Re: Economics and the GPL

[email protected] wrote:
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2002 18:42:52 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]>
> To: Francois Gouget <[email protected]>
> cc: Wine License <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: Economics and the GPL
> 
> > > I never said anyone coerces you into using *GPL code.  I said that the GPL
> > > "coerces the programmer into applying the GPL to other code that might not
> > > have been licensed that way given a choice."
> > [...]
> > > That's coercion, plain and simple -- after the choice was made to use GPL
> > > code, the programmer never again gets a choice with the derived code, even
> > > if the ultimate result is that the program gets to a point where the new
> > > code dwarfs the original GPL code, ALL of the derived code is forced to be
> > > licensed under the GPL.  How is this not coercion?
> >
> > It's not coercion because it is something he agreed to from the
> > beginning. Again, your choice of words is either very poor or
> > intentional. I'm not sure which is worse.
> 
> So, if David Koresh or some other cult leader entices people to join his
> cult, it's not possible for him to later use coercion on them because they
> joined of their own free will?  Just because a free choice was made at
> point A doesn't guarantee that by point B it's still a choice being freely
> made -- perhaps by that point it's a choice that was regretted, but having
> passed the point of making the original choice, you're coerced into staying
> on the path you first chose, even if you'd rather now choose another.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that the GPL is a cult, but your notion that later
> coercion is somehow impossible merely because someone started by freely
> choosing to go along with the idea is absurd.  Someone could freely choose
> to go along with the GPL at point A, and later at point B regret that
> decision and no longer have the choice to make freely -- having adopted the
> GPL, they may now be FORCED to continue with it.  How is this not coercion?

Perhaps coercion is inherent in the GPL, but no more than in any other
contract.  By agreeing to the GPL you agree to be bound by its terms
under force of law, in exchange for something of value.  The same is
true of the BSDL.  You agree to be bound by the terms of the BSDL under
force of law, again in exchange for something of value.  In both cases
the law of the land typically includes provisions for enforcement, the
coercion aspect inherent in all contract law, by which all contracts
function.  Without provisions for enforcement, contracts are simply a
meaningless collection of words.

The idea that the GPL "coerces the programmer into [doing something]
that might not have been [done] that way given a choice" is specious, as
that is what contracts DO.  Contracts exist to force people to do things
that they would not otherwise do if given a choice.  People CHOOSE to
enter into contracts because they get something in return, which is
usually also spelled out in the contract.  Either way, the coercive
aspects of the GPL are no different from the coercive aspects of the
BSDL, except that the person using the code (and thus accepting the
contract) has agreed to different things.


The cult analogy is flawed in that when you join a cult you agree to
follow the terms of the cult, but you typically DO NOT agree to be bound
to those terms by force, either of law or otherwise.



I think the reason that Francois objects to the use of coercion in this
context is that it does bring up images of men with guns taking you out
and putting said gun to your head.  While I'm sure that this can and
does happen sometimes in copyright law, it probably also happens
sometimes when people default on their mortgage or fail to fulfil their
homeowner's agreement.

Most native American English speakers don't typically use coercion when
talking about contracts because contracts are day-to-day activities and
the threat of force is very abstract.  Instead of seeing contracts as a
mutual threat of force if some action is not taken, Americans tend to
consider contracts as mutual agreements to perform some affirmative
action.  The use of the term coerce is limited to situations where the
threat of force is imminent and there is no perceived benefit beyond the
prevention of the use of said force, such as when an individual is in a
police station and is told that they will receive physical
punishment/restraint if they do not take some immediate action.


Now, to my point:

Your use of the word coerce, while technically correct, is a cultural
misuse unless you have the intention of misleading your readers into
believing that the GPL has any stronger enforcement provisions than a
typical contract.

GREG