Re: Economics and the GPL

On Sun, 16 Jun 2002, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> I'm sorry if you take this as an attack but I take exception to abusing 
> the meaning of words:

Then maybe you should object to Stallman redefining the words "proprietary" 
and "free" for you.

> 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.

Yes, that building or business WOULD be proprietary.  Do you have trouble 
understanding the language?  Most definitions of "proprietary" equate to 
things "owned by someone".  If a building or business is owned by a certain 
group, then BY DEFINITION it is proprietary to that group.  That group is 
the one with an exclusive interest in it, and obtains the exclusive benefit 
of it.  (Go ahead and TRY to charge rent on a building someone else owns!)

One of the definitions of "proprietary" has to do with having the exclusive 
benefit of a thing, without requiring ownership, and THIS is the sense in 
which the GPL is proprietary -- when it comes to the benefits of being able 
to derive new code from GPL code, only the proprietors (those who accept 
and abide by the GPL's restrictions) are able to obtain that benefit.

The GPL is only proprietary with respect to modification and redistribution 
of GPL code -- it isn't proprietary with respect to USE of GPL code.  When 
it comes to using (but not modifying) GPL code, in that regard it is truly 
free software.

Nevertheless, the defining aspect of the GPL is its protection of code 
modifications from being appropriated by (other) proprietary interests.  
This is the aspect of the GPL which is the proprietary one, and being the 
defining aspect, it's hard to claim that the GPL's proprietary nature is 
incidental simply because USE may be truly free.

> 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?

Since the FSF can release a new version of the GPL and effectively offer 
much of the existing GPL code under a new license (having approval already 
from all authors who include the "or any later version" clause), that GPL 
code is even moreso proprietary to the FSF than to the GPL community that 
receives the exclusive benefit of being able to modify and redistribute any 
GPL code.  It's still not quite an ownership interest, but it's an interest 
in the code above and beyond the interest granted to the GPL community, and 
one which could (in theory) allow the FSF to usurp authors' perogatives.  
(However, like those authors, I believe the FSF would try to be consistent 
in the intent of future versions of the GPL, if not the particular means.)

> 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.

Yes, that's what I said, and it's true, even if you don't like hearing it.

> 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.

Obviously he understands the correct meaning of "proprietary" and is not 
under the influence of Stallman's revisionist definitions.

> 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.

It's irrelevant.  Copyright is simply the legal mechanism which gives teeth 
to each side's restrictions.

> 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.

"Proprietary" does not ONLY mean exclusive control; it also means exclusive 
benefit.  And GPL authors get an exclusive benefit of being able to build 
on GPL code.  This is a proprietary benefit, not one available to everyone 
in the world as you suggest.  It is ONLY available to authors who choose to 
abide by the GPL's restrictions.  No matter how much you try to twist the 
facts, this one remains clear -- this is a PROPRIETARY benefit.

I never said that EVERY aspect was proprietary -- as you say, the ability 
to use, buy, sell or give away GPL'd software is indeed free.  But I never 
said those aspects were proprietary -- raising them as a defense is a red 
herring, since you're trying to direct attention away from the single, key 
proprietary aspect of the GPL -- the ability to create and redistributed 
works derived from GPL'd works.

The BSD license doesn't have this proprietary aspect -- anyone can freely 
create and redistribute derived works from BSD code, even those people who 
aren't willing to release their source code or allow free redistribution of 
the code.  Yes, these are proprietary interests.  They're also the exact 
ones the GPL is attempting to impair by offering exclusive benefits to 
those who are willing to write "free" software.

However, all the twisting in the world doesn't change the fact that the GPL 
is proprietary because of this restricted ability to redistribute derived 
works created from GPL'd works.

Note that I'm not saying that anything is WRONG with the fact that the GPL 
is proprietary -- in fact, it's why it's effective at all.  The problem is 
that Stallman has redefined "proprietary" into an epithet and a rallying 
cry for "free software" (where "free" is also redefined to conveniently 
allow the GPL's proprietary restrictions) -- if you hadn't been conditioned 
to think of "proprietary" as a dirty word, you wouldn't be resisting the 
facts with such vigor...

> 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.

That's an untrue statement, because the word "steal" implies dishonesty, 
secrecy or other inappropriate conduct.  Since the BSD and X11 licenses 
allow the code to be appropriated, there's nothing dishonest or secret 
about it.  (Now, if someone takes BSD code, strips off the copyrights and 
license information, and conceals the fact that the code was incorporated 
this way, THAT would indeed be stealing.)

Still, the sentiment is understandable -- some people feel that a benefit 
inappropriately gained (because of an uneven trade) is tantamount to theft, 
but technically, that's not true.  Moreover, since the authors using the 
BSD and X11 licenses are clearly aware of this possibility, it's hard to 
claim that they're truly objecting to it when they continue to release code 
under such a license.  (It's easy to say that the Wine project objected to 
it, given the license change to LGPL...)

Deven