Re: bias...

On 4 Jun 2002, Marco Pietrobono wrote:

>   It's nice you are saying so, because from your following e-mail, I
> wasn't so sure you were so unbiased...

I started out without any initial bias.  I don't guarantee to remain so.

>   You already have a very strong opinion and you are only trying to show
> yourself as an unbiased and neutral observer, but you points are really
> clear...

I have opinions on code sharing, open-source development, and other areas 
that may be relevant.  None of those opinions are biased by the history 
between Wine and Transgaming.

>   At least we are not trying to pose as a "neutral and unbiased
> observer".

Let's not be sarcastic now...

> > This is a good analogy.  The *GPL licenses are like a commune where members
> > donate ALL their income to the common pool.  Since everyone contributes all 
> > they can, some call this "fair".  Then again, someone with above-average 
> > income might consider it "unfair" that they would have to shoulder more 
> > than their share of the burden just because they earn more money.  (This is 
> > a bit like income taxes too, I guess...)
> 
>   nobody is forced to use a *GPL codebase. If you don't like it, you can
> always rewrite all by yourself and stop whining. The *GPL licenses are
> only a set of rules for a game. If you want to play that game, you need
> to respect the rule. If you don't want to play that game, you can always
> find another game to play.

I'm not whining about *GPL licenses.  However, I recognize that the goals 
of the *GPL licenses are primarily political in nature.  Richard Stallman 
believe it's immoral to refuse to give software to people, and he created 
the GPL to try to force others to follow his moral code.

As long as the GPL universe plays the role of the underdog, it's easy to 
say "find another game to play".  What happens if someday Stallman achieves 
his goals, and almost ALL coding in the world is under the GPL?  If the GPL 
codebase becomes a monopoly, many of the arguments currently used against 
Microsoft might apply.  Right now, you can still interoperate with most of 
the world without being forced to use the GPL.  If Stallman gets his way, 
that will no longer be the case.

Stallman may have the best of intentions, but the GPL follows "embrace and 
extend" tactics as much as Microsoft ever does.  This "viral" nature of the 
GPL is what concerns many GPL critics.

>   It's not right to ask for change of rules just because you don't like
> them.

There's nothing wrong with ASKING for a change of rules you don't like, but 
the answer may be no.  Regardless, I never made such a request.  I don't 
see anything wrong with using the LGPL license -- it seems like there may 
be some benefit to be gained from it.  It might be better to dual-license 
LGPL/GPL so that anyone working under the GPL doesn't have to remove the 
LGPL license from their copy, but that's another matter.

Anyway, I never asked anyone to change the rules.  I didn't even ask him to 
make the proposed trade.  I merely asked about the rationale behind the 
decision to never trade code.

>   and BTW, the state forces you to pay your taxes. You can't avoid that.

Have you ever stopped to consider why such coercion is necessary?

Could the state survive strictly on donations?  Almost certainly not -- 
there are certain "common goods" that benefit everyone, no matter who pays 
for them.  For example, a criminal justice system or national defense.  The 
state can't protect just SOME of the citizens (those who pay) from invasion 
by another country, and leave the others vulnerable -- it necessarily has 
to protect everyone equally.

Suppose paying for national defense were voluntary?  If most people choose 
to pay, and a few refuse, the difference in funding is imperceptible.  So, 
the rational decision for any given individual to make is NOT to pay, since 
their contribution won't be enough to make a difference, yet they would 
benefit from keeping the money.  The cumulative effect of millions of such 
decisions is that few choose to pay, and the funding is no longer adequate.

Consider public television.  They're often reduced to downright pleading 
for donations, because anyone can watch public television, whether or not 
they pay to support it.  I'm not eager to donate anything myself, as that 
virtually guarantees future harassment for additional donations.  (I've 
found that this seems to be the case with most charitable organizations.)  
On the other hand, I'm more than happy for a reasonable amount of my tax 
money to be spent on funding public television, because I think it's a good 
thing to have around, whether or not I watch it much myself.

Similarly, I personally wouldn't mind at all if the government used tax 
money to fund a lot of software development for the benefit of all the 
citizens.  However, I'm torn on the question of how such software ought to 
be licensed.  Part of me says that it should be public domain, plain and 
simple.  If the public pays for it, the public owns it.  Another part of me 
says that a copyleft-style license would be better, to keep proprietary 
companies from profiteering from public domain code.  I'm not sure which 
option I'd prefer, in the end.  I can see pros and cons for both.

>   why don't you understand that sometimes, just sometimes, there are
> greater issues than the simpler "how can I gain something from that"?

In my mind, the ONLY issue here is "what is best for the Wine project?"

That's the question I'm trying to figure out the answer to.  I want to see 
the Wine project succeed.  If trading patches advances that goal, then I'd 
like to see it happen.  If _refusing_ to trade patches ultimately advances 
that goal, then I'd prefer that.  Not knowing which is the case, we're all 
left with opinions.  I haven't seen any proof in either direction.

>   Sometimes you need to show that you are committed to what you are
> doing and thinking, and this is that time for Alexandre. If he had
> choosen the small-term gain instead of beeing coerent with his decision,
> he would have thrown away all his hard work for nothing.

How so?  He can say that he supports and believes in the LGPL, yet choose 
to trade certain patches, without being at all inconsistent.  Maybe a *GPL 
zealot would view it as a betrayal of the faith, but it's not.  One CAN 
believe in sharing without believing that it's immoral for someone not to.

>   He has done a choice and he is risking much to be coerent with it. You
> should respect and try to understand that choice, instead of bickering.

I do respect and understand the license change to LGPL.  And I would argue 
that it's been successful.  Transgaming has finally come to the bargaining 
table willing to (theoretically) make equitable trades instead of leeching 
off the hard work of others without giving anything back.  If Lindows has 
also agreed to abandon their proprietary fork for the LGPL codebase, even 
better.  In both cases, it has put a stop to any exploitation of the Wine 
project that may have been taking place.  A worthwhile result indeed.

A willingness to consider trading patches is not a return to the past 
situation where Transgaming could exploit the Wine project -- from now on, 
they have to give something back and make it a fair exchange.  What's so 
bad about that idea?  Sounds like a big improvement over the exploitation 
of the past, from what I've heard.  (Sure, they can continue to exploit 
anyone who releases X11/LGPL code, but those people are consenting to such 
exploitation, I suppose.  To each his own.)

Personally, I don't like when proprietary companies exploit free projects 
to profiteer off of the work of volunteers.  If they're not willing or able 
to give back code, then at the very least they ought to give back cash from 
their revenue stream derived from the code they received for free.  If the 
license allows exploitation, the reality is that a for-profit company is 
certain to take advantage of that.  Some are worse than others, but they 
can't really be altruistic about it.  That's not how business works.

And I'd like to point out that even the full GPL doesn't protect against 
all forms of exploitation.  Red Hat effectively exploits free software for 
a profit, including many projects licensed under the GPL.  Sure, they do 
distribute the code, and they also give back code they write, which is 
great.  But they also turn a profit, and that profit is on the backs of 
volunteers who made it possible.  I don't see them mailing out checks to 
those volunteers to give them a cut of the profits.  (And an opportunity to 
participate in the IPO, while better than nothing perhaps, doesn't cut it.)

I'd like to see more good code widely available to many people, but less 
exploitation.  I'd like to see a funding mechanism for "free software" that 
works as well as (or better than) Microsoft's business model.  I'm afraid 
that might require giving up on the "free beer" aspect of "free software" 
and coercing some level of monetary support from those who use the code, 
while otherwise keeping their freedoms intact.  This violates Stallman's 
premise that it's immoral not to share with your neighbors on request, but 
it might be the only viable funding model to fund massive development, not 
just volunteer work.  Volunteer work is wonderful, but there's only so much 
volunteer labor available.  With sufficient funding, paid labor is much 
easier to come by than volunteer labor...

You see, I'm looking for the "greater good" here.  At the moment, I don't 
know whether or not patch-trading is or isn't in the greater good, but I'm 
not convinced that anyone else really knows either.  People have opinions, 
but there seems to be little in the way of solid evidence either way...

Deven