[9060] in Perl-Users-Digest
Perl-Users Digest, Issue: 2676 Volume: 8
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Fri May 22 01:27:31 1998
Date: Thu, 21 May 98 22:00:44 -0700
From: Perl-Users Digest <Perl-Users-Request@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU>
To: Perl-Users@ruby.OCE.ORST.EDU (Perl-Users Digest)
Perl-Users Digest Thu, 21 May 1998 Volume: 8 Number: 2676
Today's topics:
Re: Clearly define "free software" (Christopher Seawood)
Re: Clearly define "free software" <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: Clearly define "free software" <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Re: GNU attacks on the open software community. (Ronald J Kimball)
Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97) (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 04:25:00 GMT
From: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood)
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <w6791.294$C06.1409075@news.san.rr.com>
robert havoc pennington (hp@pobox.com) wrote:
: cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood) writes:
: >
: > robert havoc pennington (hp@pobox.com) wrote:
: > : cls@seawood.org (Christopher Seawood) writes:
: >
: > : > If by "use", the FSF means something differently than compiling and
: > : > linking, perhaps they should clearly state what they mean. Until such
: > : > time, I will have to maintain that either
: > : > 1) the definition of "free software as defined by the FSF" is ambigious
: > : > (and for all practical purposes, useless)
: > : > or
: > : > 2) that software under the GPL is not "free software as defined by the FSF."
: > : >
: > :
: > : Obviously 2) is false, so it would be illogical to maintain that.
: >
: > You just stated that the GPL restricts distribution of modified
: > code, so how can you say 2) is false? The only way you could
: > do that is if you substitute the purpose of the license for the
: > effect. I'm talking about the actual effect of the GPL which is
: > to create "proprietary software as defined by the FSF."
: >
:
: 2) is obviously false, because the FSF created the GPL to embody what
: they mean by "free." So they must mean that anything the GPL does
: falls under their definition of "free."
Again, you are confusing _intent_ with _results_. They may *mean*
for their software to be "free software as defined by the FSF" but
the *results* of using the GPL are to the contrary. When a typical
student takes tests in school, they *mean* to get every problem 100%
correct, but *results* of the tests, on average, prove otherwise.
Should the student have gotten an A+ in every class because of their
*intent*? Obviously not. While the student may think his work is A+
work, the fact remains that it is not. The same thing applies to the GPL.
FSF may think it causes software to be "free software as defined by the
FSF", but it does not.
: Now, they may not say what they mean explicitly enough for your
: liking, but I think it's clear that they don't *mean* to be
: contradictory. I find www.opensource.org a better source of
: definitions, really, and the FSF does agree with that definition too.
Again, the results of their actions fall a bit short of their good intentions.
: > Again, from http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html,
: >
: > "Proprietary software is software that is not free or semi-free. Its
: > use, redistribution or modification is prohibited, or requires you to
: > ask for permission, or is restricted so much that you effectively can't
: > do it freely. "
: >
:
: Note that the GPL does not prohibit distribution, or require you to
: ask permission. The third option "restricted so much" is ambiguous and
: presumably the GPL's restrictions are not considered "so much."
GPL prohibits distribution of joint GPL and non GPL-compatible work.
And since this joint work is derived from the GPL'd work, it is covered
by the GPL. An example of this is xmcd+motif under linux. I am free
to use, copy, modify and redistribute modifications of xmcd source
according to the GPL. However, the moment I link it with motif under
linux, I am violating the GPL. Same thing goes for KDE & Qt (unless
you're running SuSE).
: I guess it's possible. I think the www.opensource.org guidelines are a
: pretty good way to see what it means, from a linguistic, empirical
: standpoint.
Yes, they are. But again, the intended meaning of the words means nothing
if the results of their actions, the licenses, are different. It's
interesting to note section 3 allows derived works to be licensed under
the same license as the original, but doesn't require it.
Regards,
Christopher
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 04:25:04 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <A6791.102$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <jE191.242$C06.1181736@news.san.rr.com>,
Christopher Seawood <cls@seawood.org> wrote:
>From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html,
>
>"Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use,
>copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either
>gratis or for a fee. "
>
>Now that pretty much fits my definition of free software. However, GPL
>software does not fall under this heading, IMO. Why not? Because GPL
>software restricts what you can _use_ the software with. I am not free
>to _use_ (compile & link, in this case) GPL software with propreitary
>libraries. So according to the above definition, GPL software is not
>"free software as defined by the FSF".
You can link with proprietary libraries, but you can't redistribute the
result. That's because the recipient would be restricted in what *he*
could do with it. Giving you the rights you want means depriving someone
else of their rights. RMS chose to preserve the users' rights over those
of the people who want to make a proprietary derived works.
My right to be a free man deprives you of your right to enslave me. Given
the choice, I'll take the right to be free.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 04:54:08 GMT
From: Barry Margolin <barmar@bbnplanet.com>
Subject: Re: Clearly define "free software"
Message-Id: <Qx791.103$152.1043244@cam-news-reader1.bbnplanet.com>
In article <Ha491.251$C06.1283191@news.san.rr.com>,
Christopher Seawood <cls@seawood.org> wrote:
>robert havoc pennington (hp@pobox.com) wrote:
>: You are free to compile and link with proprietary libraries, you just
>: can't distribute the result. So use is not limited. Distribution is,
>: however.
>
>Ok, so instead of not adhering to the "use" portion of the "free software
>definition as defined by the FSF", it doesn't adhere to the "distribute,
>either verbatim or with modifications" part. The point being that GPL
>software does not adhere to the "free software definiton as defined by
>the FSF." (I should really make a macro for that. ;)
Because your right to distribute this would interfere with the recipient's
right to modify. You can't both win, so one of you has to lose, and it's
the one who wants to make a proprietary version.
--
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Cambridge, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:56:40 -0400
From: rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu (Ronald J Kimball)
Subject: Re: GNU attacks on the open software community.
Message-Id: <1d9el08.eulk1g12vu29nN@bay1-104.quincy.ziplink.net>
Ron House <house@usq.edu.au> wrote:
> But it IS free! 'Free' has two meanings: I am free when
> I have freedom - that's one meaning. An object is free
> when it costs nothing - the other meaning. The FSF has
> perverted the word by applying the word to an object
> when they mean that the user of the object has freedom;
*snicker* 'Free' has *at least* 15 meanings. Many of them apply to
objects, and only one of them is "not costing or charging anything".
Here are a few:
"having no trade restrictions"
"not taken up with commitments or obligations"
"having a scope not restricted by qualifications"
"not hampered or restricted in its normal operation"
<http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=free>
--
_ / ' _ / - aka - rjk@coos.dartmouth.edu
( /)//)//)(//)/( Ronald J Kimball chipmunk@m-net.arbornet.org
/ http://www.ziplink.net/~rjk/
"It's funny 'cause it's true ... and vice versa."
------------------------------
Date: 8 Mar 97 21:33:47 GMT (Last modified)
From: Perl-Request@ruby.oce.orst.edu (Perl-Users-Digest Admin)
Subject: Digest Administrivia (Last modified: 8 Mar 97)
Message-Id: <null>
Administrivia:
The Perl-Users Digest is a retransmission of the USENET newsgroup
comp.lang.perl.misc. For subscription or unsubscription requests, send
the single line:
subscribe perl-users
or:
unsubscribe perl-users
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.misc (and this Digest), send your
article to perl-users@ruby.oce.orst.edu.
To submit articles to comp.lang.perl.announce, send your article to
clpa@perl.com.
To request back copies (available for a week or so), send your request
to almanac@ruby.oce.orst.edu with the command "send perl-users x.y",
where x is the volume number and y is the issue number.
The Meta-FAQ, an article containing information about the FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users meta-faq". The real FAQ, as it
appeared last in the newsgroup, can be retrieved with the request "send
perl-users FAQ". Due to their sizes, neither the Meta-FAQ nor the FAQ
are included in the digest.
The "mini-FAQ", which is an updated version of the Meta-FAQ, is
available by requesting "send perl-users mini-faq". It appears twice
weekly in the group, but is not distributed in the digest.
For other requests pertaining to the digest, send mail to
perl-users-request@ruby.oce.orst.edu. Do not waste your time or mine
sending perl questions to the -request address, I don't have time to
answer them even if I did know the answer.
------------------------------
End of Perl-Users Digest V8 Issue 2676
**************************************
