Re: Licensing (open-source)

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 09/25/04 

Date: Sat, 25 Sep 2004 03:53:27 GMT

Annie wrote:
> Beth wrote:
> > ...GPL code...
> > ...the MIT licence...
> _____
> The thing that amuses me is how ((( `\
> so many people feel they have to _ _`\ )
> use some sort of pre-existing, (^ ) )
> 'bureaucratized' license for the ~-( )
> no-cost software they release. _'((,,,)))
> ,-' \_/ `\
> Must be the 'herd instinct;' ( , |
> the same lemming-like dementia `-.-'`-.-'/|_|
> that causes a majority of folks \ / | |
> to gravitate to what's perceived =()=: / ,' aa
> as the 'popular' and/or the
> 'accepted' thing.
>
> As S. E. Hinton wrote, "People will persist in
> joining things."

I do actually agree, Annie...I'm typically NOT someone who just joins
things for the sake of joining things, in fact...but...

> All of the 'bureaucratized' licenses that I've seen have
> underlying political or philosophical agendas which,
> frankly, suck.

...I don't actually agree that the politics behind the GPL "sucks", you
see...to my mind, the concept of "information" as being an instrinsically
"free" notion makes sense and the "concession" the law made with
"copyright" in order to allow it to be kept was purely a _practical_
matter...it was invented so that authors would be willing to release their
works publicly rather than just keep everything to themselves, by granting
them legal "rights" to control the usage of their works...

But, elsewhere, we see concepts of "open government" where it's a public
"right" for the information to be available...or, indeed, we can look to
public libraries where, for no cost (so long as they return it by the "due
date" ;), people can borrow books...and, of course, the fundamental human
right (part of the "Universal Declaration", as well as instrinsically
supported by most civilised nations with or without such a declaration as a
"universal" concept in its own right...indeed, so "universal", people might
often take it for granted and not spot that this "right" is of a similar
vein) for all children to receive an education...

There are also minor variants elsewhere to be noted, such as laws and
rights about records kept on computer ("data protection act" - now renamed
"information act" when the "loophole" of paper records was finally filled -
is what these set of laws are in Britain...they'll be something different
elsewhere, of course, but there should be a similar kind of set of laws and
rights for such things in most countries...the "rights" granted by this set
of laws in Britain are that of being able to request to see any files or
records held on computer about you by a company...that the information must
be relevent to whatever this company is doing for you (why does a mail
order company need to know which schools you went to? It
doesn't...therefore, it has no rights to be storing such information)...and
that it may only be retained for the length of time it remains
relevent...and so on and so forth)...or the "right" to see your medical
records (and the "right" that most other people _don't_ see your medical
records without your permission...this one is also implicitly backed up by
the "Hippocratic Oath" and "doctor - patient confidentality" which all
doctors implicitly vow to uphold...being a doctor is an _ancient_ "club" or
"clan", in fact...started by Hippocrates in ancient Greece, they are
actually a kind of "Masons"-like organisation that takes an oath and has
its own set of "master must teach the apprentice" rules that has carried on
from those times...but unlike the Masons or the fabled "Illuminati"
("self-preservation societies", basically ;), the "doctor" club takes an
oath to _HELP OTHERS_ rather than help themselves...indeed, that's the
cardinal rule - the "prime directive", to use a Trek-ism - of the
Hippocratic Oath: "first, do no harm"...hence, this particular society
doesn't need to be "secret" like the Masons or the
so-secret-are-we-sure-they-even-exist "Illuminati" or Knights Templar or
whoever...updated for the modern era but they _STILL_ all have to swear the
Hippocratic Oath and, technically, it is _that_ which makes them a
(medical) "doctor", in fact...although the existence of this open and very
public "society" that stems all the way back to anicent times (and the
Masons are only "secret" in who's a member, not that the organisation
exists) does actually make one seriously re-consider if the tales about
"Illumanti" or that the "Knights Templar" are still going somewhere in
"secret" (still dedicated to "religious protection" of artifacts and such
things) and such are actually as incredulous as they first sound like they
might be...anyway, I digress...as usual...

The point being that many noteable examples elsewhere demonstrate the
_complete reverse perspective_ on the notion of "information"...regards the
"information" in an education, it's a fundamental human right to be granted
access to this (part of the "Universal Declaration" and typically backed up
by the constitutions of all civilsed nations, anyway)...regards your local
public library, it's a fundamental principle of how libraries operate that
they provide all their services and information for free (a "public
service", funded by taxes, that _everyone_ may make use of) and even lend
out often copyrighted material (and what's really important to note here is
that, under the Berne Convention on copyright, software is considered to be
a _literary work_...and, technically, you're not "buying" your software but
purchasing the _licence_ to make use of that software)...

Elsewhere, "information" is considered inherently "free" (even a "right"
granted to you by law that it may not be legally denied to you...a kid
being kept out of school - or, more precisely, shown to be being _denied_
an "education", as child star actors may be receiving their "education" via
"tutors" rather than a formal bricks-and-mortar "school", per se - is
actually a criminal offense)...particularly towards the notion of
"education" with schools and public libraries or the mechanisms of "open
government"...

As has been noted by others, the notions of "copyright" and "intellectual
property" were introduced (often with contradictory implications here and
there) simply to _encourage_ creators and innovators and authors to _share_
their works publicly...though some instances like Disney's copyright on
Mickey Mouse plays a mockery on this notion (how exactly _are_ they
permitted to still maintain that? Walt actually _is_ dead, you know, even
if he's frozen...he was apparently frozen _after_ death), the other "give
away" on this notion is the "expiration" of "copyright" a certain period of
time after the death of the author (all Mozart and Beethoven and
Shakespearian works are free of copyright...well, you have to be careful:
Mozart's _work_ is "public domain" but a _specific recording_ of a
particular ochestra playing Mozart's work may be copyrighted...in other
words, Mozart's "notes" are free...but the "sound" of them from an ochestra
playing those notes isn't necessarily...indeed, musical works typically
always have _two_ copyrights on them regards the music itself and also the
performance...denoted by not only a "C" inside a circle for copyright but
also a "P" inside a circle for performance rights...another interesting but
pointless fact: Copying *** music was the first ever application of
copyright :)...and that when "copyright" expires, the work becomes "public
domain"...this notion doesn't fit with material property law at all...you
can hand down some "antique" through the family line for centuries upon
centuries and there is no "expiration date" on the ownership at all...

"Copyright" (and "patents" and such) was introduced as an exception to the
otherwise "information is inherently free" common law (and statutary law
regards "education") because, simply, people were typically unwilling to
share their works publicly otherwise...you know, the "what's in it for me?"
argument (which, of course, isn't always necessarily a selfish
motivation...the author might be concern to make sure that the work
_remains_ publicly accessible, which, indeed, is how the GPL uses
copyright...or, of course, no-one would ever become a musician or author or
otherwise, if it was impossible to make a living by doing it because it
constantly keeps getting "stolen" all the time...we all have to live, after
all...it's not unreasonable or "selfish" to try to secure a living out of
your work so that, indeed, you can _devote_ yourself to creating music or
books or software or whatever...it _should_, in fact, be respected by
society at large or, indeed, people might simply decide they can't do it
anymore and everyone comes off the poorer for it...no more movies, no more
TV, no more music, etc., etc. ;)...

As a Liberally minded person (as in "Liberty"...not that I'm part of any
formal "liberal" party or group...indeed, this, to my mind, is implicitly
paradoxical, yes? A belief in "Liberty" yet enslaved to a "group
mentality"? Probably why liberals never do so well politically, as they
implicitly are reluctant to have any kind of "party line" which they all
follow...and, inevitably, the "can't make up your mind" or "you don't stand
for anything in particular" accusations emerge...not so, in fact...a belief
in Liberty can be incredibly strong willed but it implicitly means "que
sera sera"...to NOT believe that any one particular solution is "the one
true path" and all others are automatically wrong...that's the whole point
of a belief in Liberty...people are permitted that Liberty because those
who believe in it DON'T believe that one solution "always" beats every
other solution...I _WANT_ you to disagree because, indeed, I quite possibly
am totally wrong...we're all, quite possibly, totally wrong...that's why we
need Liberty and related concepts like "Freedom of Speech" and "Open
Information" as much as possible in order to constantly "sanity check" our
beliefs...if we're wearing shoes that don't go with our dress and it looks
totally stupid, Annie, we _WANT_ someone to tell us before we go and look
stupid in front of far too many people...life and people aren't
perfect...they never can be...and _THAT_ is a fundamental _FACT_ that is a
practical basis for believing in Liberty...the people and the press must be
permitted Liberty to question and to voice dissent or, indeed, we suddenly
find ourselves looking for WMD that doesn't exist...it's not just a right,
it's a _DUTY_ to voice dissent...indeed, even when governments are right,
they should _STILL_ always be questioned...the people should _DEMAND_ the
exact facts and figures...to "double check" everything is okay and there's
no "corruption" sneaking into the system...Socrates asked the question:
"Who watches the watchmen?" and the only way out of the infinite recursion
that question poses - the people are watched by the cops, the cops are
watched by more cops, the more cops are watched by government, government
is watched by...? - is for the snake to eat its own tail..._THE PEOPLE_
watch the government and the law watches the government and the government
create the laws...a "trinity" of watchmen all watching each other...but it
solves Socrates' paradox - he knew the answer, of course, he was asking the
question hypothetically in the typical "philosopher's" way of making you
supply the answers so you truly comprehend the problem and the solution
because you're forced to think it over to give the right answer - of "who
watches the watchmen"...the people are watched by law, the law is written
by government, the government is watched by the people...the snake eats its
own tail and, so long as _everyone_ remains "independent" and _DOESN'T_
fall asleep during their "watch" - the "people" can sometimes do this
because they are too busy doing other things to be bothered by politics to
keep an eye on their government's actions or have been duped by politicians
to somehow believe they are "rulers", when there is no such thing in a
democracy...there are "leaders" but no "rulers"...big difference there -
then this is the means the modern democratic systems employ to try to
prevent corruption and abuse of power...not perfect, mind you...but then
what is? I'd say there's probably a need to be _more_ vigilant...add more
"checks and balances" - America has a "check and balance" on the President
not serving more than two terms of office (an excellent "anti-corruption"
measure that other nations would do well to copy :) but, oops, it only
applies to the President, not other members of government...so *** Cheney
can stay in power for decades, simply running as vice-president to some
easily-manipulated "monkey" as President who'll act "formally" as President
but who'll do whatever he's told when asked because he's a bit stupid and
dense...not that I'm implying anything regards the last two - Republican
_AND_ Democrat - candidates for Presidency, who seemed to be sharing one
brain cell between them...oh, yeah...Gore? Kerry? The Democrats seem to be
pulling the same trick as well...everyone's spotted the "loophole" and is
exploiting it, whichever party they are - and that kind of thing...I'd make
the military and intelligence services _independent_ from government too -
which means the President loses the "Commander in Chief" position - as
there is a potential "conflict of interest" as well simply that the
military are the "war experts" and giving them a say on whether there's
actually any chance of winning a war rather than a stream of body bags home
is a pretty important voice to be heard by _the people_, isn't it? If the
intelligence services were independent then their strong doubts and caveats
would have been heard by the people to weigh against the politicians
"propoganda" to start a war...and if the military's independent expert
opinion is "we can't do this without losing tens of thousands of lives"
then that places a caveat to look at alternatives to just "war" onto the
_public_ agenda..."national security" permitting...although, of course,
they don't necessarily have to give the exact details to give an overall
opinion like "intelligence suggests the case for war isn't as strong as the
politicians are saying" or the military noting "this is going to be a tough
one with lots of lives lost" without giving away any battle
strategies...the power needs to be in _more_
hands..._decentralised_...requiring more "bodies" to sanction actions...the
"bicameral" system of Congress in America or Parliament in Britain is a
good model that's served well...its failings, in fact, have all stemmed
from where there's NOT ENOUGH "checks and balances"...NOT ENOUGH
decentralised power...NOT ENOUGH distinction between "politician" and
"Commander in Chief" and such...in true democracy - not possible, just like
"true Communism" or "true Capitalism" or true pretty much anything - then
everything would be decided by everyone...that's not practically possible -
especially with emergencies that require swift action - but taking it as
far towards that total decentralisation as is practically possible should
be an on-going process and, if you like, the work the Forefathers started
finally _completed_ ;)...

Anyway, as a person who believes in Liberty, I understand and respect the
_practical_ need to have "patents" and "copyright" - everyone needs to make
a living to survive - but naturally favour the "information is free"
concept found elsewhere in public libraries, open government, Freedom of
Speech, freedom of the press, etc....there is actually a need for _both_
freedom of information and also privacy to maintain people's Liberty (we
need "open information" to keep an eye on any possible corruption in
government but we also need, for example, the right to privacy to avoid a
fascist police state developing where governments monitor and control
people - like they were robots or slaves - by tracking and controlling what
everyone does) that I can't go with any "all or nothing" solution to one or
the other polar extreme...

I've said it before but the biggest mistake I see made is that of _ANY
KIND_ of extremeism...too "social" and you end up with Lenin and Stalin
dictating...too "individual" and you end up with Mussolini and Hitler
fascist police states instead...moderate, tolerant religious people often
do good works with charity and such...extremeist fantatics start wars and
get millions of people killed...too "orderly" and we get absurd crippling
bureaucracy ruining everything with the letter of the law...too "anarchic"
and it all falls apart in disorder everywhere...

The "deep irony" here is that, in the end, the "extremes" of anything tend
to end up to all practical purposes as _identical_...technically, Hitler
and Stalin were opposite extremes of the political divide...BUT, in
practical terms, they both were dictators...they both were
autocratic...they both had concentration camps...they both slaughtered in
their millions...their motivations might be different but "extremes" very
often ironically end up being, to all practical purposes, absolutely
identical in their actions...and it's never a good thing...

It's like the paradox hinted at in that "I, Robot" movie...tell the robot
"protect humanity at all costs"...it deduces that, in fact, humanity is
killing itself in wars, environmental disasters, famines, etc. and, thus,
the absolute extreme of protecting humanity (not in the movie but can be
logically deduced) would be to delibrately make all humans infertile...the
logic being that then humanity ceases to be and we're forever "protected"
from anything bad happening to us...and the robots didn't in any way
actually technically cause "harm" to any individual, in a manner of
speaking, doing this...the robots would always go to the logical extreme,
if sufficiently lacking in "fuzzy logic" (which I don't believe could
actually be possible to be intelligent without this...hence, the notion of
"robot laws" is paradoxical with intelligence itself...the robot version of
the same paradox that we need the _restrictions_ of law to, in fact,
maintain our Liberty...the _universe itself_ is a paradox...indeed, the
fact that anything even exists is a paradox...the age old question "what
created the universe?" and then "okay, so God / Big Bang / a large snake on
turtle's back with a tree running through it created the universe...where
did they come from exactly?" and so on ad infinitum, ad
absurdum...existence itself in a "cause and effect" universe is an inherent
paradox unless there's something larger than the universe...but, in which
case, you've still got to ask "where did that come from?"...how do we get
out of this one? Well, "cause and effect" must not apply somewhere in the
multiverse where things don't need to ever be "created" but can just
exist...right, so the "universal laws" aren't, in fact, universal at
all...well, that's gone and destroyed the fundamental principle upon which
all of science is based...we've deduced by logic that logic can't actually
be trusted to supply the answer...yet another paradox...and on and on it
goes...paradox after paradox, spawning more questions than answers ;)...the
opposing extreme of "protect humanity at all costs" would be "destroy
humanity by all means"...well, ummm, that's what the "protect humanity at
all costs" robots did anyway...

Different motivations, same inevitable and _identical_ action results...the
universe is a paradox...a Mobius strip...a snake that bites its own
tail...extremeism, thus, actually leads to the same place regardless of the
direction you take to get there...it's like you can get to New York whether
you head West or East...one route is more direct than the other but you can
go around "backwards" and still reach the same destination...

Balance and moderation are the keys...everything is relative...there is no
"one true path"...plot your journey according to _where you currently are_,
not some generalised "heading East is always good, heading West is always
bad" simplification...Liberty, in this respect, is not a luxury, it's a
_necessity_...

> For me, the most logical approach is to release one's
> no-cost software under a 'copyrighted freeware' license.
> This way, the author retains the rights, yet allows free
> use and distribution of the product.

Actually, you should look up the "MIT licence" that I mentioned and you
quoted back from my post...it's actually "effectively public domain" in
that the restriction sums up as simply: "you see the copyright notice? Do
whatever you like with the work but retain the copyright notice and this
notice which says to maintain the copyright notice"...it's effectively
"public domain" save for the sole restriction of effectively "credit where
credit is due"...you're not permitted to "omit" the original author's
credit (also, another related restriction is not to use the author's name
in advertising to suggest "endorsement" of your modifications...this is
still "credit where credit is due" but emphasising that credit is NOT due
when _you_ made the modifications and not the original author...in
practical terms, it's a "hey! Don't blame me for that buggy code, as I
never coded that part" clause ;)...

Speaking of which, Randy's correct, in my opinion, that there's nothing
more "free" than "public domain"...no-one "owns" it, everyone "owns"
it...well, actually, notions of "ownership" just cease to be (that'll
please John Lennon according to his "imagine no possessions, I wonder if
you can" lyrics...though, it's interesting to note that he retained
copyright and "intellectual property" rights on that song as well as all
his other works, eh? Wacko Jacko "owns" it all now...and I don't personally
see any difference between a bigoted evangelising aethist _insisting_
everyone ceases to believe in God is any better in practical terms, than a
bigoted evangelising religious nut _insisting_ everyone must believe in
their God or god...it infuriates me reading Dawkins - he regularly writes
to the Independent letters page and being "famous" is almost always
guaranteed printing every time he does that it's almost like having a
regular column in the newspaper or something - that he goes on about the
great harm that evangelising religious bigots have done to the world and
then does exactly the same thing evangelising his "religion" of
aethism...the beliefs ain't the problem, Dawkins, it's arseholes like
yourself with your "you must believe every word I say just because I've
said it" attitudes that are the problem...that's a human failing that has
nothing to do with religion at all, in fact ;)...

And, just for the record, it's kind of an impossiblity to be "apolitical"
about anything...I mean, your licence here, Annie, is restricting
commercial use...that's implicitly "political"..._everything_ is
"political" in one dimension or another...ignoring the "politics" because
you don't care, doesn't make it "non-political"...if you like, this licence
is more "political agnostism" than "political aethism"...you've just got
personalised "politics" away from the "popular" group mentality that anyone
else follows...but it's not absent of its political commentary...but, of
course, that is an impossible state to reach, anyway...even "public domain"
is a "political statement" of a kind...on that point - that everything is
"politics", whether you like it or not...or pay attention to it or not -
Rene does get things right...every action is "political" in some sense or
another...we're both using up fossil fuels and contributing to pollution as
we engage in this international conversation because that's where some of
the energy we're using to do so comes from...the "Green Party" will have
something "political" to say about that (and, of course, in my own way, I
will too...but I just did say something about that, didn't I? I'm not a
"green", though...I'm just of the opinion that it's not a terribly good
idea to destroy all of civilisation for an extra buck fifty and being lazy
to take the car rather than walk to the store down the road...indeed, for
all the "theory" I spout regards politics, it's essentially grounded in
simple _practicality_...who cares if Communism or Capitalism is "better"
when we're all dead? If we're all effectively "slaves" to something or
another, discussion of these topics is purely "academic" ;)...

The song quote is obvious this time...it is, in my opinion, perhaps the
best opening line to any song ever penned...and the line corresponds with
the earlier "information is free" thing about public libraries and
education:

"Libraries gave us power,
Then work came and made us free
So what price now...
...for a shallow piece of dignity?

I wish I had a bottle
Right here in my dirty face
To wear the scars
To show from where I came

We don't talk about Love
We only want to get drunk
And we are not allowed to spend
As we are told that 'this is the end'

A design for life
A design for life
A design for life
A design for life

I wish I had a bottle
Right here in my pretty face
To wear the scars
To show from where I came

We don't talk about Love
We only want to get drunk
And we are not allowed to spend
As we are told that 'this is the end'

A design for life
A design for life
A design for life
A design for life

We don't talk about Love
We only want to get drunk
And we are not allowed to spend
As we are told that 'this is the end'

A design for life
A design for life
A design for life
A design for..."

[ "A Design For Life", the Manic Street Preachers, from the album
"Everything Must Go" ;) ]

Beth :)