[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: mozilla-license
Subject: GPL is a joke anyways
From: nospam () non ! uce
Date: 1998-03-28 11:13:27
[Download RAW message or body]
I wanted to remain quiet about this but this whole thing has become so
silly that I feel as a GNU'ist I must make a statement.
It has seemed like ever since the mozilla license newsgroup was
started there has been a push for having the mozilla source code
available under the General Public License. RMS seems hell bent on
fuelling the fire with demands of additional lines that "need" to be
added to NPL. Unforantly, from all I have expierenced that Netscape may
have a better view of GNU'ism than RMS at this point. It appears that
RMS has given up on GNU in favor of GPL.
To explain what I mean by this, it is important that you understand
both was GNU and GPL is and is not. GNU was started around 1985 as a
philosophy for creating a "free" operating system. However, a large
part of the philosophy is in how the word "free" is defined. Unlike the
popular view where software provided for $0 is "free," GNU called for
it's compotents to be complettely modifable while still possibly having
a price tag on it. At these origins there was no GPL, all that was
important
was that the software fit the GNU'ist defination of "free" software.
Today that continues, as stated at:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TOCCopyleftedSoftware
Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to
use, copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications,
either gratis or for a fee. In particular, this means that source
code must be available. ``If it's not source, it's not software.''
If a program is free, then it can potentially be included in a free
operating system such as GNU, or free GNU/Linux systems..
However, today we also have the General Public License which, as RMS has
stated, does NOT contain the word GNU in it's title. Unfortantly, he
has failed to notice that it also is so far removed from GNU in practice
that it works against a GNU'ist goals.
A GNU'ist would like nothing better than to see the distribution of
the source code. While it has made several people happy that Internet
Explorer 3/4 and Netscape Communicator Standard 4.04 have been available
with a $0 price tag, neither have been "free" according to the GNU'ist
view. On March 31st, however, Mozilla Navigator will fit the GNU'ist
defination of "free software" and as such qualify for being included in
a GNU system (even when released only under NPL)! When this becomes
reality it will be a major win for GNU! On the other hand, GPL has
proven to be MEANINGLESS in actual practice of being associated with
distributing source code.
To prove this point, I would like to point to one area where GNU and
GPL should be followed the best: the Linux community. Withen the Linux
community, a company called RedHat has gone to great lengths
to be compliant with GPL, even to the point of providing "pristine
sources" which strictly follow the requirements given in section 2 of
the GPL v2. RedHat distributions have also included a file
/usr/doc/emacs-xx.x/FAQ which contains:
RMS writes:
The legal meaning of the GNU copyleft is less important than the
spirit, which is that Emacs is a free software project and that
work pertaining to Emacs should also be free software. "Free"
means that all users have the freedom to study, share, change and
improve Emacs. To make sure everyone has this freedom, pass along
source code when you distribute any version of Emacs or a related
program, and give the recipients the same freedom that you enjoyed.
RedHat has also been nice enough to allow anyone to copy and
distribute the majority of RedHat freely. Some of the companies that
have also released their own RedHat distribution CD-Roms have been
Yggdrasil, InfoMagic, Cheap*Bytes, and Linux System Labs. Of each of
the companies that I listed above, only one uses GPL in the product
name. RedHat's own products have sold under the titles "Offical RedHat
5.0 box set" or "RedHat Powertools." Yggdrasil has been successfully
shipping "Winter 97 Linux Internet Archives" -- InfoMagic has "Linux
Developer's Resource" -- Cheap*bytes provides "CheapBytes Red Hat 5.0"
-- and Linux Systems Labs has "RedHat 5.0 GPL"
So, now for the proof:
If GPL has to do with distribution of source code then one would
expect that it would be LSL's product would be the mostly likely one to
be fully compliant with the distribution terms of the GPL. Yet, it
appears that is each of the OTHER products listed above that don't
contain GPL in the title that contain the GNU source code. It is clear
that the "GPL CDROM" doesn't contain the source code that the RedHat
Official CDs do as described at:
http://www.lsl.com/catalog/software/redhat5.0.gpl/index.htm
Next, the GPL makes an attempt in section 3 to require a commerical
distributibutor to either provide the source code or a written offer to
provide the source code. When I notified LSL they shipped me a product
that provided neither, Dan Irvin replied for LSL in the form of:
We enthusiastically embrace the GPL and have donated thousands of
dollars to the free software community. By including the GPL in a
text file on all our CDs we explicitly define our compliance to the
GPL.
Ahhh. There we have it from a person that has explained to me by
phone that LSL's whole business depends on free software and the would
never do anything to compermise GPL that Section 3 of the GPL v2 is a
meaningless guideline. "Compliance" with GPL means nothing more than
including a copy of the GPL text.
Btw, I have notified RMS of these events. What has he accomplished to
change LSL's actions? Maybe they don't need changing? Maybe one should
not expect a GPL CDROM to have the source code?
So, for those that want to continue to push that Mozilla Navigator
needs to be GPL, please discover the answers to these questions:
Does the "GPL CDROM" containing RH5 from LSL follow the spirit of GNU
(as stated above) and provide the source code to GNU Emacs when they
distribute the binary?
If no, then is there a written offer included with the product that
offers the source code availiablity for at least three years as
stated
under the distribution terms of GPL v2 Section 3b?
"GPL CDROM" implies that the entire CDROM is covered by the GPL which
usually means the packages can be freely used even in a commerical
enviroment. Is that truely the case?
Does the CDROM exclude the "ncftp" or "xv" packages of RH5?
Can LSL provide a written statement from either author that they
are covered on the GPL or a less restrictive license?
If your answer was "no" to all of these then hasn't the
enthusiastically embracing of GPL done by LSL including a defination of
GPL that contradicts the GNU'ist requirements for free software?
Another issue you should be aware of is that GPL *FURTHER* restricts
your freedom of being able to modify the source than NPL does! The GPL
handling of patents would make it impossible to have a Mozilla Web
Editor that can save modified GIF's as a feature. If the US where to
remove all crypto export restictions, a GPL Mozilla Navigator still
couldn't do RSA. There is alot of additional modifiablity permitted
under NPL!
RMS needs to get off his high horse and clean up his own license
enforment before he goes making demands about other licenses. If you
bring only remember one major point from reading this then let it be
this:
Mozilla Navigator will be released on March 31 under the NPL and will
provide one more additional "free software" package.
If Mozilla Navigator was released under GPL they might as well release
it on April 1st. It is time for the progression of the GPL joke to slow
down!
Just stop attacking Mozilla.org for NPL because it is groups like
Mozilla and RedHat that are the real GNU'ist in all of this!
[Attachment #3 (text/html)]
<HTML>
I wanted to remain quiet about this but this whole thing has become
so silly that I feel as a GNU'ist I must make a statement.
<P> It has seemed like ever since the mozilla license newsgroup was
started there has been a push for having the mozilla source code available
under the General Public License. RMS seems hell bent on fuelling
the fire with demands of additional lines that "need" to be added to NPL.
Unforantly, from all I have expierenced that Netscape may have a better
view of GNU'ism than RMS at this point. It appears that RMS has given
up on GNU in favor of GPL.
<P> To explain what I mean by this, it is important that you understand
both was GNU and GPL is and is not. GNU was started around 1985 as
a philosophy for creating a "free" operating system. However, a large
part of the philosophy is in how the word "free" is defined. Unlike
the popular view where software provided for $0 is "free," GNU called for
it's compotents to be complettely modifable while still possibly having
a price tag on it. At these origins there was no GPL, all that was
important
<BR>was that the software fit the GNU'ist defination of "free" software.
Today that continues, as stated at:
<UL><A HREF="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TOCCopyleftedSoftware">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#TOCCopyleftedSoftware</A>
<P>Free software is software that comes with permission for anyone to use,
copy, and distribute, either verbatim or with modifications, either gratis
or for a fee. In particular, this means that source code must be available.
``If it's not source, it's not software.''
<P>If a program is free, then it can potentially be included in a free
operating system such as GNU, or free GNU/Linux systems..</UL>
However, today we also have the General Public License which, as RMS has
stated, does NOT contain the word GNU in it's title. Unfortantly,
he has failed to notice that it also is so far removed from GNU in practice
that it works against a GNU'ist goals.
<P> A GNU'ist would like nothing better than to see the
distribution of the source code. While it has made several people
happy that Internet Explorer 3/4 and Netscape Communicator Standard 4.04
have been available with a $0 price tag, neither have been "free" according
to the GNU'ist view. On March 31st, however, Mozilla Navigator will
fit the GNU'ist defination of "free software" and as such qualify for being
included in a GNU system (even when released only under NPL)! When
this becomes reality it will be a major win for GNU! On the other
hand, GPL has proven to be MEANINGLESS in actual practice of being associated
with distributing source code.
<P> To prove this point, I would like to point to one area where
GNU and GPL should be followed the best: the Linux community. Withen
the Linux community, a company called RedHat has gone to great lengths
<BR>to be compliant with GPL, even to the point of providing "pristine
sources" which strictly follow the requirements given in section 2 of the
GPL v2. RedHat distributions have also included a file /usr/doc/emacs-xx.x/FAQ
which contains:
<UL>RMS writes:
<P>The legal meaning of the GNU copyleft is less important than the spirit,
which is that Emacs is a free software project and that work pertaining
to Emacs should also be free software. "Free" means that all users
have the freedom to study, share, change and improve Emacs. To make
sure everyone has this freedom, pass along source code when you distribute
any version of Emacs or a related program, and give the recipients the
same freedom that you enjoyed.</UL>
RedHat has also been nice enough to allow anyone to copy and distribute
the majority of RedHat freely. Some of the companies that have also
released their own RedHat distribution CD-Roms have been Yggdrasil, InfoMagic,
Cheap*Bytes, and Linux System Labs. Of each of the companies that
I listed above, only one uses GPL in the product name. RedHat's own
products have sold under the titles "Offical RedHat 5.0 box set" or "RedHat
Powertools." Yggdrasil has been successfully shipping "Winter 97
Linux Internet Archives" -- InfoMagic has "Linux Developer's Resource"
-- Cheap*bytes provides "CheapBytes Red Hat 5.0" -- and Linux Systems Labs
has "RedHat 5.0 GPL"
<P> So, now for the proof:
<P> If GPL has to do with distribution of source code then one would
expect that it would be LSL's product would be the mostly likely one to
be fully compliant with the distribution terms of the GPL. Yet, it
appears that is each of the OTHER products listed above that don't contain
GPL in the title that contain the GNU source code. It is clear that
the "GPL CDROM" doesn't contain the source code that the RedHat Official
CDs do as described at:
<P> <A HREF="http://www.lsl.com/catalog/software/redhat5.0.gpl/index.htm">http://www.lsl.com/catalog/software/redhat5.0.gpl/index.htm</A>
<P> Next, the GPL makes an attempt in section 3 to require a commerical
distributibutor to either provide the source code or a written offer to
provide the source code. When I notified LSL they shipped me a product
that provided neither, Dan Irvin replied for LSL in the form of:
<UL>We enthusiastically embrace the GPL and have donated thousands of dollars
to the free software community. By including the GPL in a text
file on all our CDs we explicitly define our compliance to the GPL.</UL>
Ahhh. There we have it from a person that has explained to
me by phone that LSL's whole business depends on free software and the
would never do anything to compermise GPL that Section 3 of the GPL v2
is a meaningless guideline. "Compliance" with GPL means nothing more
than including a copy of the GPL text.
<P> Btw, I have notified RMS of these events. What has he accomplished
to change LSL's actions? Maybe they don't need changing? Maybe
one should not expect a GPL CDROM to have the source code?
<P> So, for those that want to continue to push that Mozilla Navigator
needs to be GPL, please discover the answers to these questions:
<P>Does the "GPL CDROM" containing RH5 from LSL follow the spirit of GNU
(as stated above) and provide the source code to GNU Emacs when they distribute
the binary?
<UL>If no, then is there a written offer included with the product that
offers the source code availiablity for at least three years as stated
<BR>under the distribution terms of GPL v2 Section 3b?</UL>
"GPL CDROM" implies that the entire CDROM is covered by the GPL which usually
means the packages can be freely used even in a commerical enviroment.
Is that truely the case?
<UL>Does the CDROM exclude the "ncftp" or "xv" packages of RH5?
<P>Can LSL provide a written statement from either author that they are
covered on the GPL or a less restrictive license?</UL>
If your answer was "no" to all of these then hasn't the enthusiastically
embracing of GPL done by LSL including a defination of GPL that contradicts
the GNU'ist requirements for free software?
<P> Another issue you should be aware of is that GPL *FURTHER* restricts
your freedom of being able to modify the source than NPL does! The
GPL handling of patents would make it impossible to have a Mozilla Web
Editor that can save modified GIF's as a feature. If the US where
to remove all crypto export restictions, a GPL Mozilla Navigator still
couldn't do RSA. There is alot of additional modifiablity permitted
under NPL!
<P> RMS needs to get off his high horse and clean up his own license
enforment before he goes making demands about other licenses. If
you bring only remember one major point from reading this then let it be
this:
<P> Mozilla Navigator will be released on March 31 under the NPL
and will provide one more additional "free software" package.
<P> If Mozilla Navigator was released under GPL they might as well
release it on April 1st. It is time for the progression of the GPL
joke to slow down!
<P> Just stop attacking Mozilla.org for NPL because it is groups
like Mozilla and RedHat that are the real GNU'ist in all of this!
<BR> </HTML>
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic