Path: utzoo!telly!moore!ziebmef!becker!geac!jtsv16!uunet!ginosko!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!tale From: tale@pawl.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Why I do not support GNU Message-ID: <1989Oct18.080301.23907@rpi.edu> Date: 18 Oct 89 08:03:01 GMT References: <8910160520.AA01740@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> Distribution: gnu Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY Lines: 294 In sja@sirius.hut.fi (Sakari Jalovaara): SJA> Here are some questions concerning the GNU copyright. Do you think SJA> that I, you, FSF, your lawyer and FSF's lawyer would answer these SJA> questions identically? If not, maybe the GNU copyright is confusing. The law is confusing; legislators have perfected that aspect of society with years and years of practise. I will answer these questions as I understand them; if I am wrong I will most likely be corrected here to avoid dissemination of erroneous information. SJA> Maybe you or someone else will go to jail because they "thought is was SJA> OK to copy GNU software freely." Jail? I rather suspect that is about the last alternative to this all. My own question: is jail one of the penalties for copyright infringement? Even if it is not, and Sakari's question is change to "will face a penalty", it is still not quite right. It _is_ okay to copy GNU software freely. SJA> Suppose someone wanted a GNU program and, without my SJA> knowledge, copied the executable from /usr/local/bin where I SJA> installed it. I never gave him the source or the file called SJA> COPYING (which I earlier deleted to save disk space.) Am I SJA> breaking the law? Is the person who copied the program SJA> breaking the law? Neither of you are. The GPL is a distribution license. You weren't distributing nor were you asked for the code. SJA> Same as above but I know the other person is copying the SJA> program and I OK it? So what? The person did not ask for anything more than that and the GPL does not mandate that more be taken. Section 3 subsection C of the GPL also applies here. SJA> If you print (make a paper copy of) a GNU source file do you SJA> have to print the file called COPYING as well? Can you give SJA> one page of the print to someone? What if that someone takes SJA> a page from the printer without your knowledge? You can print whatever you want for your own use. Regarding someone taking it without your knowledge, I do not believe that the GPL covers such situations. Not many things in this world do. If my housemate takes my gun without my knowing it and goes out on a mad murdering spree, I am not responsible. The middle question is more tricky, because I think the spirit of the GPL and what it says (sections 1 and 4) seem to be in conflict. The important thing is that the person receiving the page know that the source of it and where copying conditions, disclaimer of warranty and the GPL can be found. I _am_ confused by the legal implications regarding whether you have to distribute the entire source code to the programme, but it does seem pretty clear in the wording that the other pieces of information needs to conspicuously appear with what has been copied. Seems rather silly if you just want to show a page of GNU alloca.c to a friend. SJA> FSF has distributed a patch file that contains modifications SJA> to the copyright on the source code. Can you legally apply SJA> the patch? Can you apply just the patches that don't change SJA> the copyright? (This happened with Emacs 18.53 (or so.)) You can apply whatever you like, but if you don't apply it all you will not have Emacs 18.53 (or so). SJA> A company ships a GNU program but, to avoid having to give the SJA> source to their run-time system library, they require the user SJA> of the program to link it with the library. The company is SJA> benefiting from GNU but contributing nothing and "hoarding" SJA> the library source code. Should the company be blacklisted SJA> and boycotted? Sued? Not according to the recent agreement with NeXT. I am very confused about what exactly that agree was. SJA> It has been said that the "user does the link" trick described SJA> above is quite legal and permits (in the eyes of the law, at SJA> least) shipping non-GNU software which uses GNU software. SJA> Which of the following are "moral" and which should lead to SJA> actions (lawsuits and/or blacklisting) against the SJA> company/person who does them: A double-edged sword indeed. Morality is a personal thing and cannot be dictated by licenses, laws or other external mandates. Overlooking for the moment that this is somewhat a trick question and that that the wording of the GPL isn't really be question here, but its spirit: SJA> The user does the link (like the company mentioned above) Actually, I need more information to make my moralistic judgments about it. I've just realized that now as I pondered my answers to this question and the next three. One of the important variables to me is whether it is necessarily a derivative work; that is, if it will work at all if not being created non-GNU. If its usability and effectiveness is derived from the necessary presence of GNU code then I am very strongly opposed to keeping the source private. The corporation is taking benefit from freely given software without providing the same benefits itself. SJA> Even if you can afford a lawyer (I certainly can't) ... Neither can I; one of those people who hopes I never have to. SJA> Even if you like SOME aspects of GNU (I'd like to have the source code SJA> of all the programs I use and I don't mind giving my source code to SJA> others) are you certain that you want to support ALL the GNU goals? Actually, I'm not. It is very rarely the case that I am certain I want to support all of the goals of any organisation. I do, however, support enough of the goals of the GNU project that I would work for the FSF. SJA> Do you even know the complete GNU policy? Once again, I don't think I ever know anything of more than trivial nature completely, but I do know the GNU policy to the best of my ability for now. I expect I will be even further enlightened as time goes on, but I am comfortable with the knowledge I have about the FSF. SJA> GNU never was about democracy. Why should it be? Capitalism (the socio-economic ideology you carefully detailed earlier) != democracy. Tell me, is IBM about democracy? And Apple? SJA> As long as FSF owns (holds copyright on) my program they can change SJA> the copyright. True, but you can hold your own copyright on it. The header from some code I am distributing: ;; This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or ;; modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License ;; version 1 as published by the Free Software Foundation. The FSF can change the GPL as much as they want, including making it something I am completely opposed to, but my software will still be distributed under terms I agreed to put on it. SJA> FSF has the opinion that some of the Apple Computers' SJA> corporate policies are bad, so they are "boycotting" Apple. Great! So am I. You are saying that boycotting an organisation for some of the things it does is not acceptable? How very peculiar. Does it comfort you any to know that some people do just that with GNU software? SJA> FSF also distributes a political manifesto that urges people SJA> against the Apple corporation and its employees. So far SJA> there is only one company on this blacklist. What is wrong with this manifesto? The FSF can distribute any literature it desires. SJA> FSF proposes a public smashing of Apple computers to promote SJA> their opinions. I see very little difference between this and SJA> burning of books. I will not help a group that does things like SJA> this, whether I believe in their ideology or not. I see a lot of difference. Some people feel very strongly about their books, their flags, their computers; I think that is a little dumb. If I burn my copy of Roget's Thesaurus, yours is still fine. I rather admired the comment made by someone regarding this bullshit about a law against flag-burning. (Yes, I don't want a law against it. More forced freedom for people to swallow.) Roughly paraphrased, "I saw a flag burned today. When I got home, I opened my drawer and took out my flag. There it was, same as it ever was. What it meant to me had not been changed." If I get thoroughly disgusted with my MacIntoaster [a hypothetical ownership] and take it out to the center of campus, loudly proclaiming that Apple as gone too far, and then cleave it with a fire axe, it is my right. No one has said that we should go into our neighbours offices and take their property, busting it up too. This is an important distinction between the proposed demonstration and the book-burning of the past. SJA> FSF proposes to censor any messages from Apple employees in SJA> the "gnu" newsgroups. I don't happen to believe in SJA> censorship, whatever the reasons for it are. Ban the thought SJA> police! This was addressed in my previous message. It is a false notion. SJA> A member of FSF has stated that he is "willing to go to jail" SJA> if the law is against his convictions. I find it amazing how SJA> someone can place his own beliefs above those expressed by the SJA> community he lives in - so much so that he is ready to break SJA> any law he doesn't happen to like! I seem to be missing SJA> something here: why is it that pro-socialist movements tend to SJA> be anti-democracy? Whee. Okay, let's look some more at the past. Specifically, Mohandas Gandhi and HD Thoreau. Or even Mr Bumble from _Oliver_Twist_, though he hardly is a figure to look up to for moral and ethical guidance. I don't think there is much need to expound on this, but suffice to say that the law does not always reflect the beliefs of the majority of the people in a community, and even when it does that doesn't make it right. SJA> Okay, you have studied all the cases mentioned above and agree with SJA> FSF methods. Are you certain that you approve of the methods FSF SJA> adopts *tomorrow*? No. And, as with the rest of my life, I will re-evaluate my position when the need arises. SJA> There are no easy answers to some questions. FSF claims that GNU is SJA> the ultimate truth - the whole FSF methodology is based on that SJA> principle. Major organisations pursuing a political end have to take strong stands. The FSF is much like the ACLU in this regard, an organisation which gets its own share of heat. I'm more on your side as far as this summary goes: SJA> * I do not have the complete answers SJA> * FSF does not have the complete answers SJA> The difference is that I am willing to let the search for the answers SJA> to go on, whereas FSF wants to chain everyone to their ideas with their SJA> copyrights and bullying. They think they have the right answer and need to pursue that. I can't fault them for that, especially since I don't think they are far off the mark at all. SJA> Because that is EXACTLY the business FSF is in. Forcing people to do SJA> what *they* think is right. Remember software tax? Remember the GNU SJA> "license" clause 2b ("give YOUR work to promote OUR ideology or we'll SJA> sue you.") Don't quote that. It is a very misleading, inflammatory paraphrase which does not accurately summarize GPL section 2b. The only time the GPL forces people to do what the FSF thinks is right is when the people are distributing derivative works. SJA> What FSF proposes to do is not ONLY to write gnufree software but ALSO SJA> make any other kind of software either illegal (commercial software) SJA> or extinct (public domain software.) I don't recall seeing making commercial software illegal mentioned as an objective in any FSF literature. SJA> I want to be able to sell software. More importantly, I want to be SJA> able to *BUY* software. Okay. I've got a great copy of GNU Emacs I'll sell you; you can even have source code. SJA> I often heard people refer to "public domain GNU software" - even some SJA> that are actually contributing software to FSF. This makes me feel SJA> quite sad - FSF is getting support from people who don't know what SJA> they are really supporting. This is indeed sad. It would be much better if they understood it. SJA> People are wasting their effort writing software that many people SJA> can't use either because of their "capitalist #1" beliefs or for SJA> fear of FSF blacklisting and lawsuits. I don't understand what you are saying here. Who are these people and what are they writing? Could you please elaborate on this sentence? SJA> FSF will create a huge gap between universities and the "real world": SJA> companies will no longer be able to invest in university software SJA> projects in fear of GNU copyright contamination and lawsuits. This SJA> hurts not only commercial programmers, students and researchers but SJA> everyone whose standard of living is affected by computers and high SJA> technology -- in the long run everyone living in the "western world." This is something only time will tell. The aims of the FSF are to change that overall environment; the aims of corporations are to keep the status quo. Which will win out is not a clear-cut call. Many, many people respect the quality of the software provided by the GNU project. SJA> Think about it. Don't take GNU people's word for it and don't take my SJA> word for it. You can take my word for it, though. I've never been wrong in my life. (Argh, I suppose this is necessary for the humour impaired, especially given that the rest of this didn't even hint at humour. "Don't take my word for it either.") SJA> Read the GNU copyright and think what it really means to SJA> your programming effort and the whole future of computers. Very important. SJA> Think about it. I have, and I encourage others to do so too. Thank you for your input. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@pawl.rpi.edu" "tale@itsgw.rpi.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))