Re: Economics and the GPL

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002 19:49, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> 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:

Ok.  I forgive.  I am sorry for overreacting as well.  Just do not let
it happen again, or I will use a lot of words improperly.  :)

> 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.

They both are owned.  A different set of copyright owners is the only
legal difference.

> 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.

Even though the definition of proprietary says exclusive, it can still
be proprietary.  The code is in control of the GPL community.  They just
have an easy entrance program for ownership.  You can own something and
still give easy entrance into becoming another owner.

If it was not proprietary, it would have no owner.  This would place it
within the public domain.  Since it has a copyright (of any kind) on it,
it does have an owner which makes it proprietary.

Saying all of this, I even believe that BSD code have owners and are
proprietary.  The difference between the two licenses would be the
process for being an owner.  With GNU licenses, the community (who
agrees to the license) is the owner.  With BSD licenses, everyone is the
owner.

> 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.

I agree.  With everyone being an owner by default, it is hard to steal
it.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]