[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gcc
Subject:    Re: Irony
From:       "John Dyson" <dyson () iquest ! net>
Date:       2002-11-30 19:24:12
[Download RAW message or body]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Dewar" <dewar@gnat.com>
To: <dewar@gnat.com>; <dyson@iquest.net>; <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: <espie@quatramaran.ens.fr>; <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; <prj@po.cwru.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 1:11 PM
Subject: Re: Irony


> > GPL doesn't guarantee access to source code either.   Free software
> > is about freedom of use and reuse, and not to give software a human
> > characteristic or right.   Something (a thing) that is free doesn't have
> > special strings
> > attached (or cost) for use or reuse.   In a way, it is like an idea, where
> > someone cannot compel you to give away your idea, but without
> > restrictions, then the idea can be used.   If the idea isn't free, then
> > you have to pay a duty for the use or reuse.   Costs of redistribution
> > that include objects beyond what is in that distribution, disqualify
> > that original object as being free.   Costs of redistribution can include
> > necessary redistribution of other objects, or even money.
> 
> This seems a bit confused. It seems to imply that Free Software should
> have no or low costs. There is no such implication in the GPL. 
>
Well, as someone who gives software to another person, just as a matter
of logic, you cannot reasonably impose subsequent 'freeness.'   You can
certainly give *permission* for free redistribution of your own work product
and your own work continues to be 'free.'  Free software
is only free in the sense of no (few) additional restrictions or costs are imposed
beyond simple laws of physics, logic or statute/treaty.   One reasonable
additional 'restriction' would be that the Copyright/licensing information
persist totally unchanged or unobscured in subsequent distribution.   This
requirement (that might even be a part of law already) of providing adequate
documentation that provides information about permission for
future use/redistribution helps support a legal future for the software.

There are natural costs of redistribution (i.e. even the energy that has to
be expended for the transfer of data.)    There are also additional costs
that can be imposed by the original author or the person who has a
copy of the software.   In the sense of an author who proclaims the
freeness of software, he/she can state that he/she gives permission
for use/reuse. But, imposing rules and regs on subsequent use beyond
simple permission incrementally chisels away the freeness.   These
invalidating rules/regs
can be in the form of an in-kind trade or reciprocal behavior, money,
or other kind of condition.

Usually, attempts that impose a certain, idealistic kind of 'freeness' will
have as much effect to remove other aspects of 'freeness' than to actually
impose the idealogical 'freeness.'   In essense, 'free' isn't the right word,
when significant constraints, rules, regulations are added by the author.   If
the 'constraints' ONLY affect the communication of permission, then
that is a necessary constraint.   When the 'constraints' create conditions
that can extend beyond the scope of the original works, then that software
becomes a lesser free (even to the extent of invalidating the terminology.)

Free is just not the right word.

John
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]