The goal of free software is freedom for people who *use* software. To
claim that the ability to restrict other people with proprietary software
is a freedom is twisted logic indeed.
But that is a freedom. This comes to the double-edged idea that freedom
cannot be absolute: if I have absolute freedom, then that includes the
freedom to restrict your freedom. So all freedoms are a compromise. This is
why there is no most free software license. The GPL restricts the
freedoms of the recipient of the software by forcing them to grant certain
freedoms to their recipients. The BSD grants more freedoms to the recipient
of the software, including the freedom to restrict other people. Neither is
more free than the other; they simply grant different freedoms.
The freedom to write proprietary software is absolutely a freedom I think
everybody should have. There should be no law or contract that forces
software developers to release their program source code. I would prefer it
if they did, but I don't believe they should be forced to. And merely
distributing proprietary software is not restricting other people -- they
are free not to use it. As we have discussed elsewhere in this group, there
are other things that *do* force proprietary software (such as when
governments mandate it, or when files are distributed that require
proprietary tools to open, or when hardware is hostile to installation of
custom software) -- and I agree that those are bad, but merely creating
proprietary software does not restrict anybody's freedom.
The freedom to write proprietary software should also extend to the patent
system. If I am free to implement a certain technology, but only under the
condition that I release my source code, then that is not really freedom,
because it means that some company is dictating the manner in which I must
release my software.
Secondly, you're welcome to reverse engineer GPL software any time
without infringing copyright (assuming this means looking at the task the
program performs and writing a new program that does a similar task). You
may have infringed patent law though. This is another example why copyright
and patent should be discussed separately.
I was discussing it separately -- that's why I put it in a clearly-marked
off topic section. I was specifically referring to Richard Stallman's
proposal for shorter copyright terms, nothing to do with patents.
I was referring to incorporating the exact code into a new program. That
is, compare:
1. Taking the binary of a 5 year old proprietary program, reverse
engineering the code, and then using the exact same code in a new
proprietary program. Versus,
2. Taking the source to a 5 year old GPL program, and using the exact same
code in a new proprietary program.
Under current laws, both of these are violations of copyright law. Under
his proposed shorter copyrights but not for free software law, #1 would
be legal (because the proprietary software would be in the public domain),
whereas #2 would be illegal (because the GPL software would still be
protected by long copyright, and using it in a proprietary program is a
violation of the GPL). My point was that this proposal would make certain
uses of proprietary programs more permissive than uses of free programs.
___
Free-software-melb mailing list
Free-software-melb@lists.softwarefreedom.com.au
http://lists.softwarefreedom.com.au/mailman/listinfo/free-software-melb
