[LUAU] Thoughts...

[Jimen Ching]

On Wed, 3 Mar 1999 bbraun at sparcy.synack.net wrote:
>  A code fork is usually when there are changes made to a code base,
>  those changes are maintained and expanded without being merged back
>  into the "main" distribution.  All of the examples you listed above
>  fit this category to various degrees.

So does LinuxPPC until it was merged.  All of the examples I gave just so
happens to not have been merged back.  I guess the definition of a fork is
whether there is plans to merge the branch back into the main trunk once
the major development is complete.  I'll leave it up to you to define what
'major development' means.

>  According to the law, software is purely functional.  It is not protected
>  by free speech.  Source is not a means of communicating.  In this view,

I don't know how 'speech' got into the discussion.  Maybe you thought
about the qoute:

	Free speech, not free beer.

This qoute is used to clarify the definition of 'free'.  I am not trying
to equate software (or surgical procedure) as a form of speech.

>  the source is the act of performing the surgery, the service rendered.
>  Not the procedure its self.  Not that I agree with this, but this is the
>  way the US government says it is.

I assume the law you are talking about is the copyright law?  If so, then
the GPL is a tool used to give the opposite rights of what copyright
gives.  So basically, what we're seeing is that the FSF doesn't like the
way copyright works for software, so they wrote a license to reverse the
effect of copyright.

>  Actually, there is a slight difference between the GPL and your example.
>  In your example, I have the right to refuse to tell someone about my
>  proceedure, selectivly.  Under the GPL I must tell everyone.  The
>  individual doctors can fly to my house and demand that I show them the
>  proceedure, and I have to.  Same for derivative works.

Well, first of all, my example trying to explain a philosophy.  You are
moving into a technical discussion.  The 'excercize' that I posed was to
get you to think about how you want to view software, in a philosophical
sense.

Now, you're moving into a domain of how the GPL works, instead of why the
GPL exists.  This is a different discussion, and using the same example
above would be confusing.

But I must correct a mistake you are making in the qouted text.  The GPL
doesn't force you to do anything.  You chose to do it with your own free
will.  If you must comply with the GPL, it is because you chose to use
source code that is under the GPL.  In this respect, the GPL is no
different than any other license.  The difference is in what the license
requires.  In the case of GPL, you must provide source code (tell
everyone).  In the case of proprietary licenses, you must NOT provide
source code (tell only people who pay).  Note, when I say pay, I don't
mean only money, there are many ways to _pay_.

>  | As for the so called _moral_ issue.  I don't know how RMS picked that out
>  | of the air.  This is not a moral issue.  There's nothing wrong with
>  | believing that you have the right to own knowledge.  But don't expect
>  | everyone to abide by your rules.
>  This last statement violates the gpl.

This is another misconception.  The GPL applies only to source code, and
only when distribution is performed.  The way to interpret the previous
sentence is; only source code can be placed under the GPL, and only when
you distribute source code or binaries made from the source code, does the
GPL come into play.

So I'm not sure what you meant by 'violates the gpl'.  If I am
misinterpreting your words, please clarify...

--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org



--
     __   __  __________  __
    / /  / / / / __  / / / /  Home Page: http://luau.hi.net
   / /__/ /_/ / /_/ / /_/ /
  /____/\____/_/ /_/\____/  LUAU - Linux Users Anonymous - Hawaii

   To unsubscribe: echo unsubscribe luau | mail majordomo at luau.hi.net