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

List:       gphoto-devel
Subject:    Re: [gphoto-devel] Re: Introduction and Comments
From:       Scott <scottf () gphoto ! net>
Date:       2000-08-24 19:20:43
[Download RAW message or body]

David Brownell wrote:

> > my only issue with this statement is the use of the word "ethical". it
> > just seems contradictory to call it ethical when we would effectively be
> > *forcing* other people to do something they wouldn't normally do.
> What force?  Using GPL is voluntary, as is using GPL'd software
> (and hence agreeing to the GPL terms).

In order to use GPL software, they must in turn GPL their own software
(or use a license compatible with the GPL).

In the case of a driver-framework (which is completely different in
nature than an application framework), this does not make sense. Drivers
provide access to devices that users have. if the non-Free applications
want to provide that support, they would have to reimplement the Free
drivers (resulting in a lot of wasted man-hours). This is detrimental to
the end-user because now there are not 1 source of drivers, but 2.. and
the list would grow. This would cause confusion and buggy device
support. This would also dilute the "implied" power of Free drivers
("well, so-and-so a company wrote their own drivers, so gPhoto must not
be very good"). 

Allowing non-Free applications would help to eliminate the multiple
versions and provide a better end-user experience. The user would know
where to go to get their drivers and they would be reassured that the
drivers would be Free.

> >      IMO,
> > ethical would be more along the lines of not imposing your ideals onto
> > other people and to also not attack other ways of doing things.
> What's being imposed?  

The fact that if non-Free applications want to use digital cameras, they
MUST follow the ideals of the FSF. They do have the option to not
support gPhoto then, but the end-user suffers as a result (as describe
in the previous section).

We are guaranteed a free (and expanding!) driver framework if non-Free
applications are permitted use. Please read my previous email about how
expansion will bring more Free drivers on to Free platforms.

>     - At an extreme, the DMCA/RIAA/MPAA/... model where users
>       don't have "fair use" or any of the other freedoms
>       that hundreds of years of common law guaranteed them.
>       The user options are:  pay up, and shut up.

This is nightmarish at best. :P 

>     - At another extreme, an all-GNU world would ensure
>       consumers have effective choices in the market,
>       and corporations trying to keep IP out of the public
>       domain see a (somewhat :-) organized counterforce.

This is quickly becoming a bit too philosophical and edging on
off-topic. :P

> I persist in seeing this specific licensing issue in terms
> of whether FSF should use gPhoto to push such intermediate
> scenarios.  And I'll say that I'm so far unpersuaded; lots
> of other organizations push such models, FSF needn't diminish
> the GNU "brand" by pushing them.

It might time then that things are discussed in regards to the GNU
sponsorship/association then.

gPhoto1 (0.4.x and below) can still remain a GNU project; we will
maintain it (I am working on the 0.4.4 release that has many bug fixes.
it is near release.) and since there will be no licensing changes, this
shouldn't be a problem. It is completely GPL and will remain so.

gPhoto2 has probably moved into a different philosophical focus.
gPhoto2's focus is Free drivers on all platforms; a Free and open
standard for accessing digital cameras. If this is not in line with what
the GNU project prefers (that it ONLY benefits Free software), then
gPhoto2 would be best as a non-GNU project.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-------------------- - - -   -    -
Scott Fritzinger		email: scottf@gphoto.net
gPhoto Project			  icq: 15884777
www.gphoto.net

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