[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Rich,

--- On Sun, 9/9/12, Rich Smit <rfsmit at gmail.com> wrote:

> >> No. The FSF actively prosecutes GPL violations. No offense, but that
> >> "worthless" line is the fud that m$ likes to be spread. One of the
> >
> > There are other licenses besides GPL so lumping all of them in
> > with MS (or GPL) is unfair.  The point of my question is *exactly*
> > the difference brought about by the GPL's "pay it forward" idea.
> 
> I was speaking about the fears, uncertainties, and doubts, you have
> about the GPL. You are exactly on message for the Microsoft line.

Microsoft's view is to scare you away from products that are
of dubious quality/support.  They aren't saying, "you will not
be able to support this software/modify based on the constraints
that the GPL imposes" -- since you will NEVER be able to support
or modify any of MS's software based on the terms of *their*
license.

Do you see me advocating a *closed* commercial license?

I have the choice as to how I realize *my* (PERSONAL!) IP.  Do
you hear me advocating for stricter terms that would further
limit what folks could do with that {hardware,software}?

Rather, my argument here has been that the GPL doesn't go far
enough to making works *truly* "free" and, that the provisions
that *intend* to do that (copyleft) are, as a result, ineffective.

AS SUCH, rendering the GPL no better than a MIT/Apache/BSD
license in that the only way you get that freedom is if the licensor
*embraces* that idea and "pays it forward".

I.e., exactly as *I* am doing!

(Publish much IP under *any* free license, Rich?  Commit many
changes to any of the existing FOSS projects??)

> >> values is that, given much GPL code is built on top of better known
> >> GPL code, and violation is often done through ignorance (Jeepy what
> >> now?) or laziness (fix later) and not malice, there end up being
> >> multiple aggrieved parties: strength in union and all that.
> >
> > I don't buy those excuses.
>
> Then this is not a debate. You came to this with the line
> that the GPL is worthless, and then set out to "prove" it.

Notice the subject line:  "GPL Worthless?"
Notice that it is terminated as an interrogative, not exclamative.
I have posed a hypothesis and offered observations (based on my
*actual* attempts to exercise the capabilities that RMS set
forward in his goal for the GPL -- the *freedom* to be able
to examine and modify software that I am "consuming"/using).

> Here you are rejecting
> the facts that disprove the "worthless" presumption, and it
> turns from
> being a "devil's advocate" debate into a preconceived notion
> that you will defend to the last.

Since when do I have to be a devil's advocate?  I postulated
how the GPL was worthless with today's technology.  Should I
then not have to present my reasoning for that hypothesis?
Do I have to blindly accept your counterarguments without
rebuttal?  Have I forced you to accept *mine* blindly?  You
are free to look at the Kindle sources, for example, and
explain to me how the image files *grant* me the freedom that
the GPL intends; to explain to me how I can identify their
contents, modify them, etc.  I.e., DISPROVE my assertion
that they lock me out.

You're "excuses" (above) were that violations happen through
"ignorance, laziness and NOT malice".  I restate my rejections:

I don't buy the fact that people copy a work that they KNOW they 
did not author (even children are aware of the concept of 
plagiarism) -- i.e., they are not "ignorant" of the copyright
issue.  The copyright notice(s) are visible in the sources
(which they are looking at!).  The terms of the license are visible
in the sources.  Hell, there's often a file boldly called
"COPYING" in many distributions!  So, I'll buy your "ignorance"
claim if we stipulate that the copiers are incapable of READING.

Are you ready to make that stipulation?  Folks who are capable of
understanding often highly complex software -- yet can't read the
terms of a license?

Nor do I buy the laziness argument.  How often do those same people
go to a store, pick up a few items and walk out the door thinking
"I'll come back and pay for these some time in the future"?  If
you assume the copiers were NOT IGNORANT, then they were aware of
their LEGAL (lets forget morality!) obligations at the time they
"began their theft" (if they have not complied with the license's
terms, it *is* a theft!).  When they picked up those few items in
the store, they were aware of their legal obligations to pay for
them before exiting the premises.  When they started copying and
*altering* (aparently, without being able to READ!) those original
sources, they knew what their obligations were.  Did they think
they could comply "whenever it was convenient for them"?  How many
THIEVES profess *laziness* when confronted about their thefts?
"Gee, officer, I was gonna pay for that stuff *tomorrow*.  Honest!"

That leaves your claim of "not malice".  There is a huge incentive
for theft (failing to honor the terms of the license).  It gives
the thief an advantage over his competitors -- he has gained
something (some considerable IP) without *paying* for it.  Even
when the "payment" is as simple as complying with the terms of
the license (i.e., no monetary exchange).  Even delaying that payment
is an advantage as he now has a window in which he can offer "his"
product without fear of a competitor appearing "as quickly".

Any competitor would have to reinvent all of those alterations to
the original work -- instead of simply taking those changes and
introducing them directly as a competing product at *inevitably*
LOWER COST (the competitor doesn't have to make all the incremental
and evolutionary changes that the original party made -- he goes
straight to finished product!).  Sorry, even a non-cynic would see
the temptation, here -- especially in a world where product lifetimes
are down to *months*.  If I can get a three month jump on a competitor,
he may miss the market entirely!  (i.e., he becomes a NONcompetitor)

And, you think that people aren't going to WANT to do this???!
That they aren't going to CONSCIOUSLY proceed with this as a
"game plan"?

[Do you really think those Japanese arcade game counterfeiters I
mentioned previously were unaware (ignorant) that they were stealing,
lazy about honoring their legal obligations and NOT malicious in
their intent *to* steal those products?  In a market where a
12 month "game life" was an *eternity*?  (the vernacular was
"90 day wonders" at the time!)]

As to RMS's wishes/goals/hopes behind the GPL, I stumbled on
this link this morning:

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/sep/19/android-free-software-stallman>

Note that it does not address the GPL as I have been.  But, makes many
of the same observations about how stuff is "hidden" (intentionally
or otherwise) in modern products (in particular, Android devices).
And, how that hiding interferes with his (your) "freedom" in that
regard.

He actually discusses cases that I hadn't considered and how that
hiding can have adverse effects on you, the user -- things that
you might *really* want to change about an implementation if you
had the FREEDOM to do so (e.g., your phone "spying" on you!).

Taking his comments about the *non*-GPL'd Android implementation
as a guide, it seems pretty obvious that he would make similar
complaints as mine wrt ways to "*legally* work around" the GPL.

In his parting comments, you can almost *hear* a plea for openness;
i.e., my comment that you have to rely on the benevolence of the
licensor since the license itself (Apache, in this case... but also
true of the GPL) doesn't *guarantee* you that freedom.

--don