Freedom or Power Redux

Warhammer writes: "In his web log today Tim O'Reilly responded to Stallman and Kuhn's essay, Freedom or Power (previous Slashdot article). I think he has some great points about not getting caught up in who has more of a right to freedom. Instead he says we should concentrate on a compromise that benefits everyone, developer and user alike."

Ed. note - a brief response to Tim. A) my name isn't Timothy. (I know, I know, we all look alike. :) And B) I was trying to say pretty much what O'Reilly is saying - that all licensing, including the GPL, is an expression of power over what other people can do with the software. Hence the term "all licensing". If there were no copyright whatsoever on computer code, no intellectual property considerations at all, perhaps we could approach the state of true freedom. In the meantime, the GPL is a good way to place code firmly into a state where it is mostly free - you are free to do anything with GPL code except take it out of its free state. As far as restrictions go, this one is infinitely more palatable than most of the powers that software licensing seeks to exercise over software users.

As a more general point, I take issue with O'Reilly's description of copyright law as a compromise between creators and users. There's absolutely no evidence that the rights of users are considered when copyright laws are made. All copyright law changes made in my lifetime, nearly all copyright law changes ever, have been expansions of copyright law - if it's a compromise, it's an extraordinarily one-sided one. (I suppose you could a describe a mugging as a compromise between the mugger and the little old lady over rights to her purse.) Copyright law is more accurately described as a compromise between copyright holders and copyright holders. Other descriptions are both inaccurate and do a disservice to efforts to reform the laws.

US is not the only country...

[MosesJones]

On the point that "all copyright changes" don't take into account the user this isn't the case in the EU where some changes have been done for that reason.

One issue that isn't often addressed is the cultural differences between countries that lead to different approaches being appropriate in different countries. The same is true within different parts of an organisation ("If I can't pay it ain't worth it" to "If its free then it fits in my budget"). Licensing is about the _writer_ of the software or work which may make sense in their environment but not in that of another. Thus a proprietary license and ownership but free distribution (eg Java) may make a lot of sense if it ties in with the aims of the program.

IMO Writers of a work have a right on how it should be used, it is not for _users_ to say how it should be used as it is not their effort that created it. That said the Writer's right does not extend once the users effort has been expended, whether that be by paying cash or by building upon the artefact.

If I buy a brick, I do not expect to pay a regular license for the house.

Cultural differences are just as important. If a certain practice seems strange or odd to you probably means that your approach seems odd to them. Basically tolerance is the important deal, being dictatorial makes you as much as a fool as the guy you are arguing against.

disservice?

[zoftie]

I think there are distinctly two lines here:
1. Stallman Ideas are communist - no relation to way USSR implemented its ideas of communism. Rather an original idea of communism.
2. Other opensource licences are 'socialism' with fragments of communism, here and there. See Finland, other european contries.

Taken that, I think it is a disservice Tim doing for the public, trying to confuse them and make public analyse each of the licences. Why? Because most public is not able, interested or have time to pick apart lawyer made contraptions. Now if he was to say that BSD licence is good, here's why, that would let common programmers understand advantages of either and pick one.

Business being a thing that will consume anything to grow, opensource licences are usable and possibly exploitable under some circuimstances, while GPL is least exploitable - AFAIK.

"users" are irrelevant to licensing issues

[Aardappel]

this is one issue that I have never understood about open source advocacy: the talk about "users".

(pure) users can't program thus their "freedom" is a 1:1 coupling to the freedom of the programmer that is their "supplier".

The only freedoms that thus matter are those of programmers (and "users that can program", if you must). But an easier metric to compare licenses would be "Nth level recipient", i.e.:

zero level: the original programmer and licensor
1st level: the programmer that builds on the original code
2nd level and onward: programmer that wants to build on the N-1 level base.

The GPL gives "most freedom" to levels 0 and 2 onwards (the more "selfish" license), whereas the BSD license gives "most freedom" to level 1 (a license giving "most freedom" to all of them can't exist, it will always be a fundamental choice). As soon as a level is occupied by a "user", there won't be any N+1 levels after it, so "freedom" becomes irrelevant.

Some software has to be non-free

[tc]

Free software - no problem. Probably a great idea for somethings. All software being free - not so great. The problem is that it means you can't have a software business. You can have a service or hardware business that happens to employ some programmers. But you can't have a business that exists to develop software. That just doesn't seem right. Why is it okay to make money from selling hardware or services, but not okay to make money from developing software?

In Stallman's universe, software companies just wouldn't exist. It would be impossible for a bunch of programmers to get together and support themselves by developing great software. They'd have to find some other thing they could sell along with it. But suppose they didn't want to do that. Suppose they just wanted to write software - they're screwed. Those people are no longer free to just write software!

The freedom to decide to charge for some of your software is a freedom, because it allows you to choose your career. Without the ability for anyone anywhere to ever charge for any software, the freedom for programmers to just be programmers disappears.

I'm not saying that Free software is a bad thing. But it has to co-exist with proprietary software for software development as a whole to remain viable.

Re:Some software has to be non-free

[duffbeer703]

Stallman doesn't give a shit about the software industry -- he lives and works in the academic universe.

Since his job & livlihood is funded by gov't grants, charity and tuition, he does not have to worry about actually producing profit.

It can be both (was Re:Some software ...)

[Christianfreak]

It can be both and that's the point that most people miss. The GPL doesn't say you can't sell the software, it just says that you have to provide the source and that it can be copied.

The copying issue is the problem and what I would love to see is a free license with the following restrictions:

1. Source must be open (like GPL)
2. The code or the program can be copied and given away but it can't be charged for or mass produced without compensating the original author or getting his/her consent
3. Derivative works could be created but should be shown to the original author for a review before it can be mass produced or sold this would keep people from changing one line of code and calling it their own.
4. If the original author cannot be found (and the creator of the derivative work has tried in good faith to find them), no longer supports the project and has not appointed another person to do so (i.e. the project is dead) then the work becomes public domain. This would keep people committed to their projects or finding others who would be.

I believe something like this would go a long way to making sure that developers get their due, and can earn a living by charging for software but other developers/users can make copies, share with friends, or learn from the code.

Re:It can be both (was Re:Some software ...)

[SuiteSisterMary]

The GPL doesn't say you can't sell the software, it just says that you have to provide the source and that it can be copied.

In other words, you might as well give it away for free, and ask for donations.

Re:Actually, one more factual error...

[seebs]

So what? Your code is still free. Other people's code may not be. There's no problem here. Obviously, no, if someone makes a proprietary program that includes some public domain code, their program isn't about freedom - but the PD code gave them the freedom to do that, and gives you the freedom to do whatever *you* want *WITH THE FREE CODE*.

The GPL is only a good thing if power over other peoples' code is more important to you than their freedom to use your code however they want. If that's the case, it's a great license. I'd rather make my moral decisions for myself, and let them make theirs.

Re:O'Reilley : RMS :: Libertarianism : Socialism

[Gleef]

Walter Bell writes:

O'Reilley : RMS :: Libertarianism : Socialism

O'Reilley supports the rule of copyright law over software. This is not libertarianism. RMS argues against copyright law covering software [gnu.org], this is a much more libertarian viewpoint than O'Reilly's. Socialism recommends government ownership and control of key means of production. This has nothing to do with what RMS is arguing for.

I would redo the analogy as
O'Reilly : RMS :: Regulated Captialism : Laissez-faire Captialism or
O'Reilly : RMS :: Status Quo : Libertarian

Unfortunately, the two viewpoints are irreconcilable. One values the rights of the individual over the needs of the Free Software world, and one values the needs of the Free Software world over the rights of the individual.

Not quite right. Both of them feel they have the best interests of the Free Software world in mind.

The irreconcileable difference in viewpoints is simple:
* Tim O'Reilly values the rights of the developer over the rights of the user.
* RMS values the rights of the user over the rights of the developer.

I, as a developer, feel that RMS's viewpoint is the healthier one in the long run. Many developers understandably disagree. What baffles me is how many non-developers seem to prefer the rights of developers over the rights of users.

So, to these men, I say: drop it. Let the chips fall where they may.

It is unlikely that either will drop it. RMS advocates Free Software both as a living and as an ethical calling. Tim O'Reilly has fears for his personal livelihood and those of the people whose books he publishes.

Not much wrong with the GPL in and of itself.

[dmaxwell]

There is a clause in the GPL that says something to the effect "This code is licensed under this version of the GPL or any later version." Removing that clause from your COPYING.TXT pretty much gives you the licence on the Linux kernel. The GPL and LGPL are nothing more than tools in and of themselves. As long as the "any later version clause is removed" then the FSF has no power over a GPLed work.

The FSF also recommends that developers give the original copyrights to the FSF. You don't have to do that either. Basically, using the GPL does not morph a developer into a slack jawed Stallmanite.

It sounds like the GPL as used on the Linux kernel may be what you are looking for. The kernel developers also permit proprietary kernel modules but feel no obligation to maintain module compatibility across kernel releases. It is up to the proprietary vendor to track the kernel in that case. So you may or may not want to remove that addition as well.