[FSF India] GPL Vs other Free Licenses

Vivekananda Prabhu fsf-india@gnu.org.in
Mon, 3 Sep 2001 00:29:35 -0700 (PDT)


Hi,

I am thankful to all those who have replied to my
postings on "Open Source" v/s "Free Software" though
you may not agree with my views & I may not agree with
yours.

Let me make it clear that I am not confused on "Free
Software" & "Open Source". If you look at FSF "Free
Software Licences list" 

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

you would find modified BSD & MPL listed as "Free"
licences. Actually if you really want to be apolitical
on the issue of licences you could also release
software as "public domain" without attaching any
copy-right notice & licence as it is not mandatory by
law to have these.

But then why do we need licences? They should ideally
act as locks to safeguard the IP of the original
authors & contributors. IMNSHO BSD/MPL do little to
achieve this (anybody can steal your & others IP).
This is especially true of individual developers &
smaller companies ( not of bigger corporations like
Sun , IBM etc.).

I ask you what use is a lock if it cannot prevent your
house from being burgled? What use is a licence if it
cannot prevent your IP from being stolen? Publishing
under BSD/MPL gives you no better security than
publishing your software as "public domain" as has
been proved again & again.

Free Software Movement has accepted these licences as
"Free" just to avoid re-inventing the wheel (where
BSD/MPL software is good enough) & to prevent forking.
(Read RMS article on why he chose to adopt X while
constantly criticizing X consortium & it's licensing).

Yes we can always (atleast theoretically) "Fork" these
software & release under GPL if need be. But let me
also assure that this will not be fun & easy. In case
even if we succeed also if say M$ violates GPL we
cannot drag M$ to court as "copy right" always belongs
to original authors & not to others (sad but true).
Only original authors (copy right holders) can sue M$
as per law. Just because I GPL a BSD/MPL S/W I cannot
claim copy right to the S/W without getting dragged
into the court. So I donot get any protection for me &
others by GPLing it (the very purpose of GPL)

That is why FSF & RMS *highly* recommend using GPL
over other Free licences for any *new* Free software


When I say "Freedom" I place more importance on
Freedom of contributors,end users & Free software
community than on often egoistic Freedom of the
original authors. For me a *truly* Free software is
one which guards the Freedom of original authors,
contributors (community) & end users. If Freedom of
one group (original authors) tramples upon the Freedom
of others (much larger group) I choose not to call it
Freedom the way I wouldnot call the "Freedom to own
slaves", "Freedom to drink & drive on road", "Freedom
to steal" & "Freedom to harm others" as Freedoms.YMMV

Freedom is an issue which cannot just be decided by
using a licence GPL or BSD. While I highly recommend
GPL licence (for obvious protection benefits which it
provides over BSD), let me warn you that "GPL" in
itself (though it is a strong means) doesnot guarantee
you & others Freedom. 

A real world scenario
---------------------
Company "A" is copy-right holder for GPLed S/W "X". M$
buys "A" & vioates GPL with abandon, you just cannot
sue M$ as "A" & not you are copy-right holders to "X".
That is why RMS & FSF insists that any S/W contributed
to GNU project should ideally give up copy-right to
FSF so that FSF can effectively pursue GPL violations
in the court.(There are people mostly from Open Source
camp who read a plot by RMS to steal IP of developers
in this. But let us also not forget that GPL
violations need to be contested in courts [not
conferences] on the basis of "Copy Right Act" & not
everyone has the time & resource to do this)

Let me quote Winston Churchill on what he had to say
on Democracy "Democracy by any standards is not the
panacea to all problems faced by humanity. But it is
the best available when considered against other
options"

So while I say GPL is not the "ends" to achieve
Freedom ( doesn't this prove I am not a blind GPL
zealot but a practical man?), it is the best available
"means" to guard Freedom (when compared to other
available options)

To guard one's & community's Freedom there is no
substitute to constant vigilance. We should oppose &
warn others when supposedly "Open Source" companies
like VA, Caldera start producing "Closed Source"
software.We should also warn others when a copy-right
holder company for GPLed S/W is purchased by a "Closed
Source" company. As RMS said "To guard one's freedom
you should be ready to fight for it"

The best I can say of most of the recently released
BSD/MPL software is "Non-GPLed stuff. Handle with
care" for those who care for Freedom ( theirs &
community's). I request those who donot value  & care
about Freedom or place individual Freedom above that
of the community (even after understanding the facts)
to ignore my postings as you are not my intended
audience. My intended audience is those who care about
Freedom & place community Freedom above that of
individual Freedom

Regards,
Vivek


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email alerts & NEW webcam video instant messaging with Yahoo! Messenger
http://im.yahoo.com