Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!bbn.com!cosell From: cosell@bbn.com (Bernie Cosell) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: The GNU Public License Message-ID: <43676@bbn.COM> Date: 2 Aug 89 15:55:02 GMT References: <1989Jul30.210646.12194@twwells.com> <1811@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> <43524@bbn.COM> <1831@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> Sender: news@bbn.COM Reply-To: cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 128 In article <1831@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gl8f@Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: }In article <43524@bbn.COM> cosell@BBN.COM (Bernie Cosell) writes: } }>The problem is that because they want to give away *their* software, they are }>trying to get the laws changed so that they will force *everyone* to give }>away their software. } }Woah! Let's not over-simplify the issue, and let's not lump software writing }into political goals. There are two things going on here: } }1) A group of people is writing software, and is releasing it with a }license restriction that makes it "obnoxiously free"; } }2) A group of people wants to modify the laws regarding copyright of }software. Just so. And I was only commenting on the political and philsophical current that is never far below the surface. If they just distributed their stuff for free-with-strings and put some kind of licensing/copyright information with it, that'd be one thing. But even the boilerplate that comes with the software SHOUTS its tired philsophical song, not to mention its unofficial spokemen in this newsgroup and elsewhere. They're far more like Jerry Falwell than they are like the Salvation Army. }Third, not everyone in group #2 believes that everyone should be FORCED }to give away their software on terms similar to the GNU Public License. }Not only is this silly, it won't pass Congress. And not only that, I don't }believe that many people in group #2 really want this. Huh? I thought that the GNU license came as legally close to being of the "I'll give you this hammer, but now *I* have a part interest in the house you build with it" as they could manage, and I've gotten the impression that if they could 'fix' the laws to allow their licensing agreement to be even MORE intrusive on your "heart and mind" they would jump at the chance. }What I want, for example, is to see copyrights for computer programs }treated in a similar fashion to copyrights for other works. You cannot }copyright the "look and feel" of a cookbook. And you cannot copyright }a computer language. You can copyright a compiler, but anyone is free }to go out and write a compiler that groks the same input and generates }a running program that behaves the same as the program generated by }the copyrighted compiler. I have a different view. I think about actual software "products" more along the lines of treating an invention as a black box, and if the insides happen to be gears and levers, or happen to be proms and processor chips, or some mix of the two, I would not make a distinction; and so I would lean toward giving "software devices" something more akin to patent protection. The part of the process that a patent protects in building a box-out-of-gears is *exactly* the same critical creative thinking, development, judgement, insight, foresight, etc that is necessary for building a box-out-of-PROMs. And for that reason I would try to fix the laws to accord that creative leap the same sort of legal protection... but as you say... }If you would like to discuss this, I would suggest misc.legal. Just so... it's been a while since the last time this went round... maybe it is time for someone to toss out the gauntlet on m.l and see how the thinking on the pro-GNU/FSF and con-GNU/FSF sides [for my part, I've been thinking about it (and debating it a bit with nearby folk) a fair bit and the more I ponder it all, the more it seems *obvious* to me that the GNU/FSF philosophy cannot work _even_in_ _theory_... that it can only really exist as Peter has suggested: as something of a parasite along the edges of a wholly philosophically disjoint sphere, which it simultaneouly feeds off of and castigates. }If you'd like an illustration of how the "GNU ideals" work, at least }for his person (and I haven't written any code for GNU, but I love }using theirs), then consider this: I'm a vegetarian. If you ask for my }opinion, I'll advocate the idea that you should be a vegetarian also, }because eating grain-fed beef is a huge waste of resources. However, }that doesn't mean that I support a law banning beef. A tiny fraction }of vegetarians might, but you can waste whatever you want, as far as I }am concerned. You might not like the idea that I'm claiming the moral }high ground, much like the FSF people do, but that's life. Right, but imagine if in EVERY one of your postings on a 'nearby' topic you took the opportunity to knock meat-eating, extol vegetarianism, suggest that we should all work for laws to make meat-eating illegal, we should boycott McDonalds, etc, we might treat your personal philosophical position differently. It might seem less like a personal decision and more like a political platform. If you're on what YOU think is the moral high ground, that's fine. If you want to try to convince me in inappropriate venues that I'm _not_, that's not so fine. And if you're going to try to thump the drum to get YOUR ground legally sanctioned, that's not even a little bit fine. }> I think it is important to point out the flaws in the }>FSF-style view of the world so that folks who might otherwise be bedazzled }>into thinking it _might_ really all be able to work will be able to see }>clearly the boundardies and limits on the whole approach. } }Point it out in the right groups. These threads ALWAYS start with the posting, and then praising of, the GNU/FSF philsophy of life. Since no one seems to complain about that, those must be the "right" groups. If the GNU/FSF adherents want to extoll the purported wonders of the GNU/FSF lifestyle, why should the *rebuttals* be considered as then being in the wrong groups. I agree the whole thread is misplaced, but the balancing arguments have to be made wherever the bogus ones are. }And, keep in mind that if lots of }people start giving code away (group #1 above), it won't hurt anyone }except commercial software houses with inferior products. It may be a }strange kind of "free market philosophy" to have products out there }competing which don't cost anything up-front, but it's still capitalism }at work. Actually, I would contend that if *lots* of people become an active part of group 1, it won't be capitalism at work at all... AS I've said, I think that if you look at the whole creative process carefully, you'll see that the FSF/GNU view cannot work _even_in_theory_... for its survival (much less success) it *depends* (and feeds off of) on the existence of mental-mindset it so abhors. But that's a debate for a different thread in a different newsgroup... __ / ) Bernie Cosell /--< _ __ __ o _ BBN Sys & Tech, Cambridge, MA 02238 /___/_(<_/ (_/) )_(_(<_ cosell@bbn.com