[ale] OT: GPL Question (addendum)

[aaron]

A few aspects of this recent GPL discussion caught my attention, though 
my observations rest more with the general form of the exchanges than the 
content.  My view is that the discourse repeated some exaggerations and 
questionable analogies that seem to often obfuscate GPL debates in 
general, so my comments are intended to address those points:

Where ever there are contracts there will inevitably be questions of 
interpretation, but any sensible discussion and fair settlement of 
disputes will give significant weight to the spirit and intent of the 
agreement. The clear and stated spirit and intent of the Gnu Public 
License is to protect Freedom of Speech and, by consequence, to encourage 
a greater Freedom of Choice for all parties. Unfortunately, it seems 
those intentions are frequently disregarded or, at the other extreme, 
hypothetically exaggerated to a level of absurdity in debates surrounding 
the GPL.

For instance, knowing the spirit and intent of the GPL, it seems 
particularly egregious to characterize it as something "viral".  This is 
not only a highly inaccurate analogy, it is an unjustly vilifying one as 
well. Given that this heavily stigmatized labeling originated with a 
slander campaign against the Open Source community from convicted 
monopolist oligarchs, the virus comparison also presents a hypocrisy that 
any Open Source proponent should be wary of perpetuating.

The most insidious flaws of this "virus" allegory lie in its associations 
with uninvited contagion and illness. In actuality, employing the GPL for 
an original work, or accepting its terms of inheritance by extending a 
work protected by it, are very consistently and completely matters of 
Free Choice, not happenstance or coercion. Further, choosing to employ or 
accept the conate terms of the GPL does nothing which, over time, could 
deteriorate the status of ownership, usefulness or distribution of the 
works it protects. To the contrary, the GPL design very effectively 
reinforces and extends the integrity of the works and the intentions of 
the authors.

Oddly, the "virus" connections to the GPL have persisted in spite of 
their erroneous nature, though this may largely arise out of confusion 
with similar, yet valid, associations. Starting with the obvious, there 
is the frequently publicized fact that the computer world is pandemic 
with infectious software, including very accurately labeled "virus" 
programs whose sole intent is to maliciously imitate the contagion and 
physical damage of a disease. (Paradoxically, the immune systems of Open 
Source software species have generally proved to be more resilient and 
resistant to these illnesses than their proprietary cousins.)  The 
associations of "infection" and "sickness" with "software" and 
"computers" are further reinforced by our familiar experiences with 
proprietary file formats, encoding schemes and licensing practices; in 
our commercial environment of criminal monopolists, corporate coercion, 
lease based licensing, dubious patents, time-bomb license fees, BSA 
extortion threats and purchased legislative corruptions of the copyright 
laws themselves, the salient characteristics of "disease" correlate with 
frightening consistency to all of our existing, real world proprietary 
models of intellectual property.  It might be that the confused mistakes 
of dengrating the GPL as "viral" occur primarily because there are few 
among us that have not both suffered a head cold and been victimized by a 
software infection of one variety or another.

Perhaps all that is needed to end the "viral" assaults on Open Source 
licenses is an alternative terminology, a similarly concise, familiar and 
convenient analogue that actually describes the intent and effects of the 
GPL model. Searching for a solution led me to terms like "inheritance" 
and "conate" but, while lineage and genus are integral to the GPL, I 
don't think they speak to the spirit and intentions behind it. Any 
accurate description needs to at least allude to the elements of 
generosity, responsibility, cooperation and trust presented by these 
agreements. After considering the issues at length, the term I am 
adopting and suggesting to others for describing contracts like the GPL 
is "reciprocal".

While I fervently doubt that I am the first person to realize that 
"reciprocal" is a nicely encapsulated descriptor for the intent and 
effects of the GPL, it is my hope that revisiting the terminology in this 
context will convince others of the need to supplant a very flawed, 
derogatory analogy with a much more honest and accurate adjective. Unless 
exchanging gifts by free choice can be fairly classified as a sickness, 
reciprocal Open Source licenses like the GPL cannot be fairly compared 
with a virus.

peace
(after justice)
aaron

---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.