Re: [tlug] linux in Japanese schools

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Marty Pauley writes:

 > You said "many" restrictions.  Your example is the *only* restriction.
 >  The GPL restriction is simple: *if* you distribute, you must also
 > grant the same rights that you were given.  If you don't distribute,
 > you can do whatever you want.

But distribution is the whole point of free software!!  You cannot
"share" without distributing, by definition.

Free software a la RMS is *not* about non-developer users.  When users
(as opposed to developers, especially hackers) are the important
constituency, RMS is unwilling to apply the same rules as he insists
on for the hackable code.  He refuses to philosophize about the
relation of IP in software to IP in music, for example, and has
occasionally allowed that maybe IP in games could be admitted.  And
documentation need not be free software at all; in fact, the FSF
recommends a license that deliberately removes the freedom of users to
remove advertising from documentation.

The conclusion is clear: free software (a la RMS) is freedom of the
hacker, by the hacker, and FOR THE HACKER.  You lusers just get a
LART.

 > The "no charge" is not the main effect, just a side effect.  The main
 > effect is that the software can be improved or adapted without
 > bothering the original author.

If having 1-man-en satsu thrown at me is "bothering," please, bother
me more!

 > For example, I could take a GPL program and modify it to work for
 > companies in the textile printing industry, and then sell it,
 > expensively, to some companies in that industry.  It is very unlikely
 > that any of those companies would ever ask for the source code.

I gather you haven't tried it.  People who try to make a living at
that game very often come to the conclusion that it's a mug's game,
and that the best way for them to support free software is to sell
proprietary versions of free software, and contribute money and "old"
code.  Those who insist on doing it "free" normally suffer for it.
Some of the more extreme examples I can think of have sacrificed teeth
(couldn't afford dental care) and knees (ditto, surgery) for it.
Extreme, yes, but these guys are well-known in the community, and in
one case produced several major products.

 > That is the choice the developer has to make.  It's "share and
 > share-alike".  If he wants to distribute non-GPL software he can't
 > make it from GPL software.

It's worse than that.  If he wants to distribute non-"GPL of a specific
version" software, he can't make it from that version.

I don't think enforced sharing is sharing.  It's a royalty in kind.

If that's the royalty you want, that's very generous of you!  But only
99% generous.  ;-)