People only have to honour requests for the corresponding source if
asked for it. They are not violating copyright by default.
Well, the gospel according to the FSF says otherwise:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnchangedJustBinary
If you
think Ubuntu are exposing people to legal peril by advocating that
people make copies of Ubuntu for their friends, why don't you tell
Mark Shuttleworth about it?
Because I don't really think the peril is real -- a) nobody's going to
sue because of the negative PR consequences; and b) fair use would nip
the lawsuit in the bud. In fact, the very *lack* of warning on the
Ubuntu site would help the end user in the lawsuit.
Negative consequences for people who don't want to touch GPL-licensed
software and who reserve the right to make proprietary versions of
rst2pdf.
Negative consequences for people who don't want to tell other people
what to do.
Yes, but you don't insist that people "share alike". I don't demand
that you insist that, either, but you clearly object to other people
putting that condition on their own works.
You're still not paying attention. I think it's fine if people want
to do that, but I still think there is "force" involved, and that it
is not the best solution for all situations. I also believe that
legally, the GPL license tries to overreach in its control of other
people's software, but that morally that may not matter, because the
intentions of the license's author are clear.
Then you've done a very bad job communicating them. Laying off the
bizarre imagery might help remedy that somewhat.
I didn't start off with bizarre imagery. That only came about when
people started trying to use really lame excuses about why my initial
statement was wrong.
[...]
I didn't just write that later. I wrote it in my very first post,
which you just quoted a few lines up, apparently without even
bothering to read it closely.
I did read it closely. Now read your own comment closely and take
particular notice of the word "choose".
In my initial post, I mentioned that the force kicks in "once the
decision is made..." That implies a choice. Knowingly or not, you
have finally acknowledged that my initial post on this issue is
reasonably accurate, but even in so doing, you keep pointing to
specific words there to try to show that I'm contradicting myself.
Which, if I am, is only because I'm overreaching to try to combat the
overreaching on the other side. I fully stand by my first post on
this issue, and most of the posting since then has been to correct
misunderstandings and apparently willful misinterpretations of that.
I think Ubuntu can maybe see the case for moving their notice on their
"legal" page to the download page if you can make it successfully.
The point, which I have made in another post, is that a fairly normal
way of acquiring Ubuntu -- giving a friend a CD -- violates the GPL as
written, and this is by design. The goal is to get more free software
users even if they are abusing the license, and only punish those who
are abusing the license in particular ways. BTW, there is nothing
even on Ubuntu's legal page warning about this possible consequence
for sharing a CD, or at least not in a very clear fashion.
Or
is your point that people have to be "warned" about that inconvenient
GPL licence?
I don't think that would be a bad idea at all. Say what you want
about Microsoft; if you install Windows, their software is quick to
explain all the licensing terms in gory detail. Mind you, even that's
not really in English, but they get more points for the attempt than
Ubuntu.
Yes, always ready with a pertinent response, I see.
I am ready with pertinent responses to well thought-out arguments, and
with impertinent responses to silly arguments. From a practical
perspective, Microsoft turning a blind eye to increase market share,
and GPL authors turning a blind eye to increase market share and/or
goodwill are identical. The fact that money is involved in one
instance and not in the other is immaterial. The fact that you
believe in the goals of one and not the goals of the other is
immaterial. The true fact is that, in both cases, copyright law in
conjunction with the license would allow the author to go after
several individuals for license violations, and (IMHO) a deliberate
decision has been made not to do so. There have been numerous well-
publicized instances of people giving away copies they burned of
Ubuntu without corresponding source or a written offer, and no
negative consequences that I can see.
[...]
No, you said "If you don't like them, don't use GPL-licensed
software."
In the context of developing and redistributing it. If you hate the
GPL so much, you might not feel comfortable even using the software,
either, but that's up to you. You're the one with the problem with the
GPL.
The context was right after talking about Mepis getting slapped, and
how all the clauses of the GPL were there for a reason, and if you
don't like the clauses, don't use the software. I did not read it
with the contextual limitations you are now claiming for it. You,
either deliberately or carelessly, have written several thing like
this that could easily be misconstrued, and this sometimes exasperates
me to the point where I write impertinent responses.
And for you, libraries like readline are apparently not really worth
anything, either. It's always interesting to see the case made for
incorporating something into another system because it apparently has
little value relative to the entire system, but should the request be
made that the incorporated work be dropped and replaced by something
rewritten to do the same job, it is suddenly far too much work.
No, you are absolutely misreading. The case is for *not*
incorporating something into another system, because it's really *not*
that much work, even though the replicated effort is a bit of a shame
in some cases.
All my position has ever been is this:
A copyrighted work denies recipients virtually all rights to do stuff
with that work, such as modify and redistribute it.
Translation: Copyright law gives the author a monopoly on
distribution and derivative works, and absent an explicit license to
make a derivative work or distribute a copy, the author can sue you
for making the derivative work or distributing the copy. Nobody
forces the author to do that; it is his choice alone, but if he makes
it, government might back him up in his attempt to damage you. Also,
in choosing a commercial license such as the GPL, the author is making
clear his intent to assert his rights, so you should take this very
seriously.
Copyleft licences
grant some privileges and uphold some obligations in order to ensure
that these privileges are universally maintained in all forms and
extensions of the work.
Translation:
Copyleft licences are a way for the author to communicate that he will
not sue you for making a derivative work or distributing a copy as
long as you distribute source code. In reality, the author probably
will not sue you even if you don't distribute source code with that
Ubuntu CD, but you really can't be sure about that, because he has
made it clear that he *really* wants you to give out the source code.
In fact, on the FSF website, they make it clear in several places that
the author really wants you to give away your *own* source code if it
could interoperate with the author's source code, *even if* you're not
actually giving away the author's source code.
Permissive licences grant more privileges to
immediate recipients but do not uphold as many obligations.
Translation:
Software with a permissive license is more of a gift. No quid-pro-quo
required, and the license does not attempt to claim rights over
anything except the actual licensed work.
You rejected the suggestion that people using permissive licences
afford users fewer privileges than those using copyleft licences,
That is correct. All "privileges" as you put it are merely things
that a user can do with the code without fear of a lawsuit by the
author, and when an author uses a permissive license, he indicates
that the things that he could possibly find egregious enough to sue
over are very few. For example, if you give an Ubuntu CD to your
friend without giving source code or a written offer of source code,
you have violated the license on quite a few of the programs on the
CD, but not, for example, on Python or Apache, because these licenses
do not attempt to forbid you from doing this.
yet on balance when considering all forms and
extensions of the work, they do.
Translation:
An author using the GPL is using the threat of lawsuits against *other
authors* to force the other authors to make their work also available
under the GPL. Some authors attempt use this threat even against the
authors of works which a user could conveniently link against a GPLed
work, even when the authors of these other works have not copied or
distributed the GPL work themselves. Some people, including Mr.
Boddie, feel that the public benefits of this license pyramid scheme
greatly outweigh any negative consequences of this scheme, in part by
equating the scheme itself with freedom and morality, and then using
the tautological logic that anybody who feels the negative
consequences must be immorally against freedom.
And the only such privilege that the copyleft licences withholds
from recipients is that of withholding any other privilege from others
who receive the work.
Translation:
We really are serious about suing people who violate the license in
some cases. Even though the stated purpose of the license is to
encourage sharing, the only really safe thing to do is to not share
that Ubuntu CD, because if you don't give out the exact source to the
exact object on the CD to everybody you give the CD to, you could be a
target. Well, not really. That would be bad PR. But to protect your
rights, we have to design the license in such a way that we do reserve
the right to sue you under these conditions. Just so you know.
You objected to the suggestion that people using permissive licences
do not care about maintaining such privileges ("an uncaring bunch"),
yet it can be said that they surely do not actively care about the
matter of such privileges being maintained:
Oh? They take down their source archives on a whim?
I have encountered
proprietary variants of Apache technologies, and proprietary editions
of Python have been released from some vendors.
Oh, I see. Once someone releases a proprietary version of Python,
it's game over -- the PSF people realize they're outnumbered and
that's when take down their repository, so that's how privileges
disappear.
Seriously, to the extent there is nothing new in the proprietary
version, it's no big deal -- get it from the original source (probably
fewer viruses anyway). To the extent there are additional features in
the proprietary version, guess what? They were written by somebody
else and they don't belong to the PSF people. To the extent there are
bug fixes in the proprietary version that aren't in the mainline
Python distribution -- hah! that's extremely unlikely.
If they had considered
it important enough, they would not have chosen licences which
permitted the delivery of their work (or extended versions thereof) to
people where many of the privileges normally afforded to users have
been withheld.
"Normally afforded to users." Normalcy, in the software world, is
what Microsoft does. Sure, that's changing, and that's good, but I
don't think that word means what you think it does. But in any case,
you're right -- they didn't consider it important enough. Hint: that
doesn't make them uncaring.
You made the point that some people don't want to touch GPL-licensed
software because it might affect the permissively licensed software
that they are writing.
Correct.
Since the only effect of combining both forms
of software occurs when offering that to a user,
No, according to the FSF, the effect can happen even before the
software is combined, when non-GPLed software is offered to the user,
if that non-GPLed software can interact in certain ways with GPLed
software.
and that effect is to
uphold the copyleft obligations and maintain the corresponding set of
privileges, withholding only the privilege to deny recipients the
other privileges,
Translation:
The effect is to try to force licensing terms on software that the
author didn't write.
this means that it becomes impossible to make the
combined work a proprietary one.
That's obviously the strongly desired effect.
You then tried to sow uncertainty
about the validity and effectiveness of the GPL to achieve its
objectives.
The GPL is certainly effective in achieving some of its objectives. I
disagree how useful some of those are to society, sure. In terms of
the validity of the license, I believe that the selective enforcement
of the GPL will only target those actors who everybody can agree is
bad, but that the literal writing of the GPL and, especially the FSF's
FAQ about the GPL, is unsupportably overbroad. For example, a literal
reading really does require you to give grandma source or a written
offer if you install Ubuntu on her computer, but fair use would
decimate that claim in a heartbeat. Nonetheless, on a few of the
overbroad claims, the FSF prefers to promulgate FUD about how, for
example, it would not be possible for a proprietary program to
dynamically link to readline. The wouldn't actually file a lawsuit on
that issue, because the possibility they would lose is too great.
I can see why some people don't like the GPL.
Yes, you see, but you don't understand.
When the only notable
privilege it withholds is precisely that of taking the work of others
and making a proprietary product from it.
No, it theoretically keeps me from burning a Ubuntu CD and then
putting it on my grandmother's computer without also downloading a
bunch of source code. A literal reading of the license shows that the
restrictions really are that onerous.
all the claims about
coercion and ideology should be considered against this very function
of the licence. Then, the motivations of a number of its critics are
plain for all to see.
Here, we absolutely agree. Just want to be sure that we also agree
that the GPL license is *so* picky about how it goes about its
business that you can't even link GPL v2-only code with GPL v3 code
without incurring a license violation. It's really tough to innovate
on licensing when one of the major functions of the license is to
propagate exact copies of itself.
That some of those critics appeal to public outrage by using
references to terrorists, criminals and fundamentalists should hardly
be surprising, and I have come to expect no better in discussions of
this kind.
When the leader of your religion bandies terms like "freedom" and
"evil" about, what do you expect? Seriously?
Anything to accuse others of having an agenda
So now you're claiming RMS doesn't have an agenda? That's really
interesting. I think even he would disagree.
- even better
if that agenda can be blended in the popular imagination with those
aforementioned kinds of undesirable people - while doing as much as
they can to conceal their own.
My primary agenda is to explain that RMS does, in fact, have an
agenda, and the GPL was designed as a tool in furtherance of that
agenda, and that while the agenda does have some arguably noble goals,
before using the GPL people should understand its consequences both
for good and bad, and make their own determination about whether it's
the right license for their project.
Regards,
Pat
