Re: Economics and the GPL

"Deven T. Corzine" wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Greg Alexander wrote:
> 
> > 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.
> 
> The problem is that this contract is perpetual and it's often not possible
> to foresee just how much obligation you're getting yourself into.  Like a
> drug dealer that offers the first hits for free, the GPL can offer free use
> of a codebase to build on, but once you're hooked, it owns you.  After a
> while, quitting is easier said than done...

But this is irrelevent to its coercive qualities, only the terms of the
contract.  As a side note, either way the contract is not perpetual, but
is only for the term of the copyright of the work in question.  (of
course, in today's legal climate...)

> > 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.
> 
> Sure they're different.  The GPL is much more demanding.

In this case I think I was unclear.  When I said coercive aspects I
meant the parties performing the coercion (the governemnt) and the
methods in which that coercion is performed (law enforcement, jail,
etc.)  The things which the user is coerced into doing are indeed
different (as these are different contracts).  The BSDL has just as much
force behind its restrictions as the GPL has, it's just that those
restrictions are different.

> > 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.
> 
> Usually it doesn't get to that extreme.  That doesn't mean the threat isn't
> there, however.  The force of law ultimately rests upon the threat of both
> physical violence and restriction of freedoms (jail).

As I said, this was always a technically correct statement.

> > 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.  [...]
> 
> I'm a natural-born U.S. citizen, and a native speaker of American English.
> I don't need you to tell me this.

I thought I remembered this discussion initially being between two
non-native English speakers who explicitly identified themselves as
such.  I also was clarifying as the convention may be different in
England or Australia or any other English-speaking nation, and I wanted
to leave that open for comments by others.  Either way you agree with
this paragraph, as witness your statements below.

> > 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.
> 
> You're misunderstanding the reason why I used the word in the first place.
> 
> I used the word precisely because the stronger connotations it carries were
> necessary to draw attention to Stallman's misuse of the word "free".  While
> some aspects of the GPL are indeed free, the restricted redistribution of
> modified works is far from free.  GPL apologists don't care to acknowledge
> this, so it was necessary to point out that coercion is indeed involved, as
> that coercion highlights the misdirection involved in claiming that the GPL
> is the "most free" software license around.

In contrasting to the word "free" you're right, you were correct to use
this.  I had not made the connection to that part of the discussion
after it had broken down into the argument about whether or not "coerce"
was the correct word to use.  Even in the original note this contrast
was not completely clear.  It appeared that "coerce" was being used not
to claim that the GPL put significant restrictions on the code that made
it non-"free", but instead was being used to claim that the GPL forced
people into doing things in an unusually violent or subversive way. 
Mentioning this contrast intention would have helped a lot to clear up
exactly what you meant for a lot of us who simply misunderstood the
significance of using a word with such strong meaning.

I've said it myself: "people are stupid."  In this case I was being
stupid and your intellectual use just went right over my head.

> To quote again from the OED, one of the definitions of "coerce" is "To
> compel or force to do anything."  (Original had "to do" in italics.)  Now,
> the GPL compels source code release (or availability) of modifications made
> to any GPL'd works, to anyone who has received the code containing those
> modifications.  This is coercion, plain and simple.  Yes, ultimately it
> rests on the force of law for enforcement.  However, to claim that the BSD
> license is equally coercive because the force of law backs it also is quite
> disingenuous.  The GPL compels more than the BSD license does, which makes
> it a more coercive license.

I assure you, I intended no misdirection.  I was quantifying
coerciveness in the nature of the force used in the coercing.  You are
measuring it in the nature of the act which one is being coerced to
perform.  I am unable to find anything specifying which is the correct
measure.

So, I will clarify myself:  The nature of the force used in the coercion
inherent in both the BSD and the GPL licenses is the same.  However, the
GPL coerces the licensee into more acts than does the BSDL.

> It's true that most people have grown to view "coercion" as a dirty word,
> much as Stallman encourages people to think of "proprietary" as one (using
> his defition, of course).  However, I only used that word in response to
> the claims about the "freedom" of the GPL which didn't acknowledge the
> tradeoff between the freedoms granted by the GPL versus those denied by it.

As you are clearly aware, language is an extremely fluid medium of
communication that cannot be fully expressed in as simplistic of a text
as a dictionary.  Words often have hidden meanings that cannot be
explained by their definition alone.  "My child has detention after
school," and "My child is being detained by a government institution"
are both essentially the same statement, but they conjure up
significantly different images.  As "most people" view coercion as a
word with strong connotations, it should be considered one.  However, as
it was this strong meaning that you were attempting to express in
contrasting "coerce" to "free", another word with strong connotations,
this is an especially vivid use of language.  Unfortunately, the meaning
you were attempting to convey was lost in the artistic powerfulness of
the words conveying it.

As far as proprietary, I agree, the meaning of proprietary is distorted
in the IT industry, and it has become part of our jargon.  I doubt
Stallman alone is responsible for this trend, but he certainly does
nothing to correct the distortion.  The GPL is an excellent example of
where the distorted IT jargon definition for the word and the general
populace's definition diverge.  The problem in such situations is that
everyone's right and everyone's wrong at the same time, and thus meaning
is lost.  At any rate, use of "proprietary" is another discussion
altogether, which is why I put it in a different post.

GREG