So that's why it's called pontificating

Friday Jan 06, 2006

More fall out from Tom Adelstein's article: LXer editor Don Parris has written a follow up GNU Philosophy Drives Libre Licence Model. Apropos of alternative licenses to GPL, there's this nugget of wisdom:

I wonder where the Christian Church would be today if Paul and the other Apostles had compromised their faith. The fact is, many no longer take the Christian Church seriously today because so many Christians are seen to compromise their faith.

Equally though, many no longer take the Christian church seriously because it refuses to compromise on such important social issues as HIV-prevention in the third world, gay rights, abortion. But yes, as world events of the last 5 years clearly demonstrate, religious fundamentalism is a great model for social cooperation. I digress. Revisting Mr Adelstein's piece, Mr Parris summarises thus:

'His argument is that developers and vendors should not use libre software as a ruse to get free development and maintenance for their projects. He went on to say that vendors should make real contributions to the community, rather than paying lipservice to the concept. I wholeheartedly agree.'

I wholeheartedly agree too. Who doesn't? It was Mr Adelstein's implication that the CDDL (and by association, OpenSolaris, and, by association, Sun) was using libre software as such a ruse which I object to. After all, as Parris writes:

[Stallman] may prefer to use the GPL exclusively, but he recognizes that non-copyleft licenses are still free software licenses. I will agree that we should stop allowing vendors to create custom licenses with various restrictions, and call them "Open Source", let alone "free/libre".

Well, it is the OSI who "lets" vendors call a license "Open Source" and as far as free/libre, I quote Richard Stallman on CDDL:
This is a free software license which is not a strong copyleft. You can read the rest here. Mr Stallman is certainly no fan of the CDDL, but he recognises it to be an open source, and free, software license. It is not a question of being Open Source, or free, that concerns Mr Stallman about CDDL, but that it is not a strong Copyleft. This is important, but it very different to the claim that vendors are using non-GPL licenses to pay lipservice to free and open source software, and not to make a proper contribution. Especially when CDDL is the only such license cited.

Got that? Richard Stallman recognises that non-copyleft licenses are still free software licenses. Richard Stallman recognises CDDL as a non-copyleft still free software license. So how can anyone possibly "wholeheartedly agree" with Mr Adelstein's assertion that CDDL (being the only license he mentions in this context) is an exploitative license?

Mr Parris leaves us with this supercilious outpouring:
'When we compromise our philosophy, our faith, our freedom, we lose so much more. If your philosophy supports proprietary software, then supporting libre software is a compromise of sorts. It is interesting that proprietary developers tend to be willing to compromise their philosophy, while libre software developers tend to be far more dedicated to their philosophy. I wonder why that is?

So, to be clear, CDDL allows users of CDDL'd code to release their own code (if in different files) any way they want. Just who is defining freedom around here? And just in case you thought that this gentleman is taking himself far, far, way far too seriously, he gives us this sobering thought:

Where would America be today if the Continental Congress had compromised on freedom. America would still be subject to English rule had Washington cut a deal with Cornwalis.

So I have a question for Mr Parris. If I am not from "The Land of the Free", may I still call myself free?

ps. these views are not necessarily those of my employer.