clipka escreveu:
> Okay, we're talking about two different worlds here (yet again): You're thinking
> of custom-tailored corporate inhouse software; I'm thinking of stuff that is
> typically distributed as shareware (say, for example, tools like UltraEdit).

Yes, most likely.

> Then again, there's companies like the one I currently happen to work for,
> trying to do stuff with embedded Linux; it's an awful hassle, as we found out.

Still, Google is doing it with the Linux-based GPLed android.

> How can you build a Linux box that will be built into a car?
> 
> It basically requires you to (1) use GPL'ed software, because you can't write
> *all* the stuff from scratch, nor can you buy it - there's no true commercial
> alternatives out there;

You could use BSD stuff or some other if you don't want/like GPL.  Or 
write from scratch. :)

> because of that it requires you to (2) release *all*
> the source code of the final product under the GPL as well,

That's the license terms for it.

> and provide
> interested users all necessary tools to - well, let's just call it by name -
> basically "hack" the box and flash their own software into it;

Ubuntu doesn't come with source code and used to not even provide gcc. 
They were in the software repositoires, though.

> but at the same
> time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> bus protocol details and such) secret

Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL 
software for it to be required to be released in source form?

>, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.

Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so 
want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of 
Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

> While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> of free software.

So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis 
for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I 
call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as 
software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

> The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> applications custom-tailored for an individual website.

Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll 
be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's 
unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:

> read for example their statements about when to use
> the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself

by chance, I happened to read it a few days ago. I was also
surprised by the attitude. It seems like they feel to be in
competition to commercial software, but why would you worry
about competition when you make free software anyway? If you
don't do it for fun, why bother? The only advantage to gain
is a broader user base and henceforth more fame, but for
that libs should be LGPL'ed in the first place ;)

Post a reply to this message

nemesis escreveu:
> Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll 
> be afraid.

Actually, I won't be afraid at all if all there is only free software in 
the world, why should I?  As strange as it gets, free software is not 
put out by basement geeks in their spare time and all software needs 
tweaks and maintanence and that means jobs, only better as all 
infrastructure tools are free as well.

Can you really picture a manager somewhere saying:  "Bwahahaha, we don't 
need no stinking software developers anymore as all software is finally 
free!  Coffee lady, tweak those scripts to run in the server before 
lunch..."

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > but at the same
> > time you must (3) keep the automotive company's confidential information (CAN
> > bus protocol details and such) secret
>
> Binary data?  Besides, how much of it is to be deep-linked with GPL
> software for it to be required to be released in source form?

But that's exactly the problem: With LGPL it wouldn't be that much of a hassle.
But GPL says: If your product has *any* GPLed code in it, *all* the product
software must be GPLed - every single byte of it. If you sell the thing, that
is.

Binary data? No way. Doesn't count as source code.

> >, *and* make sure that nobody can convert
> > the car into rolling danger by "hacking" the box.
>
> Anyone can convert the car into rolling danger purposefully, if they so
> want to and have a minimum knowledge of mechanics.  How many users of
> Android-powered cellphones will want to do it, though?

Yeah, if bad people want to do bad things, they do it... but then you as the
developer of that thing may be sued for not restricting access to it well
enough...


> > While clearing away the "legal landmines" of software patents, the FSF is laying
> > their own "legal mines" in the territory gained, with the aggressive GPL'ization
> > of free software.
>
> So the trouble is that one would like to freely use X software as basis
> for their own without having to comply with the terms of X's license?  I
> call that pirating.  Pirating is genuinely more annoying to me as
> software developer than any over-the-top FSF campaign.

Nay, we're not talking about software pirating - we're talking about the FSF
promoting a license scheme that some developers would possibly not opt for if
the FSF didn't tell them that it is the thing that will save the planet.

Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing software
from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code all by
myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in the
public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of the
PNG lib.

Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really care
about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the PNG lib
I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by himself from
scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine with
his work to be placed in the PD.

So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and also
perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me to GPL
the software.

Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that other guy
wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.

THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of software
comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the PD -
but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do anything
with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the GPL.


Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this may
not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that *all*
people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine with
a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.


> > The problem with it is that the FSF doesn't see it this way; their GPL is geared
> > towards making *ALL* user applications free. Including, by the way, web
> > applications custom-tailored for an individual website.
>
> Well, if they succeed like they succeeded with their HURD kernel, I'll
> be afraid.  I think it's just a moral stance though:  they know it's
> unrealistic but keep hitting on the ideal anyway.

I do believe they believe in their ideals: Total domination of the "free
software" idea over all the software market. I haven't seen any statement to
the effect that they will be happy with anything less.

From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that makes me
very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

Post a reply to this message

Christian Froeschlin <chr### [at] chrfrde> wrote:
> > read for example their statements about when to use
> > the LGPL and the GPL to see for yourself
>
> by chance, I happened to read it a few days ago. I was also
> surprised by the attitude. It seems like they feel to be in
> competition to commercial software, but why would you worry
> about competition when you make free software anyway? If you
> don't do it for fun, why bother? The only advantage to gain
> is a broader user base and henceforth more fame, but for
> that libs should be LGPL'ed in the first place ;)

From what I gather, the main driving force behind this is the desire of some
software developers, who code for fun or as an aside, to be able to use and
modify other people's software for free as well (I'd call *that* a very
*sneaky* way of piracy, actually).

They are willing to give away their work for free - well, no problem with this,
thanks guys; but they're not willing to pay anything for what they get.

This wouldn't be a problem if they didn't enforce this principle with quite a
lot of success onto other parts of the software world. It is their publicly
declared(!) agenda to "flood" the software market with free software libraries
under the non-virulent LGPL to "drown" commercial alternatives, and then switch
over to the virulent GPL in order to force all software authors that make use of
to those libraries to make their software free as well - even those authors that
would be willing to pay for the functionality provided by the libraries, but
cannot because there are no commercial alternatives anymore.

Yes, I guess "a sneaky way of software piracy" quite hits the mark.


I think the worst about it is that when the FSF and GPL are criticized, the
broad public doesn't get the details of any side's messages, and naively
equates FSF = free software = open source = I don't have to pay for it = good,
and FSF-critics = anti-free-software = commercial = only want to have my money
= bad.

I also wonder how many people releasing their software under the GPL actually
know about the FSF's agenda. But then again, people are greedy, so "free
software for everyone!" sounds like a great message for all those who don't get
paid for their own software development work anyway.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Actually, I won't be afraid at all if all there is only free software in
> the world, why should I?  As strange as it gets, free software is not
> put out by basement geeks in their spare time and all software needs
> tweaks and maintanence and that means jobs, only better as all
> infrastructure tools are free as well.

The problem is that a free-software-only world will shift the software market,
and leave no room for "small developers".

Either you will work for a big company to adapt & extend existing software to
their needs (which then *may* happen to be released to the public for free as a
spin-off), or you will develop software as a hobby just for fun. No in-between
anymore.

No room for people writing comparatively small pieces of software for fun *and*
making a living on it.

Can you imagine anyone paying for shareware if it is not only *technically*
possible to circumvent trial periods and registration code checks (because the
source code must be made open), but also *morally* perfectly fine to do so
(because after all the author did release it under the GPL, i.e. as free
software, so actually he has no right to demand money for it from me, has he)?

Well, I can imagine people paying for such tools, but I guess their number will
drastically decrease, and the feeling that it's still right to pay for
shareware will erode over time even in those people who currently still have
that attitude.

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> The problem is that a free-software-only world will shift the software market,
> and leave no room for "small developers".

"Will"?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

>
> Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing 
> software
> from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code 
> all by
> myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in 
> the
> public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of 
> the
> PNG lib.
>
> Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really 
> care
> about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the 
> PNG lib
> I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by 
> himself from
> scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine 
> with
> his work to be placed in the PD.
>
> So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
> public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and 
> also
> perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me 
> to GPL
> the software.
>
> Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that 
> other guy
> wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.
>
> THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of 
> software
> comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the 
> PD -
> but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
> under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do 
> anything
> with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the 
> GPL.
>
>
> Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
> underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this 
> may
> not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that 
> *all*
> people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine 
> with
> a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.
>

I think you're seriously mixing up Copyright and Licensing in this example.

IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work 
when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other 
elements licensed under GPL V3. You are perfectly entitled to also release 
your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other 
distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing. 
You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a 
separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other 
free or commercial licenses.

For the most part GPL doesn't remove your rights, as copyright holder, to do 
what you want with your work, rather it protects them. The main exception 
being that you obviously can't issue someone else with an 'exclusive' 
license to something you've already licensed in perpetuity under GPL.

> From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that 
> makes me
> very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.

I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained 
attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with 
very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and 
groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back. Over the years 
I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of 
everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad 
that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to 
combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus 
on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.

Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has 
continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting 
greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the 
years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software 
and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I 
see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.

Regards,
Chris B.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work
> when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other
> elements licensed under GPL V3.

That is true, but...

> You are perfectly entitled to also release
> your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other
> distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing.
> You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a
> separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other
> free or commercial licenses.

.... this may become quite a pain.


> I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained
> attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with
> very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and
> groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back.

Nay. It may have started that way, but from what I see now, it has gone
overboard.

For the cause of protecting free software developers' rights against commercial
piracy, in the case of libraries I see no valid reason to require that *all*
parts of commercial software must be open sourced if they use that library -
except for "political" purposes.

If the goal is to defend against commercial products "wrapping" the library,
with the intention of hiding from their users the fact that the same
functionality is available for free, then it will perfectly suffice to require
that credit is given in a sufficiently prominent place, and source code of the
*library* is provided for free on demand. Or, alternatively, it should suffice
to disallow distribution of the library along with the product - but even
dynamic linkage with a library that needs to be obtained separately is an
option ruled out by the GPL.


> Over the years
> I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of
> everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad
> that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to
> combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus
> on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.

I can assure you that I have not been the target of any such campaign (or if I
was, I didn't bother to listen to them). I thought quite favorably about the
ideals of free software - until I read some articles on the FSF's internet
site.

They're at war. And they're willing to sacrifice anything else for it. They're
no longer just fighting against big strong sneaky companies - they're fighting
against everyone who in all honesty tries to get monetary compensation for
their contribution to software. Unless it is designed specifically for a single
customer, but on these people the GPL will still backfire: They may sell their
work to the company, but they must allow the company to re-distribute any part
thereof to anyone they like.

That's nothing I took from Microsoft campaigns or whatever. That's what I took
from their own words.


> Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has
> continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting
> greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the
> years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software
> and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I
> see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.

I do see a sense in the LGPL. I also do see a sense in the fight against
software patents (I think *any* patent is crap - if I happen to make the same
invention as someone else, without me knowing about that, then why should I not
be entitled to use the idea?). But the GPL is not a legal instrument but a
political paper, and I don't favor the way it is heading. And the zeal with
which it is promoted makes me uneasy.

Post a reply to this message

"Chris B" <nom### [at] nomailcom> wrote:
> >
> > Take for example a ray tracing software. Say, I write my own raytracing
> > software
> > from scratch - except for the PNG library, which I don't bother to code
> > all by
> > myself. As far as my own code goes, I'd be happily willing to place it in
> > the
> > public domain. I cannot, however, because I need to GPL it for the sake of
> > the
> > PNG lib.
> >
> > Now someone else needs a raytracer that outputs HDR. He doesn't really
> > care
> > about PNG, but he takes that raytracing software I wrote (including the
> > PNG lib
> > I didn't write), and replaces the PNG code with HDR code written by
> > himself from
> > scratch. Let's for argument's sake assume that he, too, is perfectly fine
> > with
> > his work to be placed in the PD.
> >
> > So the product contains work from me, perfectly willing to place it in the
> > public domain, and work from that other guy, who added the HDR code, and
> > also
> > perfectly willing to PD it. Nothing left of the PNG code which forced me
> > to GPL
> > the software.
> >
> > Nothing left? Hm... I had to release my code under the GPL. So if that
> > other guy
> > wants to distribute his software, he has to GPL it, too.
> >
> > THAT is what I consider nonsense and non-freedom: We have a piece of
> > software
> > comprised solely of code contributed by people willing to place it in the
> > PD -
> > but an author of some piece of code that isn't even in there gets his will
> > under which license the software is distributed. Everyone could do
> > anything
> > with our work as they please - if it wasn't for the virulent nature of the
> > GPL.
> >
> >
> > Granted, this might not be the typical case. But it does illustrate the
> > underlying problem: Even if some software is released under the GPL, this
> > may
> > not be in line with code authors' intentions. It may actually be that
> > *all*
> > people that have contributed to the final version would be perfectly fine
> > with
> > a totally different license scheme - and yet the FSF has their say in it.
> >
>
> I think you're seriously mixing up Copyright and Licensing in this example.
>
> IANAL, but my understanding is that you retain copyright to your own work
> when you release it under GPL V3, even when it is combined with other
> elements licensed under GPL V3. You are perfectly entitled to also release
> your own work (or work to which you hold sole copyright) as part of other
> distributions under a different free or commercial license of your choosing.
> You can also contact the copyright holder of other GPL works and seek a
> separate license from them for the redistribution of their work under other
> free or commercial licenses.
>
> For the most part GPL doesn't remove your rights, as copyright holder, to do
> what you want with your work, rather it protects them. The main exception
> being that you obviously can't issue someone else with an 'exclusive'
> license to something you've already licensed in perpetuity under GPL.
>
> > From what I see, it's not a moral stance, but a religious one, and that
> > makes me
> > very uneasy about the FSF and GPL.
>
> I see it more as an inevitable response to some vicious and sustained
> attacks by a small number of huge, disreputable commercial interests with
> very large and well funded legal teams against altruistic individuals and
> groups without the necessary financial backing to fight back. Over the years
> I've seen huge bodies of work, contributed freely for the benefit of
> everyone, wiped away or enveloped by commercial or legal trickery. It's sad
> that, having found that the open source community has evolved mechanisms to
> combat their legal departments, there now seems to be an intensifying focus
> on campaigns to confuse, discredit and divide the open source community.
>
> Nevertheless. My experience is that legitimate commercial development has
> continued to evolve alongside open source development, with each benefiting
> greatly from the other. I've worked in various large organisations over the
> years that have both benefitted from and contributed to open source software
> and I don't really see that changing anytime soon. Nor, unfortunately, do I
> see the big legal battles stopping anytime soon.
>
> Regards,
> Chris B.

I wouldn't put it any better. :)

Post a reply to this message