Must publish vs. must supply

[David Johnson]

On Tuesday 11 March 2003 06:43 am, Chris F Clark wrote:

>
> Clearly the FSF has decided that hording of software by corporations
> (as long as they don't distribute it) should be one of their
> freedoms. I find that a curious point, since as I understand it, the
> original impetus for the movement was some code that one corporation
> provided to Richard Stallman in source could not be used with another
> corporation's machine.

The misinterpretation of the RMS' original impetus has already been 
corrected on this list. But I would like to add some additional words 
on the topic of "hording".

The FSF makes a (wise) distinction between privacy and secrecy. The 
boundaries between the two are the boundaries between the private and 
public spheres. If the code is behind doors in your own home, then the 
FSF doesn't care. It's your privacy. But once you take that code into 
the public sphere by publishing it or giving it to someone, it is a 
different story. Keeping the source code secret is no longer privacy, 
but secrecy.

A good example is the software I am currently writing. No one but me has 
ever seen it. No one will see it until I judge it suitable for public 
release. It's my privacy. It is not hording. Compelling me to release 
it is coercion. In some cases, as when my private code is derivative of 
yours, then the coercion may be legal, but it is still coercion 
nonetheless.

But once I release the software to the public, then the principles of 
Free Software say that the recipients have rights to access the source 
code. If this software is derivative of yours, then you have the legal 
and moral right to demand that my recipients get the source code.

The difficult question comes when the fruits of the software are 
distributed publicly, but the software itself is not. Web applications 
are an example of this. Can you be obligated to publish software which 
you use solely to create non-derivative products with? Even if you keep 
that software strictly in the private sphere?

> To me hording is hording and if one creates a derived work of open
> software (thus becoming an author), then one should be willing to
> share the results with others.  If software wants to be free (as
> someone once said), then it seems philosophically wrong to me to
> allow software to be imprisoned by a select group of people, just
> because we have decided they are "end" users.

The difference is that "end" users are operating in a private sphere 
while distributors are operating in a public sphere.

What is the difference between imprisoning software by "end" users, and 
imprisoning software by the dictates of authors? Why is controlling the 
software in someone's private possession wrong if done by the user but 
right if done by the author?

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3