Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

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

Ronald Cole wrote:

> You can read Dewar's own words on the subject because they are archived
> at DejaNews and several other sites.

It's ok, I read them, all of them, at the time.

> Like Dewar, you appear to mistake a bug report with a request for free
> support.  Any conclusions you make based on your incorrect assumptions
> are quite suspect.

Well it seems to me you wanted more than the ability to send an email to
report@gnat.com, for example an acknowledgement and possibly advice on
what had gone wrong in your build. If not why did you engage in noisy
public debate on the matter.

> Please provide an alternate interpretation of Stallman's words, then.
> I am unable to come up with a coherent one, but that doesn't mean
> there isn't one.  Care to give it a shot?

No, I don't care to try this at all. The reason is that to me you are
simply not rewarding to argue with. For example I think you twist other
peoples words constantly, you are gratuitously rude and insulting, you
lack any kind of respect for or knowledge of the people you are
publically defaming and yet you expect some kind of response from them
when you call them hypocrites and liars.

> 
> > Again, my view is that the Golden Rule is the big picture, the gpl is
> > the details, so the golden rule does not need to be brought up to spec.
> > It's like wanting a University to update its motto because you're
> > unhappy with its exam marking.
> 
> Classic example of "constipation of the brain, diarrhea of the mouth".

Good point, well argued, you're doing well.


> Sorry, Charlie.  When I speak of "Linux", I am speaking of the kernel.
> I am quite content to call the rest of the software on my Slackware CD
> "The GNU System".

Ok. 

> 
> > Is this the tragedy of the commons thing you mention in another posting?
> > I am already aware of that, however I think rms's key insight is the
> > essential difference between physical things and software. A difference
> > hidden and denied by standard commercial practice. When I use the GNU
> > software to the fullest extent possible, I don't remove any benefit you
> > might get from it, so it's not really plundered at all.
> 
> It's plundered if you monopolize enhancements to it (since the goal of
> the software "commons" is to advance the state of the art sans
> licensing restrictions).  If Dewar really needs to monopolize GNAT to
> stay competitive, I believe that he shouldn't be using gcc to get him
> there.


Fine, but that's just a matter of opinion. You have acknowledged that
ACT are not infringing the GPL, so now you're down to loudly saying "I
don't like what you are doing". Mr Cole, I don't like what _you_ are
doing.



> More later than sooner.  Locate and read Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral
> and the Bazaar".  It's quite a good read.

I'm sure it is. I have read a good deal of the discussions on various
newsgroups regarding FSF vs. Cygnus, Linux vs. RMS etc. There are a lot
of  differences of opinion on the matter across all parts of the free
software spectrum so no book you refer me to can possibly prove
something conclusively. I have my opinion on the matter.


> The GPL says that you cannot impose any further restrictions on the
> recipients' exercise of the rights granted by it.  Isn't making the
> threat of not doing business with a client who exercises those rights
> an imposition of further restrictions?  Especially so if you own a
> monopoly on the current product releases?

Irrelevant. No such threat has ever been made.


> You haven't actually read the Manifesto, have you?  One of the beneficial
> goals of GNU was that "much wasteful duplication of system programming
> effort will be avoided ... [in order to advance] the state of the art".
> Why would you suggest that I do something to slow that advancement?

You are wrong, I have read the manifesto.

I am suggesting that this supposed unfair advantage ACT have by
"hoarding" GNAT 3.10 would be wafer-thin if it were really only the
differences between 3.9 and 3.10, so for the sake of a little wasted
effort you the heroic idealist could remove their advantage once and for
all. A little like RMS destroying the commercial Lisp machine market for
months and months by reverse engineering every new feature.

I was trying to use irony to highlight this completely and utterly
ludicrous idea. You missed it.

Here it is again.

The "unfair advantage" ACT have is they are all compiler wizards who
know GNAT inside out and backwards and have endless years of experience
at this work. They make money by offering excellent support, not by
hoarding. You dislike their policy on GNAT releases but it is allowed by
the GPL and approved by Stallman. That's good enough for me and nearly
every other serious GNAT user.


> 
> > > He wrote that he was "required to consider it wrong" and yet
> > > now he appears to tolerate it.
> >
> > Only under your interpretation of events.
> 
> I've tried to get Stallman to clarify.  He hasn't yet.

I agree that a clarification might be helpful. However why should he do
anything to clarify things for you?

> 
> > Some monopoly.
> 
> You are incorrectly generalizing what I've been saying.  

Well I'm glad to hear that you don't like incorrect generalising. I have
repeatedly said that I find your characterisation of what I and others
say to be incorrect so perhaps you should examine what you write more
carefully.

ACT's monopoly
> is in the "current product release", which Dewar admitted they sell to
> their customers and then release at some indefinite time in the future.

No, he did not admit any such thing.

> 
> Aladdin Enterprises does the same thing, but since ghostscript is
> entirely Aladdin's I don't have a problem with that.  GNAT is
> based on the GPL'd technology in gcc.

ACT do not sell GNAT. How many times do you plan to make false
statements about this? I told you that any ACT customer could legally
and ethically give you a wavefront. But nobody is required to. My view
is that in many ways you are the perfect example of why keeping
work-in-progress software private is a good idea. Nevertheless, I also
said I wish I or someone else could give it to you (but I certainly
can't as I don't have it).


> It doesn't appear that you've read the GPL either ("Also, for each
> author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone
> understands that there is no warranty for this free software.")

Wrong again. I have read the GPL. It is quite tedious and I don't care
about it enough to argue trivia with you. I care about what it is
protecting, and it seems to be working. If nobody but you thinks it has
been infringed then I don't really care about any statements you make to
the contrary. ACT don't claim to provide a warrantee anyway, they just
fix anything that breaks for a paying customer.

> 
> > The combined package is the product, one piece of it on its own is
> > simply beta software. And it's not mere word games as you yourself have
> > discovered, as you were tipped up by the wake of a placidly cruising
> > public release for HP-UX, so imagine how wet you could get with an
> > unsupported wavefront!
> 
> Please stop making up "facts".  I reported an hppa optimizer bug in
> the 3.09 release, 

It was the public release right? And you tried to build it with
non-standard gcc settings right? If the preceding is true then which
facts do you accuse me of making up?


which Dewar admitted to not reading, and yet Dewar
> (incorrectly) interpreted it as a request for "free support".  

If you didn't want support then you should have just sent a message to
report@gnat.com and then got back to work. I also interpreted your
actual course of action as a request (more like demand) for support. If
you are not asking for support then the situation is quite simple. You
received some software licensed under the GPL. It has some problems. You
are not happy about them. That's it. There is nothing more to say,
suggestions of lies, hypocrisy, selling out or suchlike are just a load
of hot air.


He then
> "suggested" that I become a customer because "most of [ACT's HPUX
> customers] have by now switched to 3.10 which is the current product
> release".

This is an unfortunate choice of words. If you take Prof Dewars repeated
statements about GNAT and ACT as a whole, the more correct form of words
might be (using my interpretation adding words like _this_, and I'm sure
he will correct me if I am wrong) "most of [ACT's HPUX customers] have
by now switched to 3.10 _wavefront_ which _with our support_ is the
current product release". He could have added that for some customers
the 3.09 release plus their support is the current product release as I
know of at least one company that does not use wavefronts when the most
recent public release will do the job instead.


> 
> After I sent email to Stallman asking for clarification, Dewar did
> some serious back-pedaling and offered up his company "policies" which
> didn't appear to stand up to close scrutiny when compared to the
> public 3.09 release.

As I said, I agree with you that there is an unfortunate implication in
the choice of words he made. However, some back-pedalling is allowable,
after all I seem to remember you accusing ACT of GPL infringement at one
point which you have learnt is not true. 

Anyway, irrespective of who said what when, ACTs actions speak for
themselves, they are another magnificent example of the truly great Free
Software movement, and you only further alienate all the people who
share your interest in GNU software, Ada etc with almost every posting
you make on this subject.

Chris

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