[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:       2007-03-14 10:27:00
Message-ID: 20070314102612.GA32099 () apotheon ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:49:07PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> On 3/13/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:48:27AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> >> On 3/13/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> >> >On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:19PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote:
> >> >> On 3/12/07, Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> 
> Have you actually read the GPL in its entirety?  You seem to think
> that I can't download and run a GPL program without being forced to
> distribute source code.  The GPL distinguishes between using a GPL
> licensed program and re-distributing it in original or modified form.

Have you actually read what I've been saying?  You seem to think I've
said that you can't download and run a GPL program without being forced
to distribute source code.

In short, yes: I've read the GPL.  I am not that straw man over there.
Nor is my argument that straw man over there.  Thanks for playing.

I'll ignore the rest of what you said about this subject, since it's all
predicated on that one gross error in interpretation of what I've said.


> 
> >> Let me point out a case where the GPL did some good.  When Linksys put
> >> out the WRT-54G router, they 'neglected' to tell anyone that the
> >> firmware was based on linux and other open source GPL licensed
> >> software.  That fact came to light when a hacker discovered a security
> >> hole in one of the diagnostic pages which allowed execution of shell
> >> commands by clever manipulation of an input field for a ping address.
> >>
> >> When this was discovered, pressure on LinkSys to honor their license
> >> under the GPL led to the release of the source code which led in turn
> >> to community based software, like OpenWRT, for that and other similar
> >> wireless routers.
> >
> >You may have to point out in exacting detail how the GPL was a critical
> >factor in ensuring that a specific good result came about, and how that
> >result was in fact better than all likely alternative results if it
> >wasn't GPLed software in the first place.
> 
> As for the first part of that, the FSF forced a large company Cisco in
> this case, to make the software avaiable under the terms of the GPL.
> The result is that I and many others are running much improved code on
> our wireless router.  I feel no obligation to explore all likely
> alternative results.

That's fun, 'cause without exploring likely alternative results you
cannot really make a credible case for the outcome being better with the
GPL than with some other license.


> 
> >> >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*.
> >>
> >> I don't follow the analogy,
> >>
> >>    cut = distribute GPL binaries?
> >>    infection = have to distribute source?
> >>    bactine = distribute source?
> >>    saw off your arm = ????
> >
> >No.  Close, though.
> >
> >  cut = software licensed GPL
> >
> >  infection = have to distribute source to distribute binaries
> >
> >  bactine = don't distribute binaries, or only distribute if the
> >  recipient will take the source at the same time
> >
> >  saw off your arm = spend hundreds or thousands of dollars maintaining
> >  source archives with redundant backups over a period of no less than
> >  three years after last distribution of a binary
> 
> Or burn a CD or two, save them in a safe place, and offer to provide
> copies at your cost of copying the CD and sending them a copy at their
> request.

Have you heard of delamination (for example)?  Do you really think there
will never come a time when someone takes someone else to court for
failing to take "good faith", but exceedingly expensive, measures to
guarantee source code availability?


> 
> >> I wasn't actually objecting to anything, I was trying to answer your
> >> question about LiveCDs by pointing out that the GPL doesn't require
> >> bundling source code, which seemed to be your implication.
> >
> >My point was that the GPL requires *either* of:
> >
> >  1. bundling source code
> >  2. maintaining source archives for long periods
> >
> >. . . in most cases.
> 
> Which is why I prefer to use software licensed under the GPL.

I prefer to use software that I can distribute as, and when, I see fit,
without having to worry about covering my fourth point of contact
legally.  I prefer "Oh, it's BSD?  Okay, I'm safe!" over "Oh, it's GPL?
Damn.  Do I have source for this exact version of the binary?  Am I a
first-generation redistributor, or do I need to maintain archives?  How
much is this going to cost me?"


> 
> >> >>
> >> >> >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.
> >>
> >> I THOUGHT that your statement starting with "There's a difference
> >> between downloading software.." was restating your opinion that the
> >> GPL required distribution of source whenever binaries were
> >> distributed, and that this was the conflation.  Re-reading it I now
> >> realize that I don't even understand what that statement means.
> >
> >The conflation to which I referred was *yours*, not the GPL's.
> 
> Well, here's the complete thread
> 
> Chad said:
> >>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?
> 
> Rick replied:
> >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.
> 
> Chad continues:
> >>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.
> 
> Rick replies:
> 
> >So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn't.
> 
> The only things I see being conflated here are the requirements to
> distribute binary and source *together*, and that wasn't done by me,
> my friend.

That's not the complete thread.  There was more context before that.


> 
> >> And the GPL is not about making software free as in beer, it's about
> >> making software free as in freedom.
> >
> >. . . and my objection is that it grants greater "freedom" to software
> >than to people in possession of software, all else being equal.  I never
> >objected to a failure to make software "free as in beer" to acquire.
> 
> No, it give freedom to people to use the software without restriction,
> the freedom to redistribute it unaltered (without removing the
> copyrights and license so the rights are extended to the recipients),
> the freedom to make and use derivative works which include the
> software in whole or in part, and the freedom to distribute those
> derivative works.

That's funny.  If you ignore my statements, they go away.

It strips away the freedom to dispose of it as you see fit, unless you
only see fit to dispose of it by:

  A) using it but never letting anyone else have a copy
  B) giving it to someone, but only if (s)he wants the source too
  C) giving it to someone, but maintaining an archive of source code

What if I just have a binary lying around, someone asks for a copy, and
I want to give it to him?  What if it's an obsolete binary, the original
project is unfindable, and I didn't happen to save the source code in
the first place?  I guess I just have to tell him "No, sorry, I'm
legally prevented from giving it to you because I didn't think far
enough ahead to archive the source."  Are you really trying to tell me
that's not an effect of the GPL's terms?


> 
> Now as they say, with freedom comes responsibility, and when you
> exercise that last freedom you have some responsibilities spelled out
> in the license.  This doesn't have to entail large resources, keeping
> a few CDs and duplicating them on demand, charging for the expense of
> duplication and mailing is enough to satisfy that responsibility.  For
> a larger project, it's quite likely though that the infrastructure to
> provide source from a version control system already exists for the
> projects purposes.

If you *force someone to comply* with your notion of a proper
responsibility, then it's not responsibility, and the attendant state is
not freedom.  Suddenly, it's just liability and privilege.


> 
> The real responsibility is not to be sloppy with your source code control.

No . . . that's the "real" requirement of liability.  Responsibility
would involve not being sloppy with your source code *without* having a
gun to your head.


> 
> I think that you are greatly exaggerating the cost of source
> distribution, particularly as a delta to the source code control which
> any responsible project would and should exercise.  I also think you
> ignore the rights of the authors of software to ensure that their
> contributions are used in a way consistent with *their* wishes.

Considering I haven't laid out a price schedule in any concrete terms, I
think your claim that I'm exaggerating costs is kind of specious.

I also think that once you *give away* or *sell* something, it is *no
longer yours* and you no longer have a right, as author or otherwise, to
dictate how others dispose of it.  Period.  If you want to maintain
control of it, keep it in your possession.  Otherwise, recognize that
giving up possession (without explicit contractual agreements) should be
synonymous with giving up control.


> 
> And in the case of the GPL there is an explicit agreement, spelled out
> in the GPL and triggered when one re-distributes the software, or
> distributes a derivative work.  And the requirement to supply source
> code only comes in for derivative work.  Re-distributing unchanged GPL
> software, in it's entirety simply extends the originator's
> responsibility to provide source to whoever you gave the copy to.  In
> other words the third party can't come to you for the source, he/she
> has to go to the originator.

There's a difference between explicitly defined terms and an explicit
agreement.  The idea that someone *agrees to the GPL* is almost always
implicit -- you don't actually *know* someone agreed to it in any
meaningful sense.  All you know is that the terms of the GPL are
available to that person to peruse, unless you sit there and watch him
or her sign on a dotted line.  *That* would be an explicit agreement.

It boggles my mind that you can say that, then quote these words back at
me:

> 
> >No, the GPL doesn't qualify as an explicit contractual agreement,
> >because the agreement part of that is only *implicit*.

-- 
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
Amazon.com interview candidate: "When C++ is your
hammer, everything starts to look like your thumb."

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