Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> > Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
> > forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
> > isn't.
> 
> No, I think sending your tax return to the author of some program you
> modify is mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas sending the changes you make
> to the author of the program you're changing is sensible and constructive.
> 
> I think it's unreasonable to require you to do something mind-bogglingly
> stupid.

I think whether it's mind-bogglingly stupid would depend on the
specific case.  How about a requirement that you provide your home
phone number?  That could enable you to be available in case some
emergency comes up relating to the software.  Would you think that such
a requirement is reasonable?

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> 
> > Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
> > without making them strictly impossible.  The GPL says that the costs
> > of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
> > you to share them.
> 
> It may be possible, but it certainly isn't practical.

Exactly my point.

> But even, for the sake of argument, granting your point that it is
> remotely possible, how does that change matters?  You seem to be
> saying that if someone needs the source they shouldn't get it, where
> if someone doesn't *need* it but wants it really, really bad they
> should be able to get it.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

You said that my arguments against forced-publication clauses would be
the same ones that a BSD-license-only person would use against the
GPL.  I've explained the difference: that the GPL's requirement makes
a possibility more practical, which was previously possible, but not
practical.  

The forced-publication clauses, by contrast, take something which was
previously impossible, for reasons having nothing to do with copyright
law, and--hey, don't even make it possible, let alone practical, but
rather, make something *else* possible. 

Re: The Show So Far

[Jeremy Hankins]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
> without making them strictly impossible.  The GPL says that the costs
> of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
> you to share them.

It may be possible, but it certainly isn't practical.

But even, for the sake of argument, granting your point that it is
remotely possible, how does that change matters?  You seem to be
saying that if someone needs the source they shouldn't get it, where
if someone doesn't *need* it but wants it really, really bad they
should be able to get it.

Something doesn't parse there, so I'm assuming I'm misunderstanding
you.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:54:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> > If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
> > somehow better, I've already said:
> > ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
> > ] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes 
> > ] to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible
> > ] or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage
> > ] independent of whether it's required by the license. 
> > Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a
> > program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable
> > thing for a license to require you to do.
> Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
> forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
> isn't.

No, I think sending your tax return to the author of some program you
modify is mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas sending the changes you make
to the author of the program you're changing is sensible and constructive.

I think it's unreasonable to require you to do something mind-bogglingly
stupid.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgp4dSw2UcveY.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> > Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> >> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
> >> about "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and,
> >> IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of
> >> BSD-style licensing.  Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to
> >> see what I mean.
> >
> > No, and this is an important point.
> >
> > The BSD-license does not restrict modification to the possessor of
> > source.  If you have a binary, you can still change it.  There is no
> > restriction, and if you are clever enough, you can do it.
> >
> > So the situations are not parallel, and crucially so.  
> 
> How so?  If anything, what you're saying here is a further argument
> against the need for a requirement to pass source along with binaries,
> since, according to you, we don't really need the source to make
> changes.

Binary only distribution *inhibits* changes, and makes them *harder*,
without making them strictly impossible.  The GPL says that the costs
of including source are trivial--an extra CD, and therefore requires
you to share them.

The BSD license does not require such sharing, but that does not imply
that it views sharing as *wrong*.

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
> somehow better, I've already said:
> 
> ] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
> ] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes 
> ] to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible
> ] or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage
> ] independent of whether it's required by the license. 
> 
> Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a
> program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable
> thing for a license to require you to do.

Ok, so what you are saying then is that only reasonable requirements
can be in a DFSG license.  The DFSG of course has no such thing in its
actual text; but I have no objection to adding it.

Of course, now I need to understand why you think the
forced-disclosure requirement is reasonable and the tax-return one
isn't.  I think that *both* are unreasonable, and for the same
reason.  You think one is reasonable and the other is not; please
explain the basis for this determination.

Re: The Show So Far

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 05:21:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Sure; it's a plainly stupid idea. No one's seriously advocating it,
> and it doesn't benefit anyone. Please at least come up with examples
> that are vaguely _plausible_.
[...]
> Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a
> program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable
> thing for a license to require you to do.

So, you'd propose as components of a Debian Free Software Definition
that software be licensed in ways that are not:
  1) stupid; or
  2) unreasonable

My problem with this (implicit) proposal of yours is that it's
practically tautological.  Hardly any Debian Developer is going to
accept as DFSG-free a license that he feels is "stupid" or
"unreasonably", and hardly any licensor is going to use one that he
feels is "stupid" or "unreasonable".

That leaves licensors and the Debian Project with precious little in the
way of objective grounds upon which to evaluate the terms of a license.

I think that, when rejecting a license as non-DFSG-free, we need to be
able to say something more about than "it's stupid" or "it's
unreasonable".

Thus my proposal of adopting the FSF's definition of Free Software, with
an as-yet unarticulated fifth freedom that has something to do with
privacy.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|   The last Christian died on the
Debian GNU/Linux   |   cross.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   -- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpwblDO0mfrC.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Branden Robinson]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 08:28:37AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
> > Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
> 
> "The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom."
> 
> Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
> you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
> go anywhere.

I take it you subscribe to a "state of nature" definition of freedom,
then, in which the only true freedom belongs to a man who lives by
himself on a planet?

In any social scenario, the freedoms of one party are necessarily
limited by the freedoms (or "rights") of another.

Rights and freedoms are always going to be in tension; it's the nature
of the beast.  Thomas is entitled to argue that the freedom to withhold
source code from the recipeients of object code is as objectionable as
the "freedom to enslave" or the "freedom to kidnap".

Whether he makes a compelling case for such an argument is another
story, but it's not unsound on its face, as you have characterized it.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  "There is no gravity in space."
Debian GNU/Linux   |  "Then how could astronauts walk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   around on the Moon?"
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  "Because they wore heavy boots."


pgpHzytZ1RuIM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Jeremy Hankins]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument
>> about "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and,
>> IMHO, more justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of
>> BSD-style licensing.  Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to
>> see what I mean.
>
> No, and this is an important point.
>
> The BSD-license does not restrict modification to the possessor of
> source.  If you have a binary, you can still change it.  There is no
> restriction, and if you are clever enough, you can do it.
>
> So the situations are not parallel, and crucially so.  

How so?  If anything, what you're saying here is a further argument
against the need for a requirement to pass source along with binaries,
since, according to you, we don't really need the source to make
changes.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: The Show So Far

[Branden Robinson]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 07:19:48PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
> > artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
> > that I should be able to modify it and copy it.
> 
> I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
> 
>  * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
>  * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
>  * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>  * The freedom to improve the program
> 
> Historically, the only way you could access a program at all was to
> possess a copy of it, so it made sense to worry about how you could
> possess a copy, but not have those freedoms. These days, people use
> software they don't possess every day, in pretty significant ways.

You guys are talking past each other.  Copyright law traditionally
restricts at least some of the activities you (Anthony) describe, and
has done so since before the days of von Neumann.  Media cartels are
applying greater and greater pressure to ensure that copyright laws in
fact restrict *all* of the activities you enumerated.

Therefore, I cannot perceive your statement as anything but an
elaboration of Thomas's, rather than the contradiction your posit it to
be.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|A celibate clergy is an especially
Debian GNU/Linux   |good idea, because it tends to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |suppress any hereditary propensity
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |toward fanaticism.-- Carl Sagan


pgpKtQeHrMzjt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Jeremy Hankins]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:
> Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
>>   and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
>>   just individuals).
> [...]
>> My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach
>> to use.  I'm willing to take this disagreement as fundamental, though
>> (which for the current purposes means we'll argue it out if we're ever
>> sitting together over a beer, but probably not 'till then).
>
> So this is a different sort of argument, and calls for a different
> response.  It's not about what makes a license a free software
> license, but more fundamentally, about how software ought to work.

First of all, I must have radically misunderstood the message I was
replying to above.  I was simply pointing out that there are more ways
than one to argue toward Free Software -- and certainly other ways
than your artificiality of copyright argument.  My attitude is that we
should acknowledge that and not try too hard to settle on a particular
grounding for Free Software.

> Since we are presuming free speech, and a broadly free-software
> consensus, we aren't going to tolerate laws that *prohibit*
> publication.  So the only question is: should we have a law that
> *requires* publication?

I'm not sure you're arguing to the point here.  If you are, I'm
misunderstanding you.  How is this an argument for attaching freedoms
to copies rather than use?

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:21:13PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> > No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do so on a case-by-case basis. 
> I've given a specific case.  Can you articulate why a "you must give
> me your tax return if possible, and costs are paid" requirement is not
> acceptible?  

Sure; it's a plainly stupid idea. No one's seriously advocating it,
and it doesn't benefit anyone. Please at least come up with examples
that are vaguely _plausible_.

If you want that formulated as a "principle", as though that makes it
somehow better, I've already said:

] Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
] in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes 
] to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible
] or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage
] independent of whether it's required by the license. 

Which is to say: sending your tax return to someone when you change a
program is not a reasonable thing to do. As such, it's not a reasonable
thing for a license to require you to do.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpJo15ZXHsfr.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> > then you have to say which restrictions you think are
> > acceptible and which you think aren't.  I've sketched out my method of
> > analyzing such a question, but you haven't.  Would you care to do so
> > please?
> 
> No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do so on a case-by-case basis. I
> can answer for the cases we already have though: I don't think the
> freedom to distribute binaries without source is a key freedom, nor do
> I think being able to make changes that you can keep private forever
> is a key freedom. I don't think removing those freedoms should be
> forbidden from free licenses. I do think both freedoms have value in
> some circumstances. I don't think it's particularly onerous working
> around not having those freedoms. I don't think hiding source code is
> in anyone's long term interests, either companies or activists.

I've given a specific case.  Can you articulate why a "you must give
me your tax return if possible, and costs are paid" requirement is not
acceptible?  You've said it isn't, but it clearly meets the DFSG.

So, now the question is: what principle would you invoke to explain
why that's not an acceptible condition?

I have explained what principle I would invoke...  Have you?

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 02:44:31PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Then, please, describe for me what your standard is.  What freedoms
> count?  

If I felt confident being able to do that in advance, I'd be writing up
a Debian Free Software Definition that defined them.

> You seem to take the tack that these are *all* restrictions on
> freedom;

Yes, and that this is a trivial and uninformative statement. The state
of being allowed to exercise an ability is "freedom" by definition, not
being allowed to do so in some cases is a restriction on that freedom,
also by definition. Freedoms are restricted all the time, it's simply
not useful to say "restricting freedom is bad", as it causes you to
have to start babbling on about how the freedom to fire bullets in
any direction you please isn't a "real" freedom, and we degenerate to
completely uninformative semantic editor wars.

> then you have to say which restrictions you think are
> acceptible and which you think aren't.  I've sketched out my method of
> analyzing such a question, but you haven't.  Would you care to do so
> please?

No, I'm sorry; I reserve my right to do so on a case-by-case basis. I
can answer for the cases we already have though: I don't think the
freedom to distribute binaries without source is a key freedom, nor do
I think being able to make changes that you can keep private forever
is a key freedom. I don't think removing those freedoms should be
forbidden from free licenses. I do think both freedoms have value in
some circumstances. I don't think it's particularly onerous working
around not having those freedoms. I don't think hiding source code is
in anyone's long term interests, either companies or activists.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpR7BbPv4dhG.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
> you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
> go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other
> people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, including myself
> think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one
> or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that
> that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep
> changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you
> don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should
> convince anyone.

Then, please, describe for me what your standard is.  What freedoms
count?  If you say "the ones listed in the DFSG, and only those", then
the tax-return requirement would be legitimate in a free software
license.  

I have a reasonable coherent notion of what constitutes a freedom.  Of
course there is nothing which prevents you from offering a different
notion, but you haven't, as far as I can recall.

You seem to take the tack that these are *all* restrictions on
freedom; then you have to say which restrictions you think are
acceptible and which you think aren't.  I've sketched out my method of
analyzing such a question, but you haven't.  Would you care to do so
please?

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 10:27:31AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> 1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
> Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.

"The freedom to XXX is not a real freedom."

Look, I know it's fun to redefine words so that you can pretend whatever
you're arguing against is a contradiction in terms, but it doesn't
go anywhere. Maybe *you* think that the *ability* to take away other
people's freedom isn't a "freedom", but other people, including myself
think it fundamentally *is* a freedom, whether it's a worthwhile one
or not. If you're taking it as an article of faith, or principle, that
that freedom is not valuable or required, and that the freedom to keep
changes private is not only valuable but necessary, that's fine. But you
don't get to juggle some words and claim that's an argument that should
convince anyone.

Alternatively, if you think that is a real, convincing argument, let me
just state for the record that your arguments aren't _real_ arguments.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpxWaTaAfVEt.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> * Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
>   and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
>   just individuals).
[...]
> My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach
> to use.  I'm willing to take this disagreement as fundamental, though
> (which for the current purposes means we'll argue it out if we're ever
> sitting together over a beer, but probably not 'till then).

So this is a different sort of argument, and calls for a different
response.  It's not about what makes a license a free software
license, but more fundamentally, about how software ought to work.

Let's notice first off that nobody ought to tell falsehoods.  But that
doesn't mean that it's good to have legal mechanisms that prohibit all
falsehoods.  Doing that would punt free speech right out the window.

So there are many important rules of society which, nontheless, it
would be a very bad idea to ensconce in law.

Still, maybe there should be a requirement that all software be
published.  That *is* vaguely part of what free software is about, and
there is some merit to the idea.

Here, where we are talking public policy, and not "what makes a license
a free software license", we should consider if there are any
important social benefits to be achieved by having some software *not*
be published.

Since we are presuming free speech, and a broadly free-software
consensus, we aren't going to tolerate laws that *prohibit*
publication.  So the only question is: should we have a law that
*requires* publication?

But this, it seems to me, would be bad public policy.  Fred the Lawyer
demonstrates, I think, that there are very good public policy rules
why we should not have a law that requires publication.  Whether a
free software license must respect privacy rights, it seems to me that
the state should--and so a forced publication requirement would be bad
public policy.

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
> "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, IMHO, more
> justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
> licensing.  Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see what I
> mean.

No, and this is an important point.

The BSD-license does not restrict modification to the possessor of
source.  If you have a binary, you can still change it.  There is no
restriction, and if you are clever enough, you can do it.

So the situations are not parallel, and crucially so.  

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
> 
>  * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
>  * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
>  * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>  * The freedom to improve the program

It's like you stopped reading and ignored the part where I said "The
'four freedoms' of the FSF spell out this basic premise more
carefully; I don't mean to be setting up some different standard than
that one."

> Historically, the only way you could access a program at all was to
> possess a copy of it, so it made sense to worry about how you could
> possess a copy, but not have those freedoms. These days, people use
> software they don't possess every day, in pretty significant ways.

Actually, they have *always* used software they don't possess.  I
*still* am a user of software that CMU doesn't even run any more--the
software that maintained its registration records in the mid 1980s.

> You are though; you're starting from the means, not the ends, and thus
> artificially restricting the whole point. 

But if the end were to make sure that the software was available to
*everyone*, why have free software licenses not ever said that until
recently?  If "users" were the focus, why were they not said?  There
have been non-possessor users for a very long time--indeed, the notion
that nearly all users are posssessors really only dates from about
1990, when Posix boxes became cheap enough that multi-user systems
weren't so important any more.

> > In both these cases, the imposition is in the category of "a genuine
> > pain".  But it's not an imposition on *freedom* (or rather, the
> > imposition on *freedom* is negligible).  
> 
> I'm sorry, but that's not the case. _You_ might choose to disregard it,
> after analysing the situation and trading off the benefits against the
> drawbacks, but that does _not_ make the imposition negligible.

Once again--there are two kinds of imposition that the GPL source
requirement makes.

First, is the requirement of disclosure of the source.  Here, it's not
negligible, but it isn't an imposition on freedom either.

Second, is the physical need to burn an extra CD-ROM or devote extra
space on the server so people can download the source.  That one *is*
an imposition, but it is negligible.

> You're well within your rights to think that the freedoms the GPL
> limits aren't valuable or important. That's fine and great. But they
> are important to a bunch of people, and it's a tradeoff that it's often
> necessary to carefully consider before making.

There are two freedoms that the GPL limits (thinking of the source
requirement):

1) The freedom to take away other poeple's freedom, and
2) The freedom to have a smaller, more economical distribution.

Number (1) is a real imposition, but not a real freedom.
Number (2) is a real freedom, but denying it is not a real imposition.

> Pretending that there's no tradeoff being made here and that therefore
> there's not only no precedent for tradeoffs but that they're a fundamentally
> bad thing is quite disingenuos.

There is a tradeoff; it's like I say this over and over and you don't
hear.  For a condition which does impinge freedom, there is a very
important trade-off to be considered: whether it is a real pain to
conform to it or not.

> > That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since
> > we have a disagreement.  But there's a difference between "haven't
> > made any arguments" and "we have a disagreement."  
> 
> What I mean by "haven't made any arguments" is that the things you've
> said simply don't make any sense unless you already hold your worldview.
> Distinguishing between "possessors" and "users" and claiming that the
> restrictions we currently allow don't affect "freedom" but that these
> "just do" isn't forming an argument, it's begging the question. It
> doesn't add any information, it just restates the original question.

Isn't this true of your arguments too then?

You keep misstating my own position so many times, that I suspect I
still have not made it clear enough.

Re: The Show So Far

[Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS]

Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
> "the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, IMHO, more
> justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
> licensing.  Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see what I
> mean.

Or perhaps against the GPL and in favour of a licence which has the
"viral" property of the GPL without the requirement to supply source.

Re: The Show So Far

[Jeremy Hankins]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
> artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
> that I should be able to modify it and copy it.

That's debatable, of course.  One can get to free software via the
artificiality of copyright, but there are other ways (and historically
more common ones, I suspect):

* Software is a social artifact with significant social consequences,
  and therefore ought to be responsive to social pressures (i.e., not
  just individuals).

* If we can get people to work together writing software it'll work
  better.

* Gag!  Why can't I hack this code?  Oh, I guess I'll have to use free
  software.

My favorite is the first, which is why I think freedoms should attach
to use.  I'm willing to take this disagreement as fundamental, though
(which for the current purposes means we'll argue it out if we're ever
sitting together over a beer, but probably not 'till then).

> The reason that the possessor is special is that the only thing
> stopping the possessor from modifying or copying is the copyright
> law.  Think here of public domain as a sort of zero-point: if a
> thing is public domain, what rights do I have?  I have the right to
> modify it, and to copy it, and the basic premise of free software is
> that I should have those rights for all software.  (The "four
> freedoms" of the FSF spell out this basic premise more carefully; I
> don't mean to be setting up some different standard than that one.)

But despite the above I do want to point out that the argument about
"the only thing stopping the possessor" can easily (and, IMHO, more
justifiably) be used against the GPL and in favor of BSD-style
licensing.  Simply s/possessor/possessor of source/ to see what I
mean.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: The Show So Far

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Anthony Towns  [030317 10:20]:
> I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:
> 
>  * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
>  * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
>  * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
>  * The freedom to improve the program
> 
> Historically, the only way you could access a program at all was to
> possess a copy of it, so it made sense to worry about how you could
> possess a copy, but not have those freedoms. These days, people use
> software they don't possess every day, in pretty significant ways.


So why not require anyone running public available services on some
computer to give anyone shell accounts, so that they can run the
program for "any purpose", and not limited through some user-interface?

Or giving anyone the right to change every GPL-ecomerce system on the
computer it is running, as those high prices really need an "improvement"?


Having to distribute the source with the binary is already quite
limiting freedom of the user. It's accepted, because distributing
source together with the binary is a large but not overall large deal. 
(Anything going with the source is in the binary, too. Any algorith, 
password, secret in the source can be found in the binary, too. And no 
liability is added, as the program is distributed anyhow). And because
it artificially limiting the freedom of those having the binary.
( As it is their computer, their area of control, where they can do
  anything and are only limited by the damn long time it needs to
  dis- and reassemble a program, if one is not used to it[1].)

I know there is also the opinion around, that access to computers is
a freedom and setting passwords is oppression. I'm of the opinion a
person running a computer should have the freedom to control it.
I'm strongly against any licence where setting up a firewall, a
filtering proxy or making a local adaption will cause a breaking of
law.

> 
> > That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since
> > we have a disagreement.  But there's a difference between "haven't
> > made any arguments" and "we have a disagreement."  
> 
> What I mean by "haven't made any arguments" is that the things you've
> said simply don't make any sense unless you already hold your worldview.
> Distinguishing between "possessors" and "users" and [...]

The fundamental problem here is the question: "What is a user?".
This is in general a weak term. Consider many debian-documentation
speaking of the person setting the system up as the "user" of Debian,
while other documentation speaks of "user" as the person sitting before
the computer after is set up.
So the question is who is the "user" in the sense of the basic freedoms?
Am I already a user of some system if I do a "ping " and get no
response? What if I do a "ssh " and get a prompt for a password?
Or if I start the sshd-daemon? 


Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link

-- 
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 08:01:33PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> > On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> > > freedom of the possessor of the code
> > You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but
> > the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't. I don't find
> > that remotely reasonable.
> The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
> artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
> that I should be able to modify it and copy it.

I don't think so; the fundamental premise of free software is:

 * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
 * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs
 * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
 * The freedom to improve the program

Historically, the only way you could access a program at all was to
possess a copy of it, so it made sense to worry about how you could
possess a copy, but not have those freedoms. These days, people use
software they don't possess every day, in pretty significant ways.

> The reason that the possessor is special is that the only thing
> stopping the possessor from modifying or copying is the copyright
> law.  

No: that would be the reason that _copyright law_ is special, and
seriously problematic. (It's not true: not having access to the source
code does the same thing; and it assumes that you possess most of the
software you use -- if you lease it, or only have remote access, it's
not remotely relevant)

> (The "four freedoms" of
> the FSF spell out this basic premise more carefully; I don't mean to
> be setting up some different standard than that one.)

You are though; you're starting from the means, not the ends, and thus
artificially restricting the whole point. If copyright didn't exist, but
you were blocked from hacking on Gnome primarily by trademark laws, by
patents, by lack of access to compilers, by lack of access to information
on how to make changes, or by men with clubs who come around and beat you
until you're black and blue when you make changes, then the free software
movement would be working out ways to correct those problems. Copyright
is today's major issue, but it's not the fundamental issue.

> The user of the code, when that's different from the possessor, is
> often inhibited from copying or modifying by things *other* than just
> the copyright--importantly, his physical lack of access, among other
> things.

Lack of access to the source code is the first problem they have. That's
the point of closing the "ASP loophole" -- to get the source code out
into the world. Maybe we can't get it directly to them, but if we can
get it to them indirectly, then that's a win.

> > You keep saying that, but it _is_ an imposition on "freedom", and a
> > very significant one. Just ask the folks who license their code under
> > a BSDish license.
> In both these cases, the imposition is in the category of "a genuine
> pain".  But it's not an imposition on *freedom* (or rather, the
> imposition on *freedom* is negligible).  

I'm sorry, but that's not the case. _You_ might choose to disregard it,
after analysing the situation and trading off the benefits against the
drawbacks, but that does _not_ make the imposition negligible.

You're well within your rights to think that the freedoms the GPL
limits aren't valuable or important. That's fine and great. But they
are important to a bunch of people, and it's a tradeoff that it's often
necessary to carefully consider before making.

Pretending that there's no tradeoff being made here and that therefore
there's not only no precedent for tradeoffs but that they're a fundamentally
bad thing is quite disingenuos.

> That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since
> we have a disagreement.  But there's a difference between "haven't
> made any arguments" and "we have a disagreement."  

What I mean by "haven't made any arguments" is that the things you've
said simply don't make any sense unless you already hold your worldview.
Distinguishing between "possessors" and "users" and claiming that the
restrictions we currently allow don't affect "freedom" but that these
"just do" isn't forming an argument, it's begging the question. It
doesn't add any information, it just restates the original question.

BTW:

``It is also acceptable for the license to require that, if you have
  distributed a modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy
  of it, you must send one.''
 -- http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
(since 2002-02-01 at least, according to web.archive.org)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now cert

Re: The Show So Far

[Branden Robinson]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 08:17:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> It passes the written DFSG.

So, you'd accept Thomas's tax return as DFSG-free, then?

> Not everything that passes the DFSG as written is free -- that's why
> they're guidelines, not a definition -- but I think it's fair for the
> null hypothesis to be "satisfies the DFSG as written = free",

I disagree.  Every license should be scrutinized.  The DFSG itself it
just a set of tests we run against a license that enables us to easily
dispose of many scenarios in which a license is not a Free Software
license.  The DFSG was motivated by *practical experience* with licenses
that had been encountered in the wild by 1997.

> and expect people who want to read between the lines and add their pet
> "tests" to be the ones doing the justifying.

Why the derogatory tone towards people who develop tests to measure a
software license against the abstract notion of "freedom"?  The DFSG
itself is just such a set of "pet tests", which happen to be primarily
Bruce Perens's.

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|   The last Christian died on the
Debian GNU/Linux   |   cross.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |   -- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |


pgpzN1sE4bb5R.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> > freedom of the possessor of the code
> 
> You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but
> the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't. I don't find
> that remotely reasonable.

Let's take the argument more slowly then, because perhaps I'm skipping
steps and that's making it hard to follow.

The fundamental premise of free software is that copyright is an
artificial limitation on what I can do whit a piece of software, and
that I should be able to modify it and copy it.

The reason that the possessor is special is that the only thing
stopping the possessor from modifying or copying is the copyright
law.  Think here of public domain as a sort of zero-point: if a thing
is public domain, what rights do I have?  I have the right to modify
it, and to copy it, and the basic premise of free software is that I
should have those rights for all software.  (The "four freedoms" of
the FSF spell out this basic premise more carefully; I don't mean to
be setting up some different standard than that one.)

The user of the code, when that's different from the possessor, is
often inhibited from copying or modifying by things *other* than just
the copyright--importantly, his physical lack of access, among other
things.

> > The source-distribution requirement *is* a real pain for some people,
> > but since it isn't an imposition on freedom, there is no problem.
> 
> You keep saying that, but it _is_ an imposition on "freedom", and a
> very significant one. Just ask the folks who license their code under
> a BSDish license.

Let me be more explicit, then.  The fundamental idea is that the
possessor of a copy should be able to make copies and modifications.
The GPL says that you can't *remove* this right from a third party.
The BSD license says that you *can* do it through the mechanism of
compilation.  The GPL also has the "viral" property that it applies to
the entire program; the BSD license does not.

In both these cases, the imposition is in the category of "a genuine
pain".  But it's not an imposition on *freedom* (or rather, the
imposition on *freedom* is negligible).  Why?  Because the only
significant "freedom" that it limits is the "freedom" to *remove*
*other* *people's* *freedom*.  But the "freedom to oppress other
people" is not a genuine freedom.

> I've already said both these things to you, I'm not sure why you're still
> saying the same old things instead of either accepting the difference
> of opinion or coming up with deeper analyses.

It's obvious we have a difference of opinion.  I think we have both
explained our points of view quite well indeed.  The only reason I
wrote mine again was because you said that I "hadn't made any
arguments" that distinguished the GPL from the sort of
forced-disclosure licenses that I am arguing against.

That you may not think my arguments prove the point is obvious, since
we have a disagreement.  But there's a difference between "haven't
made any arguments" and "we have a disagreement."  Of course we have a
disagreement.

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Sun, Mar 16, 2003 at 06:08:59PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
> freedom of the possessor of the code

You say that like the "possessor" of the code is somehow special, but
the user of the code, and the author of the code aren't. I don't find
that remotely reasonable.

> The source-distribution requirement *is* a real pain for some people,
> but since it isn't an imposition on freedom, there is no problem.

You keep saying that, but it _is_ an imposition on "freedom", and a
very significant one. Just ask the folks who license their code under
a BSDish license.

I've already said both these things to you, I'm not sure why you're still
saying the same old things instead of either accepting the difference
of opinion or coming up with deeper analyses.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpwMyqU5v01y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> > You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want
> > to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
> > case.
> 
> You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
> as compared to the BSD.

Yes I have, but since they seem to have been lost, I'll repeat them.

The GPL's source distribution requirement actually augments the
freedom of the possessor of the code; the point being that a free
license *must* permit modification, but distribution as binary-only is
a subterfuge to avoid actually permitting modification.  Accordingly,
the GPL requires that you distribute in the *form* that allows
modification.  

The other conditions on the GPL (the requirement to log changes, the
no-warranty disclaimer for interactive programs) *are* inhibitions on
freedom, but they don't make in non-free precisely because complying
with them isn't a real pain for anyone.

The source-distribution requirement *is* a real pain for some people,
but since it isn't an imposition on freedom, there is no problem.

In otherwords, impositions on freedom are allowed if and only if they
are not a genuine pain for anyone.  Things which actually directly
*augment* the freedom to change and distribute tho code, are allowed
in a free license whether or not they are a genuine pain.

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 02:44:23PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> > It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as
> > written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition --
> > but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be "satisfies the DFSG
> > as written = free", and expect people who want to read between the lines
> > and add their pet "tests" to be the ones doing the justifying.
> Actually, I remain convinced that a forced distribution obligation
> does *not* satisfy the DFSG, because it is a form of discrimination.

Good for you?

> You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want
> to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
> case.

You haven't made any arguments that don't apply equally well to the GPL
as compared to the BSD.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgplzLzuKPweu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as
> written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition --
> but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be "satisfies the DFSG
> as written = free", and expect people who want to read between the lines
> and add their pet "tests" to be the ones doing the justifying.

Actually, I remain convinced that a forced distribution obligation
does *not* satisfy the DFSG, because it is a form of discrimination.

You have articulated a difference between "cannot" and "don't want
to", but as I think I showed, that difference doesn't bear up in this
case.

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:42PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
> > people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
> > You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition
> > to declare it non-free, though.
> But we can turn this around, and it's just as true.
> You're welcome to love, and/or regard as "reasonable", all the crazy
> restrictions on modification and distribution you like.  But you need
> something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of reptition to delcare
> it free.

It passes the written DFSG. Not everything that passes the DFSG as
written is free -- that's why they're guidelines, not a definition --
but I think it's fair for the null hypothesis to be "satisfies the DFSG
as written = free", and expect people who want to read between the lines
and add their pet "tests" to be the ones doing the justifying.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgp8idMlWB3do.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Branden Robinson]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:54:42AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
> people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
> You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition
> to declare it non-free, though.

But we can turn this around, and it's just as true.

You're welcome to love, and/or regard as "reasonable", all the crazy
restrictions on modification and distribution you like.  But you need
something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of reptition to delcare
it free.

What is and is not a "reasonable" restriction on modification (or, if I
had my druthers, on *distribution* of modifications), is the very
question that so many recent threads on this list have been trying to
tackle.

It's easy to be contemptuous of "Chinese Dissident" or "Fred the Lawyer"
tests, but if the alternative is repetitious exposition of people's gut
feelings -- which will surely differ -- how have we improved on these
tests?  How have we demonstrated that we, as a project, as least have
some comprehensible heuristics for evaluating software licenses, since
algorithmic processes such as the one OSI appears to be attempting to
implement have notable shortcomings (from our perspective)?

-- 
G. Branden Robinson|  We either learn from history or,
Debian GNU/Linux   |  uh, well, something bad will
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |  happen.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |  -- Bob Church


pgpND3eir0SsV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Jeremy Hankins]

Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

>> I don't think it's a horror story at all.  Have you been paying
>> attention to my recent posts?
>
> Well, actually I guess I got kind of muddled. I did notice since
> then that you appeared to be arguing "my side". ;-)

Well, I'm not sure where that puts me, since I've been arguing with
him and you seem to have summarized my position quite nicely (though
I'd have no particular problem with RPC-calls being considered
analogous to linking for GPLv2 purposes).  :)

Basically, I think that trying to close the ASP loophole (whether the
RPC version or the ASP version) isn't an unfree thing to do in itself,
but we haven't yet seen a way to close it that isn't in fact unfree.
The most likely approach to work, IMHO, would be to use public
performance as the stick, and then (the hard part) define clearly what
sort of performance should be considered distribution of binaries for
the purposes of the copyleft license.  I don't know how to do that,
but I'm very interested in seeing suggestions folks might have.

And, as a relatively minor addendum, I don't really think it should be
the GPLv3 that should attempt this, because there isn't a clear and
present danger yet and on the other hand there are risks involved.
I'd prefer to see some less-used licenses try to close the hole, see
how they work, and perhaps after a couple of years the FSF could see
if they could incorporate them into the GPL(v4?).


Does this seem reasonable to folks?

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: The Show So Far

[Joe Moore]

Steve Langasek said:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
>> The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
>> java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.
>
>> Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking to Bar.
>> What's not clear is distribution: it seems that Bar is never actually
>> being distributed to the user of this application.  Since the binary
>> is never distributed, the GPL's source requirements never kick in.
>
> Yes, I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the ASP loophole in
> terms of RPC services.  And for the reasons stated, I think the costs of
> closing this hole are high enough that it should NOT be closed.

I agree that the costs of closing the "ASP loophole" are too high.

> I also think that the converse situation, a GPL client using a
> GPL-incompatible RPC service, is already adequately addressed by the
> GPLv2 (though some here disagree that it is addressed).

I disagree that it is addressed.  Your previous email said that the
distributor must be able to distribute source to the complete client
(including the remote "server").

If the client can work with either "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" (the proprietary
server) or with "//rmi.gnu.org/gnuBar", based on which configuration
option is chosen at runtime by the user, which server is part of the
source?

For a specific example, consider cddb.org (aka gracenote.com now) and
freedb.org.

--Joe

Re: The Show So Far

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:55:44PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
> > distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
> > it with rmi.bar.com's non-free code, in order to produce a program
> > without source, then the result is that the GPL (as it stands *now*)
> > is violated, just as much as if rmi.bar.com distributed an ordinary
> > .so.  

> The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
> java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.

> Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking to Bar.
> What's not clear is distribution: it seems that Bar is never actually
> being distributed to the user of this application.  Since the binary is
> never distributed, the GPL's source requirements never kick in.

Yes, I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the ASP loophole in
terms of RPC services.  And for the reasons stated, I think the costs of
closing this hole are high enough that it should NOT be closed.

I also think that the converse situation, a GPL client using a
GPL-incompatible RPC service, is already adequately addressed by the
GPLv2 (though some here disagree that it is addressed).

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpDRWhK48CG4.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 10:42:49AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:

> > So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC 
> > call is made from a Free work is a "Bad Thing" on general principles.

> That's not possible. If I write a server, and put it up one the web,
> there's no law in the world that'll force me to release the source
> code merely because someone happens to access it with some peculiarly
> licensed software.

That's not how the GPL works; the requirements of the GPL go the other
direction -- if you can't distribute all the source with the binaries,
you're not allowed to distribute the binaries at all.  So in the RPC
case, if a remote RPC service is part of the program, and you can't
distribute the source to the RPC service, you can't distribute any client
binaries.

> We can change the circumstances though, so that either:

>   * I'm distributing copies of peculiarly licensed clients written
> by others, having written the server; and am thus forced to
> release the server's source too

Yes, this case seems particularly germane to the RPC question, and is
likely to be seen as an advantage to copyleftists.  The flipside is that
it would prevent third parties (including us) from distributing binaries
for such copyleft clients that have a dependency on an RPC service we
can't distribute.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgpJ2py4n5A7Q.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:55:48PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Anthony Towns  writes:
> > That discriminates against people with money in their bank accounts.
> > The tax return thing probably discriminates against people who pay
> > tax. Personally, I'm happy to let the tax thing fail the "Trivially
> > stupid" test.
> The point of the tax thing is precisely that it *is* obviously bogus,
> but that any attempt to show *why* it's bogus would also show that a
> forced-distribution requirement is also bogus.

Sorry, but it's not. Sending your tax return, or your latest entries
in your diary, or whatever, to someone random and sending your changes
to some program to its author aren't comparable. One's never sensible
or reasonable, the latter's a good thing that we'd want to encourage
independent of whether it's required by the license. [0] And I think it's
clear that we'd definitely like people to send their changes back to us,
or their users, or the original author, or whoever's interested in it.

If I'm working from the assumptions that "A is reasonable. B is
unreasonable."  you're not going to get anywhere with an argument that
just blithely assumes "A is like B." -- as far as I'm concerned, they're
patently _unlike_.

Seriously, you're welcome to hate the clause all you like; there are
people out there who hate BSD licensing and others who hate GPL licensing.
You do need something stronger than a firm opinion and a lot of repetition
to declare it non-free, though.

Cheers,
aj

[0] For comparison most of the restrictions we allow in licenses are
things we'd encourage anyway if they weren't there -- patch files are
just to make tracability easier, which is a good thing; changelogs,
licenses announcements just make it clearer what's happened and what's
possible, distributing source is the sort of thing we want to encourage,
and so on.

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpT32FJlXyAA.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Terry Hancock]

On Thursday 13 March 2003 03:45 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > > Right, so here's what I'll do.  I'll create a non-free derivative of
> >  [...]
> > I know you meant this as a code hijacking  horror story. But I don't see 
> > wrongdoing or problems with this.  By definition, you are providing the 
> > computing hardware to run the above service. That costs money and is 
provided 
> > as a service.  You have a right to charge for that alone, IMHO.
> 
> I don't think it's a horror story at all.  Have you been paying
> attention to my recent posts?

Well, actually I guess I got kind of muddled. I did notice since then that 
you appeared to be arguing "my side". ;-)

To summarize my own opinion (as of now):

1) The GPLv2 doesn't require release of a server just because it's used by a 
GPL client.  If it's remote, then this is because it's not released.  But I'm 
not even sure that it can be applied if it's shipped together. The GPL allows 
"mere aggregations" of software with different licenses. And the server might 
also fall under the "major component" exception (is that the right wording?) 
that the operating system can.  Basically I find the idea that an RPC call 
makes a "combined work" to be wrong.  To be honest I always thought the 
dynamic linking concept was already getting fuzzy, so extending to RPC and/or 
client-server models is going way too far.

2) The GPLv3 ought not to try to take away this freedom, because a) it 
shouldn't take away more freedoms in general, b) it runs afoul of "fair use", 
c) it might seriously stifle innovation while having few practical benefits. 

3) DFSG freeness of such a license I have no real opinion on.  I think it's 
"less-free", but whether it's sufficiently so to de-bar it from Debian is not 
something I feel qualified to address.  I don't personally like it, though.

4) I would like to see ideas for incentives to encourage people to release 
modified server code, especially if the server is derived from GPL sources.

5) The "public performance" argument sounds more interesting to me than the 
"combined work" argument.  Perhaps the GPLv3 should explicitly address 
obligations of public performance and explicit scope of what *is* public 
performance (i.e. formally define an Internet service).  That is also 
abusable, but perhaps less so -- all we require is that source be made 
available if the *server* code is GPL.  (the client's licensing needn't 
contaminate the server licensing or vice-versa).  That seems much fairer to 
me, and more in the spirit of the copyleft concept.  I certainly wouldn't 
object to it if it were me doing the service, and it would protect my 
application legally.  And it does fall within existing copyright provisions.

Yeah.  I guess I think defining "public performance" is the right way to go 
-- at least I can't see what's wrong with it from here. ;-)

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing 
> whether:
> 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined 
> work?
> 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work 
> explicitly?

It probably doesn't and it probably shouldn't, respectively. This is a
matter for copyright lawyers to argue over, and seems completely unlikely.

> 3) Whether a license that interprets RPC calls to require release of server 
> source is DFSG free?

We know that requiring the release of source to all the users and to the
general public is non-free because of the technical burden compliance
would place on the person hosting the RPC-server.

We probably can't rule out requiring you to release the source in
principle, since the GPL does essentially the same thing.

We can probably accept requirements to distribute back to the author
on request as being free; but we'd want to discourage such clauses for
similar reasons to patch clauses.

I don't think anyone's come up with any other ideas that don't fairly
clearly fail the DFSG.

> So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC 
> call is made from a Free work is a "Bad Thing" on general principles.

That's not possible. If I write a server, and put it up one the web,
there's no law in the world that'll force me to release the source
code merely because someone happens to access it with some peculiarly
licensed software.

We can change the circumstances though, so that either:

* I modified an existing server that has the peculiar license; and
  am thus forced to release source somehow; or

* I'm distributing copies of peculiarly licensed clients written
  by others, having written the server; and am thus forced to
  release the server's source too

We can *probably* get copyright law to cover both those cases (using
the exclusive rights to restrict modifications and public performance
or maybe exciting new developments like UCITA or something in the first
place; and regular considerations about distribution in the second place,
although you might have to drop the "aggregate works" exemptions).

> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 08:55 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> > People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> > take that code and make it proprietary.
> Well, yes.  But it does so by restricting redistribution, not use. 

It does so by using laws that we don't think are in our best interest for
our own gain; there are other laws that aren't in our best interests that
we could also potentially use for our gain...

> And use 
> restrictions are generally viewed (and I agree) as non-free and possibly 
> legally-impossible anyway, as a violation of copyright fair-use principles.

Distribution restrictions are generally viewed as non-free too, of course;
you can't say "You're not allowed to charge more than $10 to distribute
this program", or "You can't distribute this to Jews", or "You're not allowed
to distribute this compressed", and so forth.

The real question is what's in our best interests. Getting access to more
source code is definitely in our interests. Competing against proprietary
forks of our own work probably isn't. Letting ourselves try different
ways of encouraging participation probably is.

> Okay, touche.  But I'm *not* trying to argue against copyleft in principle. 
> I'm saying it isn't the only reason people share code.

No one's disputing that -- the BSDs are a thriving counterexample.

> The tricks that people have learned to make money from open-source software 
> (e.g. selling services instead of software goods), it seems to me, work both 
> ways: when you're selling the service, the open-source approach makes more 
> business sense.
> 
> I don't know, maybe that's wishful thinking, but it *seems* reasonable.

Sure, that's an argument against the necessity of copyleft.

IMO, copyleft is a nice trick, but is only working to correct
irrationality in the market; not providing a rationale of its own. (I'm
not sure that made sense)

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpoB1R80QRCM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Or how about this: "If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
> > must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
> > ability, otherwise, you can use the program at no cost."  
> 
> That discriminates against people with money in their bank accounts.
> The tax return thing probably discriminates against people who pay
> tax. Personally, I'm happy to let the tax thing fail the "Trivially
> stupid" test.

The point of the tax thing is precisely that it *is* obviously bogus,
but that any attempt to show *why* it's bogus would also show that a
forced-distribution requirement is also bogus.

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Terry Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > Right, so here's what I'll do.  I'll create a non-free derivative of
> > GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
> > people want.  And I'll write a CGI so that people can type in text and
> > my web site will run the modified GNU Foo.  I'll charge people money
> > for this service, and never release my changes.  The original GNU Foo
> > did make its source available over the web interface, but my
> > modification does not.
> 
> I know you meant this as a code hijacking  horror story. But I don't see 
> wrongdoing or problems with this.  By definition, you are providing the 
> computing hardware to run the above service. That costs money and is provided 
> as a service.  You have a right to charge for that alone, IMHO.

I don't think it's a horror story at all.  Have you been paying
attention to my recent posts?

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> take that code and make it proprietary.  This is the fundamental, basic,
> ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.

Such people are idiots.  I develop GPL code with the understanding
that nobody can *copy* it in a proprietary fashion.

That's because I have a clue that copyright law (heck, look at the
word) is about *copying*.

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 02:45:15PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> 1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined 
> work?
>
> 2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work 
> explicitly?

I'm not sure if the "combined work" is relevant, here.  It's not the
combined-work concept that's being sidestepped, it's the avoiding of the
source-with-distribution (by avoiding distribution entirely).

So, I don't know if GPLv2 considers the RPC case a combined work--I
think Thomas would say it does and I'm inclined to agree--but I don't
think it matters here.

> Okay, touche.  But I'm *not* trying to argue against copyleft in principle. 
> I'm saying it isn't the only reason people share code.

I know you're not trying to do that; I'm just pointing out that the argument
you gave is just as easily applied to open source, and isn't specific to this
problem.

> And no, I'm using the GPL on my project.  I *would* actually like to avoid 
> the case of someone developing on my codebase without releasing it.
> 
> With the GPL, no one can release (or sell) their modifications without 
> releasing source.  That means the only person who would make modifications 
> without releasing them would be someone who wants to provide the service.  

No one can *distribute* their modifications without releasing source.  The
RPC case gives a means to "release" changes without actually distributing
them.

I'm in full agreement that it's a difficult loophole to take advantage
of, since you're in competition with the rest of the world; but then,
it's equally difficult to take advantage of BSD code without releasing
source, for the same reason.

At the moment, though, I'm inclined to ignore this problem until there's
signs that it's actually going to be abused, unless someone comes up
with a solution without side-effects.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: The Show So Far

[Terry Hancock]

[I screwed up and sent this to Glenn first, apologies]

I'd also like to ask a clarification of scope question: Are we discussing 
whether:

1) The GPLv2 should be interpreted to treat RPC calls as creating a combined 
work?

2) The GPLv3+ should be altered to make RPC calls create a combined work 
explicitly?

3) Whether a license that interprets RPC calls to require release of server 
source is DFSG free?

So far, I'm just saying that I think requiring release of server if an RPC 
call is made from a Free work is a "Bad Thing" on general principles.  It's 
better to release the server source, but legal force has too many side 
effects, IMHO.

Still sitting on the fence a bit, though, which is part of why I'm still 
talking so much. ;-)

On Wednesday 12 March 2003 08:55 pm, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> take that code and make it proprietary.

Well, yes.  But it does so by restricting redistribution, not use.  And use 
restrictions are generally viewed (and I agree) as non-free and possibly 
legally-impossible anyway, as a violation of copyright fair-use principles.

> > Surely the carrot -- allowing free developers to improve the software 
instead 
> > of having to bear all development costs on yourself -- is adequate to 
> > encourage release, without the stick.
> 
> If we believed this, then we would all be using BSD licenses, not GPL.
> The GPL is written with the express belief that this is not true.
> (Experience shows--lots of proprietary vendors, such as Microsoft, have
> taken BSD code, integrated it into their products, improved it and
> never contributed back code at all[1].)

Okay, touche.  But I'm *not* trying to argue against copyleft in principle. 
I'm saying it isn't the only reason people share code.

And no, I'm using the GPL on my project.  I *would* actually like to avoid 
the case of someone developing on my codebase without releasing it.

With the GPL, no one can release (or sell) their modifications without 
releasing source.  That means the only person who would make modifications 
without releasing them would be someone who wants to provide the service.  

And IMHO there's reason to believe that having that motivation makes it more 
desireable to release (they have less to lose and more to gain by it than a 
developer who intends to sell the application directly -- or so it seems to 
me).  Being their own customer, they would be more sensitive to the customer 
need -- which is for the service to work well, and the cost -- which is 
development.  They would typically be on a thinner margin than someone 
selling the software to high-end customers.  Those are both strong reasons to 
prefer an open-source development process.

The tricks that people have learned to make money from open-source software 
(e.g. selling services instead of software goods), it seems to me, work both 
ways: when you're selling the service, the open-source approach makes more 
business sense.

I don't know, maybe that's wishful thinking, but it *seems* reasonable.

> I agree that the RPC loophole may either be unfixable, or it may not be
> possible to fix it without sacrificing too much freedom elsewhere.  I'm
> not yet convinced, of course.  I do think there's a potential problem;
> I'm not *quite* convinced it'll become a real one.

I'm moderately convinced it won't be, which is my point.  And I do think that 
"closing the loophole" would require onerous "non-free-ness" of the 
licensing. I think as long as the problem is theoretical, we shouldn't be 
trying to solve it this way.  I'd want to see a "clear and present danger" 
before doing something like that.  At present it seems to me that there's too 
much unknown -- both about what possible threats exist and about what would 
be lost in flexibility by restricting use like this.

In my particular application there is one possible solution (just thought of 
it), using social pressure:  The application is meant to be multi-homed, 
residing on multiple servers with varying degrees of cooperation between 
them.  It would not be onerously non-free (IMHO) to make releasing source 
changes a requirement for joining such a trust group (i.e. you get to join my 
club if you do the "right thing" and release source changes for your site, 
even if you aren't redistributing it).  There are practical advantages to 
this as well as philosophical ones -- keeping all the networked sites more or 
less in synch is liable to improve interoperability.

I know that won't work as a general solution, though.

Hmm.
Terry

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com

Re: The Show So Far

[Bernhard R. Link]

* Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [030313 06:15]:
> People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
> take that code and make it proprietary.  This is the fundamental, basic,
> ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.

But we (at least I) also do so because we do want our users to
have freedom to use it properly. That's the the fundamental reason to
prefer it over something less free. (Why allowing people charging money
for it, or use it in a buisness, or use it for military purposes, all
not really needed, though we allow it)

> This is what is undermined by the RPC loophole.  The value of their
> modifications doesn't justify circumvention of the GPL premeses--just
> the opposite, it makes the circumvention that much more of a problem.

They do not circumvent GPL in any real sense of the word. They just
use their freedom to run on their computers what they want to the
extreme.

> > Surely the carrot -- allowing free developers to improve the software 
> > instead 
> > of having to bear all development costs on yourself -- is adequate to 
> > encourage release, without the stick.
> 
> If we believed this, then we would all be using BSD licenses, not GPL.
> The GPL is written with the express belief that this is not true.

I think there is some confusion here. While GPL forces the freedom to
fully use the program (and thus the source) to follow the binary, the
given argument is normaly seen as enough incentive to release anything
at all.

> If you believe that there's no need to force people to release source,
> then you're not arguing against this case specifically, you're arguing
> against using the GPL at all.  (That is, this seems to be a BSD-instead-
> of-GPL argument.)

It's not about releasing source. It's about letting something out at
all.

> So are you going to release under a BSD-ish license, then?  Why force
> people to release source through legal means if you don't really need to?

Because I want the source of programs I get or buy and want others to
have the same possibility with programs I wrote?

Hochachtungsvoll,
  Bernhard R. Link

-- 
Sendmail is like emacs: A nice operating system, but missing
an editor and a MTA.

Re: The Show So Far

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:34:11PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing
> > the GPL client.  Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create
> > non-free derivatives of GPL works, if you don't distribute them at all.
> > This means that, even if you regard a remote website as an RPC call,
> > when the *user* combines the browser and server by typing in a URL or
> > following a link, no GPL violation can have occurred.

> Right, so here's what I'll do.  I'll create a non-free derivative of
> GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
> people want.  And I'll write a CGI so that people can type in text and
> my web site will run the modified GNU Foo.  I'll charge people money
> for this service, and never release my changes.  The original GNU Foo
> did make its source available over the web interface, but my
> modification does not.

> David Turner thinks this should be prohibited, and therefore the GPL
> should be changed to prohibit it.  You have said that as long as no
> distribution happens, it's fine.  Which is it?

Hmm, I think we've moved back from the RPC question to the ASP question
again. :)  *I* think it's fine if this sort of application is allowed by
the GPL; one certainly can't argue that a license that permits this is
somehow non-free.  I'm also inclined to side with you on the question of
whether a license that imposes this restriction is DFSG-free.  Why should
a different principle be applied to a GPL application with a web
interface made available to third parties for a fee than to, say, a GPL
application with a *human* interface made available for a fee?  If we try
to close the ASP loophole, what are the implications for the case where
someone asks me to run a grep command for them -- do I then have an
obligation to provide them the source to GNU grep?  If not, why should
a web-based ASP be treated differently?

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgptEbDMveoAf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 08:19:34PM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:
> Furthermore, if you made enough modifications and/or innovations to prevent 
> being outcompeted by a free competitor derived from the same GPL sources you 
> used, then you have committed considerable capital resources.  Once again, 
> IMHO, you have a right to charge for your work.  If I don't like to pay you, 
> I have an easy option -- just replicate from "GNU Foo".  The point is, if 
> it's *easy* I don't have a problem and if it's *hard* then you earned your 
> money.

People who develop GPL code do so with the understanding that nobody can
take that code and make it proprietary.  This is the fundamental, basic,
ultimate reason people use the GPL instead of less restrictive licenses.

This is what is undermined by the RPC loophole.  The value of their
modifications doesn't justify circumvention of the GPL premeses--just
the opposite, it makes the circumvention that much more of a problem.

> Surely the carrot -- allowing free developers to improve the software instead 
> of having to bear all development costs on yourself -- is adequate to 
> encourage release, without the stick.

If we believed this, then we would all be using BSD licenses, not GPL.
The GPL is written with the express belief that this is not true.
(Experience shows--lots of proprietary vendors, such as Microsoft, have
taken BSD code, integrated it into their products, improved it and
never contributed back code at all[1].)

If you believe that there's no need to force people to release source,
then you're not arguing against this case specifically, you're arguing
against using the GPL at all.  (That is, this seems to be a BSD-instead-
of-GPL argument.)

> Although, I am in fact developing a web application, and for me the "carrot" 
> is far and away sufficient to release the code, even though I expect there 
> will be few actual deployments. I'm hoping users of my site will be motivated 
> by the desire to make my site more useful to them.

So are you going to release under a BSD-ish license, then?  Why force
people to release source through legal means if you don't really need to?

I agree that the RPC loophole may either be unfixable, or it may not be
possible to fix it without sacrificing too much freedom elsewhere.  I'm
not yet convinced, of course.  I do think there's a potential problem;
I'm not *quite* convinced it'll become a real one.

[1] Of course, Microsoft's products that make use of BSD code aren't
highly known as being very *good*; but they don't release source just
the same.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: The Show So Far

[Terry Hancock]

On Wednesday 12 March 2003 04:34 pm, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Right, so here's what I'll do.  I'll create a non-free derivative of
> GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
> people want.  And I'll write a CGI so that people can type in text and
> my web site will run the modified GNU Foo.  I'll charge people money
> for this service, and never release my changes.  The original GNU Foo
> did make its source available over the web interface, but my
> modification does not.

I know you meant this as a code hijacking  horror story. But I don't see 
wrongdoing or problems with this.  By definition, you are providing the 
computing hardware to run the above service. That costs money and is provided 
as a service.  You have a right to charge for that alone, IMHO.

Furthermore, if you made enough modifications and/or innovations to prevent 
being outcompeted by a free competitor derived from the same GPL sources you 
used, then you have committed considerable capital resources.  Once again, 
IMHO, you have a right to charge for your work.  If I don't like to pay you, 
I have an easy option -- just replicate from "GNU Foo".  The point is, if 
it's *easy* I don't have a problem and if it's *hard* then you earned your 
money.

Either way though, there's a non-negligible market force pressing you to 
release anyway, since as your user-base grows then either your costs increase 
(perhaps non-linearly since web services don't scale in a completely linear 
way) or your service level declines.  Either way, it becomes increasingly 
attractive to switch to multiple providers or a distributed library (for 
users). Unless it is extraordinarily hard to duplicate your work (or run the 
server), this will happen.  And if it is so difficult that is a legitimate 
reason to keep using the service.  (Think of the Google example again).

I personally do not think that putting Google into the pincher is a 
desireable goal.

Surely the carrot -- allowing free developers to improve the software instead 
of having to bear all development costs on yourself -- is adequate to 
encourage release, without the stick.

> David Turner thinks this should be prohibited, and therefore the GPL
> should be changed to prohibit it.  You have said that as long as no
> distribution happens, it's fine.  Which is it?

Well, I don't know what *he* thinks, but *I* think the GPL as-is is a better 
thing. I think the change would cause too much "collateral damage" to be 
worth whatever it might save us from.  (at least, including your example, I 
haven't seen a compelling reason to fear the present rules continuing).

Again, this is mostly the perspective of a user. 

Although, I am in fact developing a web application, and for me the "carrot" 
is far and away sufficient to release the code, even though I expect there 
will be few actual deployments. I'm hoping users of my site will be motivated 
by the desire to make my site more useful to them.

I do see the counter-point though: what if Microsoft adopted my code and put 
in 1000s of man-hours into out-competing me on the web?  But I'm not 
convinced that's a serious threat -- there are serious reasons why their 
product would be inferior to mine if I am accepting free-collaboration. 

Maybe a more concrete example of threat would change my opinion.

But the counter-threat of eliminating the flexibility of web services would 
stifle innovation (do *you* know the full potential of such services in 10 
years? I don't).  And you have to erode "fair-use" to impose such a 
restriction, which I don't like in principle.

Hmm.
Terry

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:48:37PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Or how about this: "If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
> must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
> ability, otherwise, you can use the program at no cost."  

That discriminates against people with money in their bank accounts.
The tax return thing probably discriminates against people who pay
tax. Personally, I'm happy to let the tax thing fail the "Trivially
stupid" test.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpUeUjslmTvL.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) writes:

> Anthony Towns  writes:
> 
> > > Anthony Towns is quite right that it is illegitimate to argue "this is
> > > a genuine pain, so it must be non-free".  
> > 
> > I think there's a difference between having people be *unable* to hack
> > on the software (in the case of the desert island, or the broke student),
> > and having people be *unwilling* to hack on it (in the case of Microsoft
> > and the GPL, or the protestor and the QPL).
> 
> Let me think about this paragraph and get back to you.  (I think I
> know what to say, but I'm not sure yet, and I want to think more.)  I
> say *this* only because I don't want you to think I deleted it without
> really noticing.


Ok, I've thought more.  Anthony has an excellent point here, and we
should pay attention to it.  But I think that it doesn't ultimately
control.  There are several problems:

First, the difference between inability and unwillingness is not so
obvious in general.  Suppose the fee for something is $5000, and I
don't have that much cash.  Am I unwilling, or unable to pay?  Well, I
am *able*: I could sell my car and some books, or cash in my IRA, and
then pay the money.  So maybe I'm just unwilling.  Suppose the fee is
$50,000.  Now I couldn't get the money together that way: but wait!  I
could rob an armored car, and get the money that way.  So I really am
*able* to pay, I'm just unwilling to do it.

Unable and unwilling are thus sort of polar extremes, but there is a
big broad continuum of gray in between that makes the analysis very
hard to carry out.  (Does a company's attention to the fiduciary
obligation it owes shareholders constrain like an inability, or like
an unwillingness?)

Yet, the intuition that Anthony articulates is a good one, even if
hard to apply in practical cases.  So it's worth paying attention to
on its own right.  

However, I think the intuition fails.  Consider the tax return
argument.  "If you have filed a tax return, and the author of the
program requests it, and pays you the costs of photocopying your
return and sending it to him, then you must supply a copy on demand."
Clearly this is a term that everyone has the *ability* to comply with;
that is, it basically falls on the inability side, not the
unwillingness side.  But we don't accept that as a free license term!

Or how about this: "If you have $100 in your bank account, then you
must send it to the author of the program as soon as you have the
ability, otherwise, you can use the program at no cost."  Is *that* a
free software licensing term?  I think certainly not: but note!  It
*does* pass the desert island and the poor student test...

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing
> the GPL client.  Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create
> non-free derivatives of GPL works, if you don't distribute them at all.
> This means that, even if you regard a remote website as an RPC call,
> when the *user* combines the browser and server by typing in a URL or
> following a link, no GPL violation can have occurred.

Right, so here's what I'll do.  I'll create a non-free derivative of
GNU Foo, which adds a splendid text-manipulation function that many
people want.  And I'll write a CGI so that people can type in text and
my web site will run the modified GNU Foo.  I'll charge people money
for this service, and never release my changes.  The original GNU Foo
did make its source available over the web interface, but my
modification does not.

David Turner thinks this should be prohibited, and therefore the GPL
should be changed to prohibit it.  You have said that as long as no
distribution happens, it's fine.  Which is it?

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> So, someone does this to a GPL library, which was intended by the author
> to have source be available to anyone using it.  However, now you're linking
> against it without actually having been given a copy at all; just a reference
> to some generic interface, and a URL to the running implementation.  Since
> you never got a copy, nobody has any obligation to provide you with source.

The author might have intended that the library be used only by
non-bigots, but he can't put a no-bigotry clause in the license and
still call it free.  

Nor is it clear who is the "user" of a library.  Is it someone who
issues commands to the library?  Hrm, no.  But that's the only
definition recently proposed for "user".

Is it the person who uses the program that links against the library?
Or is it rather the person who links a program against the library?
Perhaps it's the person who writes a program, intending that it be
linked against the library.  All three of these are commonly called
the "user of the library".

The GPL guarantees source to none of these, because the GPL guarantees
source to *people who have copies*, not "users".  It happens that
frequently the user is a person who has a copy, and so of course, the
author might have (with some fuzzy idea of user) conflated that with
the possessor of a copy, but the two are distinct concepts.

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
> > > replacing the version you're interacting with.  You can learn how
> > > algorithms work.  You can incorporate it into other software systems.
> > 
> > I could get freedoms by having the tax returns of the people who
> > modified the software too.  Why should that not also be part of the
> > license? 
> 
> Because those tax returns have nothing to do with Free Software, while
> the source code to actual Free Soware you modified, does.

Hardly.  Do you really think that a nefarious person couldn't put Ted
Turner's tax returns to help free software?

Or how about this: you must, as a condition of copying, take three
classes in software design.  There, that surely helps with free
software, right?

Re: The Show So Far

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 10:02:23AM -0800, Terry Hancock wrote:

> and you're starting to say that the GPL denies you the right to look 
> at http://www.microsoft.com with a free web browser, or http://www.fsf.org 
> with IE.

Not at all.

> What's the difference?  The distinction between a web protocol 
> (HTTP) and an RPC API (XML-RPC) is somewhat artificial, and definitely 
> legally fuzzy!

The main point to consider here is the intent of the person providing
the GPL client.  Remember that the GPL says it is ALWAYS ok to create
non-free derivatives of GPL works, if you don't distribute them at all.
This means that, even if you regard a remote website as an RPC call,
when the *user* combines the browser and server by typing in a URL or
following a link, no GPL violation can have occurred.

I was going to say something more about distinguishing between a remote
data source and a remote function call, but given CGI-provided web pages
I think it becomes fuzzy and is not at all needed to show why a web page
is ok and an XML-RPC call is not.  I think the GPL is already clear
enough to give us the answers we need here, precisely *because* it
doesn't refer to specific linking technologies; but I don't have time to
write about that right now -- hopefully later today.

> Now suppose I create a proprietary web site on a CD (not so popular anymore, 
> but still has uses), and I want to put Galeon, say, with sources on the disk 
> so you can read my site.  If it's a static site (I gather) you'll say this is 
> okay, but if the site has any active content (say a binary CGI), then you're 
> going to start saying I'm actually linking the code?

> What about interpreters?  I was under the impression that a Free interpreter 
> could run non-free code and vice-versa.  But that is even a tighter binding 
> than these RPC issues.

A Free interpreter -- not necessarily a GPL interpreter.  There are some
hairy issues with GPL interpreters that could indeed prevent Debian from
shipping GPL-incompatible scripts together with GPL interpreters, I
believe.

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer


pgp62vjGn8FjJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Terry Hancock]

On Wednesday 12 March 2003 01:12 am, Anthony Towns wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> > for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> > requirements as for all other kinds of dynamic linking.
> 
> That would imply that all GPL clients for which there are no GPL servers
> are undistributable. I don't believe that interpretation has any legal
> justification, either; there is simply no copying or modification
> taking place.

If I may inject a utilitarian user-perspective point -- I think it would be a 
crushing blow to open source users if licenses started banning the ability to 
use GPL clients with proprietary web services and vice-versa.  

Which it sounds like you'd be doing if you were to define, say, XML-RPC as a 
dynamic linking process.  In fact this is getting into the client-server 
model, and you're starting to say that the GPL denies you the right to look 
at http://www.microsoft.com with a free web browser, or http://www.fsf.org 
with IE.  What's the difference?  The distinction between a web protocol 
(HTTP) and an RPC API (XML-RPC) is somewhat artificial, and definitely 
legally fuzzy!

Now suppose I create a proprietary web site on a CD (not so popular anymore, 
but still has uses), and I want to put Galeon, say, with sources on the disk 
so you can read my site.  If it's a static site (I gather) you'll say this is 
okay, but if the site has any active content (say a binary CGI), then you're 
going to start saying I'm actually linking the code?

What about interpreters?  I was under the impression that a Free interpreter 
could run non-free code and vice-versa.  But that is even a tighter binding 
than these RPC issues.

I don't know about the philosophical purity of my POV, but this kind of 
restriction would make me *feel* very non-free in using the software -- 
either as the potential CD distributor or as the person who now has to 
download the browser from somewhere else because license restrictions forbid 
putting it on the CD with the data / web application.  So I would hate to see 
such an interpretation take hold.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks  http://www.anansispaceworks.com

Re: The Show So Far

[David Turner]

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:27, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
> > replacing the version you're interacting with.  You can learn how
> > algorithms work.  You can incorporate it into other software systems.
> 
> I could get freedoms by having the tax returns of the people who
> modified the software too.  Why should that not also be part of the
> license? 

Because those tax returns have nothing to do with Free Software, while
the source code to actual Free Soware you modified, does.

-- 
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668

"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters 
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson

Re: The Show So Far

[Jeremy Hankins]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:

>> Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves
>> you the 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.
>
> That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat,
> self-contained algorithm from an application.  I can use it in my
> own programs, and improve other, unrelated things with it, or learn
> from it, or critique it.

So it's a bit like releasing a GPL library.

> But it doesn't let me improve the application that it's from at all,
> since I don't have its source.  Likewise, Google releasing source
> might have lots of other benefits, but it doesn't let me improve
> Google in any way, and I believe those "other benefits" are
> peripheral.

I don't think they're peripheral at all.  Being able to use code for
uses other than the primarily intended one is a central part of Free
Software.

> Now, we seem to have two related but distinct cases: Google and
> BarInterface.

I agree that there are two cases under discussion, but I think both
are important and both are loopholes.

-- 
Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333  9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03

Re: The Show So Far

[Stephen Ryan]

On Wed, 2003-03-12 at 04:12, Anthony Towns wrote:

[Much good stuff snipped]

> I think it would be really nice to be able to justify tests like:
> 
>   (d) can you use it completely naively - without reading,
>   understanding or thinking about the license - without running
>   the risk of violating the license
> 
>   (e) can you modify it to make it useful, then use it similarly
>   naively?
> 
> on similar technical grounds; since those things do have real benefits
> to users.

I think at least (d) should be a reasonable test.  Consider trying to
argue the opposite in front of a judge.  "Well, your honor, I know that
the software looks like it's designed to do x, y, and z, and the default
installation of the software does x, y, and z as soon as it's installed,
but the license clearly states that ."  This seems far too similar
to "By reading this message you agree to send me $500" to me.

(e) seems to me to be (d) under the assumption that software should be
Free(tm).

Not having these carries with it the implicit message that freedom is
only for those willing to do the equivalent of subscribing to
debian-legal, and not at all for the casual user, which just enforces
the erroneous thought that "Well, I can't program, so having the source
isn't any good to me anyway".

-- 
Stephen RyanDebian Linux 3.0
Technology Coordinator
Center for Educational Outcomes
at Dartmouth College

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 04:42:28AM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:57:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The benefits you can get from the Windows source code are _exactly_
> > the same in nature as those you obtain from the Google source code.
> Not exactly.  I can modify the source of the Windows source, compile it
> and use the changes[1].  I can't modify the source of www.google.com,
> compile it and use the changes, since I can't touch their server.

Well, I can't modify the source of Windows and compile it since I don't
have a copy of Visual C++, or whatever other build scripts Microsoft
might rely on. This is why the GPL requires "_complete_ source code".

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpdDGJAMMzRq.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 01:25:42AM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> There are clearly about six different "ASP loopholes" confusing this
> discussion. :) I propose from now on that people stop saying "the ASP
> loophole" as if there were only one.  David Turner contends that the
> real problem is web-only applications, I assumed you meant "GPL'd
> client, proprietary web app", and actually you mean "GPL'd web app,
> proprietary client".
> 
> But I'm not sure I understand even now the specific case you are
> speaking of.  Still, I think there is a good rule here:

Well, I'll call the one I described the "RPC loophole", unless someone
comes up with something better.

Take any library; convert it to an RPC interface, where instead of linking
directly to the library, you make requests over a network, and all of the
code is executed entirely on the remote system.  Only the (eg.) function
parameters and return values go over the network.

So, someone does this to a GPL library, which was intended by the author
to have source be available to anyone using it.  However, now you're linking
against it without actually having been given a copy at all; just a reference
to some generic interface, and a URL to the running implementation.  Since
you never got a copy, nobody has any obligation to provide you with source.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Anthony Towns  writes:

> > Anthony Towns is quite right that it is illegitimate to argue "this is
> > a genuine pain, so it must be non-free".  
> 
> I think there's a difference between having people be *unable* to hack
> on the software (in the case of the desert island, or the broke student),
> and having people be *unwilling* to hack on it (in the case of Microsoft
> and the GPL, or the protestor and the QPL).

Let me think about this paragraph and get back to you.  (I think I
know what to say, but I'm not sure yet, and I want to think more.)  I
say *this* only because I don't want you to think I deleted it without
really noticing.

> The AGPL makes it *impossible* to use the code in a system that can't
> run an HTTP server; whereas patch clauses, changelog requirements and
> little notices when run interactivity, while rather annoying, don't get
> in the way of anything really useful.

It sounds here like you agree with the notion that "genuine pain" is a
good secondary test.  

> > By contrast, forced publication requirements *are* an imposition
> > on freedom.
> 
> Please stop with the argument by assertion.
> 
> The GPL is an imposition on freedom. It's an imposition on your freedom to
> distribute binaries without source. It's an imposition on your freedom to
> convert non-interactive programs to interactive ones. It's an imposition
> on your freedom to make changes without having to document them.

Did you write this before reading the "why the GPL's source
requirements are not an imposition on freedom"?  In any case, I'll
repeat.

GPL's source requirement: this implements the freedom of the recipient
of the binary; otherwise you could grant the recipient the legal right
to modify the binary, but you'd be using a technical subterfuge
(compilation) to frustrate their exercise.  Still, it is an imposition
even then; the technical costs should be taken in to account.  Since
the "ftp site" exception is there, and the "send in a coupon later to
get source" option is there, any pain is negligible.

The interactive notice and the documenting changes are generally
regarded as not being a genuine pain.  Yes, they *are* infringements
on freedom, but are they *material*?  I think not, though there are
some who have recently suggested that the interactive notice
requirement might be more a genuine pain than we thought it to be
before. 

> The validity of the "dissident" and "lawyer" tests are under
> question. Given that they want to keep their source code secret, they're
> in pretty much the same situation as Microsoft -- and our answer to
> Microsoft is that they're welcome to use free software, but they'll need
> to check their licenses.

I'm not sure they want to keep it secret, per se, as much as they want
to share it only with their friends.  They *are* happy to say that the
*software* is free: that if you have the software in any form, you are
legally entitled to do all the things with it that the four freedoms
speak of.  

> > The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> > for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> > requirements as for all other kinds of dynamic linking.
> 
> That would imply that all GPL clients for which there are no GPL servers
> are undistributable. I don't believe that interpretation has any legal
> justification, either; there is simply no copying or modification
> taking place.

I suspect here we are at cross purposes; I mentioned in a separate
post that I think there are at least three different things all being
called "the ASP loophole", and it seems likely to me that we are just
addressing different cases.

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 06:57:17PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> The benefits you can get from the Windows source code are _exactly_
> the same in nature as those you obtain from the Google source code.

Not exactly.  I can modify the source of the Windows source, compile it
and use the changes[1].  I can't modify the source of www.google.com,
compile it and use the changes, since I can't touch their server.

On the other hand, the fact that I have the source to the Linux kernel
doesn't let me enhance www.debian.org, either, so I'll drop this
particular argument.

[1] in theory; the Windows source isn't reputed as being the easiest to
modify or build

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> But they're legitimate interests that users of Free Software want.  I
> don't see why "altering the application you actually run" is the only
> goal that's allowed for Free Software.  These aren't "side effects" --
> they're primary, important goals in themselves.  Indeed, giving copies
> to friends (another freedom of Free Software) is a primary goal.

I have many many interests.  In general, free software principles say
that, NO MATTER HOW IMPORTANT THOSE INTERESTS, I don't get to impinge
on people's freedom to use and modify my software as a way of
compelling them to support my interests--EVEN if those interests are
"free software interests".

Otherwise, you seem to be saying that I should be able to demand the
tax returns of any modifier of the code, since that can surely be used
to advance free software interests.  Right?

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
> replacing the version you're interacting with.  You can learn how
> algorithms work.  You can incorporate it into other software systems.

I could get freedoms by having the tax returns of the people who
modified the software too.  Why should that not also be part of the
license? 

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > 
> > > > Why the GPL is free
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > > > requires?  Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> > > > of the code.  
> > > 
> > > Doesn't this depend on which "recipient" you're talking about?  Note
> > > that sections (2)(b), (3), (6), and (7) reduce the options of
> > > distributors, for the purpose of increasing the options of
> > > distributees.  
> > 
> > I'm talking about the *recipient of the code*.  Was that somehow
> > unclear where I said "the recipient of the code"?
> 
> Yes. See above.

I'm talking about the RECIPIENT OF THE CODE.  If you don't RECEIVE THE
CODE, you are not the "recipient" I was speaking of.  Geez, that's
really it.  I don't know how many ways I can say it, but maybe if
you'd identify other candidate understandings of "recipient" such that
they are the "recipient of the code" and yet there are multiple
possible understandings, that would help.

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Hence the ASP loophole: you can take a program licensed under the GPL,
> pound it into this type of interface, and you no longer have to
> distribute anything at all for people to use it.  The GPL is dependent
> on distribution in order for people to be able to get the source.

There are clearly about six different "ASP loopholes" confusing this
discussion. :) I propose from now on that people stop saying "the ASP
loophole" as if there were only one.  David Turner contends that the
real problem is web-only applications, I assumed you meant "GPL'd
client, proprietary web app", and actually you mean "GPL'd web app,
proprietary client".

But I'm not sure I understand even now the specific case you are
speaking of.  Still, I think there is a good rule here:

Free software lets me modify my program, and as long as I don't copy
it, I get to run it all I like and not provide source for anyone.  I'm
even allowed to do this for other people.

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> So IIUC, Anthony Towns is especially exercised by the alleged
> difficulty with the QPL's apparent forced publication requirement,
> which he things should be no difficulty at all.

No, I'm not decided on it. I don't see what the difficulty is. I'm not
making any positive claims yet.

> Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
> 
> The basic reason here is "for the same reason a forced-disclosure of
> your tax returns" is not free.  Even if it's only on request, even if
> the requestor offers to pay your costs, it's still not free.  We
> wouldn't tolerate the one, we shouldn't tolerate the other.  We
> wouldn't accept "you must chant the Hare Krishna".  Adding a
> restriction, is an impingement on freedom.  But free software licenses
> do have restrictions?  How is that OK?  Read on.

If the taxGPL required you to distribute your tax return when you
distributed binaries, that would be non-free, so the analogy doesn't
work that well.

The basic tests we make are:

(a) can you get source, and is it possible to make and distribute
modifications at all under any circumstances?

(b) can Debian package it, maintain it and distribute it,
without going to too much trouble?

(c) if you're a broke student, stuck on a desert island, with just
enough resources to hack on the code, can you do so, and pass
it on to the beatiful MOTAS who's stranded there with you,
so you can impress 'em with your leet hackcing skills?

These are all technical tests: if (a) fails, we have no hope of doing
anything with it, if (b) fails, Debian can't distribute it, and if (c)
fails, maintaining it is going to be overly difficult since some of us
are broke students, and others can't reasonably communicate with everyone
on the planet.

I think it would be really nice to be able to justify tests like:

(d) can you use it completely naively - without reading,
understanding or thinking about the license - without running
the risk of violating the license

(e) can you modify it to make it useful, then use it similarly
naively?

on similar technical grounds; since those things do have real benefits
to users.

But not having patch clauses or notice-when-interactive requirements
also has benefits to users -- that alone just isn't enough.

> Anthony Towns is quite right that it is illegitimate to argue "this is
> a genuine pain, so it must be non-free".  

I think there's a difference between having people be *unable* to hack
on the software (in the case of the desert island, or the broke student),
and having people be *unwilling* to hack on it (in the case of Microsoft
and the GPL, or the protestor and the QPL).

The AGPL makes it *impossible* to use the code in a system that can't
run an HTTP server; whereas patch clauses, changelog requirements and
little notices when run interactivity, while rather annoying, don't get
in the way of anything really useful.

But the sort of pain the GPL causes is much more voluntary: you can
hack on the code, you just can't base a business on monopoly control of
the sources.

> By contrast, forced publication requirements *are* an imposition on freedom.

Please stop with the argument by assertion.

The GPL is an imposition on freedom. It's an imposition on your freedom to
distribute binaries without source. It's an imposition on your freedom to
convert non-interactive programs to interactive ones. It's an imposition
on your freedom to make changes without having to document them.

> Are they a genuine pain?  Anthony Towns, IIUC, would only accept them
> if one need not pay for the forced publication.  The purpose of the
> Dissident and Lawyer tests is to show that monetary payment is not the
> only sort of genuine pain that is relevant.  

The validity of the "dissident" and "lawyer" tests are under
question. Given that they want to keep their source code secret, they're
in pretty much the same situation as Microsoft -- and our answer to
Microsoft is that they're welcome to use free software, but they'll need
to check their licenses.

> The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> requirements as for all other kinds of dynamic linking.

That would imply that all GPL clients for which there are no GPL servers
are undistributable. I don't believe that interpretation has any legal
justification, either; there is simply no copying or modification
taking place.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgppicTsaxnlf.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Anthony Towns]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:50:54PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> In the case of Google, their releasing source simply doesn't let me
> improve Google--period.  

This is entirely misleading.

Microsoft releasing the source code to Windows doesn't let you improve
Windows--period, in this sense either. You have no control at all over
what Microsoft release and get pre-installed on systems, and even with
all their source code, you as an individual almost certainly don't have
the resources to compete with them in any more than a token manner.

The benefits you can get from the Windows source code are _exactly_
the same in nature as those you obtain from the Google source code.

> There's nothing that can be done about this.
> This applies to most "web apps", since the fundamental reason most web
> apps are web apps is either a) the server takes a lot of resources to
> run (Google), or b) the server connects a bunch of people together (eg.
> an IRC server). (case 1)

In particular, Windows likewise takes a lot of resources to maintain and
support; and people often only want to connect a few people together
-- which is why web servers and IRC servers are useful in Intranets,
as well as for {www,irc}.debian.org.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- 
you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''


pgpbODGaFL53Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 05:30:04PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
> distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
> it with rmi.bar.com's non-free code, in order to produce a program
> without source, then the result is that the GPL (as it stands *now*)
> is violated, just as much as if rmi.bar.com distributed an ordinary
> .so.  

The argument is that "//rmi.bar.com/Bar" is a GPL'd program, and this
java application (under whatever license; say BSD) makes use of it.

Now, it seems clear that this application is, in fact, linking to Bar.
What's not clear is distribution: it seems that Bar is never actually
being distributed to the user of this application.  Since the binary is
never distributed, the GPL's source requirements never kick in.

Hence the ASP loophole: you can take a program licensed under the GPL,
pound it into this type of interface, and you no longer have to
distribute anything at all for people to use it.  The GPL is dependent
on distribution in order for people to be able to get the source.

The "quine" requirement seems like an awful hack to fix this problem,
though, for reasons already discussed.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: The Show So Far

[David Turner]

On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 21:50, Glenn Maynard wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> > Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
> > 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.  
> 
> That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained
> algorithm from an application.  I can use it in my own programs, and
> improve other, unrelated things with it, or learn from it, or critique
> it.
>
> But it doesn't let me improve the application that it's from at all,
> since I don't have its source.  Likewise, Google releasing source
> might have lots of other benefits, but it doesn't let me improve Google
> in any way, and I believe those "other benefits" are peripheral.

But they're legitimate interests that users of Free Software want.  I
don't see why "altering the application you actually run" is the only
goal that's allowed for Free Software.  These aren't "side effects" --
they're primary, important goals in themselves.  Indeed, giving copies
to friends (another freedom of Free Software) is a primary goal.

> Now, we seem to have two related but distinct cases: Google and
> BarInterface.
> 
> In the case of Google, their releasing source simply doesn't let me
> improve Google--period.

You could, with funding, run your own Google (with spidering and
everything).  You could also submit patches to the Google team.

> In the case of BarInterface, it *may* be reasonable to run a separate
> copy of the server on my own system, with my enhancements.  

This is reasonable with Google, too -- that's what the yellow box Google
sells is.

> I do think these two cases should be considered independently.  The
> "provide the source to users of a webpage" discussion revolves around
> #1, which I think is distinct, and doesn't help #2 at all.

In the case where #2 has this quine code, it does help.

-- 
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668

"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters 
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 09:10:28PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
> 20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.  

That's akin to someone releasing the source of a neat, self-contained
algorithm from an application.  I can use it in my own programs, and
improve other, unrelated things with it, or learn from it, or critique
it.

But it doesn't let me improve the application that it's from at all,
since I don't have its source.  Likewise, Google releasing source
might have lots of other benefits, but it doesn't let me improve Google
in any way, and I believe those "other benefits" are peripheral.


Now, we seem to have two related but distinct cases: Google and
BarInterface.

In the case of Google, their releasing source simply doesn't let me
improve Google--period.  There's nothing that can be done about this.
This applies to most "web apps", since the fundamental reason most web
apps are web apps is either a) the server takes a lot of resources to
run (Google), or b) the server connects a bunch of people together (eg.
an IRC server). (case 1)

In the case of BarInterface, it *may* be reasonable to run a separate
copy of the server on my own system, with my enhancements.  This is
just about always the case when the example is something that was once a
standalone application, and has been converted to ASP/RFC (eg. your GCC
example).  This is probably the more feared case of this--that someone
will take my source, improve it, offer its use via ASP and not let
anyone have the source; the fear that it's a means to get around having
to give away your improvements. (case 2)

I'd say case 2 is the only one that can be reasonably called a "loophole",
and is the one Thomas is claiming simply isn't a problem.  As I said
above, I think it's fundamentally impossible to fix #1; releasing source
to Google looks neat, but while it shares some nice side effects with
releasing GCC's source, it doesn't let me (the user of the program--for
the sake of discussion) improve the program (www.google.com), which is
the primary, fundamental goal.

I do think these two cases should be considered independently.  The
"provide the source to users of a webpage" discussion revolves around
#1, which I think is distinct, and doesn't help #2 at all.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 08:36:44PM -0500, David Turner wrote:
> [note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
> is provided further down in this message]

OK.  It's ASP in the context of HTTP (probably due to the nearby
PHPNuke thread) that caused my confusion.

-- 
Glenn Maynard

Re: The Show So Far

[David Turner]

On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 20:34, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > > Why the GPL is free
> > > ---
> > > 
> > > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > > requires?  Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> > > of the code.  
> > 
> > Doesn't this depend on which "recipient" you're talking about?  Note
> > that sections (2)(b), (3), (6), and (7) reduce the options of
> > distributors, for the purpose of increasing the options of
> > distributees.  
> 
> I'm talking about the *recipient of the code*.  Was that somehow
> unclear where I said "the recipient of the code"?

Yes. See above.

> > (2)(d) reduces the options of those who modify, for the purpose of
> > increasing the options of users.  The cases are analagous (although I do
> > not argue that they are identical).
> 
> Those users don't get any additional options, because unlike the
> recipient of a binary, they have no ability whatsoever to change the
> source and substitute the new version for the old.  

Consider a Tivo, which uses a checksumming strategy to prevent the
installation of new versions of even the Free Software pieces of their
system.  Users who get the source code can still run it on other systems
(or crack the checksumming system). 

There are freedoms that you get from having the source code other than
replacing the version you're interacting with.  You can learn how
algorithms work.  You can incorporate it into other software systems.

> > And isn't the ASP thing just a technical trick to keep users from
> > modifying the software they use?
> 
> Yes indeed!  That's why it's already prohibited by the GPL.

The more I think about it, the more I think that it's probably not. 
Otherwise, why would Eben bother writing (2)(d)? 

It would be worth a try, maybe, but not worth staking the bank on. 

> > But this interpretation does nothing to close the ASP loophole, in which
> > no software is distributed at all.  For instance, a modified version of
> > GCC hooked up to the web, in which you upload your software for
> > compilation, and download the compiled version.
> 
> I do wish people wouldn't do that, but I can't fathom why it's an
> infringement on anybody's freedom under the four freedoms.

It seems to me to be a serious infringement on the freedoms of users.

> If I had the source for that modified version, and I changed it, how
> could I now use it?

You could run it on your own machine.

>  (Think google here.)  

Someone already answered the google question for you -- it saves you the
20k on a Google Search Appliance for your intranet.  

-- 
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668

"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters 
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

David Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> > Why the GPL is free
> > ---
> > 
> > But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> > requires?  Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> > of the code.  
> 
> Doesn't this depend on which "recipient" you're talking about?  Note
> that sections (2)(b), (3), (6), and (7) reduce the options of
> distributors, for the purpose of increasing the options of
> distributees.  

I'm talking about the *recipient of the code*.  Was that somehow
unclear where I said "the recipient of the code"?

> (2)(d) reduces the options of those who modify, for the purpose of
> increasing the options of users.  The cases are analagous (although I do
> not argue that they are identical).

Those users don't get any additional options, because unlike the
recipient of a binary, they have no ability whatsoever to change the
source and substitute the new version for the old.  For that reason,
giving them the source has *not* in any way preserved their ability to
modify the software.

> And isn't the ASP thing just a technical trick to keep users from
> modifying the software they use?

Yes indeed!  That's why it's already prohibited by the GPL.

> But this interpretation does nothing to close the ASP loophole, in which
> no software is distributed at all.  For instance, a modified version of
> GCC hooked up to the web, in which you upload your software for
> compilation, and download the compiled version.

I do wish people wouldn't do that, but I can't fathom why it's an
infringement on anybody's freedom under the four freedoms.

If I had the source for that modified version, and I changed it, how
could I now use it?  (Think google here.)  


Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[David Turner]

[note: ASP stands for Application Service Provider, and an example ASP
is provided further down in this message]

On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 15:49, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> Why a Forced Publication Requirement is Not Free
> 
> 
> The basic reason here is "for the same reason a forced-disclosure of
> your tax returns" is not free.  Even if it's only on request, even if
> the requestor offers to pay your costs, it's still not free.  We
> wouldn't tolerate the one, we shouldn't tolerate the other.  We
> wouldn't accept "you must chant the Hare Krishna".  Adding a
> restriction, is an impingement on freedom.  But free software licenses
> do have restrictions?  How is that OK?  Read on.
> 
> Why the GPL is free
> ---
> 
> But then why is the forced distribution of source ok which the GPL
> requires?  Because this actually augments the freedom of the recipient
> of the code.  

Doesn't this depend on which "recipient" you're talking about?  Note
that sections (2)(b), (3), (6), and (7) reduce the options of
distributors, for the purpose of increasing the options of
distributees.  

(2)(d) reduces the options of those who modify, for the purpose of
increasing the options of users.  The cases are analagous (although I do
not argue that they are identical).

> Note that the GPL only forces distribution of source to the actual
> recipient of the binary.  That's because while an arbitrary third
> party might surely benefit from having the source, you aren't using a
> technical trick to keep them from modifying it.

And isn't the ASP thing just a technical trick to keep users from
modifying the software they use?

[snip two-pronged "imposition on freedom" / "genuine pain" test]

> The ASP loophole
> 
> 
> We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
> intention of distributing that "single program", must comply with the
> GPL as to each of its parts.
> 
> The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> requirements as for all other kinds of dynamic linking.

I think we need to separate two cases: the ASP loophole, and the RPC
(remote procedure call) loophole.  I'm willing to believe that
distributing a program which calls functions in  another program over
RPC, creates a derivative work of both.  But I honestly have no idea
what a court would say about this.  So, that's the RFC loophole.

But this interpretation does nothing to close the ASP loophole, in which
no software is distributed at all.  For instance, a modified version of
GCC hooked up to the web, in which you upload your software for
compilation, and download the compiled version.



-- 
-Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668

"On matters of style, swim with the current, on matters 
of principle, stand like a rock." -Thomas Jefferson

Re: The Show So Far

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> > We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> > and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> > distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
> > intention of distributing that "single program", must comply with the
> > GPL as to each of its parts.
> > 
> > The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> > for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> > requirements as for all other kinds of dynamic linking.
> 
> Context:
> 
> >   import java.rmi.*;
> >   ...
> >   // get bar from the network
> >   BarInterface bar =
> >   (BarInterface)
> >   Naming.lookup("//rmi.bar.com/Bar");
> >   bar.bar();
> 
> What if "rmi.bar.com" is my computer, and I'm making this interface
> available over my network?  I'm not distributing Bar; I'm just answering
> requests for an interface.  You don't get Bar at all.  The "linking"
> concept is less clear-cut here.

The net result is a single program, or it isn't.  Let's assume that
what you are doing really is just the same kind of thing you'd do with
dynamic linking and making a single program.  Then this is all just a
technical subterfuge.

If this code fragment were then added to a GPL'd program, and
distributed, with the intention that people would run it and thus link
it with rmi.bar.com's non-free code, in order to produce a program
without source, then the result is that the GPL (as it stands *now*)
is violated, just as much as if rmi.bar.com distributed an ordinary
.so.  

And the result is then that the distribution of the
GPL'd-program-with-that-code-fragment-added is in violation of the
GPL, being a knowing contribution to an infringement.

Thomas

Re: The Show So Far

[Glenn Maynard]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:49:19PM -0800, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> We have already said that, in the context of the GPL, static linking
> and dynamic linking both make a "single program", and anyone who
> distributes that program, in parts or as a single whole, with the
> intention of distributing that "single program", must comply with the
> GPL as to each of its parts.
> 
> The "ASP loophole", it seems to me, is merely another technical means
> for a dynamic link, and should be subject to exactly the same
> requirements as for all other kinds of dynamic linking.

Context:

>   import java.rmi.*;
>   ...
>   // get bar from the network
>   BarInterface bar =
>   (BarInterface)
>   Naming.lookup("//rmi.bar.com/Bar");
>   bar.bar();

What if "rmi.bar.com" is my computer, and I'm making this interface
available over my network?  I'm not distributing Bar; I'm just answering
requests for an interface.  You don't get Bar at all.  The "linking"
concept is less clear-cut here.

Apache implements an interface for manipulating the sort order of file
indexes ("?M=A"); if I implement a program that uses that, are they linking?
Same thing; the above example just shows the real problem more directly,
using things like RPCs that have become generic enough to export
complete APIs.

(I think calling it the "ASP loophole" is a bad idea.  I'm a Linux
programmer; all I know about ASP is "some IIS parallel to PHP", so "ASP
loophole" doesn't even hint at the above.  Perhaps "RPC loophole",
or "CORBA loophole"?)

Maybe it can be tossed in as another case of linking, but the convincing
hasn't been done yet.

-- 
Glenn Maynard