M
Martin DeMello
I've often thought that Heinlein's "Coventry", which deals with this
topic, ought to be required reading somewhere in a child's school
career.
martin
I've often thought that Heinlein's "Coventry", which deals with this
topic, ought to be required reading somewhere in a child's school
career.
martin
C
Chad Perrin
No . . . but it's *easier* to distribute it immediately, for a single
lone individual, than to maintain a publicly-available point of contact
with source code archives and redundant backups for a period of no less
than three years' time after the date of the last binary distribution of
the software. Your objection is a bit like saying that if you get an
infected cut, you don't have to use Bactine or iodine on it -- you can
always just saw off your arm. Thank you, Doctor, I think I'd rather use
Bactine, or *not get cut*.
. .
In light of the history of this discussion, that's pure sophistry.
Thank you for divesting my statement of any context, then reversing my
meaning. Congratulations.
. . and the weakness of it (as I said) is that in many cases the GPL's
requirements impose a minimum limit on the resources one must have
available to distribute software. Those mechanisms often are not free
(as in beer).
The law is a tool of protection because of the force with which it is
backed up. When that force is applied to those innocent of wrongdoing,
the gun to the head is a bad thing; when applied to those guilty of
wrongdoing, it's protective of the innocent. I wasn't saying the law is
necessarily bad -- just that it's a gun to the head. Some people need a
gun to the head. Some do not. The GPL makes some assumptions about who
needs a gun to his or her head that I find profoundly disturbing in its
implications.
By the way, as I said in another subthread, the FSF, with the GPL as its
weapon, is pushing "freedoms", not rights. One need not have possession
of a thing to have the right to redistribute it -- only to have the
ability, which one might consider a component of the "freedom" to
redistribute depending on how one defines "freedom". Please don't
confuse "right" with "ability" or "freedom".
Heh. Well, yes, that's likely the case. That's what threading mail
user agents and email clients are for, though.
I just noticed this. I'll have to check it out.
C
Chad Perrin
I'm a huge fan of Heinlein, but I haven't read that one. I'll take this
as a recommendation, and hunt through used book stores for it at some
point in the near future.
G
Gregory Brown
Using the License of Ruby (so long as you follow it exactly),
guarentees GPL compatibility while still extending to you users the
choice of a more permissive license, on par with that of the MIT or
BSD licenses.
To me, this is a matter of pragmatic compromise. I'm totally in the
'we can't ignore the GPL' camp but we also shouldn't impose it on
others.
Matz (possibly following Larry Wall's example) has provided a good way
to compromise. Dual licensing is confusing but would be less so if it
became a defacto community standard. (Except in situations where
that's not possible, of course).
R
Robert Dober
That is a reasonable position well explained. Sorry for using a word
which can be easily missintrepreted, that was not the best expression
I used.
It was your metaphor, not mine
I am against guns (and knives forthat matter) in general.
Please do not insist that it is enforced it is your choice to use the
licence or not.
Continue the good work of pointing the restrictions of the GPL out,
but I feel that you are unjust on this little point, forgive me my
bluntness.
If you really think it is enforced - though I really do not see why -
well than I will not argue about it anymore but I feel that you make
mistake on that point.
Since you started analyzing my statements somewhat, I
You are right that is one of my many bad habits, I can see that now.
Cheers
Robert
R
Robert Dober
Well there were worse threads concerning OTness
Right now I see that this really goes to your heart, I appreciate andrespect people who speak out loudly what they feel.
I will take a brake now, it is not fair anyway two against one, that
is Rick & Robert against Chad.
I still feel that the GPL can be the right thing, especially for Ruby
code, which is source anyway. When it comes to Linuxen there are many
potential problems.
I will come back to you OL when/if I have learnt more about it. We
have a very anti-FSF guy in the office I will have some good talks
with him and then do my research.
For me that was a very good thread (can you hear the violins?
sorry if I made you angry with my direct approach.
Cheers
Robert
G
Gary Williams
Coventry is a short story, not a book.
"Coventry" by Robert A. Heinlein Originally published in the magazine
Astounding Science Fiction, July 1940, collected in Revolt In 2100
(1953), and The Past Through Tomorrow (1967) =20
Revolt in 2100 & Methuselah's Children
Includes "Coventry," "If This Goes On," "Misfit" and the novel
"Methuselah's Children," and is currently in print.
Sorry for the brief digression...
Gary Williams
I'm a huge fan of Heinlein, but I haven't read that one. I'll take this
as a recommendation, and hunt through used book stores for it at some
point in the near future.
"Coventry" by Robert A. Heinlein Originally published in the magazine
Astounding Science Fiction, July 1940, collected in Revolt In 2100
(1953), and The Past Through Tomorrow (1967) =20
Revolt in 2100 & Methuselah's Children
Includes "Coventry," "If This Goes On," "Misfit" and the novel
"Methuselah's Children," and is currently in print.
Sorry for the brief digression...
Gary Williams
I'm a huge fan of Heinlein, but I haven't read that one. I'll take this
as a recommendation, and hunt through used book stores for it at some
point in the near future.
G
Gregory Brown
It was your metaphor, not mine
that matter) in general.
Please take this discussion off list. It's far beyond gone.
R
Rick DeNatale
It's often easier to do all kinds of things which are either illegal,
or in this case breach a contract.
Let me point out a case where the GPL did some good. When Linksys put
out the WRT-54G router, they 'neglected' to tell anyone that the
firmware was based on linux and other open source GPL licensed
software. That fact came to light when a hacker discovered a security
hole in one of the diagnostic pages which allowed execution of shell
commands by clever manipulation of an input field for a ping address.
When this was discovered, pressure on LinkSys to honor their license
under the GPL led to the release of the source code which led in turn
to community based software, like OpenWRT, for that and other similar
wireless routers.
You seem to be ignoring my point which is that the GPL does not
require source code to be packages with a live CD or any other
packaging, only that such a distribution tell the recipient where the
source code can be obtained.
I don't follow the analogy,
cut = distribute GPL binaries?
infection = have to distribute source?
bactine = distribute source?
saw off your arm = ????
I wasn't actually objecting to anything, I was trying to answer your
question about LiveCDs by pointing out that the GPL doesn't require
bundling source code, which seemed to be your implication.
I THOUGHT that your statement starting with "There's a difference
between downloading software.." was restating your opinion that the
GPL required distribution of source whenever binaries were
distributed, and that this was the conflation. Re-reading it I now
realize that I don't even understand what that statement means.
And the GPL is not about making software free as in beer, it's about
making software free as in freedom.
You are free to use GPL software as you wish. If you create a
derivative work, you must not distribute that derivative work without
also making all of the GPL source code needed to compile that
derivative work available.
The argument against following the GPL license terms seems to me to be
something like arguing that one should be able to live in a
jurisdiction and be selective in which of the laws of that community
one obeys. It might be more convenient NOT to pay taxes, but...
Now I've gotten your point that YOU prefer the BSD license. That's
your right. My only goal has been to clear up some misconceptions
about what the GPL requires, and has always required, and what it
doesn't require.
C
Chad Perrin
I'm sure you'd appreciate and respect me quite a bit, right up to the
point where you got tired of it. I've never been one to give way to
what I know to be wrong (though some might say my "knowing" is
incorrect).
I don't mind so much. I'm often in a minority position in such debates,
because it's usually only where I agree with the minority that I see a
real need to speak up. When I'm in the majority, I tend to want to read
the opposing viewpoint for ideas that may have escaped my analysis,
rather than simply silence it.
I sometimes find myself as opposed to the viewpoints of anti-FSF guys,
because too often they're really kind of anti-FLOSS in general.
Hopefully that's not the sort of person you have available to you at
work.
For me that was a very good thread (can you hear the violins?
sorry if I made you angry with my direct approach.
You didn't. I appreciate it when someone offers a different perspective
on my own opinions, as long as that perspective doesn't become
repetitive and obstinate rather than thoughtful and well-reasoned.
C
Chad Perrin
I've read Methuselah's Children (as a stand-alone novel), but I could
stand to read it again. My memory of it is sketchy, though I seem to
recall liking it as much as anything else Heinlein wrote. Thanks for
the information.
C
Chad Perrin
Source code distribution is enforced any time you choose to distribute
binaries, with certain edge-case exceptions. I chose to refer to it
with a succinct term, rather than explain the whole of the matter by
passing around a paragraph like a closure in my discussion of the
matter. Please make an effort to understand my intended meaning when
reading my words.
I didn't mean to give you the impression that I disapproved. Feel free
to question, or draw conclusions from, my statements -- just don't be
surprised if you make an assumption and I correct it. No biggie.
C
Chad Perrin
I think that particular part of the discussion is finished, anyway. I
have no interest in perpetuating a gun control debate on a programming
discussion list right now.
R
Robert Dober
But I do appreciate you, I only feel that I have said enough for what
I know for now.
This person might be, it is quite a young guy, but that gives meI don't mind so much. I'm often in a minority position in such debates,
because it's usually only where I agree with the minority that I see a
real need to speak up. When I'm in the majority, I tend to want to read
the opposing viewpoint for ideas that may have escaped my analysis,
rather than simply silence it. Nothing to add here
I sometimes find myself as opposed to the viewpoints of anti-FSF guys,
because too often they're really kind of anti-FLOSS in general.
Hopefully that's not the sort of person you have available to you at
work.
insperation, I have to check some facts.
I think the only reason I do not take such strong POV anymore is that
I have been bitten too often by the B/W paradigm. I want to learn more
about the Shades of Gray (hi James
.
Than everything is fine
I do not want to repeat myself (DRY in adifferent sense
CheersRobert
C
Chad Perrin
Ethically (as opposed to legally) speaking, I have a very difficult time
understanding how anyone can consider what amounts to an ex post facto
"contract" to be a good faith agreement. Any EULA or equivalent
"contract" is in fact based on an assumption of agreement, imposed after
it's too late rather than clearly agreed in advance as any enforceable
contract should be -- at least, the way EULAs and the like are currently
handled.
To see the GPL ethically enforceable as a contract, one would not be
able to download the software and GPL text as a single download, then
read or ignore the GPL. Rather, the user would need to download the
license or otherwise read it and agree to it *before* having access to
the download. Otherwise, the user already has the licensed content in
his or her possession before the so-called "contract" is ever brought
into play. That's a bit like telling someone that eating any of the
burrito he has already half-finished means he's bound by law to perform
some kind of service for you.
If the GPL were properly presented as an agreement before access to the
software is granted, I wouldn't have any problem with it as a contract.
As a general-purpose "license for all things open source", however, I
have pretty distinct issues with it (as I'm sure you're aware by now).
You may have to point out in exacting detail how the GPL was a critical
factor in ensuring that a specific good result came about, and how that
result was in fact better than all likely alternative results if it
wasn't GPLed software in the first place.
I'm not ignoring it. In fact, I've very specifically pointed out the
trade offs between failing to distribute at all, forced immediate
distribution of source code, and continuous maintenance of source code
archives in case someone wants the source code at some point in the next
three years.
No. Close, though.
cut = software licensed GPL
infection = have to distribute source to distribute binaries
bactine = don't distribute binaries, or only distribute if the
recipient will take the source at the same time
saw off your arm = spend hundreds or thousands of dollars maintaining
source archives with redundant backups over a period of no less than
three years after last distribution of a binary
My point was that the GPL requires *either* of:
1. bundling source code
2. maintaining source archives for long periods
. . in most cases.
The conflation to which I referred was *yours*, not the GPL's.
. . and my objection is that it grants greater "freedom" to software
than to people in possession of software, all else being equal. I never
objected to a failure to make software "free as in beer" to acquire.
My argument is not that I'd rather not follow all the laws in a given
jurisdiction just because I'm contrary, but that some of those laws are
unethical and/or lead to (hopefully unintended) negative consequences.
My goal has been to clear up your misconceptions that I don't know what
I'm talking about, to demonstrate that I *do* in fact know something
about what the GPL does and does not require, to eliminate some of the
spin on the GPL that obscures some of its shortcomings, and to ensure
that it's clear I don't prefer the BSD just because I'm some kind of
froot loop with a chip on his shoulder, but rather because of very real,
very pertinent effects that forced source distribution as a condition of
binary distribution (whether immediate or delayed) impose as costs on
those of us who would rather just be able to do whatever we want with
software *in our possession* as long as we respect others' rights to do
the same, barring explicit contractual agreements.
No, the GPL doesn't qualify as an explicit contractual agreement,
because the agreement part of that is only *implicit*.
R
Rick DeNatale
Have you actually read the GPL in its entirety? You seem to think
that I can't download and run a GPL program without being forced to
distribute source code. The GPL distinguishes between using a GPL
licensed program and re-distributing it in original or modified form.
Here's what it says:
"Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does."
And FSF has been careful to license tools like GCC and Bison to allow
their use to develop non-free software.
The provisions of the GPL which you seem to have issue with only come
into play when you re-distribute the code, or a derivative work. In
the case of redistributing code you got elsewhere, it just means that
you can't strip out the GPL license or references to it in the code.
The analogy is that you can't ethically distribute a copy of a book
which omits the copyright statement and expect to be free from
copyright infringement claims by the copyright holder. In fact, in
the case of a book, the lack of a license to redistribute means that
distributing copies of the book WITH or without the copyright
statement is infringement of the copyright holders rights.
I don't see how this is ex post facto. You had the agreement when you
decided to create the derivative work. And it's not a contract, it's
a license granted by the copyright holder(s). It's what allows you to
use the software to create derivative works. This is explained
clearly in section 5 of the GPL.
As for the first part of that, the FSF forced a large company Cisco in
this case, to make the software avaiable under the terms of the GPL.
The result is that I and many others are running much improved code on
our wireless router. I feel no obligation to explore all likely
alternative results.
Or burn a CD or two, save them in a safe place, and offer to provide
copies at your cost of copying the CD and sending them a copy at their
request.
Which is why I prefer to use software licensed under the GPL.
Well, here's the complete thread
Chad said:
Rick replied:
Chad continues:
Rick replies:
The only things I see being conflated here are the requirements to
distribute binary and source *together*, and that wasn't done by me,
my friend.
No, it give freedom to people to use the software without restriction,
the freedom to redistribute it unaltered (without removing the
copyrights and license so the rights are extended to the recipients),
the freedom to make and use derivative works which include the
software in whole or in part, and the freedom to distribute those
derivative works.
Now as they say, with freedom comes responsibility, and when you
exercise that last freedom you have some responsibilities spelled out
in the license. This doesn't have to entail large resources, keeping
a few CDs and duplicating them on demand, charging for the expense of
duplication and mailing is enough to satisfy that responsibility. For
a larger project, it's quite likely though that the infrastructure to
provide source from a version control system already exists for the
projects purposes.
The real responsibility is not to be sloppy with your source code control.
I think that you are greatly exaggerating the cost of source
distribution, particularly as a delta to the source code control which
any responsible project would and should exercise. I also think you
ignore the rights of the authors of software to ensure that their
contributions are used in a way consistent with *their* wishes.
And in the case of the GPL there is an explicit agreement, spelled out
in the GPL and triggered when one re-distributes the software, or
distributes a derivative work. And the requirement to supply source
code only comes in for derivative work. Re-distributing unchanged GPL
software, in it's entirety simply extends the originator's
responsibility to provide source to whoever you gave the copy to. In
other words the third party can't come to you for the source, he/she
has to go to the originator.
Chad, I think we've run this into the ground. I'll leave it to others
to decide for themselves who understands what.
I'm getting tired of repeating myself, which, as an advocate of DRY bothers me.
C
Chad Perrin
Have you actually read what I've been saying? You seem to think I've
said that you can't download and run a GPL program without being forced
to distribute source code.
In short, yes: I've read the GPL. I am not that straw man over there.
Nor is my argument that straw man over there. Thanks for playing.
I'll ignore the rest of what you said about this subject, since it's all
predicated on that one gross error in interpretation of what I've said.
That's fun, 'cause without exploring likely alternative results you
cannot really make a credible case for the outcome being better with the
GPL than with some other license.
Have you heard of delamination (for example)? Do you really think there
will never come a time when someone takes someone else to court for
failing to take "good faith", but exceedingly expensive, measures to
guarantee source code availability?
I prefer to use software that I can distribute as, and when, I see fit,
without having to worry about covering my fourth point of contact
legally. I prefer "Oh, it's BSD? Okay, I'm safe!" over "Oh, it's GPL?
Damn. Do I have source for this exact version of the binary? Am I a
first-generation redistributor, or do I need to maintain archives? How
much is this going to cost me?"
That's not the complete thread. There was more context before that.
That's funny. If you ignore my statements, they go away.
It strips away the freedom to dispose of it as you see fit, unless you
only see fit to dispose of it by:
A) using it but never letting anyone else have a copy
B) giving it to someone, but only if (s)he wants the source too
C) giving it to someone, but maintaining an archive of source code
What if I just have a binary lying around, someone asks for a copy, and
I want to give it to him? What if it's an obsolete binary, the original
project is unfindable, and I didn't happen to save the source code in
the first place? I guess I just have to tell him "No, sorry, I'm
legally prevented from giving it to you because I didn't think far
enough ahead to archive the source." Are you really trying to tell me
that's not an effect of the GPL's terms?
If you *force someone to comply* with your notion of a proper
responsibility, then it's not responsibility, and the attendant state is
not freedom. Suddenly, it's just liability and privilege.
No . . . that's the "real" requirement of liability. Responsibility
would involve not being sloppy with your source code *without* having a
gun to your head.
Considering I haven't laid out a price schedule in any concrete terms, I
think your claim that I'm exaggerating costs is kind of specious.
I also think that once you *give away* or *sell* something, it is *no
longer yours* and you no longer have a right, as author or otherwise, to
dictate how others dispose of it. Period. If you want to maintain
control of it, keep it in your possession. Otherwise, recognize that
giving up possession (without explicit contractual agreements) should be
synonymous with giving up control.
There's a difference between explicitly defined terms and an explicit
agreement. The idea that someone *agrees to the GPL* is almost always
implicit -- you don't actually *know* someone agreed to it in any
meaningful sense. All you know is that the terms of the GPL are
available to that person to peruse, unless you sit there and watch him
or her sign on a dotted line. *That* would be an explicit agreement.
It boggles my mind that you can say that, then quote these words back at
me:
G
The release of the Linksys router source code was a direct reaction to
the discovering of GPL violations. The original URL for the source
code was http://www.linksys.com/support/gpl.asp... that speaks
volumes, doesn't it?
E
Eleanor McHugh
Which if course is the main point of contention between the BSD and
GPL camps. If I were to release code under BSD it would ensure I
received recognition for the effort involved in writing it, if I
released under GPL it would allow me to control how distributors and
derivators used the code. The former is essentially a gift to the
community (in the same way as a named Hospital Wing) whilst the
latter is more akin to a feudal patent - only one where the
obligation is measured in source code distribution and resubmission.
Of course I'm not sure Richard Stallman would wish to be described as
architect of a system of feudal governance, but that's a discussion
for another day ;p
What this all boils down to at core is this: both BSD and GPL folks
are good, decent people. BSD folks like to give gifts to the
individual developer whilst GPL folks prefer to give their gifts to
the community of end-users - without the former the world would have
a lot fewer clever developers, and without the latter we'd all be
stuck with proprietary tools of dubious provenance.
Which of the two groups any one of us falls in at any given time
surely depends on what we're hoping to achieve with our current project?
Ellie
Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
W
Walter Prins
Yes actually. It's never ever happened to me. Not worth worrying aboutChad said:
IMO.