Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com>]

Ronald Cole wrote:
> 
> Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> > No, I don't think so, I think it is you who has the misunderstanding.
> 
> Please, cite me to the relevant parts of the Manifesto that directly
> refute my "interpretation"!

I don't have to, the person who wrote it has already told you that he
doesn't share your interpretation. It's not a legal document. You have
not received anything which claims to be a perfectly conformant product
of that document. You have received things licensed under the GPL which
is not the same thing. The manifesto is a broad statement of intent and
not intended to be subjected to minute scrutiny, unlike the GPL.


> Sorry, I won't accept your conclusion that "[f]or the GNU project to
> succeed, there has to be some pragmatism" without supporting argument.

That's your right, however how many projects which insist on pure
idealism in all cases have succeeded? Do you think the GNU project could
be one?


> And, yes, I've read "Hackers".  Have you read "The Law" by Frederic
> Bastiat?

No, I'm interested though, what is it about?


> I'm not questioning his motives at all.  

I thought you were!

If his Manifesto is still open
> to interpretation (albeit incorrect), then it probably needs yet-another
> clarification.

Perhaps it would helpful to have such a clarification. However I submit
you haven't encouraged RMS to contribute to this debate, quite the
opposite.

> 
> > > In light of this statement from the Manifesto "the desire to
> > > be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world
> > > in general of all or part of that creativity," I think he sold out on
> > > his principles.
> >
> > Well you're just flat out wrong.
> 
> Well, which is it?  You say he acquired a new set of "pragmatic"
> principles which rejects the idealistic principles layed out in the
> Manifesto in a previous paragraph and then take issue with me pointing
> it out?

I think you're deliberately twisting my words. That is not what I said.

The Manifesto in not written as a promise of precise adherence to set of
rules, it's a call to arms, a challenge to thoughtful software users
throughout the industry. RMS has never deviated from the path he set out
to take when he wrote the manifesto. If you think that he has then I
submit you are in a very small minority.

When he decided to get more specific he wrote the GPL. My view is this
is an attempt to preserve as close to 100% of the aims of the manifesto
as possible whilst surrounding them with some protections against
exploitation and disclaiming some unreasonable responsibilities that
might naively be deduced from the manifesto. Other people in this
thread, much more knowledgable than me have told you repeatedly that the
GPL is not being infringed. Although I don't think you even acknowledge
this, you haven't proved your point. Let's assume for the sake of
argument this was proved to you, e.g. in a court. Then that should be
the end of the matter, you would not be able to say "But I have other
rights given to me by the manifesto" as there are no such rights. Of
course if the GPL were being infringed then you would have a valid
complaint. But instead of sticking to discussing the license under which
you received the software you attempt to broaden the argument into the
meaning of the manifesto and whether RMS has sold out or not. I guess
you sought "extra leverage" in the more idealistic wording of the
Manifesto, but to this reader you went from wrong on a technicality to,
as I said, flat out wrong.

Chris

-- 
Chris Morgan <mihalis @ ix.netcom.com>
  "Once upon a midnight dreary, while I pondered, weak and weary,"