"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote: > > Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given > > all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably > > well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself. > > Nobody thinks (but you) that the GPL grants to people the right to > break into a computer. If you feel betrayed, it's by a > misunderstanding; at worst, it's an ambiguous sentence which you read > incorrectly
I guess I didn't say that too well. I feel betrayed because I thought the GPL was about respecting the work of other people. If those people only want their work to be used openly, then GPL is the license for them (or so I thought). If you want your work used in a different manner then just say so. After all, it's your work. Of all the people in the world, you should have the largest say regarding how your work is used. But this is not what GPL is about . . . apparently. Apparently, even if the original author wants his or her work used in a certain non-GPL-ed way, it doesn't matter. The moral thing to do is to disregard the wishes of the author and to copy it anyway -- even in violation of laws of a democratic nation. Judged by Stallman's own actions, his GPL cannot possibly be designed to protect the wishes of the author. So what does the GPL stand for? My guess is that it is designed to guarantee that authors are forced to use their work in a specific manner. Even if the GPL proper isn't designed for this, it seems clear from his statements, that he would be very happy if all authors were forced to subscribe to his philosophy. And that is why I feel betrayed. In Orwell's _1984_, there is a discussion about how things get named with the exact opposite of what they mean. For example, the "People's Newspaer" or the "Freedom Ministry." I have to think that I should start thinking "free" as in 1984, not as in beer and certainly not as in freedom to choose how your work is used. Sigh. Disclaimer: To reach the above decision, I have to make a few assumptions. First, that in the Wired interview, RMS was talking about trading bootlegs. Just listening to the interview, trading bootlegs is by far the most obvious interpretation. Of course, I don't know RMS like you do. So, I would be grateful for any insight into the correct interpretation. Second, I have to assume that the GPL, written a long time ago, is still accurately reflected in Stallman's actions today. Both of these assumptions seem warranted. > > Maybe I'm late to realize it, but I feel, with good reason, that > > Stallman is not trustworthy. So in the same sense that I would want to > > look over source code from an untrusted source, given the prevalence of > > the GPL, I wonder if it has been analyzed for trojan horses or legally > > analogous beasts. > > RMS is amazingly trustworthy. He is the sort of person (I can attest > from personal experience working with him for eight years) who will > not lie under almost any circumstance, except perhaps to protect a > friend from injustice. He is completely forthright and explicit about > what he stands for and does. You don't know how much I appreciate this! I really take this kind of testimonial to heart. > > I mean, just what _exactly_ do we allow to happen to our computer and > > our privacy by putting software on our systems with a copyright from an > > untrusted source? If you trust Stallman, then it's no big deal, but if > > you think he would break any law to have his own peace of mind, then its > > worrisome. > > Why? Microsoft can and has done the same. Unreadable source means > that you have no guarantee. And unlike commercial outfits, RMS is > completely above-board about his goals and techniques for reaching > them. I agree, but so too are the BSD folks (or so I hear), and I have never heard of them blatantly disregarding the wishes of authors -- except maybe for that lawsuit but I forget the details. Hmm? I wish I had a better memory. Paul Serice
