Washington State Congressman attempts to outlaw GPL

Ahem, Yes. This is the kind of news that at times makes me a little embarrassed to be an American . (But then again, this is nowhere near as embarrassing as the abortive Greek computer game ban)

If this Newsforge article can be believed, then the (ironically named) Adam Smith, Congressman for the Ninth District in the State of Washington, is circulating a letter among "New Democrats" and some Republicans, in the attempt to actually outlaw the GPL.

The letter in question claims that the GPL harms economic development in our country, etc... blah blah. Essentially they are spreading the same FUD that Microsoft has for the past 4 years... Oh, wow! Do you think....? Nah... I'm sure these guys did this of their own accord, without any prodding from Microsoft.

In related news, a skeletal hand was seen to emerge from the grave of the real Adam Smith, writer of The Wealth of Nations. Observers noted that the hand appeared to be raised in supplication, as if begging someone to reconsider... how quickly we forget...

Now this brings up an interesting conflict in modern thought: on the one hand, we have RMS, who I suspect would actually outlaw proprietary software if he had the chance *, and on the other side we have this congressman who doesn't deserve the namesake of Adam Smith. Each person would support his argument on the concept that he is supporting some sort of freedom. What is missing? How do we arrive at a reconciliation, while still supporting the concept of freedom?

I mean, does each side have a legitimate claim? How often we find that people who propose a certain approach to the world aren't happy with just trying to convince people to follow them, but actually want to use force. It's like the positive side and the negative side to every argument. Can't we be happy with just the positive side?

<political disclaimer>

This is where we libertarian thinkers at least have an answer: the policy of non-initiation of force. No one is justified in initiating force on another party in order to effect a desired change (I.E. "My rights end where yours begin"). That is at the core of the whole argument in The Wealth of Nations. Such rich irony.

</political disclaimer>

My point is: if we are to make any claim to a society where people have free choice, then both RMS and Congressman Smith are just going to have to live with their opinions, without trying to enforce them.

-----------------------------

* On the Monday night episode of The Screen Savers, I actually saw Richard Stallman make the statement that we "don't have the right" to make proprietary software. Hello? If I don't have the right to freely put some bits together, and freely sell that combination of bits to others (of their own free will), what rights do I have?

Oh, and please people: read the Newsforge article and send some letters.

I can not believe how stupid some of "our" leaders really are.

Hey, I've got a project I'm working on for my company? Anybody know where I can aquire a cheap congressperson or two?

Thanks.

Ya, its a shame.

The thing that strikes me the most about that article is who is leading the pact. I recall the democrats in uproars on donations that the republican party recieved for their campaign when Mr. Bush was elected to office (donations out of redmond). I remember the democrats telling the citizens of our great country how Mr. Bush and the republican party was all about big business and nothing about the small business sector, or working man.

And yet, another lie from our so called trusty democrats.

I tell you, these guys will do anything without remorse to get 1 up on the elections, even if they have to damage thousands of citizens in the process....

You want sad, take a look a the California governor's race right now. Vote for Jekyl, or vote for Hyde?

A possible way of arguing against proprietary software goes like that: programs are works of art and the process of programming is similar to making art. Therefore, the same laws (and rights) should apply to programs as to art - and you always have the right to examine techniques used in works of art and to create your own stuff using those techniques and to alter (improve) the techniques so that everyone benefits. Proprietary software denies you such rights - no one apart from the author benefits from proprietary software.

Sorry, that doesn't float. I benefit from proprietary software written by others all day long. I wouldn't have bought them if I didn't.

Your art analogy is cute, but off the mark. It appears you are specifically referring to paintings. Yes, one can observe technique from the painting, however not all have access to all paintings. Only the owner can grant that privilege.

Further, developing applications is usually not an art, in that it's existence is not for aestheticism. Applications I develop exist to solve problems, process data, etc. not to be aesthetic. If I work to develop something it is my choice to give away or sell (I've done both), not yours.

No, not from the software (I mean the source code here) itself. The only thing you can do with proprietary software is to use it. Possibly a benefit, yet not much compared to what is possible if the code is known.

Similarly, it is an undisputable right to create software and then not publish it. The point is, however, that once a painting is made public, everyone can study it. When proprietary software is released it is impossible for the user to study it.

German law considers computer programs to be akin to literature (both are "works of speech"). Further, whether something has an aesthetic value cannot be said absolutely. I personally consider (some) source code to be very aesthetic.

Yes, and this right is hardly questioned. (Unless the economy is changed severely, it will not be possible to deny either option.) However, what is being questioned is whether you have the right to deny others the knowledge of how your program works. It's hard to get a car for free, but it is absolutely legal to look inside a car and find out how it works. You have to pay to get a Beethoven CD (alternatively, German law allows to get a copy from a friend or relative), but you can listen to it and understand how it "works" by analysis. It is required of food manufacturers that it be declared on their products what they (the products ) contain.

This isn't really a good analogy. To replicate music by listening would be like creating a program that does the same thing another program does without every seeing the code that does it. You can't always get the sheet music to someone's songs.
It is actually the same way with some areas of an automobile.

Now, don't get me wrong. I am definately an advocate of GPL and GNU, but I also believe (strongly) it is the creators freedom of choice as to which type of license he/she wishes to use. If a programmer does not want to release his/her source code then that is fine by me. What I do mind is having my choices taken away from me.

Not always. The source can be sold as well.

So? That doesn't make it correct.

That is the worst analogy yet (BTW, computer software is a unique animal and trying to apply analogies to other products to justify a position is not productive). Food products must state ingredients but not exact recipies, and some ingredients are simply "artifical and natural flavors". You can't recreate a food product simply by knowing it's ingredients.

Regarding your music analogy. Have you ever heard of Robert Fripp? He developed new technics in looping and layers (called by some "frippertronics" or "frippatronics"). Having a copy of an early LP containing music which featured these technics would not have enabled anyone but at most a handful of individuals to recreate the music. Had he chosen to not share these technics freely, no law could have forced him to.

Then buy the source code, if available, if that's what you want. When software is sold as an application, that's what you buy and all that you are entitled to. You say "that once a painting is made public, everyone can study it." This is true, but a painting sold is NOT necessarily "made public." The analogy here would be that a painting sold to a private collector is equivilent to an application sold with source code. The owner does NOT have to share the painting (or source code, or application) with anyone.

You seem to think that a developer selling an application be required to sell the source, because YOU would benefit from the source. Now, since you benefit, that makes the source a commodity. The application is also a commodity since it can benefit the end user as well. The benefits are not inseperable. A user of the application benefits from the application itself and for the majority of the users, having the source code would be useless.

Using your car analogy... understanding the operation of a vehicle is NOT the same as understanding the techniques that are used in the manufacture of the vehicle. New manufacturing techniques are developed all the time, and buying a car does NOT entitle you to be educated on any techniques used in the manufacture of the vehicle. Manufacturing companies will often patent these techniques and then license the process to other manufacturers, for a fee (or won't, depending on a business decision). THAT is the correct analogy. The application is the vehicle and the source code is the manufacturing techniques. Both are commodities and both are sold (or not) seperatly.

OK, as you mean. But the idea is clear - and works to some extent in many cases.

The user also has the right to choose. Now think of examples of proprietary software which does not readily work with other software. Are you thinking of a certain corporation?

So long as the (right to see the) source can be sold to anyone, the software is not proprietary.

We are discussing a matter of personal values and obscure laws. There is no way to "make it correct" or vice versa. (And since logical reasoning alone is not sufficient in this type of discussion, examples are necessary.)

You might have noticed that I'm arguing all the time that computer software is not a unique animal. Hence the analogies.

Indeed, but why should the ability to recreate a product be required? If the food consists of "100% [foo]" and tastes like [bar] (which tastes rather differently) then I'll know that a) [foo] is the main ingredient and b) "artificial and natural flavors" ae used to make it taste like [bar]. Were no ingredients declared I'd have to guess (and the first and best guess would be that the product is mostly natural and the main ingredient is [bar]).

Really?

Actually that is exactly what we're discussing here.

(Already discussed some postings higher.)

To add another analogy, having the right to stand on one's head is useless for most people - yet there are probably many people who would protest agains