OFB Community Mailing Lists

[Ciaran Hamilton]

Hi,

Ooo, this is an interesting topic. I personally like the GPL, for
reasons I'll explain below.

On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 04:09 -0500, Aaron Lehmann wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 01:34:02AM -0500, Don Parris wrote:
[snip]
> > Your characterization of the GPL as being somehow hypocritical could
> > use some explanation.  If I release software under the terms of the
> > GPL, then I am actually setting the example - not being
hypocritical. 
> > Even the OSI folks argue that there is little business sense in
> > developing software under proprietary terms.  In essence, they argue
> > for free software.  Even so, they do argue in favor of developers,
as
> > opposed to users.  Still, the GPL is meant to perpetuate freedom -
> > which you have acknowledged.
> 
> I have NOT acknowledged that it actually DOES perpetuate freedom
though.
> To the contrary.  If A writes some software from scratch, he has the
> right to do whatever he wishes with it.  He can sell or release it as
a
> proprietary package, he can sell or release it as a more open package,
> he can keep it and use it himself.  These are his rights.  Lets
suppose
> he has listened to RMS's hype and he releases it under the GPL.  Now
> lets say that developer B gets ahold of the software and improves it.
> He has less rights than A did.  He can sell it as an open product or
> release it for free as an open product, or keep it to himself.  He
> cannot however, sell it or release it as a proprietary product.  The
> terms of the GPL deny him full rights to his code.  This from a
liscense
> that claims to be perpetuating freedom!  It gets worse however, as B
has
> no choice bu to use the GPL, if he decides to release.  He has been
> force by A's shortsightedness to deny future C's their rights of
> potential code they might write based on B's code.  He has not only
been
> denied his own rights, he is forced to deny others theirs.

It's well known that RMS is a fanatic - but being a fanatic is sometimes
what's needed. As has been pointed out further on in the thread, RMS
views proprietary software as inherently evil and won't touch it  with a
barge pole. Why? Because proprietary software, by its very nature, has
an "owner", whether that's an individual or a corporate entity. This
leads to a ton of problems, especially under copyright; it's a
no-brainer to copy software, so unless you want to lose profits you
more-or-less have to have some sort of copy protection in there, whether
it's based on a serial number, CD key, or even something like Windows
Product Activation. The owner is asserting themselves by imposing
restrictions on what can be done with the software.

And what happens when the individual/entity dies or no longer runs as a
business? The software will be unsupported, and in all likelyhood can't
even be improved any longer. A perfect example of this, in my eyes, is
the Proxomitron. Its developer died some time ago in an accident, and
it's meant that development on it has all but ceased. Yes, there's
patches you can get (presumably made by reverse-engineering the
program), but no major updates. Which is a real shame, as the
Proxomitron was really good. Of course, you can still use the latest
version, but still...

In the example above, I'm postulating that the patches were made by
reverse-engineering the program. It's a fact of life that people will
reverse-engineer software, regardless of its legality; if it weren't for
such reverse-engineering, the state of software today would be a sorry
one.

Of course, I'm talking about closed-source software above. I realise
it's possible to have open-source software while still not being free
under RMS' definition. But then, those programs have no guarantee that
the program won't be picked up, changed, and sold in the proprietary
fashion shown above, and then we're back to square 1; sure, the original
program's open, but any improvements made by the proprietary vendor will
be lost.

What the GPL does is it ensures that people cannot do this. This means
that it ensures that everybody, anywhere, will be able to take up a
version of the software and:

* run the program, for any purpose
* study how the program works, and adapt it to their needs
* redistribute copies so they can help their neighbor
* improve the program, and release their improvements to the public, so
that the whole community benefits.

That's why it's called freedom. Yes, the above four points were taken
from the GNU definition of free software
( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html ), but I hope you can see
why it works. It means that not only can they improve it and release
their improvements to the public, but they can do so without fear that
it'll be snapped up by some enterprising company and passed off as their
work.

 - Ciaran.