[plug] [article] Open Code Market (OCM)

[James Devenish]

In message <20031114043558.GC724 at erdos.home>
on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 12:35:58PM +0800, Cameron Patrick wrote:
> | > If the GPL is to be a legally-binding contract then...well...isn't
> | How could the GPL be a contract?
> IIRC he said software licences != contracts.

I was pointing out that the GPL does not function as a contract, but as
a copyright statement, so surely no one can claim that it gives or takes
any "rights" regarding "running programmes". Having had a look at the
GPL, I see that it explicitly states that it does not affect activities
"other than copying, distribution and modification".

In message <Pine.LNX.4.33L2.0311141046350.4824-100000 at donau>
on Fri, Nov 14, 2003 at 11:16:53AM +0800, Mike Holland wrote:
> (As I understand it) openness is required to support freedom.

Agreed. My assumption is that openness is a prerequisite for freedom
and freedom perpetuates openness.

> | > > # The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
> | > That is patently untrue. The GPL might work flawlessly in an all-GPL
> | > world, but that is not the world we live in. The GPL intentionally
> | > limits people's ability to exercise freedom #2.
> | You are not free to take away those freedoms from others. That is the only
> | limit. The age-old conflict between personal and societal freedom.
> Hmm.  The GPL /does/ require you to offer the source code to whoever you
> distribute binaries to, though.  Perhaps that's what James was muttering
> about?

The GPL restricts the way in which GPL-licensed software is distributed.
(This is a good thing.)

> You are not free to restrict the rights of others (on GPL'ed code).

?!?!? The GPL *does* restrict the rights of you to distribute your own
work, and it restricts the rights of others to distribute *their* own
work. That is how the GPL achieves its goals! By imposing these limits
on your rights, the openness of your own work (when distributed) is
ensured. This would probably be fine if all computer programmes were
likewise licensed, and if there were no benefits to proprietary
interest. I guess this the hope. Tragic consequences of the GPL
include debian-legal, debian-devel, etc... ;-)

> | > to limit freedom for personal gain (e.g. I have heard Hans Reiser using
> | > the GPL in this way -- not that he's a bad person). BTW I don't claim to
[...]
> Hans Reiser, as I understand it, lost his rag when Debian removed the
> page-long advert for his employer from mkreiserfs, and claimed that the
> GPL required the ad to be kept.

Also, he has apparently indicated to people in conversation that he
would not have accepted a licence that offered more freedoms than the
GPL because it would potentially threaten his commercial licensing
income. I don't know the specifics of his reasoning.

PS. Aside from actually considering the meaning of the GPL ourselves, it
does seem to me that there is a great deal of GPL-inspired loss of
global life energy tied up in discussions about whether mothers can pack
their children's lunchboxes in compliance with the DFSG (Debian Free
Sandwiches Guidelines) and the GPL (GNU Patisserie Licence). Poor mum.


_______________________________________________
plug mailing list
plug at plug.linux.org.au
http://mail.plug.linux.org.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plug