Re: OT - programming logflash Re: [lojban] Logflash

["Robert J. Chassell" <bob@RATTLESNAKE.COM>]

   >The people who find the GPL `virulent and obnoxious' are those who
   >find it forbids them from stealing.  Thieves hate good locks.

   You just accused me of attempting, or at least conspiracy to attempt,
   theft.  I don't think there's call for that.

My apologies; I was not not accusing you.  It just happens that most
of the people who have used the phrase in my hearing recently have
been wanting to steal code.  

But you should not complain!  You have just been arguing that I should
have the legal right to hurt you and you should have no recourse, not
even a moral one.  That is what this discussion is about, albeit
focusing on code.


   >From the NetBSD licensing explanation page:

I was one of the people who supported Mycoft when he was first working
on BSD.

The licensing explanation is accurate in that it points out that
people can forbid you to use fixes or improvements to your own work.

And there are people who really don't mind others doing that.  


   There are other issues as well.  I'm a cryptogeek.  I'd like to see
   good crypto used everywhere.  ...

   ... Because of this, I've tried to get free stuff used in
   (commercial) projects I've been a part of.

Crypto code is a kind of code where it is especially important that
sources be distributed.  Else it may turn out that someone's bug fix
or enhancement, which they forbid the writer or anyone else from
seeing, may itself contain a bug or back door.

Will you still feel confident after 200 companies take your crypto
code, make changes to it, forbid you or anyone else from seeing those
changes, and then release those 200 different versions?  Can anyone
really be confident that not one of those companies will have a
forgetful programmer, or be a front for a sophisticated intelligence
operation whether government or private?


   The GPL is like forcing someone to be free by pointing a gun at
   them and telling them to be free.

Not at all: no company is forced.

No one is forced to use free software.  A company can choose not to.
The reasons companies choose to use free software are: it is better,
it is sold in a competitive free market, support comes from various
vendors, they can modify it themselves if they want, or hire someone
else to, customers gain confidence that it is secure.

   .... If you truly believe in freedom, have the guts to make your
   software as free as you say your beliefs are.

Heh?  I do *not* want to give you the freedom to hurt me.  

I do *not* want to give you the freedom to punch me in the guts; I
believe that in my guts.  :-) 

I believe in defending freedom, including my own.

My beliefs include reciprocality; indeed, as a practical matter, you
cannot construct a free society if some members have the license to
punch others in their guts, and those people are forbidden to defend
themselves. 

Mycroft and the other NetBSD people get along because we live in a
mostly civilized society; and they don't mind some appropriation of
their work.

But I myself have suffered in the past from people who hurt me and
others legally, by taking work and then restricting the use of changes
to it.

-- 
    Robert J. Chassell                  bob@rattlesnake.com
    Rattlesnake Enterprises             http://www.rattlesnake.com