Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net>]

Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> Is this true or is it just your assumption? 

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

> Now consider this : if you then
> had problems with it what would you do? Would you send bug reports in to
> ACT? How might this work? I'll use my imagination, and I have decided to
> let it be as creative as yours in characterising other people's
> positions (perhaps this will raise a smile with the lurkers) :

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.

> Just because rms works to his interpretation of the Golden Rule, doesn't
> mean you have the right to hold him to your (differing) interpretation :
> "I don't agree with your interpretation of your own words, and I accuse
> you of being a hypocrite since you aren't following my version" - is
> this right?

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?

> 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".

> This is a very tricky issue here. Depending on ones prejudices (and I
> have a full complement) one might feel that the Linux "project" has only
> succeeded so astonishingly well because of the advanced state of the GNU
> software it incorporates (but this is highy inflammatory to some). gcc
> is certainly crucial to the kernel, but of course all those device
> drivers, the networking code, the X-Window System were important as
> well. Let's say it is the case, then in that case Linux can't really be
> used as a counter-example to my "some pragmatism needed" view. Also, I'm
> not sure if Linux can be such a good example in any case since large
> chunks of it are also gpled.

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".

> 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.

>  I believe that
> > allowing ACT and Cygnus to leverage GCC to create new versions of GNU
> > software to order to sell binaries to clients before releasing the
> > source to the public is tantamount to encouraging the plundering of
> > free software.  The GPL is not much better than public domain in this
> > regard.
> 
> I don't agree. The fact that ACT and Cygnus earn money from the software
> means that _much_ more work on the software gets done. Sonner or later
> you get all the benefit.

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

> We know what your objection is but you
> constantly conflate the delaying of releases of the latest versions with
> a desire to hoard it indefinitely. I notice you use the word tantamount.
> To me this suggests you wouldn't actually accuse them of "grand larceny
> GNU", you just accuse them of doing something a bit like it and then say
> how bad the thing they aren't doing would be. "You looked at my
> doughnut, that is tantamount to cruelly depriving me of food, how does
> that square with your statement many years ago that we should fight
> hunger?"

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?

> They have obtained whatever their supposed advantage is by producing the
> software in the first place, they will always be better placed
> practically speaking to develop GNAT. The development that was funded by
> the government is fully available. Development funded by ACTs paying
> customers is also fully available up until some cut-off point earlier
> this year where 3.9 was deemed stable enough for public release. At this
> stage then, this supposed unfair advantage consists solely of the
> changes and additions they have made in about 6 months of work. So, get
> going now and in about a year or two you could eradicate this advantage
> and free gnat from their cruel imprisonment. Go to it!

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?

> > 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.

> Some monopoly.

You are incorrectly generalizing what I've been saying.  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.

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.

> If you take away the support component (which is what ACT really sells)
> then this "product" is worth less, possibly much less - it may have some
> better features but there is much less evidence that it is stable. Now
> Prof. Dewar is clearly under no obligation (implied or otherwise) to
> provide you with the aforementioned level of support (unless you buy a
> support contract) so all you are left with is the unproven wavefront.

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.")

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

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.

-- 
Forte International, P.O. Box 1412, Ridgecrest, CA  93556-1412
Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net>        Phone: (760) 499-9142
President, CEO                             Fax: (760) 499-9152
My PGP fingerprint: E9 A8 E3 68 61 88 EF 43  56 2B CE 3E E9 8F 3F 2B