Re: freedom

[Martin Jansche <jansche at ling dot ohio-state dot edu>]

On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Gangolf Jobb wrote:

> what is the use of free software,

I'm sure you realize that on a typical forum we would be headed
straight for a flame war.  Now, this isn't a typical forum (for one
thing, it's moderated), but even on this list it would be very
frustrating to try to reason with someone who cannot be reasoned with.
So my first question for you is: have you already made up your mind
about GSL and other Free software and are you now venting your
frustration, or is there a reasonable argument -- any argument at all
-- that could convince you otherwise?  If you've already formed a firm
belief, that's fine with me, but then there's no point in having a
conversation about it, and I'm certainly not up for a flame war.

> second, i am not going to use the gsl under the terms of the gpl,

That's fine.  You'll also realize that it means that you're not going
to use the GSL at all, since it's not being offered under any other
terms.  But even if you're not going to use the GSL, you can still
benefit from the freedom it offers: for example, you're allowed to
study the source code and learn from it (though you're not allowed to
copy code), even if you decide not to link against the GSL in your
next project.

> third, i am not going to contribute anything, though i could.

And I'm not going to contribute anything to French Impressionism,
though I could.  Excuse the lame attempt at sarcasm; what I mean is,
how should I know whether you could or could not contribute, unless
you do and show us the Monet?

> gaining freedom by writing and selling software?  i mean those
> kinds of freedom that require money

"Freedom" is a rather vague term with many connotations and nuances.
You seem to want it to mean "individual financial independence", which
is not how it's used in the definition of Free software.  Since you're
familiar with Richard Stallman's writings, you'll know that Free
software is not at odds with making money.  There's nothing in the GNU
GPL (or many other Free software licenses) that would stop you from
writing and selling Free software under the terms of the license.

Take Kaufmann and Moore's ACL2 theorem prover for example
(http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/acl2/).  It's GPLed software and
there is now an acl2 package in Debian.  ACL2 was used when Moore et
al. were consulting for AMD to verify parts of the floating point
logic in AMD's K5 processor.  Remember the Pentium FDIV bug
(http://www.stat.wisc.edu/computing/sas/pentium.txt) and how much it
cost Intel (several hundred million dollars)?  Intel could afford it,
but none of its competitors could have, so they had to make sure that
it wouldn't happen to them, by proving their designs correct
(http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/moore/best-ideas/fdiv/).  But ACL2,
GPLed or not, is "just" a tool, so AMD brought in Kaufmann and Moore
as consultants.  I don't know how much they got paid, but if your
choice was a $400M write-off on a faulty line of processors vs. paying
two consultants, how much would you pay them?

> i do not support intolerance against those who are producing
> proprietary software

Nor do I.  "Those who are producing proprietary software" on Mondays
might be writing Free software on Tuesdays, and drawing the line
around individual coders or organizations would be wrong anyway.

The rationale for releasing the GSL under the GNU GPL is explained
very well on the GSL web pages.  I don't think it can be construed as
intolerant, at most it is a choice not to share with those who cannot
(or don't want to) share.  If you don't like Richard Stallman's
version of this idea, you could also quote the German writer Thomas
Mann: "It is a misunderstanding of freedom to allow freedom to the
enemies of freedom."

- martin