Re: Artifex v. Diebold: "The GPL is non-commercial!"

[Alexander Terekhov]

Hyman Rosen wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > What does that ("honoring the terms of the GPL for standalone
> > Ghostscript") have to do with the copyright law, Hyman?
>  > The GPL is not the copyright law, don't you agree with that, Hyman?
> 
> Copyright law forbids Diebold from making copies of Ghostscript
> and distributing them. In order to do so legally, they must have
> permission from the copyright holder. That permission comes either
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

> from the GPL or from a separate license agreement with Artifex.
               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

"or from a separate license agreement with Artifex."

Hyman, Hyman. 

http://ghostscript.com/doc/current/COPYING itself states:

"5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works."

"nothing else grants you permission"

"nothing else grants you permission"

"nothing else grants you permission"

Ha, ha.

Anyway. Hyman, what's your take on this article (including comments
posted below)?

TIA.

regards,
alexander.

------- 
The GPL is not about “freedom” 

In fact, the word “freedom” doesn’t even belong in there. The problem is
that the GPL, and indeed many software projects that use it, has been
turned a religion. And like all religions, it contradicts itself in
sentiment… repeatedly. 

I don’t have any problem with someone using the GPL in their work, and
I’ve been happy using GPL’d products. But I will not treat this license
as something it isn’t. That is, a doctrine on freedoms. A license is a
license, and by definition all licenses carry restrictions. The GPL
carries a particularly ridiculous combination of doctrine, philosphy,
and law. Sounds like religion to me… 

“The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed
to take away your freedom to share and change the works” 

The GPL does exactly the same, in that developers have to release every
bit of derived or modified code under GPL or face legal action. That is
a restriction placed upon the developers and distributors. 

“To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you
these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have
certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if
you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.” 

So you’re forcing the code to be free because you recieved it free? 

You’re denying some of the developers’ rights to give more rights to
users? 

That’s a lot like “peace... through superior firepower”. 

Where’s the developers’ freedom to not distribute the code when
distributing the product? Or does that get swept under user rights? I
didn’t realise there were different standards for developers and users
when it came to “rights”. 

The freedom to distribute code or programs is, and has always been, a
choice. Much like selling cake vs selling the cake with the recipie. A
baker may choose to do both or only one, however, the customer is not
forced to do the same by eating the cake thereby entering into a binding
contract with the baker. If the customers decide to make cake using
improvements to the same recipie, then they’re automatically forced to
sell it with the improvements in the recipie? 

That’s what the GPL really is. A binding contract : That is a set of
restrictions on those who use, develop or modify content licensed under
it. It is not now or has ever been a formula on “freedom”. The GPL is
not the definition of “generocity” that is giving without expecting any
return. I hope all you GPL advocates would stop treating it as such and
call it what it is. A license and a binding contract. Nothing more. 

If you try to pass it off as anything other than that, then you have
problems. 

I’m well aware of the motivation of using the GPL and, in theory, it is
a noble cause. You’re trying to ensure that quality code remains free
and any quality modifications are returned to the community without
becoming invisible. While distributing products for free or profit, you
also want to sure the sources are available to the community. 
But let’s not call this “freedom”. Free code is just that… free code. 

If someone modifies some code and chooses not to distirbute it for free
or profit, it still becomes invisible to the community. So this is only
for those who choose to distribute their work anyway. 

The BSD is not about “freedom” either 

It’s about not getting involved in what the end user chooses to do with
their copy of the sources and protecting the developers from harm. It’s
none of their duty nor concern to police the actions of users. 

Specifically, the ISC License… 
The only usage restrictions are the disclaimer and copyright. 

Copyright (c) Year(s), Company or Person’s Name 

Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies. 

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF 
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. 

That’s it! 
That’s the whole license. 

Notice anything about “freedom” or philosophical ramblings? 
Notice anything other than what the license is about and the criteria? 
NO! 

Unlike the GPL, the BSD license doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t
and users of BSD license are well aware that, like all licenses, it is a
binding contract between developers, distributors, and users. They have
no delusions about how much “freedom” both licenses afford however the
BSD still being a license it still has usage restrictions. Namely the
copyright and disclaimer. 

Developers using the BSD license don’t care nor want to police the
actions of users once the source is copied. They’re not interested in
“freedom” through coersion, which is actually slavery. They just want to
make sure their products and sources are available from them regardless
of need or future availability. If the users want to share their own
modifications, then more power to them. But they’ll be damned if it’s by
force. 

————— 

That said, I don’t use the BSD license in examples I’ve posted here. I
would have placed them in the public domain if not for one indemnity
clause. That’s the only reason every single line of code/HTML/CSS I’ve
posted on this blog isn’t in the public domain. 

I don’t want to get in trouble when someone using my work didn’t have
things go over so well. Except for that, everyone is free to do whatever
they please with it. Use it in personal or professional projects, buy,
sell, modify, reverse engineer, give me credit or not give me credit…
whatever! I pretty much wash my hands of any responsibility after it’s
posted. I don’t expect anything in return. 

I’m not forcing anyone who uses any of my examples to treat their work
as I do mine. In fact, I’m not forcing anyone to do anything at all with
it or while using it. With the exception of the indemnity clause, there
is no “law” involved in the source. 

I only require anyone using my examples to agree to the following
disclaimer : 

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE. 

That’s it! That’s the sum total of the “restrictions” I place on anyone
using my examples. Keen observers will note, it’s identical to the
disclaimer in the ISC license as I want to make sure that I don’t tread
around on someone else’s needs while protecting myself. 

In that aspect, it’s the closest I could come to placing everything in
the public domain. 

Public Domain : That’s freedom, folks. 

A utopia by choice is heaven. A utopia by force is hell. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) 

GPL Vs BSD License 
The license wars are over 

3 Responses to “GPL vs BSD” 

peace... through superior firepower 

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! 

In my work with the Google Summer of Code, it was amazing how devoted
all my coworkers were to the cause of open source and keeping software
free. Even though it was an admirable ambition, I couldn’t help the
nagging thought that, at least in some cases, it was motivated more by
reaction to closed-source software giants than actual nobility. It’s a
fine line for sure, and a slippery slope as well: it’s deceptively easy
to become the very thing you originally sought to change. 

GPL was the crux of everything. And, to my dismay, I discovered there
were several versions of the GPL. Nevermind the fact that Apache has
their own licensing system, much of which is incompatible with two of
the three GPL versions, which actually put a huge obstacle in my
project. 

I was thinking: Wait a minute…my project here involves integrating two
open source software packages from two different companies that take
GREAT pride in releasing their products and the corresponding source
code absolutely free…and I can’t legally make the two products work
together? 

Fundamental philosophical contradiction, anyone? 

A utopia by choice is heaven. A utopia by force is hell. 

I would ask you if it’s ok that I use this quote as a tagline (though
I’ll still credit you, because that’s how I roll), but I get the feeling
that doing so would somehow violate the spirit of this entry. :P 

magsol - November 24, 2008 at 3:16 pm 

Hey, you go right ahead ;) 

Yeah, it’s when people loose their objectivity during the licensing
process, that it really gets them into trouble years down the road. I do
appreciate the passion people have for Open Source, but it must not
cloud their judgement. 

I think I just want people to treat licenses as licenses instead of
adopting this psudo-philosophical stance. Call it what it is, I say : A
contract. 

I mean, I understand the motivation and RMS is certainly very passionate
about these things, but they shouldn’t spill over to contracts. They
need to be objective and conicise. 

The multitude of OS licenses certainly don’t help much (there may be
another version of the GPL down the road), but this issue can be
mitigated by objectively looking at the project at hand. 

What is appropriate for our situation? 

Is the question all developers must ask themselves. 
They need to think this through calmly and objectively, while keeping an
eye out for the future. Licensing isn’t something to take lightly as it
will (as you’ve already found out) affect the way others will(not) be
able to use their code. 

eksith - November 24, 2008 at 9:53 pm 

[...] November 2008 There is a very interesting article about the GPL
copyright license and the BSD copyright license, and this author’s view
that [...] 

License wars: GPL vs. BSD (or What happened to the public domain?) «
UNIX Administratosphere - November 29, 2008 at 4:03 am 

Loading... 

Leave a Reply 
------- 

http://eksith.wordpress.com/2008/11/24/gpl-vs-bsd/ 

regards, 
alexander. 

-- 
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm 
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can 
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards 
too, whereas GNU cannot.)