Re: About GPL and proprietary software

Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

> Doug Quale wrote:
>
> Doug, you showed up here because I talked about the GPL, not because you
> have any interest in PostgreSQL, right? Someone tipped you off that a
> GPL discussion was happening? I did a PostgreSQL mailing list search
> and didn't see your name.

Perhaps this then isn't an appropriate place for the discussion? Once the
discussion's here it doesn't seem reasonable to say it's only ok to have it
here for some people but not others. I suggest moving it elsewhere.

> I understand that. My point was that _both_ MySQL and the FSF are
> trying to extend the GPL license (which they both use) as far as
> possible, and not clearly specifying where it stops, _on_ _purpose_
> because they like the uncertainty --- that's why I lumped them together.

The FSF and Stallman is very clear about where it stops. The confusion only
comes in because not everyone agrees with them. So you hear a million and one
variations.

The FSF's position is that the technical details of the interface between
modules is irrelevant. The way to judge whether a module is derivative of
another is by asking whether it has any purpose without the presence of the
other.

Eg, it doesn't matter whether you write a static library, a shared library
(like gimp plugins), or a separate executable that interfaces via the
command-line (like the cc1 executable that's part of gcc).

You don't just have to rely on the FSF's lawyers either. The few times they've
actually pushed the issue other company's lawyers (eg NeXT's in the case of
the Objective-C compiler for gcc -- a separate executable that interfaced via
the command-line) agreed with the FSF's interpretation.

The reality is that the courts do not go in for technical details. They care
more about real-world consequences. Telling a court that static libraries are
derivative but shared libraries which are exactly the same work but compiled
differently aren't, I'm told, wouldn't go over well in a court.

[It occurs to me that now there's a million-and-one variations.
Perhaps you shouldn't trust my explanation and go to the source instead.]

> My point is that the FSF interpretation might be fantasy --- and because
> it is so unclear, I can't even determine how far it reaches --- and the
> FSF (and MySQL) like it that way.

That's pure FUD.

The FSF and Stallman have written numerous explanations, and it's really not
all that complex an argument. You may not agree with it, not everyone does,
but that shouldn't stop you from understanding it.

> The key with the FSF is the _agenda_ that you push all software to be
> open source --- the BSD license thinks that will happen anyway where
> appropriate, so we don't bully people.

The FSF makes no secret of this goal. In fact it's in the GNU Manifesto and in
various essays written by Stallman. If people use the GPL without either
reading the GPL or any of the essays explaining its purpose then, well, sure,
people do dumb things sometimes.

I think you're wrong to assign any beliefs to the BSD license. Lots of people
use the BSD license with different intents. Some because they're less cynical
than the FSF about the success of free software, others because they just
don't care about the political aspects beyond their release.

> I didn't send this to you privately because last time I sent you
> something off-list, you never replied. My guess is that you aren't
> really interested in discussion --- you just want to defend the GPL in
> public --- again, just a guess.

Perhaps airing public criticisms -- especially ones that seem to amount to
``I don't know much about the GPL and it's the FSF's fault'' --
isn't a good idea if you don't want to see people step up and defend the thing
you're criticising.

--
greg