Re: [tlug] linux in Japanese schools

[Curt Sampson <cjs@example.com>]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, Jean-Christophe Helary wrote:

> There are other ways to have equivalent functions and you can use a non-GNU 
> proprietary library in your app if you feel inclined to do so. Noody forces 
> you to use readline.

I agree completely! On this point, both you and I are absolutely correct!

However, I'm not clear on how it's relevant to whether the GNU license
is "free" as in "speech" or "beer."

> You can buy or sell Debian CDs, Debian installed computers, services
> around Debian if you want. The code and the media that carries it do
> not have to be free of charge.

In this case, you're not licensing any code (since you didn't write any
to license). In this respect, there's no difference between the GNU and
BSD-style licenses. If that's the point you're trying to make, I agree
with you here, too.

> > So, for example, if I spend ten years writing a large, complex
> > million-line application, and then link GNU readline into it before
> > selling someone a binary, they then have the right to demand the
> > source code for that entire application, and they can redistribute it
> > freely.
>
> If you have spend 10 years trying to develop a application and realize
> the necessity and implications of linking to GNU readline at the end
> of the tenth year it means you maybe should have chosen gardening
> instead of programming.

Well, I'm not sure I agree with that assertion, but since I'm not even
interested in what career the programmer should have chosen, let's say
for the purposes of argument that I agree with you here.

The abilities of the programmer, in this case, don't seem to me to have
any bearing on which freedoms are promoted or restricted by the GNU
license. Or am I missing something here?

> Freeing software is a political move to refuse to make code a simple
> commodity, and places code at a much higher level: common knowledge
> for the benefit of all. It is a very important and profound concept.

So a question: does putting software in the public domain, and working
to ensure that it's easily available to anybody who cares to get it, do
the same thing? Does it do it to the same degree?

It seems to me indisputable (although again, I'm willing to listen to
refutations) that a software author has a lot more freedom when using
a piece of BSD-licensed code than he does when using a piece of GPL'd
code.

> The decision to GPL code is a very strong statement _against_ the
> commodification of intellectual work.

You'll have to explain to me what this means. Viewing the statement
using the sense of "commodification" in economic terms, where goods from
different producers are fungible, doesn't really seem to generate a
plausable argument.

Looking back,

> Also, I think GPL is a very good way to resist the computer
> Alpop-culture that an Kay refers to in his interviews.

Though I know Kay, I don't know what 'Alpop' culture is.

cjs
--
Curt Sampson       <cjs@example.com>        +81 90 7737 2974