None of this makes a bit of difference. You are making a very obvious error by failing to realize that different authors may elect to put their works under GPL with different intent and different motivation. You are reading too much into the mental process behind the author's action, while what is really relevant is the commitment that author makes through the actual written words of the GPL. In this case, the GPL -- like any public document -- should mean the same thing in terms of effect to all people, and it is a mistake to go beyond its wording.
The GPL is intended to be more restrictive than comparable licenses, such as BSD. In particular, the BSD license says that the author permits anyone to do what they like as long as they do not hold the author (such as the Regents of the University of California) responsible or misuse the author's name and reputation in their own work. The critical difference is that the BSD license allows commercial derivatives to be created by parties other than the author, while GPL requires that derivative works also be licensed under GPL. My understanding is that this grew out of Stallman's own experience with Emacs, where a number of commercial variants began popping up, all with competing non-standard extensions. The GPL concept is known as "copyleft" for a reason. Assume, for the sake of argument, that someone believes that "all property if theft" and that his political philosophy is that everything should be owned in common. It might then be a perfectly logical and consistent position for such a person to put his own software under GPL, insisting that others who recognize the author's right to private property thereby respect his right to use a license such as GPL, while at the same time arguing that the basic concept of private property is morally wrong. In fact, one could argue that he accomplishes the result most logically consistent with his personal philosophy by using a license such as GPL, even if he also believes that the theoretical underpinning of GPL (property rights) is morally unsound. Note that I am not saying that Stallman, for example, is actually a Marxist. What I am saying, and what I think you are missing, is that you are trying to probe into the mindset of a person well beyond what he has stated it to be, and have accused him of lying, or at least of illogical inconsistency, because of what amounts to his disagreement with you. Where you and Stallman have a meeting of the minds is in the text of the GPL, and it is improper and irrelevant to go beyond that. I think it is obvious, and Stallman has stated as much, that he believes the bulk of the current system of intellectual property law to be morally wrong, and that the GPL was created specifically to subvert that system by turning its own weapons on itself. In the past, Stallman has done such things as lead a picket protest outside the offices of Lotus Development Corporation, and I am fairly sure that was before it was bought by IBM. He has toned down his rhetoric considerably since then, but mainly because (unlike the Marxists) he is winning. -- Mike On 2000-05-18 at 06:32 -0500, Paul Serice wrote: > 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.
