On Sat, 6 May 2000, Bill Anderson wrote:
> James Sutherland wrote:
> > On Fri, 5 May 2000, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >
> > > The concept of inalienable rights, rights that you cannot cede because
> > > everyone should always have them, is a fundamental part of the legal
> > > system of the US and many other countries.
> >
> > Yes. Now find me the section of the US Constitution, or the European
> > Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees you the right to MY source
> > code?
>
> Strawman. Richard didn't claim it ixisted.
It is not included in any respected list of human rights I know of. Nor
does it belong there.
> > > For example, selling oneself into slavery used to be permitted in most
> > > parts of the world. But people eventually recognized that this led to
> > > less freedom for a large number of people--and eventually slavery was
> > > abolished. This is one example of an inalienable right. There are
> > > many others. For example, in the US a noncompetition agreement
> > > lasting many years is legally void--because it conflicts with the
> > > inalienable right to practice one's profession.
> > >
> > > Of course, being a slave is much worse than using a proprietary
> > > program. So am I not exaggerating by making an analogy between them?
> > > No, because it is not just an analogy--it is a counterexample. The
> > > "truly free" argument against copyleft applies just the same against
> > > prohibition of slavery, or any other inalienable right.
> > >
> > > That argument rest on an extremely general assumption: that *any*
> > > inalienable right is intolerable; that as long as you have any rights
> > > you cannot give up, you are not truly free. They reject copyleft as a
> > > special case of this general assumption. To disagree with copyleft is
> > > not an extremist view, but the general premise is one.
> >
> > I agree that the "right" to give up your inalienable rights is a
> > fundamentally flawed concept. I just don't agree that your access to my
> > source code without my consent is such a right...
>
> I don't see him making that claim.
That's where the "software wants to be free" crap comes in. The trouble
is, he's trying to apply it to MY software if he can find the slightest
excuse. That's the whole "viral" aspect to the GPL.
> > > People have a right to disapprove of copyleft; they even have a right
> > > to advocate legalization of selling oneself into slavery. But the
> > > people who use this argument against copyleft typically do not admit
> > > the extremist nature of their premise. They usually try to pass it
> > > off as uncontroversial, rather than a fundamental rejection of much of
> > > our legal system. At that point, their argument becomes disingenuous.
> >
> > Yes. I agree there. The point at which we diverge, I think, is where you
> > start imposing restrictions on one person's freedom, on the assumption
> > that other people have certain rights over him.
> >
> > My only real objection to the GPL is that it seems hypocritical: it denies
> > one person the right NOT to publish their source code, in order to grant a
>
> I disgree. To restate your argument:
> "You allowing me into your house with the agreement I won't shoot you
> violates my rights to shoot you." Using someone else's work (code) to
> further, or add oyur own becomes an agreement.
No. Shooting someone is unreasonable, refusing to give them MY source code
is not. An agreement whereby I am forced to give other people my source
code is VERY restrictive (more so than most of MS's EULAs - so much for
"freedom"!)
> > third party some rights to this person's source. Using GPL software as a
> > user grants me rights; using it as a programmer removes them.
>
> I don't see how you make this conclusion. The programmer and the user
> have exactly the same rights with a GPL program. I see no distinctions
> in the GPL that say programmers are nay different than users.
The difference arises when I write software which interacts with that GPL
program, and is thus forced to become GPL software itself.
> > Why should I not have the right to decide whether or not to publish the
> > source code to my own software, simply because it depends on someone
> > else's? If I write Windows software, depending on Microsoft's proprietary
> > software, MS do not impose restrictions on how I license MY code; why
> > should yours be more restrictive?
>
> Because it is a _choice_. And you are incorrect regarding licensing of
> code from microsoft. If you license code from MS, and your code
> contains that code, yes, you are limited in what you can license out.
If it *CONTAINS* MS's code, then of course I am! I never said anything
about incorporating code - I'm talking about LINKING with/to it.
> For some companies, hardware (think drivers for various cards) you are
> likewise limited. Think the opposite of the GPL. If you get access
> (legally) to MS code, it is under an NDA.
BS. Find me the NDA in the Windows 98 EULA.
> That means, if your code links in or uses some of the MS code, you
> can't show it to anyone.
Again, BS. 100 000 000 people have a copy, and there isn't an NDA - just a
copying restriction.
> That means you can' put it in the PD, GPL, BSD-ish, anything which
> shows the code. Sounds restrictive to me.
There are GPLed and freeware Windows apps which link to MS code. Lots of
them. Only the ones from Microsoft come under a Microsoft EULA, because
(unlike the GPL) Microsoft doesn't force their license on YOUR code.
James.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 21:00:19 EST