RE: People, not GPL [was: Re: Driver Model]

David Schwartz
2003-09-10T20:35:00Z

> But I have another point. You are not dealing with a license here. The
> license is there to satisfy lawyers and make clear the INTENT of the
> authors. The keyword here is INTENT in that someone who has developed
> something is telling you how they feel about the use of their work
> which, under many circumstances, they could have chosen not to share
> with you. What you are dealing with is real people who have put an
> incredible amount of time and effort into developing Linux. Those
> people, to whom you owe much respect for sharing their contributions,
> have decided that their software should be used with certain
> restrictions, that being the GPL. If you abuse Linux, it is not the GPL
> that you are insulting, but the people who developed Linux.

In other words, information does not want to be free. You shouldn't use
code the way you want to use it but the way the authors want you to use it.
After all, they didn't have to give it to you if they didn't want to.

However, Richard Stallman does not agree with this view. It's his view that
if the authors chose to give you the code, you can use it any way you want
to, regardless of how the authors feel about that type of usage. This is why
he created the GPL.

> So, the discussions about finding ways to make a non-GPL driver look
> like a GPL driver and get away with it legally are all moot. The reason
> you should not violate this is because the architects of Linux do not
> want you to.

If you really believe that the Linux authors wished to continue to control
how their code was used, you have to think that they were stupid to release
the code under the GPL. After all, the whole point of the GPL is to prohibit
such restrictions. The reason Linux is under the GPL is so that developers
*can't* put restrictions on how the package can be used. That's the "open"
in open source.

> If you choose to violate that, you are being unethical,
> pure and simple. Or more to the point, you're being an asshole to a lot
> of hard-working people who have chosen to freely share their work with
> you.

The person who tries to put other people's GPL'd works under his license
restrictions is the asshole. I have contributed code to the Linux kernel
under the GPL license (bonus points to anyone who can find my 25 lines of
code or so). It is nobody else's right to add code to my code and add usage
restrictions to it. The GPL expressly forbids this.

> Since they are the authors and you are not, their feelings about
> their softare are more important than yours.

I'm just baffled. You don't seem to understand at all why the Linux kernel
is organized under the GPL. It's precisely so that some developers can't
hijack the project and encumber the growing source base with usage and
distribution restrictions.

> You may be able to screw
> them over and get away with it -- people do that sort of thing all the
> time -- but the fact that you may find a legal loophole doesn't make you
> any less of an abject asshole.

The asshole is the person who thinks that they have the right to change the
express wishes of all the other contributors to the kernel who chose to
contribute to a project that operates under the GPL license. The GPL license
is about there being no restrictions on usage.

> In short: Be honorable.

I am. The hijackers are not.

DS