Re: Economics and the GPL

Sean C. Farley wrote:

>On Sat, 15 Jun 2002 21:45, Tony Lambregts wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>I may or may not agree with the coercion word, but his use of
>>>proprietary appears correct to me.  In fact, I have thought this way
>>>about the GPL being a community-based proprietor for more than a year.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>The following are links to definintions for proprietary
>>
>>http://e-comm.webopedia.com/TERM/p/proprietary.html
>>
>>http://searchsystemsmanagement.techtarget.com/sDefinition/0,,sid20_gci214576,00.html
>>
>>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=proprietary
>>
>>No one can have exclusive rights to GPL software. This use of the word
>>proprietory for something that anyone can buy, sell, or give away just
>>drives me crazy. *_Anyone_*  is not group it is all groups (even
>>Microsoft can sell GPL software) , and therefore proprietory cannot
>>apply.  I can't believe this has to be pointed out.
>>
>>Words have definitions for a reason and you can't just arbitrarily
>>change that definition. so please just knock it off
>>    
>>
>
>I did not even mean it as an insult.  I was stating that I thought of
>GNU as a community which owned the software.
>
>Look at proprietor instead of proprietary:
>http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=proprietor+
>Check the definition of 2b (or not 2b :)).  That is more of what I was
>trying to convey.
>
>As you seem to be attacking everyone that does not agree with you, maybe
>you should "just knock it off" and be more civil.
>
>
>
>  
>
I'm sorry if you take this as an attack but I take exception to abusing 
the meaning of words:

This is proprietor  2*b* *:* one having an interest (as control or 
present use) less than absolute and exclusive right.  

So by using this defineition in isolation: if I said that I am (one of) 
the proprietors of oxygen would you be ok with it?  I think not.  This 
definition covers the following:A group can be the proprietors (owners) 
of something (like a building or business), but that does not make that 
thing proprietory.

Also a person or a group can be proprietary in their behavior. I can say 
that the FSF behaves in a proprietory fashion toward GPL software if I 
want. This is a debatably true statement. but again this alone does not 
make the software proprietory and this is not what he said, is it?  What 
devon said  was this

> To be exacting about this, the GPL is just as "proprietary" as Microsoft's
> EULA is.  The proprietor (such as it were) of GPL code is the community of
> developers willing to operate under the restrictions of the GPL, rather
> than a single legal entity.  In fact, it is the coercion within the GPL
> which makes it proprietary -- the BSD and X11 licenses are not proprietary.

and this is what you said


>I may or may not agree with the coercion word, but his use of
>proprietary appears correct to me.

If you want to say that the GPL and proprietary software uses the same technique  (copyright) to protect their code.I have no objections because is a true statement however it is an error in logic to say this makes it proprietary.

In order to be proprietary it must be in the control of a group to the exclution of others. If only the FSF or only those people who develope GPL software could distribute GPL software I would not be in dissagrement with his statement.However, anyone is able to use, buy, sell or give away GPL'd software. They do not even need to be developer. GPL is not exclutionary in any way that could be described as proprietary. 

To be perfectly frank with you I also have a problem with someone saying that "X11 is a licence to steal" because it is an untrue statement. 


Tony Lambregts