Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Paula Paul" <Paula AT PaulSoftware.com>]

I think you've misrepresented my message -

> 
> You'll forgive me if I wonder just how much you knew before 
> the debate,
> since you had some pretty serious misperceptions about the 
> fundamentals.
> 

Well, you may not like my opinions on 'free software', but my example of

the application of the GPL was correct.  I don't think I misunderstand
the GPL and LPGL at all.

> 
> Surely you don't think that the existence of a good, free, volunteer
> maintained compiler like gcc or a high-performance OS like Linux is
> going to threaten the very existence of the software industry.
> 

No, I don't think this at all.  But I don't give the GPL and LGPL all
the credit for the rise of the software industry.  I learned IBM 360
assembly language programming in college, and got my first copies of
Visual Basic through a user group lending library.   I download and use
sample code from MSDN all the time, with no worries whatsoever about
whether I'm going to have to publish my source code in return.  I would
never abolish the concept of making software freely available to
everyone.  I just don't like the idea of the GPL.

> The GPL only covers code - not algorithms (which its creators consider
> immoral to restrict). Of course, you could make an argument 
> that if you
> worked on proprietary code and then later worked on a project covered
> by the GPL, you might be a liability - to both projects - if it could
> be proven that your exposure to the closed source project contributed 
> to the implementation of the open source project, if they shared some
> functionality. But I'm not sure why you seem concerned that the GPL
> might threaten your livelihood.
> 

I don't think it threatens my livelihood, but it now affects it.  There
are plenty of people out there who have not read the GPL, and who don't
know about the existence of the LGPL.  I actually need to think about
whether or not to participate in free software projects now because of
the *perception* that I may pollute my client's commercial product.  I
find this somewhat silly, as you seem to, but we don't live in an ideal
world, and perception counts.

> 
> That's ridiculous. That's the worst, most idiotic kind of FUD. So what
> you're saying is that Microsoft is scared of the GPL because they are
> afraid they will not be able to prove that they didn't 
> incorporate code
> from existing GPL'd projects into their own software? Or are 
> they simply
> afraid of publicly available code, period, because they're afraid any
> exposure to someone else's code would open them up to a lawsuit to
> prove that their code is entirely unique?
> 

What's so ridiculous about avoiding the risk of a lawsuit?  Do you
honestly think that if someone found a way to accuse Microsoft of
including GPL'd code in a Microsoft product that they wouldn't take
Microsoft to court?

> 
> So, you'd rather all source code was closed, so your life would be
> simpler?
> 

No, I never said that.  I said that I didn't have the answer, but if you
forced me to come up with a suggestion, I'd completely rework the GPL
and keep the concept of the LGPL.

> > I do think the spirit of the GPL is good - I don't think 
> someone should
> > take the emacs code and build a "proprietary" emacs. 
> 
> Funny. Lucid did. And it's still around, though the code was always
> open.  Lucid isn't still around, but that probably has much to do with
> the tiny market for X-windows-based programming editors in the
> eighties, and little to do with the source being available.
> 

According to the FSF, if the product is "proprietary", it is not "free"
or "semi-free".  As I understand the FSF definition, building a
"proprietary" emacs would involve taking the free source code, making
enhancements, and selling that product without making the enhanced
source code available.  That's what I think the 'spirit of the GPL' is
trying to avoid.

> > But it's hard to come up with good rules for protecting source code
> > that you essentially put in the public domain.
> 
> No, no, no. The code is *copyrighted*, not placed into the public
> domain.  That's the whole freaking point. Before the GPL, you had two
> choices. You either placed the code in the public domain, or you kept
> it to yourself. The GPL allows the author full copyrights to her work,
> no matter how many people contribute, they all retain their rights,
> but without having to restrict access to improvements, thereby making
> the whole end product better.
> 

As you've already stated:

> Oh, come one now - there's nothing in the GPL that disallows you from
> charging for your work - they only ensure that such work as you do is
> merged back into a publicly available source code base. 

Once my source code is merged into a publicly available source code
base, the market price for the raw source code has been established: $0.
The fact that I'm also allowed to package it and sell it directly
affects my ability to set a price for the product, and it does not

restrict the code from being packaged and sold by anyone else.  My
'copyright' on the source code does not mean much in terms of its
ability to generate revenue.

If all the big sausage makers got together and decided that the price
for their bulk sausage should be one cent per pound, the grocery stores
could still sell sausage for the cost of packaging and distribution.
But, it would put the 'mom and pop' sausage makers out of business
eventually, and it would probably be viewed as price fixing.

> Please, if you're going to state your opinion on the GPL and related
> matters, I beg you to take the time to understand the fundamentals.
> 

Again, I don't think my examples of the application of the GPL are
incorrect.

"The Free Software Foundation (FSF) is dedicated to eliminating
restrictions on copying, redistribution, understanding, and modification
of computer programs."

Just because I don't want them to succeed (I don't want to eliminate the
concept of proprietary software) does not mean I don't understand the
fundamentals.  

I don't want the world to be completely proprietary, I just don't want
it to be completely non-proprietary.

-Paula