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

List:       ruby-talk
Subject:    Re: GUI With Ruby
From:       Chad Perrin <perrin () apotheon ! com>
Date:       2007-03-13 19:19:31
Message-ID: 20070313191849.GD22499 () apotheon ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:19PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 3/12/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> >> On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> 
> >> The more I think about this though, I'm not sure I want someone's
> >> binaries without the source.  The thrust of the FSF and for that
> >> matter the open source movement is *open source*, not gratis
> >> distribution of binary software.  Having the source available with the
> >> binaries also provides for at least a minimal audit trail to the
> >> licensing terms of those binaries.  If you just download the binaries,
> >> and you can't tie them to source, how to you as a user show that you
> >> have a license to the software?
> >
> >How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to
> >distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of
> >source code on the recipients at the same time?
> 
> That's not requred by the GPL, the requirement is that if you
> distribute such a live CD, you need to make the source used to create
> it available. You don't need to deliver it concurrently.

No . . . but it's *easier* to distribute it immediately, for a single
lone individual, than to maintain a publicly-available point of contact
with source code archives and redundant backups for a period of no less
than three years' time after the date of the last binary distribution of
the software.  Your objection is a bit like saying that if you get an
infected cut, you don't have to use Bactine or iodine on it -- you can
always just saw off your arm.  Thank you, Doctor, I think I'd rather use
Bactine, or *not get cut*.


> 
> >There's a difference between downloading software with the source
> >available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of
> >the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is
> >available.  I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps
> >clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all.
> 
> So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn't.

. . .

In light of the history of this discussion, that's pure sophistry.
Thank you for divesting my statement of any context, then reversing my
meaning.  Congratulations.


> 
> >> The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better
> >> protection to the person or organization using the software that it
> >> will continue to be available and maintainable.  If only the binaries
> >> are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the
> >> distributor, this advantage is lost.  Witness the recent suggestions
> >> for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's
> >> motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the
> >> disinterest or the demise of the originators.
> >
> >In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available
> >as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking.  If the source
> >disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all,
> >except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you
> >don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source.  That's my point.
> 
> The strength of the GPL here is that it requires mechanisms to ensure
> that the source continues to remain available.

. . . and the weakness of it (as I said) is that in many cases the GPL's
requirements impose a minimum limit on the resources one must have
available to distribute software.  Those mechanisms often are not free
(as in beer).


> 
> >> >Of course, I find both annoyingly limited in applicability to a single
> >> >form of copyrightable work, and the BSD license's applicability to
> >> >derivative works is ambiguous.  I still prefer the BSD license over the
> >> >GPL, especially considering recent examples of the FSF threatening legal
> >> >action against small community Linux distributions for debatable
> >> >violations of GPL terms.
> >>
> >> Or one could view it as a wake-up call that keeping open-source open
> >> requires distributing open source.
> >
> >A social revolution loses some ethical purity when enforced at the point
> >of a gun -- and that's what the law is: a gun to one's head.
> 
> Another way of looking at it is that the law is a tool for protecting
> the interests of people in society.  The GPL is carefully crafted with
> knowledge of global intellectual property law, so as to protect the
> right to distribute software with the assurance that others will have
> the right to run, modify, and redistribute it in a way such that those
> rights will be preserved.

The law is a tool of protection because of the force with which it is
backed up.  When that force is applied to those innocent of wrongdoing,
the gun to the head is a bad thing; when applied to those guilty of
wrongdoing, it's protective of the innocent.  I wasn't saying the law is
necessarily bad -- just that it's a gun to the head.  Some people need a
gun to the head.  Some do not.  The GPL makes some assumptions about who
needs a gun to his or her head that I find profoundly disturbing in its
implications.

By the way, as I said in another subthread, the FSF, with the GPL as its
weapon, is pushing "freedoms", not rights.  One need not have possession
of a thing to have the right to redistribute it -- only to have the
ability, which one might consider a component of the "freedom" to
redistribute depending on how one defines "freedom".  Please don't
confuse "right" with "ability" or "freedom".


> 
> And we've probably argued this to the point where most who hang out
> here are no longer interested, if they ever were. ;-)

Heh.  Well, yes, that's likely the case.  That's what threading mail
user agents and email clients are for, though.

> 
> My blog on Ruby
> http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/

I just noticed this.  I'll have to check it out.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
This sig for rent:  a Signify v1.14 production from http://www.debian.org/

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