[CS-FSLUG] GNU believers

Wed Sep 1 23:59:13 CDT 2004

A modified (one that merely requests the inclusion of an acknowledgement file)
BSD liscense does just as good a job for the user's freedom.  In fact, a
closed-source freeware liscense does as good a job.  After all, the difference
between a user and a developer is that a devloper is going to want to change
and improve the code.  A user is worried about whether he can use it without
paying, and whether he can make copies of it and give them to his friends.  A
developer wants to add, subtract, or change functionality in the program, and
then release the new product under a new name.  

If I release code, I'll do it altruistically, because I hope it will be useful
to others.  If somebody comes along, improves my code, and takes away my
users, then well and good.  Their product must be more useful.  I would
appreciaate a nod from them, indicating that they based on my work, but I
don't presume to force them to do anything.  If I were to release my code with
a rider saying, "To derive from this code, you must always use my name scheme
and tab-space format," people would laugh at me.  But if I attach a rider
saying, "To derive from my code, you cannot protect your intellectual and
commercial interests in this code by denying others the right to modify and
distribute your derivative work," everyone says, "What a great guy!"

I love the idea of open source.  It's software by people who said, "I can do
that better," for people who said, "Boy that's neat!"  Eventually some of the
second group add, "But I can do that better," and the cycle continues.  In a
perfect world, liscenses would be unnecesary, because people wouldn't bogart
credit for the hard work of others, because it's not right to steal and cheat.
We don't live in that world, but I don't want to be the guy who assumes that
the next guy is going to try to steal my work, and say he did it.  If I have to
make an assumption about someone, I'd rather assume that he'll respect my work.
It's better on my blood pressure.

This is why I do not like the GPL, and why I plan to not use it.  I hope that
knowing the reason for my distaste of the liscense, those who have questioned
my continued use of GPL'ed and GNU software will understand why I see no
contradiction between my dislike of the liscense as a developer and my
toleration of it as a user.

Aaron Lehmann

On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 07:41:12PM -0400, Don Parris wrote:
> It's also important to understand the philosophy behind GPL'ed
> software.  It is designed to guarantee the _user's_ freedom.  It also
> bears in mind a scriptural point - namely that in putting others
> first, we actually take care of ourselves as well.  RMS is an ironic
> icon in that, unlike much of the rest of our society, which is
> dominated by the "me" mentality, he seeks to benefit the whole
> society.  Hence, if the whole society benefits, so does he.
> 
> That applies to everyone who develops using the GPL.  That is, in
> fact, the very strength of the GPL.  If we allow ourselves to get lost
> in the commercialism and the "me" mentality, we have lost sight of the
> cross.
> 
> I've talked to numerous people - police officers, teachers,
> executives, etc.  We live in the "me" generation.  Indeed, some of the
> Christian music of our day reflects - at least in the lyrics - the
> notion that we need to refocus our attention on God, and lose self. 
> "The Heart of Worship" is the example that comes to mind.  I realize
> that's a bit off course, but it points to the fact that so many of us
> focus on "me" right here, right now.
> 
> Don
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:10:14 -0500, Aaron Patrick Lehmann
> <lehmanap at cs.purdue.edu> wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:00:25PM -0500, Timothy R. Butler wrote:
> > > >
> > > >Thus is my point.  I have no trouble with someone taking my code and
> > > >making a
> > > >derivative closed-source version.  I fail to see the "freedom" in a
> > > >liscense
> > > >that takes away choices from developers.
> > >
> > >       Which is why it is good there is the BSD license. On the other hand,
> > >       I would not release my code under a license that allows the code to be
> > > taken an not returned. I don't want someone to beat me at my own game,
> > > is it were, by taking my code, going proprietary and then feeding off
> > > my improvements to crush support for my open code base.
> > >
> > >       I'm not saying the GPL is right for everyone, but I think it is
> > >       still unfair to call it viral. It doesn't infect your code, it only adds it
> > > terms onto what you do when you are simply expanding *my* code.
> > 
> > I'm using the word "viral" in its technical sense.  In other words, it tends to
> > spread.  I'm not using it aas an insult.  Possibly I was unclear about this.
> > 
> > Aaron Lehmann
> > --
> > Sometimes you stay the course;
> > Sometimes the course stays you.
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> > Christiansource at ofb.biz
> > http://cs.uninetsolutions.com
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> DC Parris GNU Evangelist
> http://matheteuo.org/
> gnumathetes at gmail.com
> Free software is like God's love - 
> you can share it with anyone anywhere anytime!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ChristianSource FSLUG mailing list
> Christiansource at ofb.biz
> http://cs.uninetsolutions.com

-- 
Sometimes you stay the course;
Sometimes the course stays you.