me a break. What you and other extreme Stallmanists don't want to admit is that you are extreme zelots for a cause, the elimination of capitolisim for software. It is no more a noble goal than the elimination of capitolisim in general. Because you don't understand capitolisim, does not make it bad. Bye. .