[Sussex] Thoughts On Contrubuting to the Community

[Vic]

>> This is Free Software. There is no "payment".
>
> There as been much written on the fact that contributions of effort
> are a form of payment.

I've no idea where you're going with that argument, but it bears no
relationship whatsoever to anything I wrote.

There is no payment from end-user to originator because this is Free
Software. Dress your arguments up any which way you like, play whatever
semantic games you will, but that fact remains; an end-user owes nothing
whatsoever to the authors of a piece of FLOSS code in return for its use.

> SCO tried the "this isn't unconstitutional,
> un-American and against the free market" line and got shot down for it.
> Your `[t]here is no "payment"' remark seams to fit with SCO's argument
> so I can't agree with you.

Well, now you're just putting words in my mouth. If you're going to play
the straw-man game, at least make the damn thing resemble me a little bit.

> We live in a free society, but there
> are books and books of laws telling you want you must and must not do.
> Lack of conditions isn't freedom it's anarchy.

That's a sound argument with no relevance whatsoever to the discussion.

The GPL is a subset of the legal argument surrounding software licenced
under it, not a superset of all laws. To whit, just because the GPL
requires that a distributor not place any further constraints on code
bearing its licence, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be any
conditions on anything.

>> There is no duty, and the inferrence is flawed. Sorry to bang on about
>> this, but IME the fear that "you don't get anything for nothing" is a
>> hindrance to the adoption of FLOSS in several environments;
>
> But there are conditions.

There are only conditions if you redistribute the code.

There are no conditions if you don't redistribute the code.

Your continuing assertion of the opposite would rather imply not having
read the GPL.

> I read on Groklaw that there maybe an implied
> patent grant in GPLv2 that may have an impact on the Novell/Microsoft
> deal.

No - the "implied patent grant" is something Microsoft is claiming by
virtue of the MS/Novell promises not to sue each others' customers for a
little while. The rest of the world (including, very definitely, Novell)
sees this as total bobbins. But the FUD card is always strong.

>> Postings to LUG lists claiming that such an implied contract
>> actually *does* exist merely reinforce that misconception.
>
> I disagree.

I don't care. There are no requirements in the GPL for end-users to make
any sort of recompense to code authors just for using that code. This is
simple fact - if you choose to argue that, find *just one* citation within
the licence to support your case. Here's a tip - you won't, because it's
not there.

So telling archived mailing lists that there is any form of repayment
necessary is just wrong. It's a lie. It is falsehood. There is not a grain
of truth in it.

> Having me say that in a "share and share alike" community
> you must share may help some of those people.

But you're not in that community! The GPL passes on code *with no
requirement for repayment from the end user at all*. Now whilst it might
be very nice for everyone to do their bit, there is no requirement within
the licence for this to happen - indeed, that same licence specifically
prevents distributors from trying things like that. In short - were you a
distributor of GPL code, your little outburst would put you in breach of
the licence...

> They see what the "catch" is and then may accept the terms.

THERE IS NO CATCH.

You're making up confditions of usage that just aren't there. However much
you might want them to be real, the conditions of usage which you are
expounding are a figment of your own imagination.

> If you go around telling people who
> believe there is a catch that there isn't you more likely to be branded
> a lier or a fool by them.

Well, I can back up my claims with the licence under which this code is
released. And you can't.

>> But nevertheless, I think the time has come for me to unsubscribe from
>> this list.
>
> If you must you must.

I must.

> But wouldn't that be cutting your nose off to
> spite your face?

No.

Vic.