Message 00317 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT00265 Message: 15/54 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] Does the GPL imply exchange?



Benja:

Do you really understand Stallman differently in what you quoted?
If so, could you explain why?

Now that I'm a little more familiar with Oekonux's language, I now
understand why Benja objected to what I thought was a fairly literal reading
of Stallman's article.[1]  It's true, of course, that one may use GPL
software without giving anything in return.  Therefore, it does not in most
cases imply an "exchange" in the sense that Oekonux uses the term.  You're
right about that.  But...

But "you can use this code" is not using the program. So your statement
would at least have to be re-phrased as "to force the *programmers of
derivative works* of free software to compensate its creators with free
software in return."  But again I don't think that's what he's saying
[...]

I disagree.  I think that's exactly what Stallman and the GPL are saying.
Anyone who uses GPLed code in her own program (which makes it a derivative
work under copyright law, according to Stallman) must, under force of law,
release that program under the GPL and therefore make it freely available to
anybody.  Even if she doesn't want to.  And that's the basis for Stallman's
claim that using copyleft is not only idealistic, but also pragmatic.  Read
the example he gives.  Because we published a free C compiler, he writes, we
got a free C++ compiler.  "The benefit to our community is evident."  That's
an appeal to a bidirectional flow, isn't it?

Why did we get a free C++ compiler?  As he says in the article, "The GNU GPL
is not Mr. Nice Guy."  He even uses the word "lawyer" [Rechtsanwalt].  As
you know, a lawyer specializes in the dark arts of convincing judges to
deploy the organized violence of the state in order to deprive her
opponents' clients of money, liberty or (in most USA jurisdictions) even
life itself.  It is this awesome power of the state to which Stallman is
appealing.  Not Selbstentfaltung.

Now, state coercion obviously can't force anybody to publish her software
under the GPL, or to use GPLed code.  Unless, of course, the state passes
legislation to that effect, and it's interesting that Stallman didn't
respond with a simple "yes" or "no" when recently asked whether he would
favor such a statute.  Again, I'm not saying it would be immoral for
Stallman to believe (if he does) that the state has the right to dictate to
developers the terms under which they may publish their own work.  Many
industries are regulated by the state in the public interest, and there's no
inherent reason why software should be an exception.  But I'm sure many
people (like Eric Raymond) would see such legislation as tyranny.  Political
views aside, however, one thing is clear:  a concept of "freedom" that
requires forcing people to do things against their will has always been
difficult for some people to understand or accept.  I think this is the main
reason for the political split between the "Free Software" and "Open Source"
camps.

By the way, I think it's interesting to note that in the case of libraries,
the only possible purpose of which is to create "derivative works", the FSF
found it necessary to create a weaker (i.e., less "free") version of the
GPL.  Of course, the FSF had no choice; without this LGPL (and I'm thinking
of the GNU C library here), GNU/Linux would have been a complete
non-starter.  But what does this tell us about the principles of Free
Software if they had to be weakened by the FSF themselves in order to bend
to economic reality?

In fact, I think the FSF's definition of "derivative work" is the Achilles
heel of the GPL.  Even assuming that their interpretation of this legal term
of art would hold up in a court of law (and as far as I know, it's never
been tested), there are grave problems with its practical enforcability.
First of all, the FSF FAQ itself[2] is enough to send most corporate counsel
running for their lives.  Their definition of derivative work is absurdly
technical and possibly even platform- or deployment-dependent; it requires
knowing things like whether the GPLed code is linked, forked, subclassed,
etc.; whether code intended for an interpreter is OK depends on whether or
not the interpreter contains bindings to external facilities.  And so on.
Only a programmer, in other words, can figure out whether the GPL is being
violated.  Multiply that by the insanely huge, multi-licensed heirarchy of
RPMs used by a typical Linux product such as PostgresSQL and you've got the
legal equivalent of an NP-incomplete problem.  Even if there are a few
lawyers who actually understand such things, they would never be able to
make sense of it to a judge or a jury.  That's why a lot of law firms
involved in corporate mergers are now requiring possible acquisition targets
to certify that they don't have a single line of GPLed code anywhere in
their company.  They simply don't know how to handle the legal risk.

Also compensation would mean the original creators did something
unpleasant and they have to be compensated for it.

What does pleasure (or lack of it) have to do with the concept of
compensation?  I love my job, but I still expect to be paid for doing it.
Perhaps we're getting stuck on the German-English thing again.  Where I
live, "compensation" means "Gehalt, Fringe Benefits und Aktienoptionen."

I think the only thing pleasure has to do with compensation is the fact that
starving to death is unpleasant, and that's exactly what will happen to most
of us unless we're compensated in some way for a fairly significant portion
of our time.  That's why the MacArthur Foundation gave Richard Stallman a
US$240,000 grant and health insurance back in 1990, so he could spend his
time saving the world without worrying about missing meals.
Selbstentfaltung ist ja nicht billig. [That long German word Oekonux swears
by sure ain't cheap.] :-)

Kermit Snelson

Notes:
[1] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
[2] http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html


_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/


Thread: oxenT00265 Message: 15/54 L6 [In index]
Message 00317 [Homepage] [Navigation]