byron@upstairs.(none) (Byron Jeff) writes:
> In article <8763x2vtc7.fsf@inbox.ru>, Aleksej Saushev
wrote:>>byron@upstairs.(none) (Byron Jeff) writes:
>>
>>> In article <8763x3xnri.fsf@inbox.ru>, Aleksej Saushev
wrote:>>>>"Jean-François Michaud"
comcast.net> writes:
>>>>>>>>> There is still confusion between 'free' as in freedom and 'free' as in
>>>>> free from fee. It is NOT a valid argument against the open source
>>>>> model since it never actually claims to offer 'free' software in the
>>>>> free from fee sense (it certainly is an interesting collateral effect
>>>>> but it isn't the essence of open source). The open source model claims
>>>>> software freedom.
>>>>
>>>>What "freedom" is it then?
>>>
>>> Actually the more pertinent question is "freedom to who?"
>>>
>>>>If it were free, I could use the software _without_any_limitations_,
>>>
>>> Actually you can use the software without any limitations. The GPL and
>>> the like impose rules on modification and distribution, not use.
>>
>>"Use" includes right to modify, it is protected by law.
>
> Modify yes. Distribution of modifications? That's a different matter.
>
>>>>but Stallman imposes such conditions, that I don't even understand,
>>>>where the border lies, without prior consultation to very skillful
>>>>lawyer.
>>>
>>> It's really not that complicated. The GPL (at least up to version 2) is
>>> a reciprocity license. You receive a GPL licensed product with a certain
>>> set of rights, and you can't abridge those rights to anyone that you
>>> redistribute the product (or deriviatives). The short list:
>>>
>>> 1) You get the source.
>>> 2) You can modify the source.
>>> 3) You can redistribute the source. In fact you must redistribute the
>>> source to anyone that you give/sell the product to. See #1 above.
>>> 4) You can charge for that redistribution.
>>
>>You can use, modify, redistribute, sublicense.
>>
>>> 5) You can use the software as you see fit.
>>
>>This is protected by law, GPL just repeats it.
>>
>>> 6) You cannot bundle the software with incompatibly licensed software.
>>
>>This goes against the law and hence this point isn't valid.
>
> For mere aggregation there's no problem.
For mere aggregation there's no problem even with more restrictive licences.
>>In addition, this goes even against natural way things are done:
>>what is the "bundle" here?
>>
>>> That's about it. All the complexity comes in when trying to mix those
>>> rules with closed source software.
>>
>>The complexity comes when trying to mix those rules with any software,
>>except GPLd. This means the software isn't free,
>
> Back to the same question I asked earlier: Free for whom?
For anyone except copyright holder and dumb user. Isn't it clear?
> Every right you give to a developer takes away a right from the user.
That's apparently wrong. Developer may do with p.d. work anything
he likes, and user may do with p.d. work whatever he wishes,
except claiming copyright or authorship.
> The GPL is designed to protect end user rights at the expense of
> developers and redistributors.
It isn't. End user is forced to pay lawyer consultant to understand
how he can modify work. Note, that end user tends to use _any_
software tool (even acquired illegally) without licence segregation.
So, end user is forced to either consult lawyer before he shares
modified work, or take a risk of being sued by FSF for violating
some unclear or even illegal point in their licence.
>>to tell more,
>>the issues are much worse than with classic BSD: even when you
>>have more free license, you have to deliver not the simple list
>>of contributors but the whole unmodified source of components to
>>the user, who doesn't care about what have you used, and doesn't
>>want to see the guts.
>
> It doesn't matter what the end user wants. It's the developers
> responsibility to deliver according to the license.
>
> The problem is that it's a slipperly slope. Presuming that the end user
> doesn't want source means thinking that you don't need to deliver it.
If you can't read, maybe you should quit the discussion.
I have told that GPL imposes problematic limitations.
RMS threatened everyone around, that BSD (original) is problematic
for its acknowledgement requirement, which is less than 5-line note
"This software includes parts..." He replaced it with requirement
to distribute the whole source instead, the source, which carries
the repetitive "This is free software..." text. The provision of
the source via public accessible media isn't sufficient to him.
> Then modifications start to get distributed without source.
It's easy to get the source, build it and check, whether
software carries unknown modifications. The only additional
step is getting the source.
>>It's not 2-3 line "This contains parts of
>>software written by John Doe and contributors," it is the same
>>full page "THIS IS FREE SOFTWARE" advertising in each file.
>
> That's not how the GPL works.
Oh, really?
Have you _ever_ read the source of any GNU tool?
Have you _ever_ read that same GPL to the end?
"If the program is interactive, make it output a short notice like
this when it starts in an interactive mode:
"Gnomovision version 69, Copyright (C) YYYY NAME OF AUTHOR
Gnomovision comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY; for details type
`show w'. This is free software, and you are welcome to
redistribute it under certain conditions; type `show c' for details."
And each file should carry even longer advertising, that it's
"free" software.
>>> Questions like:
>>>
>>> "I received the source for a GPL program. Can I make changes and sell
>>> the changed program without giving up the source for my changes?"
>>
>>Have you read my message? I don't ask such simple questions.
>>I _don't_ make any changes to GPL components, I deliver those source
>>to end user (with questions "WTF you waste my bandwidth for this
>>stuff?", rarely with addition "If I wanted it, I know about
gnu.org
>>and
google.com."),i
>
> So simply make the offer for source. That's all you need to do.
In written form? Thanks! It just proves that GPL is licence for lawyers,
not for users nor for developers either.
>>so what's the difference between LGPL and GPL?
>
> For the LGPL's code itself, virtually nothing. The difference is that
> LGPL allows other licensed code to use it.
GPL isn't different, if you don't take RMS' meaning for words,
rather natural one.
>>> All the nuances come in when trying to determine if something is a
>>> derivative. Anything that isn't standalone, requires either
>>> recompilation or relinking to change, is considered derivative.
>>> Most of the derivative issue is based around rule #2.
>>
>>dlopen/dlsym/dlclose isn't relinking, using external linker is my own,
>>internal problem, GNU has nothing to do with that.
>
> You have code in the same process space as GPL code. So that combined
> entity is a derivative work of the GPL code. So it all has to be GPL.
No, it isn't. GPLd code is clearly separated from any other code,
the code remains functional, when the library is replaced by any
other one with similar interface. Non-GPLd part doesn't need to
have any deep knowledge about GPLd part and vice versa.
Memory space doesn't matter, it is the same memory on this system,
either logically (as concept) and physically (as device).
If you don't know the law, you ought to go and learn it,
as for now you're just another liar.
Indeed, it's easy to deceive any developer or user with less
law knowledge, and that's what all you GPL fanatics do.
It's plain FSF FUD and you support it by spreading the same lies.
>>In addition, what is the cardinal difference between linking on my side
>>and on end user side? It just problematic to do, since end user has
>>to get machine resources, tools, knowledge and time to link the software
>>himself. So, GPL doesn't help user in any way, I know many users,
>>who made the choice of not knowing anything about ugly internals.
>
> The end user doesn't have to do anything. They don't have to relink, or
> use the sources, or anything else. However, it's not your right as a
> developer to take that right away from the end user. That's what the
> license protects.
User may do whatever he wishes, it is his right, and I cannot take it
away, even if I wanted to. Have you ever read the law?
>>If the tool just works, they use it, if they need to build it,
>>they move to anything else. Freeware terms are sufficient, let
>>alone "you can download the source and DIY."
>
> Then distribute your stuff under freeware and everything will be fine.
> However, that will lock you out of the GPL infrastructure codebase.
Oh, really? Apparetly it won't. See MySQL ODBC argument.
> And that's fine for some folks.
For whom? For geeks that like hacking for free and nothing else?
>>>>>> It's a different business model, but it's still a business model,
>>>>>> and that business model needs clarity. From observation, a number
>>>>>> of businesses are moving away from GPL products because of the
>>>>>> lack of clarity in the GPL licenses.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure what isn't clear to you, spending a few hours on the net
>>>>> to untangle everything is usually sufficient. Or at least, sufficient
>>>>> enough to pull together a relatively good understanding.
>>>>
>>>>It's not clear to me, how can I distribute a bundle, containing
>>>>logically and mechanically separate GPL parts. The most logical
>>>>way is to list parts in supplementary documentation (because
>>>>only real geeks read it), providing URLs, where to get the source
>>>>(because end user doesn't want it in most of the case).
>>>
>>> Actually the simplest way is to simply ship the source with the product
>>> and be done with it. That releases you from any further obligation.
>>>
>>> And just my opinion, it's not a good idea to deal with the end users
>>> wants. The fact is down the line when they need something else from the
>>> software, then they'll look for that source so that they can get someone
>>> to make the mods for them (if they cannot do it themselves).
>>
>>It's wrong. You just waste their time for nothing.
>>
>>They may have little knowledge to "DIY" or not care at all,
>>but you force them to "DIY once more" for the sake of illusional
>>freedom of specific kind.
>
> It's not for nothing. When you as a developer disappear and the end user
> is left holding the bag, then when they have the source, they can make
> decisions about how to handle the situation.
How? Do they have any knowledge of program design?
Practice shows that abandoned opensource projects don't live long.
Same practice shows that end users go and pay for closed source product,
because opensource one is of low quality and isn't supported anymore.
Availability of the source changes nothing in this matter.
> And once again the developer can simply make an offer for the source.
Yeah, and someone has to pay for post. It's just another unnecessary
complication for both, developer and end user.
--
CKOPO BECHA...
CKOPO CE3OH...
