opinion on Willem programmer?

[Wouter van Ooijen]

> Some a*hole can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same
> legal weight as copyright.

You are right, that's not the way it was done. It is the copyright law
that protects every program from being used in a way that is not allowed
by the license granted by its owner. Perfectly legal, and exactly the
same thing every other software company is doing. Copyleft is a (funny
name for a) license, not a law.

--

Wouter van Ooijen

-- -------------------------------------------
Van Ooijen Technische Informatica: www.voti.nl
consultancy, development, PICmicro products
docent Hogeschool van Utrecht: www.voti.nl/hvu

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Forrest W Christian-2]

sergio masci wrote:
> Some a*hole can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same
> legal weight as copyright. Oh yes I forgot they've thrown up a smoke
> screen by devising the GPL, which in my mind holds even less water.

The GPL is simply a license which the *copyright holder* has chosen to
license his work under....   I don't hear you complaining that Microsoft
don't allow you to use their licensed products in your works in a way
that they don't want you to.

> Firstly, here in the UK, you cannot supply goods or services and then
> apply restrictions after the fact. Providing all the source code and then
> saying "actually you can now only use it the way I say you can" is a BIG
> no no.

Actually, you got it backwards.   The source code is only provided to
you if you agree to the terms of the license which happens to be the GPL
in this discussion.  If you don't agree to the license accompanying the
source code, then you can feel free to return the software, and receive
a full refund of the purchase price paid.

If you believe that the "goods and services" were provided without
restrictions then I suggest you look at the very code that you are
claiming is being abused.   I have yet to see a GPL distribution which
does not clearly lay out what the terms and conditions for the use of
the code is.   You may *think* it's free but it's not.   Take a look in
any source code file from the linux kernel, or almost any other GPL'ed
work, and you'll find that it is clearly marked as a copyrighted work,
and that use of the work is subject to the GPL.

> Secondly, if anyone were mad enough to try to enforce GPL through
> litigation, the most they could hope to win are damages.

Are you missing something?  Have you not noticed the slew of GPL
lawsuits going on right now, in which the GPL owners are very much
asserting their rights and winning?   Sometimes over as simple an act as
not including the text of the GPL license with the product.

It is as simple as this:

If you want to use someone's code you have to agree to the terms that
they laid out when they provided it to you.    In this case it means
that you have to provide a copy of the license and make the source code
as modified by you (and as running in the device) available to any
downstream users.   That is the *price* you paid for the code when you
obtained it.   If you don't like it then you don't have to use the code.

If you *have* used the code but haven't complied with the license, then
the copyright owner of the code is entitled to see that you comply with
the license, and possibly pay damages.  I think most GPL authors just
want you to comply with the license.

-forrest
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Peter P.]

Apptech <apptech <at> paradise.net.nz> writes:
> (understandably) unhappy. While this is understandable, in
> either case you are trying to get 100% of the gain from 10%
> of the work required for the solution. In selected cases the

No, you are getting 100% of the gain for 0.01% of the work required when using
open source solutions, building on other people's work, and it's legal. And
your solution will only 'cost' that 0.01% which is, admittedly, contributed
freely, and  might make someone else's day, where he will also add a 0.01% of
his own, and on and on. Or, to put it in some people's favorite units: money::
Let's assume a certain open source OS has a price, its cost shall be dictated
by the market value of roughly equivalent products. Let's say that number shall
be 3000 USD a copy. Now per line of code that would be 0.001 USD (assuming 3E6
LOC). A 10,000 line contribution would have a market price of $10 and would be
a one off. If the value of the OS would scale due to market forces to its
present level, of $1 to $10 per copy (of open source operating system media or
download time) then the 10,000 LOC contribution's value would scale too. To
about 3 to 30 cents. Just for scale, a 10,000 LOC application would be a fully
featured email or IRC client with state of the art GUI and more. And, in fact,
it IS legal to charge money for open source software, your own and other's,
including GPL software.

> world may be a better place if you were allowed to do this
> but in most such examples the world would simply be a more
> lucrative place for those who were allowed to charge for the
> freely contributed work of others after adding a small
> component of their own. It's understandable why people would

You know what? I agree. But ... there is that pie chart of what a personal
'contribution' would make out in the context of the 'borrowed code'. The slice
of the contribution is invariably a one pixel wide radius in a full circle.
That's because a 10,000 line contribution to the 3 million lines of the
codebase it is 'aggregated' with is a speck of dust in a desert.
 
> explicitly release work as PD. The obvious solution is to
> base your 10% solution on a 90% PD foundation. That you will

Generally speaking PD is dead because lawyers killed it. It is legal to walk in
a rain forest in Brazil, pick up a frog, and patent it and the molecules it may
secrete worldwide for the pharma industry, as opposed to patenting the drug
made from it. I wonder what your favorite Creator would have to say about that.
The genesis of the GPL based open source movement involved several failed 'frog
pickup' attempts. That's why its thorns are so sharp on the
'pickup/grab/aggregate' side. Compare to BSD style licenses which are
grab-friendly.

So, lucratively picking frogs must be done elsewhere. The GPL 'rainforest' is a
no-no for that. Try the BSD 'rainforest' for that. Apple tried that and picked
a nice frog for its OS X 'technical spaces'. Notice how this is sliding into
politics? I think that GPL discussions are the secret Godwin clauses of this
mailing list. Every time GPL starts being referred to any thread degenerates
into a hissy fit argument.

Anyway, many people think that open source people are Communists. In fact, they
are mostly Libertarians. My favorite definitions for Communists and
Libertarians are:

Communist: Someone who thinks that he knows exactly what to do with everyone
else's time, lives and money.

Libertarian: Someone who thinks that he knows exactly what to do with his own
time, life and money.

As you see, by these definitions people who want to grab open source code are
... Communists, while the authors of open source aren't necessarily that ... :)

Peter
 


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Gerhard Fiedler]

Peter wrote:

> Try to run a game from that period

Maybe that's the difference... I don't run games :)

> With formats, I have my own bad experiences and those of close relatives
> whose irreplaceable autobiographies were written on ancient versions of
> something or other ...

"Something or other" is probably not a good thing to use to write an
autobiography :)  I just said that I had quite good experiences reading
older Word documents with newer Word versions. YMMV, especially of course
with other word processors.

> ... and which they were no longer able to open 10 years later. I had to
> tinker with scripts and filters for two weeks ...

Where was the original program? If it's a Windows program, I think there
are good chances that it still runs on more recent machines (and be it in a
virtual machine with only MS-DOS installed).

> By the way, their (my elderly relative's) email does not work *again*. I
> *wonder* how come my email never seems to be broken. Lucky guess?

My lucky guess is that this is because you're an expert user and they are
not. FWIW, I'm using Windows, and am reasonably enough "expert" so that my
email never is broken either -- which seems to indicate that this is not a
system problem, but more of a user problem.

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Byron Jeff]

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:19:36AM -0400, Harold Hallikainen wrote:
> Interesting discussion! If you produce an embedded system product that
> has, say, a custom application running on a GPL operating system or making
> calls to GPL libraries, how much source code must you release? Do you need
> to release the source code of the custom application, or just the open
> source stuff that you are including unmodified?

The former.

BTW AFAIK there are no GPL operating systems. Linux is GPL with a usual use
clause that states that usual usage of the OS by an application does not
consistute a derived work.

But the embedded system make the whole discussion a bit more murky.
Generally libraries will be LGPL. Under normal circumstances, the LGPL does
not require the source of an application that merely uses the library to be
released. However the code for the application must be released in such a
form so that the end user can upgrade the library if they so choose. On the
desktop, with shared libraries, this is simply the executable as the shared
libraries are dynamically linked in each time the application runs.

However, in an embedded system most of the time the application and
libraries share the same space and are statically linked, or compiled
together. So in order to meet the LGPL "relink requirement", this requires
the release of the source, so it reverts back to the GPL.

No neither license is real efficient in terms of balancing the rights of
the user and the rights of the developer in the embedded system case.

BAJ
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Harold Hallikainen-2]

Interesting discussion! If you produce an embedded system product that
has, say, a custom application running on a GPL operating system or making
calls to GPL libraries, how much source code must you release? Do you need
to release the source code of the custom application, or just the open
source stuff that you are including unmodified?

Harold



--
FCC Rules Updated Daily at http://www.hallikainen.com - Advertising
opportunities available!
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Peter P.]

Gerhard Fiedler <lists <at> connectionbrazil.com> writes:
> My lucky guess is that this is because you're an expert user and they are

I'm on yahoo now as you can see. I was on other things before. The idea is to
choose something that works and to recognize when something does not,
repeatedly, and switch. One should not need to be an 'expert user' to use email
safely in 2008 for the same reason one should not need to be a licensed
locksmith to be able to enter and leave one's house. That's the point. And
learning from mistakes. What you use works for you, there are a lot of people
whose 'solution' does not work.

Peter


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Rolf-4]

Hi Sergio

Your post was pretty rantish, almost to the point where I dismissed it
as 'trolling'. On another forum I would ignore it. Since you make
patently untrue statements I feel that in the interests of clearing
things up I'll 'clarify' some things.

First, a general statement on copyright. Copyright is a concept broadly
recognized world-wide. There are (few) exceptions, but, the copyright
concept is 'universal'. In almost all cases, copyright is, by law, given
to the author of a work whether there is a 'declaration of copyright' or
not. If you write something, it is copyrighted by default, and the
copyright is owned by the author. Many employment contracts and 'work
for hire' contracts change the default owner of the copyright (to the
employer rather than the employee), but there is still copyright.

The owner of copyright material can choose to then let people copy their
work (or chose to not let people copy their work - this is a very
important option for a copyright owner too). The most liberal author
will choose to release their work in to the public domain. Work in the
public domain has no restrictions on it's use (it has no copyright
owner). Any other items (other than public domain) require a license to
be used (copied).

So, as a person who wants to use copyrighted works, you require a
license. There are no alternatives. Any copying of a copyrighted work
for which you do not have a license is a contravention of copyright law
(note, it is not a crime!.... that is something else....).

What does a 'copyright license' give to a person? It gives the person
the right to make copies of the work as 'negotiated' between the person
and the copyright holder. You must realize that a copyright license is
given by the copyright owner, and, for the most part, the motivators of
the copyright owner determine the nature of the copyright license that
will be agreed to. It is worth repeating this... *the motivating goals
of the copyright owner determine the way thier works are licensed*. It
is not unusual for a copyright owner to allow their work to be copied
under multiple different licenses simultaneously. This allows the owner
to satisfy different and sometimes contradictory motivations
simultaneously (like a book author who licenses their work to a
publisher under one agreement, and to hollywood under another...).
Multiple licenses are more complicated, but very useful too (MySQL is a
good example in the software/GPL world see
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/ ).

So, what is the GPL? It is just one of many ways to license a 'third
party' to copy a copyrighted work. When talking about the GPL it is very
important to distinguish it from other licenses so that you can get a
perspective on what issues it tries to address, and why an author would
choose the GPL rather than some other license.

My personal 'investigation' shows that there are three types of author
that will choose the GPL as a license for their software:
1. A person who starts a project which they are not fully able to
complete, either because of time constraints, or skill/experience
shortcommings. They have produced something that needs completion, and
they can't do it themselves. They choose the GPL because it may attract
people who complement themselves and provide the necessary resources to
complete the project. In this case, the aspect of the GPL that is most
useful to the author is that any changes that other people make (and
distribute) are required to be published along with their distribution.
In the worst case, this means that the author can 'seive' through the
code in the 'wild' and retrieve these modifications, and apply them, at
the author's discretion, back to their code and take advantage of the
modifications. In reality, the process is typically centralized around
the author, and changes are all submitted to the 'source', and the
product evolves to completion. This type of arrangement works when the
original author has created a good foundation to a useful project. In
this situation, the value that the original auther gets is to have a
complete product that they can use themselves. Their 'payment' is a
increasingly functional/evolving product.

2. A person may choose the GPL if the software is to be part of a larger
project that contains GPL'd works too. Restrictions in the GPL mean that
GPL code is not easily compatible with code available with other
licenses. Thus, a person who wants to create a new product that works in
combination with an existing GPL product will have the choice of either:
a. not using the GPL, but then having to re-implement the existing GPL
product and re-creating the GPL functionality; b. negotiating a seperate
license from the existing GPL product's copyright holder(s) to be
compatible with their intended license for their new code; or c: using
the GPL themselves. In many cases, the 'cost' of releasing your new code
under the GPL is far outweighed by the burden of having to re-create
functionality that already exists but is GPL'd. The advantage of using
the GPL in this case is that the time to completion of the project is
greatly reduced because you can use vast code resources and not
re-implement existing functionality.

3. A person may feel 'generous' and use the GPL. There are a number of
people that have received many benefits from having 'free/cheap' access
to GPL'd resources. They produce something useful themselves and decide
to 'give back' to the 'community' in kind. There are lots of 'charity'
type organisations, or other bodies like student bodies, etc. that
utilize GPL'd code extensively. In their 'normal course' of operation,
they happen to produce something useful and new, and they choose to be
altruistic and simply release it under terms they are familiar with: to
'set it free'.


The provisions of the GPL that are most significant, as far as this
discussion is concerned, are the following:
i) The concept of derived code - any code that contains code licensed
under the GPL is considered to be derived code. This is a common concept
with copyright, but not all licenses have the same 'broad' sweep as
saying that even small snippets of GPL code embedded in a new work
render the entire new work a derivative of the code.
ii) The people who receive the GPL code from the author have the choice
to either: use the code under the provisions of the GPL, or to not use
the code at all. This is not an 'opt-out' license, but, and opt in
license. Without the GPL there would ne no license to use the code, you
can choose to accept the license, and, if you do, you can use the code
as allowed by the terms of the license. A third alternative is to
attempt to negotiate a different license from the copyright holders.
iii) all people receiving code from a third party who has accepted the
terms of the GPL must be offered the same choice as the third party was
offered. In other words, if you accept the GPL terms for some program,
and then you offer that program to someone else (with or without
modifications), then the offer must be based on the same terms that you
accepted: the GPL.
iv) the GPL does not restrict the way you use the program, only the way
you distribute the program. There is no restiction on program or code
use, but, if the program, or code is delivered to another party, then
the restrictions of the GPL are activated, in that any distributed GPL
code/programs and their derivatives must have the source available too,
and that the terms of the distribution are the same as the way the code
came in to you posession... in other words, you must give the code away
under the same terms as the way you received the code.
v) the GPL license is very easy to negotiate in the sense that you do
not need to open up communication channels with the copyright holder(s)
to obtain a license. The simple act of choosing to distribute GPL code
implies that the negotiation is complete, and that you have accepted the
terms. Additionally, the GPL ensures that any people who receive the GPL
code from third party get their license from the copyright owner, and
not the distributor. This greatly simplifies the legal complexities of
copyright.

Now, the GPL is not for everyone. It does not claim to be. But, for some
people it makes sense to use the GPL as a license for their copyright
works. The Linux situation is classic in the sense that there are
thousands of people who own the copyright to respective sections of the
code. without the GPL it would be a nightmare to try to negotiate the
terms of re-distribution. With the GPL the terms are clear, and easy to
manage.

So, to go through your mail in detail:


sergio masci wrote:
> All this GPL stuff is so much BS.
>
> Copyright works because governments recognise it, in fact one of the
> things the UN was set up to supervise was... yes you've guessed it
> copyright.
>  
GPL is copyright. Copyleft is a term used to describe the way that the
GPL copyright license encourages the freedom of the code (not the
freedom of the distributor). Typical copyright licenses restrict the
freedom of the copyright work, but the GPL ensures that access to the
code is always possible. The international copyright systems that
protect the way that copyright material is used are just as relevant for
GPL code as any other copyright license. In your terms, the UN and other
government systems protect the GPL as much as any other copyright license.

> Some a*hole can't just invent copyleft and expect it to have the same
> legal weight as copyright. Oh yes I forgot they've thrown up a smoke
> screen by devising the GPL, which in my mind holds even less water.
>
>  
Umm... Copyleft is not a license, it is a concept that is enforced
through copyright law and licenses like the GPL (and others). As for
expecting the GPL to have 'the same legal weight', well, absolutely. To
expect the GPL to carry a different weight to other copyright licenses
would be contrary to all legal systems I know of.
> Firstly, here in the UK, you cannot supply goods or services and then
> apply restrictions after the fact. Providing all the source code and then
> saying "actually you can now only use it the way I say you can" is a BIG
> no no.
>
>  
The flaw in your above argument is that you are making assumptions that
are not true. You are assuming that the restrictions are "applied after
the fact". This is patently wrong. There are a number of opportunities
for a person to discover how the code is licensed.

Firstly, by law, you have to assume that very work is copyrighted. Just
because something is on the internet does not mean it is a free-for-all.

Secondly, every work licensed under the GPL is required to have the
license distributed as part of the package. It is not hard to find the
license.

Thirdly, to 'fall foul' of the GPL, you need to make changes to GPL'd
code. To do so means that you first have to see the GPL'd code. The top
portion of every GPL'd source dile has the GPL license prominently
displayed, or referenced, as well as the copyright notices.

To suggest that the restrictions are only applied 'after the fact'  is
disengenous. To be naieve of the copyright license after making and
distributing modifications to the code is incredulous.

> Secondly, if anyone were mad enough to try to enforce GPL through
> litigation, the most they could hope to win are damages. Can someone
> please explain to me how the original authors of the software have
> incurred a financial loss because an individual did not respect GPL. I
> mean the original authors are getting zero finiancial compensation for the
> code they have made public so exactly how much are they loesing if someone
> else derives a work from theirs and will not share his source, let me see
> 0 times 1,000,000 - yep still ZERO!!!
>
>  

Well, this is an interesting argument. But, it has very simple remedies
(depending on your legal system).

The first situation to consider is where a party has distributed the
modified code 'for profit'. Since the intention of a copyright holder
that uses the GPL as a license is clearly to allow for the freedom of
the code at the expense of profit (GPL software comes at no cost, except
for distribution costs), and that the license requires this third party
to distribute the code in the same manner, it is clear that all income
the third party has derived is clearly not owed to them. Since this
income is related to the contravening distribution of someone else's
work it is clear that the actual income earned should be forfeited, and
the natural destination of that income is the copyright owner. It is
possible that the third party could have negotiated some fee-based
license from the copyright holder that allowed the third party to
distribute modifications without releasing the source too. The third
party failed or neglected to do so, and it is at their expense, not the
copyright holder's.

The second situation where remedies are appropriate are where the
Jurisdiction's laws have 'statutory' damages set. This is normally a
'punitive' law that is meant as a deterrant. In other words, the law
takes the opinion that copyright infringment should be punnished
regardless of the 'size' of the infringement. This is similar, for
example, to laws related to theft. You are sentenced to similar jail
terms regardless of whether you steal 1,000,000 from a bank or $100 from
an old friend. Stealing is stealing and the punnishment is the same
(though in both cases the thief has to reimburse the victim). Some legal
systems have the same attitude to copyright infringement (which maybe is
a good thing, or maybe not).

Finally, the normal remedies for these situations (where the courts have
in fact enforced the GPL - and the infringers were found liable), are
numerous: to stop distributing their modifications; to apply the GPL to
their modifications; and in some cases to pay money.

While it is very lenient, most occasions where the GPL has gone to court
have resulted in a change of attitude only for the infringer. The
copyright owner has seldom attempted to get damages.
> And what REALLY gets up my nose is the argument that having access to the
> source means the user can fix it. Please, give me a break. Having access
> to the source actually means that you have a garantee that you can't be
> charged for minor fixes made by someone else. Who in their right mind is
> going to spend weeks trying to understand how GCC works in order to fix a
> bug in their own program. What they will actually do is try to figure a
> work-around
>  
Now, what you have expressed here is another fatal flaw to your entire mail.

Having access to the source means a lot of things. As an 'advanced' end
user (not a distributor), it has a lot of value. Some of the reasons are:
1. You can re-compile the code in a manner that is better optimized to
your particular environment.
2. If there happens to be a bug, yes, an 'advanced' user has the
opportunity to fix it (no need to publish the fix unless you
re-distribute the program with the fix in place).
3. If there happens to be a new feature you want, an advanced user could
create it (no need to publish the new feature unless you distribute the
program with the new feature in place).

Now, since there are so few 'advanced' users who can do the above, the
access-to-the-source argument has limited applicability. But, what the
more average user can do is motivate a more advanced person to make the
desired corrections or enhancements. This motivation may be in the form
of money, or some other payment. Companies like SuSE, and RedHat make
their fortunes by providing the 'warrantee' like service to people and
companies that don't want to make their own fixes. RedHat is essentially
paid to enhance and maintain programs.

A user simply e-mailing a bug report is often enough to get a prompt fix.

So, to answer your question:
1. a person who is paid to understand GCC will often spend weeks in
order to fix a bug in some program
2. the author of a program will often spend weeks fixing a fault in the
program.
3. some third party (like RedHat) will spend time fixing a problem if
the people who pay them for support raise an issue.
> </rant>
>
> Regards
> Sergio Masci
>  


So, Sergio, the GPL is not for everyone. On the other hand, for those
people who do use the GPL, a whole community of resources, whether that
be people, code, testers, and users is immediatly available to
'leverage' in order to produce a better product.

Your e-mail spins so many fabrications that I find it necessary to
respond, even though I am somewhat certain you are just trolling.

What person who uses 'Pine' as an e-mail client on a linux machine that
runs Postfix as a mail server would spout so many mistruths about the GPL?

Rolf
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

Rolf wrote:
> 3. A person may feel 'generous' and use the GPL.

If they were really generous and their ultimate aim was to have the most
choices for end users out there, then they would not use the GPL.  Some good
is definitely possible from the GPL, but more is possible from more lenient
licesnes.  The purpose of the GPL is to further a specific agenda.  That's
not wrong, but it's not that altruistic and deserving of the moral high
ground as is often attributed to it (like your implied statement above).


********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
[phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Peter P.]

Harold Hallikainen <harold <at> hallikainen.org> writes:
> Interesting discussion! If you produce an embedded system product that
> has, say, a custom application running on a GPL operating system or making
> calls to GPL libraries, how much source code must you release? Do you need
> to release the source code of the custom application, or just the open
> source stuff that you are including unmodified?

In theory, if you aggregate only with LGPL libraries then you can release a just
a relinkable module. The Linux kernel itself is legal to use (i.e. you can run
your applications on it) as long as you do not modify it. If you link to GPL
libraries then you have to release the entire source. But, in a typical embedded
system with  control from a host the embedded code need not be released at all
(assuming it was not linked against anything GPL). The result is that many times
third party developers develop their own front ends to 'your' embedded system.
This is usually good, not bad imho. Several PIC development tools went that way
(e.g. the recent discussion here about pickit2 drivers on Linux and FreeBSD).
You don't *have* to use Linux at all. I personally prefer to use NetBSD for
controlling hosts (BSD license from A to Z - well, almost). So basically if the
smarts are in the embedded system, they stay protected until they are valuable
enough to be emulated 100% or read out of the chips by a cracker company. At
least, this is my take.

Peter


--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[sergio masci-2]

On Wed, 14 May 2008, Rolf wrote:

> Hi Sergio
>
> Your post was pretty rantish, almost to the point where I dismissed it
> as 'trolling'. On another forum I would ignore it. Since you make
> patently untrue statements I feel that in the interests of clearing
> things up I'll 'clarify' some things.
>

[BIG SNIP]

Well Rolf thank you very much for clarifying many things concerning the
GPL.

Regards
Sergio
--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Rolf-4]

Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Rolf wrote:
>  
>> 3. A person may feel 'generous' and use the GPL.
>>    
>
> If they were really generous and their ultimate aim was to have the most
> choices for end users out there, then they would not use the GPL.  Some good
> is definitely possible from the GPL, but more is possible from more lenient
> licesnes.  The purpose of the GPL is to further a specific agenda.  That's
> not wrong, but it's not that altruistic and deserving of the moral high
> ground as is often attributed to it (like your implied statement above).
>
>
> ********************************************************************
> Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
> [phone].  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
>  

hi Olin, all.

While you are correct that I implied too much in the 'generous'
statement, I think you have also over-corrected the situation...

First, yes, a 'generous' author who wanted to offer the greatest freedom
for a potential 'user' or 'distributor' would not use the GPL, they
would release their work to the public domain for 'ultimate' *user* freedom.

As for your over-correction, saying "more [good] is possible from more
lenient licenses" is as 'opinionated' as my 'generous' statement. An
author who uses the GPL values the 'freedom' of the code more than the
'freedom' of the user. BUT, it is the (personal) desires of the author
that count when talking copyright licenses, and not the desires of the
users. The author of a GPL'd work would surely take issue if someone
were to modify their code and sell the results. The author would not
believe that was 'good'. All things being equal, people who choose to
use the GPL to license their work understand why they are doing that.
They believe it is the best thing to do for their code. You are right
that the purpose of the GPL is to further a specific agenda, the agenda
of the author. You seem to have taken a 'moral stance' on the issue
yourself, and you are putting the desires of the user (you) ahead of the
desires of the owner.

So, the opinions of the 'masses' are meaningless when it comes to
copyright. It is only the copyright owner's opinion that counts. If the
author's licensing strategy conflicts with your ideals then it is not a
moral issue, just a difference of opinion. If the license (whether it is
the GPL or some other license) is inconvenient for you, then you have
the option of simply moving on or negotiating an alternate license. To
suggest that an author is 'wrong' or 'not good' or even 'not as good as
they could be' just because their licensing does not suit your
particular needs is morally questionable.

On a practical level, the success of open source projects in general,
and GPL projects in particular, is strong empirical evidence that the
system works well (or at least well enough). It is hard (as a user) to
beat the value-for-money prospects of such software. Using the GPL or
similar licenses is a mechanism that allows the program to be free,
whether the users and maintainers are free or not. Once code is licensed
by the GPL it can never be 'caged' again. The original copyright owner
can re-license the program (and subsequent modifications they make)
using other licenses, but, the GPL'd code (and modifications to the GPL
version by other authors) will be available in perpetuity.

It is this freedom that is important. It ensures that the program will
outlive it's developers. It ensures that if a company or individual that
owns the copyright has a change of heart, financial circumstances, or
other incident, that the program remains current, maintainable, and
expandable. There are many instances where good programs have been
'killed' at the whim (or death) of the owner leaving users scrabbling to
find replacements.

So, evidence suggests that the loss of the user's freedom in regards to
the ability to modify and re-sell the program is more than made up for
in the long-term benefits of the GPL.

I am a firm supporter of copyright, and the ability of an author to
choose the license that is most appropriate for them. But, to say that
once license is better than another is simply wrong. One license may be
better for you, but, unless you are the author, you have no right to
complain.

I think that many people (like yourself) feel that `Linux Zealots` are
on a high horse, and, in the most part you are right, but for the wrong
reasons. These zealots are friendly enough when evangelizing the GPL,
but are defensive when they are told that the GPL is viral and
restrictive. If you don`t like the terms of the GPL then don`t
distribute GPL`d code. There is nothing morally wrong with the GPL, but
anyone who criticises its impact is in effect criticising the author`s
decision. That is sure to evoke a passionate, emotive response - very
similar to your recent responses to the USBProg firmware and host
applciation.... ;-)

Rolf

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Apptech]

1.    I have been and am extremely impressed with Olin's
approach to releasing code for others to use.

2. re Rolf's response to Olin:

> First, yes, a 'generous' author who wanted to offer the
> greatest freedom
> for a potential 'user' or 'distributor' would not use the
> GPL, they
> would release their work to the public domain for
> 'ultimate' *user* freedom.

Here we need to differentiate between "freedom" for one or
many users and "Freedom" versus good or benefit.

Public Domain imparts maximum freedom to the direct
recipient but that freedom includes the right to restrict
all subsequent freedoms for others inasmuch as they relate
to how they use the work. For example a PD recipient could
notionally resell a program unchanged and claim full
copyright. If the prospective buyers were not aware of the
existence of the PD original they may buy code which was
available fully-free elsewhere. There is a bit of
"Schrodinger's Cat" at work here. A person aware that the
sold work is 100% identical to the PD product may arguably
copy the sold product freely. An unaware buyer may not. But
if they change a single character the work becomes
derivative and fully covered by copyright.

They may also (more likely) add very minimal packaging to
hide the fact that essentially all the functionality is
provided by the PD work and then resell it as a copyrighted
product which may not be copied or used to derive work from
without licence, regardless of how minor the changes are

Importantly:    The GPL and variants to variable extents
maximise accumulated and accumulating freedoms in some areas
while limiting them in others. Deciding how to weight the
various components is a major part of the ensuing arguments
about merit.

> As for your over-correction, saying "more [good] is
> possible from more
> lenient licenses" is as 'opinionated' as my 'generous'
> statement. An
> author who uses the GPL values the 'freedom' of the code
> more than the
> 'freedom' of the user.

Too strong, I suggest.
They may value (as above) the accumulated net freedoms of
many users over conveying full freedom to a more limited
number of users.

............... ...

> So, evidence suggests that the loss of the user's freedom
> in regards to
> the ability to modify and re-sell the program is more than
> made up for
> in the long-term benefits of the GPL.

Plus the accumulated freedoms gained in other areas.

> There is nothing morally wrong with the GPL, but
> anyone who criticises its impact is in effect criticising
> the author`s
> decision.

... and are also criticising copyright law.

Which they have a right (in many countries) to do.



            Russell McMahon


 

--
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist

[Olin Lathrop]

Rolf wrote:
> So, evidence suggests that the loss of the user's freedom in regards
> to
> the ability to modify and re-sell the program is more than made up for
> in the long-term benefits of the GPL.

Hardly.  There is no way to replay events to see what would have happened if
some GPL code had been released under a less restrictive license.

This argument is going in circles, so I'll probably quit with this message.
I'm saying the GPL is not as effective as a less restrictive license would
be in providing the best situation for end users.  You guys usually come
back with totally orthagonal and therefore irrelevant arguments about how
much you like the GPL because it gives you access to the source.

> I think that many people (like yourself) feel that `Linux Zealots` are
> on a high horse, and, in the most part you are right, but for the
> wrong reasons. These zealots are friendly enough when evangelizing
> the GPL,
> but are defensive when they are told that the GPL is viral and
> restrictive. If you don`t like the terms of the GPL then don`t
> distribute GPL`d code.

I don't.  But once again you are missing my point.  As I've consistantly
said, the owner of code has every right to license it the way he sees fit.
What bugs me is that applying GPL to your code if often viewed as laudible
and altruistic.  I guess it is compared to keeping it all to yourself, but
not compared to what you could have done if you really wanted to do the best
for the vast collection of average end users.

> There is nothing morally wrong with the GPL,
> but anyone who criticises its impact is in effect criticising the
> author`