Python is slow?

[Steven D'Aprano]

You can only distribute modifications to gnuplot itself as patches,
but you can distribute it freely ...

[…]

Where's the non-free bit?

You're not free to modify gnuplot and redistribute the result.

That you're free to distribute patches is nice, but it's not enough to
make the work free. The freedom to help people by giving them an
*already-modified* gnuplot is restricted by the copyright holder.

It's an artificial restriction on redistribution of derived works,
making them second-class for the prupose of getting them into people's
hands.

Yes it is. It seems a strange, unnecessary restriction. But is it
sufficient to make it non-free? I don't think so.

In case you are thinking that gnuplot allows people to *only* distribute
the diffs, not the original source to apply the diffs onto, that is not
the case. I quote from gnuplot > help copyright

"Permission to distribute the released version of the source code along
with corresponding source modifications in the form of a patch file is
granted with same provisions 2 through 4 for binary distributions."

Those provisions aren't terribly onerous, although #3 may be considered a
privacy issue:

2. add special version identification to distinguish your version
in addition to the base release version number,
3. provide your name and address as the primary contact for the
support of your modified version, and
4. retain our contact information in regard to use of the base
software.

That, too, would be a non-free requirement.


I try to judge freedom of a software work by the freedoms granted to all
recipients of the work, not by the approval of some organisation.

Yes, but you accept some restrictions as legitimate. For example, you
accept the restriction that the GPL makes that says you may not
redistribute a modified work without making the source code available.
That's a restriction, but it's not enough to disqualify it from being a
free software licence. In fact, that restriction is *necessary* to make
it a free software licence in the sense we're talking about. So "free"
does not mean "no restrictions", it merely means "none of some sorts of
restrictions, but other restrictions are okay". Likewise the restriction
that GPL software must be distributed with a copy of the appropriate
licence.

It is useful to compare the "diffs only" licence to two different GPL-
related scenarios. Scenario one is clearly against the spirit of the GPL,
and possibly (hopefully!) the letter as well. Scenario two is not.

(1) I distribute the modified source code encrypted and charge $1,000,000
for a NON-TRANSFERABLE licence to the encryption key. If you don't have
the encryption key, that's your bad luck.

(2) I distribute the modified source code archived in a tar file, and
refuse to offer it in any other format. If you don't have an untar
application, that's your bad luck.

It's my contention that the restriction of supplying diffs is closer to
Scenario 2 than to Scenario 1. The modified source is supplied, but it is
split into two pieces: the official source, plus a set of diffs.
Reversing that to get the modified source is not much more difficult than
untarring a tarball.

 

[Paul Boddie]

This is where the useful "your freedom to swing your fist ends at the
tip of the other man's nose" applies: As soon as the act you wish to
perform is restricting the freedom of another, you're not
contemplating an act of freedom, but an act of power over another.
Freedoms should be protected, but only within the limits imposed by
the freedoms of others.

This is a very good explanation of what copyleft is all about. I
suppose one could regard copyleft as a means to preserve the "maximal
common freedom" in a system - if anyone else were to acquire more
power or privilege to do something, that would diminish the freedoms
of others.

Paul

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

I do, because a natural, beneficial act (modify the work and
redistribute it) that has no technical reason to restrict, is
artifically restricted.

We agree that the restriction is artificial, and I think irrational
(although I'd be interested in hearing the gnuplot developers' reasoning
before making a final judgment).

But I just don't see the requirement that modified software be
distributed in form X (original source + diffs) versus form Y (modified
source in a tar ball) or form Z (an rpm) to be that big a deal. Not
enough to make it "non-free software".

I simply don't think that having to run some variation on

patch -i patchfile.patch

is a requirement so onerous that it makes the gnuplot licence non-free.
Perhaps I'm just more tolerant of eccentricities than you

 

[George Sakkis]

We agree that the restriction is artificial, and I think irrational
(although I'd be interested in hearing the gnuplot developers' reasoning
before making a final judgment).

But I just don't see the requirement that modified software be
distributed in form X (original source + diffs) versus form Y (modified
source in a tar ball) or form Z (an rpm) to be that big a deal. Not
enough to make it "non-free software".

I simply don't think that having to run some variation on

patch -i patchfile.patch

is a requirement so onerous that it makes the gnuplot licence non-free.
Perhaps I'm just more tolerant of eccentricities than you

What you're missing is that for Free Software (TM) zealots it's a
matter of philosophical principle, totally unrelated to how easy is to
overcome the restriction. There is not a "practicality beats purity"
clause in the FSF Bible.

George

 

[José Matos]

What you're missing is that for Free Software (TM) zealots it's a
matter of philosophical principle, totally unrelated to how easy is to
overcome the restriction. There is not a "practicality beats purity"
clause in the FSF Bible.

The gnuplot license is a free software according to FSF, what is the problem
here after all?

 

[Terry Reedy]

We agree that the restriction is artificial, and I think irrational
(although I'd be interested in hearing the gnuplot developers' reasoning
before making a final judgment).

I believe it is a matter of preserving clarity of authorship, just as is
the quoting mechanism we take for granted in posts like this. If I
removed the quote marks above and silently edited what Ben and you
wrote, I might upset someone and certainly could confuse readers.

tjr

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

That, if it were to be prosecuted under law, would be a matter already
covered by laws other than copyright: fraud, libel, etc.

Note that I consider a work free even if it fails to grant “the right to
distribute misrepresentations of the author's wordsâ€, because that act
is an exercise of undue power over another person, and so falls outside
the limit imposed by the freedoms of others.

But distributing modified source code *does* misrepresent the author's
words, because you confuse authorship. Given only the modified version of
the source code, how is the recipient supposed to identify which parts of
the source code were written by the original authors and which parts
where written by you?

If that is why the gnuplot people do not allow you to distribute such
modified documents, then the only "freedom" they fail to grant is exactly
the one you don't consider necessary for a free licence: "the right to
distribute misrepresentations of the author's words".

 

[greg]

We agree that the restriction is artificial, and I think irrational

I think it's irrational for another reason, too -- it's
actually vacuous. There's nothing to prevent you creating
a set of patches that simply say "Delete all of the original
source and replace it with the following".

Then you're effectively distributing the modified source in
its entirety, just with a funny header at the top of each
source file that serves no useful purpose.

 

[Terry Reedy]

I think it's irrational for another reason, too -- it's
actually vacuous. There's nothing to prevent you creating
a set of patches that simply say "Delete all of the original
source and replace it with the following".

Then you're effectively distributing the modified source in
its entirety, just with a funny header at the top of each
source file that serves no useful purpose.

The useful purpose is to show that you are distributing your work under
someone else's product name, instead of making up your own as you ought to.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

The useful purpose is to show that you are distributing your work under
someone else's product name, instead of making up your own as you ought
to.

Except that the approach Terry Reedy gets around that without violating the
licence.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

The gnuplot license is a free software according to FSF ...

Not listed as one
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html/view?searchterm=license>.

 

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

Note that I consider a work free even if it fails to grant “the right
to distribute misrepresentations of the author's wordsâ€, because that
act is an exercise of undue power over another person, and so falls
outside the limit imposed by the freedoms of others.

That's the difference between software and, say, an artistic work like a
novel, poem or illustration. Software is nearly always a work in progress.
That's why we have Free Software licences for the former, and Creative
Commons licences for the latter.

 

[José Matos]

Not listed as one
<http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html/view?searchterm=license>.

Look further
http://directory.fsf.org/project/gnuplot/