From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,2c7b0b777188b7c4 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!atl-c05.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!216.196.98.141!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news1.optus.net.au!optus!newsfeeder.syd.optusnet.com.au!news.optusnet.com.au!newsfeed.pacific.net.au!nasal.pacific.net.au!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: GNAT GPL Edition Maintenance and Upgrades From: David Trudgett Organization: Very little? References: <1128499462.850353.146890@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <9070id.mp6.ln@hunter.axlog.fr> <1128510619.707554.152420@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:HAO1SZt7kDOX2EMrM8WfmZCJ+28= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:18:06 +1000 NNTP-Posting-Host: 61.8.33.136 X-Complaints-To: news@pacific.net.au X-Trace: nasal.pacific.net.au 1128561769 61.8.33.136 (Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:22:49 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 11:22:49 EST Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5432 Date: 2005-10-06T11:18:06+10:00 List-Id: "Ludovic Brenta" writes: > Jean-Pierre Rosen a �crit : > >> Ludovic Brenta a �crit : >> > [1] Quite to the contrary; the more I hear the "selfish argument", >> > the more I feel inclined to package GNAT GPL Edition, just to teach >> > selfish people that if they refuse to give, then they cannot take, >> > as Georg Bauhaus said so nicely. >> > >> Not a formal vote, but... >> >> I think that this argument goes *against* the spirit of free software. >> As far as I can understand, the basis of free software is "you can do >> anything with this software, *except* deny to others the rights you have >> received". Anything, including proprietary software. Jean-Pierre is quite correct in this, and in his later (in other post) analogy with the Gimp. Free Software is, in fact, antithetical to software copyrights, point blank, no qualifications needed, since that is the only thing that makes "proprietary software" proprietary (internal software, aka trade secrets, do not enter into this). Thus, the FSF's use of copyright to fight copyright is ironic, if not hypocritical. (Probably the only thing saving it from *total* hypocrisy would be apparent if one were to suppose that the only reason "copyleft" is effective is because *other* people believe in copyright. However, that supposition would be ruled out the first time the FSF were to defend the GPL in a court of -violence- I mean law. I don't personally know if the FSF has ever prosecuted anyone over the GPL, but the consequences are obvious if they have.) > > Precisely. With the GMGPL, you receive the right to see and modify the > source code of the GNAT run-time; but you can also deny others this > same right. This is just ingenuous, Ludovic. That means you are verging on dishonesty, but perhaps you wrote it at three in the morning. You know very well that (a) no one can be denied the right to see and modify the source code of the GNAT run-time, which flatly contradicts what you said; and (b) if one is going to deny the source of one's whole program, then denying them also one's (hypothetical) mods to the run-time is *totally* and *utterly* (did I emphasise that enough?) irrelevant. You also must further know that very few *if anyone* would be interested in making significant modifications to the run-time while *keeping them secret*, because *no benefit* would accrue to the proprietary software developer, but in fact precisely the opposite, because those "secret" modificiatons will have to be done over and over again for each new compiler/run-time[*] release. [*] Notice I say compiler/run-time. The distinction between compiler and run-time is artificial. Furthermore, (but the usual IANAL applies) it is far from clear whether one is even legally *allowed* to make modifications to the GNAT run-time and then distribute in binary-only form. Whether that is so or not, it would certainly seem to be against the spirit of the licence, if not the letter, to produce such binary distributions. The GMGPL simply "allows" one to link one's proprietary code; it does not give open slather on the GMGPL'ed code itself (the run-time). All of this you must know, yet you have apparently either made an inexplicable [**] mistake, or you chose to misrepresent the case, or you are not being intellectually honest even with yourself. [**] We all make mistakes, but inexplicable ones happen less often. Yours seems inexplicable because one supposes that you have given the subject serious thought and are not just writing the first thing that pops into your mind. > The GPL is more "free" than the GMGPL, since with it you > cannot deny others this right anymore. As noted above, this is an entirely bogus claim. > This is the "free" spirit as defined by Stallman and the FSF. The > BSD license does allow you to deny rights to others, and has a > different definition of "free". You're in error here. Stallman counts the BSD licence as being free, just not "copyleft": Releasing your code under one of the BSD licenses, or some other permissive non-copyleft license, is not doing wrong; the program is still free software, and still a contribution to our community. But it is weak, and in most cases it is not the best way to promote users' freedom to share and change software. -- http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-copyleft.html But why does RMS think that BSD is weak? Here is the answer: Someone who uses your code in a non-free program is trying to deny freedom to others, and if you let him do it, you're failing to defend their freedom. -- ibid. In other words, Stallman is advocating that one should use the violence of the law against other people in order to stamp on their freedom of action, for what other meaning can, "you let him do it," and, "failing to defend their freedom," have? RMS makes a fundamental mistake here. Refusing to use violence is not equivalent to letting someone do something. It is simply acknowledging that violence is not a legitimate means to stop someone from doing something. Just ask yourself a simple question, "Would Jesus see a lawyer to have someone thrown into jail for violating his 'copyright'?" All good people who know anything about Jesus know the answer to that question in their hearts. It's something for anyone calling himself or herself a Christian to think about. Other people are free to ignore it, if they wish... Note that none of this is defending proprietary software distribution (but I have no problem with internal or "trade secret" software). It is pointing out that proprietary software (distributed) is wrong for the same reason that copylefted software (if taken seriously) is wrong: it employs violence or the threat of violence against people. The FSF says that proprietary software is wrong because it denies freedoms to people, yet it then uses the very same legal tool to deny freedoms to people. Is it difficult to see hypocrisy in this? It's either hypocrisy or ingenuousness (in the case that copyright law is being used in bad faith, i.e., while not believing in it). Richard Stallman says that the only freedom denied by the GPL is the freedom to deny other people freedom. This is just not true. For a start, it denies the freedom to choose one's own Free Software licensing terms, and to incorporate other software licensed under different Free terms. As we have seen with the GNAT GPL, it can also deny people the right to license their own software any way they wish, which may even include restrictive, unfree terms. The fact that we may believe it is wrong [***] to impose such terms, does not make it legitimate for us to use violence (something which is also wrong) in order to have our way over the will of another person. It is doubly wrong in that we are *not* gods who can know all about everyone and every possible situation and therefore be in a position to sit in judgement. [****] [***] Note that I do not say 'immoral'. Immorality consists not only in doing something wrong, but also in knowing that what one is doing is wrong. [****] It may be of interest to Christians, that Christ, according to conventional Christian doctrine, was in precisely this position, yet even he refused to judge. > >> The GPL edition is a big mistake made by AdaCore, both from a marketing >> and a popularity point of view. True. One does not win friends by bludgeoning them, but by treating them with respect. Contempt for freedom in the name of freedom is especially obnoxious... especially since we know that ACT is not in the business of promoting freedom, but of making a profit. That is the corporate imperative, after all. David -- David Trudgett http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/ In ancient times tyrants got credit for the crimes they committed, but in our day the most atrocious infamies, inconceivable under the Neros, are perpetrated and no one gets blamed for them. One set of people have suggested, another set have proposed, a third have reported, a fourth have decided, a fifth have confirmed, a sixth have given the order, and a seventh set of men have carried it out. They hang, they flog to death women, old men, and innocent people, as was done recently among us in Russia at the Yuzovsky factory, and is always being done everywhere in Europe and America in the struggle with the anarchists and all other rebels against the existing order; they shoot and hang men by hundreds and thousands, or massacre millions in war, or break men's hearts in solitary confinement, and ruin their souls in the corruption of a soldier's life, and no one is responsible. -- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"