nettime's_bartleby on Sat, 6 Apr 2002 10:18:02 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
<nettime> the bitter fruits of buggering off digest [sheetz, geer] |
Re: <nettime> NPB License Dan Sheetz <dan@goodfoodpro.com> Benjamin Geer <ben@beroul.uklinux.net> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 10:17:01 -0600 Subject: Re: <nettime> NPB License From: Dan Sheetz <dan@goodfoodpro.com> While I appreciate the humor of your post (it is humor, right?), I do not appreciate your portrayal of lawyers as money-grubbing lowlifes. You may not like lawyers, but I would love to see you try and live in a society without them. Lawyers are easy target for left-leaning, anti-corporate types, but many of them provide an invaluable and often unnoticed value to society. For example, a lawyer's advice helped my friend to keep from getting screwed when he was looking to buy a home. Your failure to understand the crucial role that lawyers play in a civilized society betrays your own ignorance. I can't count on two hands the number of lawyers I know that are working to make the world a better place and aren't just in it for the money. Of course there are charlatans and ambulance chasers out there, too, but they don't represent the legal profession as a whole. I know that I'm probably taking this way too seriously, but as someone who talks everyday with lawyers who are grappling with the unending ethical dilemmas and stress that come with the job, I feel obliged to call you out. -Dan Sheetz > From: "nettime's_quasilegal" <nettime@bbs.thing.net> > Reply-To: "nettime's_quasilegal" <nettime@bbs.thing.net> > Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 12:51:50 -0100 > To: nettime-l@bbs.thing.net > Subject: <nettime> NPB License <...> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - From: Benjamin Geer <ben@beroul.uklinux.net> Subject: Re: <nettime> NPB License Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 17:36:26 +0100 On Thursday 04 April 2002 2:51 pm, nettime's_quasilegal wrote: > <http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/5947/bugroff.html> > [snip] > Unfortunately using copyright to protect free software is a lot like > using a Jackal to guard the hens. The free and easy approach suggested (just stop worrying about it) will work fine until someone takes *your* code and turns it into a proprietary, closed-source product. Here's how it almost happened to X Windows (without which Linux wouldn't have a graphical user interface): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The X Windows Trap by Richard Stallman http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/x.html To copyleft or not to copyleft? That is one of the major controversies in the free software community. The idea of copyleft is that we should fight fire with fire--that we should use copyright to make sure our code stays free. The GNU GPL is one example of a copyleft license. Some free software developers prefer non-copyleft distribution. Non-copyleft licenses such as the XFree86 and BSD licenses are based on the idea of never saying no to anyone--not even to someone who seeks to use your work as the basis for restricting other people. Non-copyleft licensing does nothing wrong, but it misses the opportunity to actively protect our freedom to change and redistribute software. For that, we need copyleft. For many years, the X Consortium was the chief opponent of copyleft. It exerted both moral suasion and pressure to discourage free software developers from copylefting their programs. It used moral suasion by suggesting that it is not nice to say no. It used pressure through its rule that copylefted software could not be in the X Distribution. Why did the X Consortium adopt this policy? It had to do with their definition of success. The X Consortium defined success as popularity--specifically, getting computer companies to use the X Window System. This definition put the computer companies in the driver's seat. Whatever they wanted, the X Consortium had to help them get it. Computer companies normally distribute proprietary software. They wanted free software developers to donate their work for such use. If they had asked for this directly, people would have laughed. But the X Consortium, fronting for them, could present this request as an unselfish one. ``Join us in donating our work to proprietary software developers,'' they said, suggesting that this is a noble form of self-sacrifice. ``Join us in achieving popularity,'' they said, suggesting that it was not even a sacrifice. But self-sacrifice is not the issue: tossing away the defense that copyleft provides, which protects the freedom of the whole community, is sacrificing more than yourself. Those who granted the X Consortium's request entrusted the community's future to the good will of the X Consortium. This trust was misplaced. In its last year, the X Consortium made a plan to restrict the forthcoming X11R6.4 release so that it will not be free software. They decided to start saying no, not only to proprietary software developers, but to our community as well. There is an irony here. If you said yes when the X Consortium asked you not to use copyleft, you put the X Consortium in a position to license and restrict its version of your program, along with the code for the core of X. The X Consortium did not carry out this plan. Instead it closed down and transferred X development to the Open Group, whose staff are now carrying out a similar plan. To give them credit, when I asked them to release X11R6.4 under the GNU GPL in parallel with their planned restrictive license, they were willing to consider the idea. (They were firmly against staying with the old X11 distribution terms.) Before they said yes or no to this proposal, it had already failed for another reason: the XFree86 group follows the X Consortium's old policy, and will not accept copylefted software. [In September 1998, several months after X11R6.4 was released with non-free distribtion terms, the Open Group reversed its decision and rereleased it under the same non-copyleft free software license that was used for X11R6.3. Thank you, Open Group.] Even if the X Consortium and the Open Group had never planned to restrict X, someone else could have done it. Non-copylefted software is vulnerable from all directions; it lets anyone make a non-free version dominant, if he will invest sufficient resources to add significantly important features using proprietary code. Users who choose software based on technical characteristics, rather than on freedom, could easily be lured to the non-free version for short-term convenience. The X Consortium and Open Group can no longer exert moral suasion by saying that it is wrong to say no. This will make it easier to decide to copyleft your X-related software. When you work on the core of X, on programs such as the X server, Xlib, and Xt, there is a practical reason not to use copyleft. The XFree86 group does an important job for the community in maintaining these programs, and the benefit of copylefting our changes would be less than the harm done by a fork in development. So it is better to work with the XFree86 group and not copyleft our changes on these programs. Likewise for utilities such as xset and xrdb, which are close to the core of X, and which do not need major improvements. At least we know that the XFree86 group has a firm commitment to developing these programs as free software. The issue is different for programs outside the core of X: applications, window managers, and additional libraries and widgets. There is no reason not to copyleft them, and we should copyleft them. In case anyone feels the pressure exerted by the criteria for inclusion in the X distributions, the GNU project will undertake to publicize copylefted packages that work with X. If you would like to copyleft something, and you worry that its omission from the X distribution will impede its popularity, please ask us to help. At the same time, it is better if we do not feel too much need for popularity. When a businessman tempts you with ``more popularity,'' he may try to convince you that his use of your program is crucial to its success. Don't believe it! If your program is good, it will find many users anyway; you don't need to feel desperate for any particular users, and you will be stronger if you do not. You can get an indescribable sense of joy and freedom by responding, ``Take it or leave it--that's no skin off my back.'' Often the businessman will turn around and accept the program with copyleft, once you call the bluff. Friends, free software developers, don't repeat a mistake. If we do not copyleft our software, we put its future at the mercy of anyone equipped with more resources than scruples. With copyleft, we can defend freedom, not just for ourselves, but for our whole community. ________________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned for all viruses by the MessageLabs SkyScan service. For more information on a proactive anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit http://www.messagelabs.com ________________________________________________________________________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - # distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission # <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net