NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/gnu/misc/discuss/4132

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-02 | 6.1 KB

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4132 talk.philosophy.misc:3107 alt.usage.english:10203 alt.society.anarchy:978
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc,alt.usage.english,alt.society.anarchy
Path: sparky!uunet!blaze.cs.jhu.edu!gauss!bogstad
From: [e-mail] (Bill Bogstad)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet news system)
Organization: Johns Hopkins Computer Science Department, Baltimore, MD
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 20:17:47 GMT
Lines: 102

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>
>[e-mail] (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
> [...]
>>I personally don't see what the problem is.  "Free" *does* have more than
>>one definition in English.
> [...]
>
>I personally do not see the relevance of your analogies with freedom
>to carry guns, or freedom from incarceration.  However, I clearly see
>that you misunderstand my point.  There exists a clear meaning
>conventionally associated with the term "free software", as distinct
>from public domain software.

    I would dispute you on this.  If you talk to people in the PC world
you will find most of them have never heard of FSF, Copylefting, or the GNU
Manifesto.  You would also find them using the term "free software" fairly
interchangeably to refer to public domain, beggarware, shareware or any
number of other variants used for distribution of software.  Most of them
have an understanding of what "public domain" is with which I (and I expect
you) would agree.  This is because "public domain" is essentially a legal
term with a precise definition.  "Shareware" is defined as being software
which you can copy without immediate renumeration and can be used for a
trial period before payment is required.  Even this definition is a little
hazzy though because some people see "shareware" as encompassing any
distribution that allows the copying and use of software without payment;
but includes a request for compensation from the author.  The actual
licensing terms may or may not actually require someone to make payment
before continuing use of the software.  (I'ld like to avoid getting into
whether or not such terms are in fact legally binding.  Let's stick with the
intentions of the authors for now.)  In between(?) the two extremes of
public domain and shareware; you can find beggarware or more unusual
licenses such as restricting the organizations/agencies that may use the
software.  I've seen packages that allow anyone except military
organizations to use the the software.  "Free software" is used to cover all
of these forms as a way of referring to software for which it is possible to
obtain copies without pre-payment to the authors or the authors agents.  The
GNU license easily fits this definition (which is the one that I normally
use).

>  In order to appreciate the difference,
>you may refer to TeX, which is made available gratis, and without a
>reciprocal obligation.  When I want a new release of TeX, I have the
>option of ftp'ing it from an Internet node, paying the AMS or somebody
>else for the distribution medium, or asking someone to make me a copy.

    You can do this for FSF software as well.

>If I were to hatch a scheme to port TeX to Sinclair Z80, and copyright
>the result, the only force capable of stopping me from doing so, would
>be my conscience.

    With some restrictions yes (see below)...

>  By contrast, the products of the Free Software
>Foundation place their users under a reciprocal obligation to their
>maker.  If the company's name were "Free to Redistribute or Change, As
>Long As the Changes Are Shared With Us Software Foundation", there
>would be nothing for me or anyone else to complain about.  But in the
>present situation, the only way to justify the current short name, is
>to resort to a linguistic trick.

    The version of tex.web that I have on my system has the following
copyright notice at the top:

% This program is copyright (C) 1982 by D. E. Knuth; all rights are reserved.
% Copying of this file is authorized only if (1) you are D. E. Knuth, or if
% (2) you make absolutely no changes to your copy. (The WEB system provides
% for alterations via an auxiliary file; the master file should stay intact.)

    So even the TeX distribution has "funny" restrictions on what you
can do with it.  Using the auxiliary files described may be a way to avoid
the ramifications of this restriction; but it is a restriction.  So TeX is
"free software as long as any source distributions that you make don't
involve making direct changes to certain files".  (Note: It is possible that
Knuth has removed that restriction as we haven't updated our base TeX files
in a while.)

>Semantic drift happens all the time, and it would be foolish for
>anyone to attempt to countervail its natural forces.  However, I see
>nothing wrong with objecting to a certain form of semantic reform,
>which is being promulgated on hypocritically self-serving grounds of
>protecting "my" rights.  I happen to have a vested interest in the
>current meaning of the adjective "free"; if you happen to feel
>otherwise, that is entirely your prerogative, and your problem.

    My problem is that I can't figure out what your definition of "free"
is in the context of software.  You example of TeX fits inside of my
definition; but it does have some restrictions beyond public domain.  GNU
software also has restrictions and still fits into my definition; but
apparently not yours.  Personally, I have problems with the use of "free
software" to refer to shareware; but I don't think I'm going to be able to
change the minds of the thousands of people who do so.  Their definition
which allows me to give demo copies of software who like what they see on my
machine is still useful.  When I need a more precise term I use it if it is
available or I describe the specific licensing terms for the package in
question.

                Bill Bogstad
                [e-mail]

P.S.  I can live without understanding you....