Re: what DOES the GPL really say?

[Ronald Cole <ronald@ridgenet.net>]

Chris Morgan <mihalis@ix.netcom.com> writes:
> 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.

I asked Stallman to clarify exactly what I was misunderstanding.  I'm
apparently not the only one confused.  To quote from the emacs faq:

 "NOTE: The word "free" in the title of the Free Software Foundation refers
  to "freedom," not "zero dollars."  Anyone can charge any price for
  GPL-covered software that they want to.  However, in practice, the
  freedom enforced by the GPL leads to low prices, because you can always  
  get the software for less money from someone else, because everyone has
  the right to resell or give away GPL-covered software."

Apparently, with GNAT one cannot always get "the software" (e.g., the
"current product release" of GNAT) for less money from someone else,
because of policies like Cygnus' or ACT's whereby they'll threaten to
quit doing business with you if you exercise your "right".

And then there's this tidbit from Stallman from the same faq:

 "The legal meaning of the GNU copyleft is less important than the
  spirit, which is that Emacs is a free software project and that work
  pertaining to Emacs should also be free software.  "Free" means that
  all users have the freedom to study, share, change and improve Emacs.
  To make sure everyone has this freedom, pass along source code when you
  distribute any version of Emacs or a related program, and give the
  recipients the same freedom that you enjoyed."

Here Stallman seems to freely admits that the GNU system is free, not
because of any legal requirements in the GPL, but because the author
(the FSF) practices the Golden Rule.  And he seems to command that
everyone else who receives the GNU system practice it, too.

If "all users" was not meant to be synonymous with the "everyone" (all
computer users) referred to in the Manifesto; rather, to be strictly
limited to those who are actually able to use the GNU system (e.g.,
those who are actually in possession of it), then I want to know why
the Manifesto hasn't been brought "up to spec"...

> That's your right, however how many projects which insist on pure
> idealism in all cases have succeeded?

I'm inclined to say "one" because I only know of one: Linux.  However,
such insistance isn't formalized in any writing that I know of.

> Do you think the GNU project could be one?

Yes, I do.  Such would be voluntary socialism, which I can support as
a Libertarian.

> > Have you read "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat?
> No, I'm interested though, what is it about?

<http://www.ridgecrest.ca.us/~ronald/patriot/the_law.html> Note the
arguments about man's natural tendency to plunder.  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.

ACT has obtained a monopoly on developing and servicing GNAT and has
used what I consider a fatal flaw in the GPL to bolster their position.

If GNU's goal is really that "[o]nce GNU is written, everyone will be
able to obtain good system software free, just like air", then I'd
like to see Stallman answer this "easily rebutted objection to GNU's
goals":

  "My company needs a monopoly on developing and servicing
   modifications to free software in order to get a competitive
   edge."
   
> 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.

I could interpret his reticence to clarify as possibly intending the
"sophistry" in the Manifesto to trick idealists into contributing code
to the FSF.  I, for one, wouldn't want to allow people like Robert
Dewar to monopolize enhancements to software I had created for the
betterment of the world!

> 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.

I don't believe that RMS, himself, has deviated, in practice, from
what he wrote in the Manifesto.  However, I believe he has deviated,
in principle, by allowing others to leverage monopolies off of his
work.  He wrote that he was "required to consider it wrong" and yet
now he appears to tolerate it.

> 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.

If it was such an attempt, I'm sure he would want to clarify his
position.  A monopoly is hoarding, plain and simple, and Stallman's
feelings are very clear in this regard: "Since I do not like the
consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required
to consider it wrong for one to do so.  Specifically, the desire to be
rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in
general of all or part of that creativity."

> Other people in this
> thread, much more knowledgable than me have told you repeatedly that the
> GPL is not being infringed.

I know it's not.  That's why I asked Richard to entertain changing the
GPL in this regard for the release of gcc-2.8.  I believe that the
Manifesto clearly denounces hoarding in all its incarnations, and that
Dewar's monopoly on GNAT is tantamount to hoarding.

Dewar seems to tacitly agree with me on this: before I raised my
objection, he claimed that gnat-3.10 was the "current product release"
and that most of his "large customers on HPUX" had switched to it;
but, afterwards he backpedaled and instead claimed that gnat-3.10 was
still very much a "beta release" and unstable and that Stallman was
strongly against the practice of distributing beta software past the
beta-testers.

-- 
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