Re: GNAT GPL 2005 Edition is now available

[David Trudgett <wpower@zeta.org.au.nospamplease>]

"Ludovic Brenta" <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> writes:

>> The real problem is not technical. It is still possible to build a
>> "clean" compiler which can be used on any kind of sources. The problem
>> is political. AdaCore's move causes a lot of confusion in the
>> community and may make companies unsure of what they can and can't do.
>
> I agree that there is confusion.  A lot of companies would like "free
> software" to be free for companies; it isn't.  

Yes, it is. The GPL doesn't discriminate. What you mean to say is that
a lot of companies would like to steal Free Software, make secret
changes to it (maybe), and then distribute it without source, thereby
making the software un-Free, and incidentally making a profit from
other people's generosity (this bit the GPL has no problem with, by
the way).


> It is "free" for end users.  

The end user of a compiler is the developer, so what you say is false,
unless you define freedom as the freedom to license one's own software
under the GPL.

Let's be quite clear here. No one is contesting the software
(compiler) owner's right to indicate his desire to maintain the free
status of his work (which is the compiler). (It is, however, wrong to
use violent laws to do this -- and nearly all that we know as "law",
including copyright law, is based on the violence of the state.) No
one is contesting the right of the author to have his wishes respected
in that regard. What *is* being very strongly contested is that
author's right to dictate to others what they produce with his
software. The author may wish whatever he likes, but he cannot
*demand* compliance in the actions of others, unless he has contempt
for the principle of individual freedom, and is prepared to use
violence to obtain that compliance.

Absolutely no one, I put it to you, will consider it illegitimate for
a developer to use Emacs, for example, to create whatever they wish to
create with it, which includes non-Free software. There would be a
thunderous world-wide uproar if RMS even hinted that he wanted to
restrict what people could do with Emacs.

Yet some of the same people see no problem with compiler authors doing
just this, using nothing more than a flimsy, transparent excuse to do
with the run-time library. These people are not champions of freedom,
they have contempt for it, because you cannot promote freedom by using
tools of repression. If you respect freedom, then you have to respect
it for those who wish to do things you don't like, even if they're
using "your" [1] products to do it.

I have made it quite clear that the mere fact of linking the
compiler's run-time with a non-GPL program (even a proprietary one),
in no way impinges upon the freedom of that library, nor does it
endanger its future continued freedom. That is the *sole* valid moral
excuse for preventing (or attempting to prevent) linking of library
code. Seeking to force others to do what *you* want (something that
Stallman and the FSF are guilty of) is not a valid moral excuse...
even if what *you* want, you call "freedom". There is never an excuse
for violent coercion (through copyright law, in this instance).


    [1] "your" as in "you created them".


Now, no one has to use GNAT GPL 2005. But that is not the point, of
course. Microsoft says the same about Windows. It is the intent to
force the actions of others that is wrong in both cases. That some
people will be able to find alternatives is good but beside the main
point. The main point is that software authors have no business
dictating to end users how those end users should employ their
software, including how the end users should license the product of
their own work.

What that means is that there is no such thing as "intellectual
property" if by "property" you mean the right to use violence to
coerce the actions of others. (This is the reality behind "copyright"
laws.) 

Stallman himself ridicules talking about copyright as "intellectual
property", because "property" is an incorrect analogy. One does not
"own" an essay, book or program like one might own a chair. A chair
has different characteristics entirely. You cannot give someone your
chair and still retain the use of it; yet this is the very nature of
software. In effect, we have this principle:

    Omnis enim res, quae dando non deficit, dum habetur
        et non datur, nondum habetur, quomodo habenda est.

    For if a thing is not diminished by being shared with others,
        it is not rightly owned if it is only owned and not shared.

    Book I, Chapter 1 "De doctrina christiana"
    "Corpus Christianorum", "Series latina", Vol. 32, p. 6, lines 10-11.
    Written 397 AD by Saint Augustinus


But even with a chair, I cannot sell it to someone and demand that it
only be used by black people, or that it can only be sat on between
the hours of six and nine in the morning, or that it can only be used
at home and not in a place of business. It would be morally outrageous
to even suggest it, even if you had made the chair yourself.

This is even more the case with software, which can be shared
virtually limitlessly without diminishing anyone else's use of it.
The whole commercial software industry as it exists today is based on
the use of violence to enforce artificial scarcity on a resource which
is, by its very nature, virtually limitless. This is immoral, and
certainly unchristian.



> It gives freedoms to end users and imposes requirements on
> companies or producers of software.  Additional confusion is fueled
> by "open source" (business- friendly attitude) and by the multiplicity
> of licenses.

Free Software is not anti-business, as you seem to be trying to imply
here. A business can use and distribute Free Software and make a
profit doing so. It can even create its own software based on the Free
Software and not share it with anyone. But the software has to remain
Free if it is distributed.

And on a different point, how does the GPL "impose" requirements if
not by the violence of law? So, Stallman seems to like the idea of
"Free Software" but doesn't mind using violent coercion (the
antithesis of freedom) to get it. I would say that's getting pretty
close to hypocritical, but I give him the benefit of the doubt. After
all, I've used the GPL myself, but do not intend to use violence to
enforce it (but even that policy may have to be reviewed).

On an only somewhat related note, one thing that I will definitely
*not* be doing in future is including the "or later versions" (of the
GPL) in any of my licence files. I have concluded that it is of the
utmost stupidity to effectively give one man (or even very few people)
the power to unilaterally make arbitrary changes to the licensing
terms on a whole world of software. Do people really have that much
faith in the continued integrity of one person?



> Me too, but as I said, AdaCore is under no obligation to explain.  If
> they care to explain, I'm all ears, of course.
>
> My message is that nobody has a right to *complain* about AdaCore's
> decision, or even demand an explanation; but people should decide for
> themselves what to do about it.  The vote is designed to do just that.

A couple of points need to be made about that. Everyone has the right
to free speech, regardless of whatever local laws may pretend to
say. You may call such free speech "complaint" if you like, but
everyone *does* indeed have a right to it. 

Or is there a provision in the GPL which controls what one may
complain about? ;-)

Second, no one has *demanded* anything of AdaCore. People have
requested an explanation, and they think it reasonable to not only
request it, but to receive it. I have pointed out that it will not
look good for AdaCore to refuse an explanation in this case. This
still does not make it a *demand*, it simply points out consequences
(which may or may not be correctly predicted, but that is another
matter).

As for deciding what to do about it: by all means! But this does not
preclude multi-tasking: we can voice disapproval, ask for
explanations, *and* do something about it. I think there is even
special Ada syntax for doing more than one thing at a time, isn't
there? :-)


David



-- 

David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

"On two occasions I have been asked [by members of Parliament!],
'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will
the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the
kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question."
    
    -- Charles Babbage