From: Chad Perrin Date: 2007-03-14T07:31:52+09:00 Subject: Re: GUI With Ruby On Wed, Mar 14, 2007 at 06:48:27AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote: > On 3/13/07, Chad Perrin wrote: > >On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 11:03:19PM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote: > >> On 3/12/07, Chad Perrin wrote: > >> >On Tue, Mar 13, 2007 at 07:31:23AM +0900, Rick DeNatale wrote: > >> >> On 3/11/07, Chad Perrin wrote: > > >> >How do you feel about people having a (legally protected) right to > >> >distribute Linux LiveCDs without having to push several CDs full of > >> >source code on the recipients at the same time? > >> > >> That's not requred by the GPL, the requirement is that if you > >> distribute such a live CD, you need to make the source used to create > >> it available. You don't need to deliver it concurrently. > > > >No . . . but it's *easier* to distribute it immediately, for a single > >lone individual, than to maintain a publicly-available point of contact > >with source code archives and redundant backups for a period of no less > >than three years' time after the date of the last binary distribution of > >the software. > > It's often easier to do all kinds of things which are either illegal, > or in this case breach a contract. Ethically (as opposed to legally) speaking, I have a very difficult time understanding how anyone can consider what amounts to an ex post facto "contract" to be a good faith agreement. Any EULA or equivalent "contract" is in fact based on an assumption of agreement, imposed after it's too late rather than clearly agreed in advance as any enforceable contract should be -- at least, the way EULAs and the like are currently handled. To see the GPL ethically enforceable as a contract, one would not be able to download the software and GPL text as a single download, then read or ignore the GPL. Rather, the user would need to download the license or otherwise read it and agree to it *before* having access to the download. Otherwise, the user already has the licensed content in his or her possession before the so-called "contract" is ever brought into play. That's a bit like telling someone that eating any of the burrito he has already half-finished means he's bound by law to perform some kind of service for you. If the GPL were properly presented as an agreement before access to the software is granted, I wouldn't have any problem with it as a contract. As a general-purpose "license for all things open source", however, I have pretty distinct issues with it (as I'm sure you're aware by now). > > Let me point out a case where the GPL did some good. When Linksys put > out the WRT-54G router, they 'neglected' to tell anyone that the > firmware was based on linux and other open source GPL licensed > software. That fact came to light when a hacker discovered a security > hole in one of the diagnostic pages which allowed execution of shell > commands by clever manipulation of an input field for a ping address. > > When this was discovered, pressure on LinkSys to honor their license > under the GPL led to the release of the source code which led in turn > to community based software, like OpenWRT, for that and other similar > wireless routers. You may have to point out in exacting detail how the GPL was a critical factor in ensuring that a specific good result came about, and how that result was in fact better than all likely alternative results if it wasn't GPLed software in the first place. > > You seem to be ignoring my point which is that the GPL does not > require source code to be packages with a live CD or any other > packaging, only that such a distribution tell the recipient where the > source code can be obtained. I'm not ignoring it. In fact, I've very specifically pointed out the trade offs between failing to distribute at all, forced immediate distribution of source code, and continuous maintenance of source code archives in case someone wants the source code at some point in the next three years. > > >Your objection is a bit like saying that if you get an > >infected cut, you don't have to use Bactine or iodine on it -- you can > >always just saw off your arm. Thank you, Doctor, I think I'd rather use > >Bactine, or *not get cut*. > > I don't follow the analogy, > > cut = distribute GPL binaries? > infection = have to distribute source? > bactine = distribute source? > saw off your arm = ???? No. Close, though. cut = software licensed GPL infection = have to distribute source to distribute binaries bactine = don't distribute binaries, or only distribute if the recipient will take the source at the same time saw off your arm = spend hundreds or thousands of dollars maintaining source archives with redundant backups over a period of no less than three years after last distribution of a binary > > I wasn't actually objecting to anything, I was trying to answer your > question about LiveCDs by pointing out that the GPL doesn't require > bundling source code, which seemed to be your implication. My point was that the GPL requires *either* of: 1. bundling source code 2. maintaining source archives for long periods . . . in most cases. > >> > >> >There's a difference between downloading software with the source > >> >available, then later finding that the source for that exact version of > >> >the binary went away, and downloading software when no source is > >> >available. I don't believe that conflating the two situations helps > >> >clear up the legal ramifications of the situation at all. > >> > >> So stop conflating them, the GPL doesn't. > > > >. . . > > > >In light of the history of this discussion, that's pure sophistry. > >Thank you for divesting my statement of any context, then reversing my > >meaning. Congratulations. > > I THOUGHT that your statement starting with "There's a difference > between downloading software.." was restating your opinion that the > GPL required distribution of source whenever binaries were > distributed, and that this was the conflation. Re-reading it I now > realize that I don't even understand what that statement means. The conflation to which I referred was *yours*, not the GPL's. > > >> >> The real selling proposition of open-source is that it provides better > >> >> protection to the person or organization using the software that it > >> >> will continue to be available and maintainable. If only the binaries > >> >> are available, due either to neglect by or the future absense of the > >> >> distributor, this advantage is lost. Witness the recent suggestions > >> >> for a 'living will' for the owner of an open source project, it's > >> >> motivated by the same idea which is to keep the project alive past the > >> >> disinterest or the demise of the originators. > >> > > >> >In practice, the source of BSD-licensed software is as easily available > >> >as the source of GPLed software, generally speaking. If the source > >> >disappears, however, you now can't do anything with the binary at all, > >> >except continue to use it -- and, at that point, you have to ensure you > >> >don't accidentally "distribute" it sans source. That's my point. > >> > >> The strength of the GPL here is that it requires mechanisms to ensure > >> that the source continues to remain available. > > > >. . . and the weakness of it (as I said) is that in many cases the GPL's > >requirements impose a minimum limit on the resources one must have > >available to distribute software. Those mechanisms often are not free > >(as in beer). > > And the GPL is not about making software free as in beer, it's about > making software free as in freedom. . . . and my objection is that it grants greater "freedom" to software than to people in possession of software, all else being equal. I never objected to a failure to make software "free as in beer" to acquire. > > You are free to use GPL software as you wish. If you create a > derivative work, you must not distribute that derivative work without > also making all of the GPL source code needed to compile that > derivative work available. > > The argument against following the GPL license terms seems to me to be > something like arguing that one should be able to live in a > jurisdiction and be selective in which of the laws of that community > one obeys. It might be more convenient NOT to pay taxes, but... My argument is not that I'd rather not follow all the laws in a given jurisdiction just because I'm contrary, but that some of those laws are unethical and/or lead to (hopefully unintended) negative consequences. > > Now I've gotten your point that YOU prefer the BSD license. That's > your right. My only goal has been to clear up some misconceptions > about what the GPL requires, and has always required, and what it > doesn't require. My goal has been to clear up your misconceptions that I don't know what I'm talking about, to demonstrate that I *do* in fact know something about what the GPL does and does not require, to eliminate some of the spin on the GPL that obscures some of its shortcomings, and to ensure that it's clear I don't prefer the BSD just because I'm some kind of froot loop with a chip on his shoulder, but rather because of very real, very pertinent effects that forced source distribution as a condition of binary distribution (whether immediate or delayed) impose as costs on those of us who would rather just be able to do whatever we want with software *in our possession* as long as we respect others' rights to do the same, barring explicit contractual agreements. No, the GPL doesn't qualify as an explicit contractual agreement, because the agreement part of that is only *implicit*. -- CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ] Ben Franklin: "As we enjoy great Advantages from the Inventions of others we should be glad of an Opportunity to serve others by any Invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously."