Very good reading, even with a couple of poor questions.

Lie. Lie Big. And Stick to It.

One of the things Mr. Weir points out is that through a simple Google search, it’s easy to see how a troop of zombie “tech journalists”, bloggers, and astroturfers simply parrot Microsoft talking points – right down to the exact phrasing.

(The audacity of Microsoft complaining that someone else is “restricting choice” is nearly as amusing as when Microsoft complains of “Google’s monopoly status”. )

Freedom and Choice

I’ve made this point before on this blog – and am certainly not the first to do so, but “Freedom” and “Choice” are not the same thing.

There are a host of reasons why it is the “Free Software Foundation” and not the “Foundation for Software Choice” (the latter of which would be a fantastic name for yet another Microsoft front group, don’t you think?), and Mr. Weir presents a nice thought experiment:

So going back to the  boxes again.  Now imagine one has $10 in it, and the other has a note in it that requires that you pay me $10.  You can see the contents of each box.  Which one do you choose?  It should be obvious, you pick the one with $10 in it.

But what if I say you are not limited to picking only one box.  You can pick either box, or both boxes if you wish.  You have absolute freedom to choose A, B or A+B.  What do you do?  Of course, you still pick the box with $10 in it.

But doesn’t that eliminate choice?  Yes, of course it did.  But the value of choice was only derived from the value of the underlying outcomes.  By choosing, I’ve derived the full value of having a choice.  Since if one choice is clearly more favorable than others (it “dominates” the others) then the alternatives should be discarded.

Fighting Sound Bites and Fallacies

Not only is the full thought experiment quite nice, but Mr. Weir makes a very perceptive insight when discussing the integrity and composition of Microsoft’s “ODF restricts choice” argument:

This argument is quite effective, since it is plausible at first glance, and takes more than 15 seconds to refute.  But the argument in the end fails by taking a very superficial view of “choice”, relying merely on the positive allure of its name, essentially using it as a talisman.

There is an implied component here that is absolutely crucial to understanding Microsoft’s argument on ODF – Microsoft is intentionally trying to deceive.

(Shocking implication: the ODF/OOXML arena may not be the only place this is happening.)

When Microsoft attempts to construct a narrative like “ODF restricts choice” or “Shared Source is Open Source” or “Microsoft has embraced Open Source”, it’s not because there is necessarily any truth in the story.

“Truth” isn’t of value to Microsoft because Microsoft isn’t in the truth-telling business. And while I think most people are smart enough to recognize that companies in general are going to try to “spin” things in a favorable way, it’s always amusing to see journalists, fanboys, and astroturfers present spin as honest opinion.

What’s even sadder is when people actually believe the spin.

Will the Free Software Foundation or any other group take DIY Themes to court for GPL licensing enforcement in 2010?
Yes 1/2
No 8/5

Will DIY Themes relent on its own and distribute the Thesis Theme/Frameword under a GPL license in 2010?
Yes 5/2
No 1/3

Will Chris Pearson personally sue Matt Mullenweg for lost revenues, slander or defamation in 2010?
Yes 3/2
No 4/7

There’s a few interesting issues about this bit:

1. Apparently there is some business to be made in contacting other bloggers to promote content, because this dude kept emailing me about this. That’s fine, because this is actually sort of interesting. Next time offer me a laptop or something, though, so I can be like the Microsoft bloggers.

2. Whoever wrote up the story summarizing the drama on the SBRForum did a damn good job. It’s hard to be sure – because anyone reading this probably has a technical background – but I think even a non-techie can follow the basics from the story.

3. People really will bet on anything, won’t they?

My Solution

If I were really vested in this issue and had money (and my last name was Mullenweg) this is what I would do: I’d just buy a copy of Thesis and then start distributing it. From the front page of WordPress. Hell, I’d make it the default theme, push it out as a “critical update”, and announce it all on video in a leotard with my face painted up like The Ultimate Warrior. (Don’t miss the “Warrior Fine Art Gallery”!)

For one thing, this has already moved past the “let’s handle this thing internally and like gentlemen.” After that stage, I’d move right to ”BRING IT!” Us zealots only see things in black and white, you know.

For another thing, despite the possible uncertainty of the “derivative works” issue, we know that Thesis contains straight up ripped-off GPL code. Those versions of Thesis are unquestionably violating WordPress copyright.

This is the problem about being a dick – you might be able to get away with it so long as all your ducks are in a row, but ducks have a hard time staying in a row. Call it Karma. And then call it to the stand.

Do it for the lulz, Matt!

Edited to add: Alas, it hardly matters now, as Thesis has done the right thing and now the PHP portions are under GPL, and the CSS/JS bits under the whatever proprietary terms that who cares about.

BashQL is a stupid little python script that lets you perform SQL queries on the output of shell commands.

Use case and example:

I wanted to compare what was actually installed by my package manager (pacman -Q) against all the subdirectories where I create the packages for installation (ls -1 /pack):

jason [ ~/Projects/bashql ]$ ./bashql "select * from [ls -1 /pack] where filename not in (select col0 from [pacman -Q])"
filename
---------------------
cairo-compmgr
cdm
cw
dhcp
[...snip...]


Rationale

Granted, for any given single comparison or task like this, it’s easy enough to whip up a short script in whatever language you choose. But, if you already know SQL this has the advantage of using that syntax along with “generic-izing” the problem.

Rambling

The only thing you need is python, because it should include sqlite – which can create a database in memory – so you get everything you need there. Assuming you already know SQL, all you have to do is put the commands in square brackets and the SQL command in quotes. Tables and columns are named as tableX and colX where X starts at 0.

You can create a [command_name].bashql file to tweak parsing the output, and name columns. Note that it is impossible to cleanly parse ls, so don’t get all up in my nose about that. Use ls -1 and don’t have newline characters in your filenames and you should be fine.

This is just a little tool I threw together, so it’s not robust and there isn’t any error-checking. If it were aimed at anyone but me, it would be people that know SQL well and spend a lot of time on the command line.

Alternatives

There’s a project like this, ShellSQL – which apparently was originally named bashql. It takes a different approach and might be of interest if such things interest you.

It’s obvious that a more robust and non-tacked-on-top solution would be fantastic, but unless I totally missed it, there’s no such animal.

“Open Core” has NOTHING to do with “Open Source”. Nearly all proprietary software, at this point, has various degrees of open source-licensed source code in its core.

“Open Core” has none of the advantages of open source to the user and is merely a proprietary software company.

“Open Core” puts the software user at a disadvantage in the same way that all proprietary software puts the user at a disadvantage.

The use of Open Source in their software can be advantageous to the “Open Core” vendor as they are allowed to realize parts of the open source effect, including reducing their cost of development and increasing their margin.

“Open Core” vendors who imply their EULA-licensed proprietary software is open source or has the advantages of open source are engaging in deception.

An “Open Core” software company is a proprietary software vendor like any other. Many proprietary software vendors produce or contribute to some open source software.

Pwned.

Most of the reading at this point walks well-trod ground, but  one bit of commentary by The Accidental Businessman (Marco Tabini) deserves special attention:

You could say that Matt’s opinion counts, because he wrote the software and he should have the right to decide how his software is distributed and under what rules.

I couldn’t agree more—except for one minor detail: Matt made his decision when he chose to distribute WordPress under the GPL. From then on, both he and any user of WordPress are bound by the terms of the license, and not by what anyone thinks. Matt doesn’t enforce the license: that’s for a court of law to do. Therefore, what he thinks at this point only has value, from a legal standpoint, if a competent court determines that the terms of the GPL agree with him.

This, incidentally, is one of the biggest concerns that I have with the GPL. It’s a license that enforces a very particular meaning of “freedom” whose nuances a developer may simply not understand. Case in point: Matt may well believe that themes must be released under the GPL as derivative works, but there is no real case law to back this belief. The FSF says so¹, but they are less than intellectually honest by not admitting that they do not have the legal standing to back their claims.

The reason why I say that this is not a legal issue, therefore, is that, unless and until the WPF sues a theme developer on the issue of whether a theme or plugin that doesn’t incorporate wholesale code from the main project² is a derivative work, this is a business issue that can deeply affect the future of WordPress if not handled correctly. Hence my points in the previous article.

One thing that many do not seem to understand that the enforcement of a contract (or a license) is, essentially, a failure of the contract itself. A contract exists so that two parties can have an understanding on how a business relationship should take place. If the contract is sufficiently clear and unequivocal, it should only ever be enforced if one of the parties maliciously and willfully breaches it and then refuses to cure the breach. If it is unclear and equivocal, as is the case here, the enforcement of a contract represents a failure to draft a proper agreement in the first place.

Let me say I disagree with the overall conclusion and opinion of the Mr. Tarbini as I understand it, but I do appreciate the points he raises.

GPL Motherfucker. Do You Understand It?

A thorny issue for me. Perhaps it is a failing on my part that despite reading the text (and rationale for GPLv3) I wouldn’t want to argue for high stakes in a court of law on the particulars of the GPL. Not only is the GPL complex, but copyright law is complex-squared.

Furthermore, it may just be my ego talking but I don’t put a lot of stock in GPL-interpretation by people who don’t do it for a living.

I’m not saying complexity or ambiguity is a GPL failure - perhaps the legal system itself makes it impossible to write something that is both understandable for a layperson and enforceable by a court.

I’m not being snarky.

GPL != Free Software

Another important distinction that doesn’t always get made: the GPL is not the be-all-end-all definition of Free Software. I look at the GPL as being the best attempt to enforce Free Software. I’m not aware of any license that does – or even attempts to do – a better job a promoting Free Software than the GPL.

Even so, consider the GPL is already on the third revision. For whatever reason earlier attempts fell short of the mark.

Therefore, I don’t think it’s out of line to realize that the GPL may fall short even if it may simultaneously be the best possible attempt – nor do I think such a problem invalidates either the GPL or Free Software.

Few things are without flaw or need of improvement.

Assume maliciousness and incompetence

There’s a famous bit about “never assume malice when incompetence explains”, but when dealing with GPL and Free Software, I think one must always assume malice and incompentence will be in play.

For example, business interests will always be looking for a way to get something for nothing (though never ever giving something for nothing! What are you – a COMMUNIST!) To them, exploiting Open Source seems like a free gold mine of research, development, software and support. Good business, maybe – but malicious.

Vast majority of “Open Core” falls in various degrees around this area. Rule of thumb: the louder and “Open Core” player trumpets “Open Source”, the further they are towards open-core-means-we-are-using-a-mit-licensed-tcp/ip-stack end of the spectrum.

Straight copying actual source code from WordPress into your theme that you insist isn’t a derivative work and isn’t under the GPL is malice too … in case you were wondering where to classify that.

Other area is incompetence. When Mr. Tabini asserts ”Matt made his decision when he chose to distribute WordPress under the GPL”, that’s incompetence. Matt never made a decision to distribute WordPress under the GPL – that decision was made for him, as he forked an existing GPL project.

Drafting an agreement

Having no choice ties into another problem with Mr. Tabini’s argument. Recall this bit:

If it is unclear and equivocal, as is the case here, the enforcement of a contract represents a failure to draft a proper agreement in the first place.

But! The parties  (in this case) aren’t entering into a meeting-of-the-minds and drafting an agreement.

One party has pre-selected terms that – hopefully - covers his software in a manner he finds acceptable, and with the expectation that people using his software will act in a compliant manner. To him, he sees the GPL as enabling something.

The other party, though, is doing something very different – because he views that same license as something to be subverted or ignorned.  To him, the GPL is disabling something.

If these two parties had sat down to draft an agreement, they would not agree on the GPL. That’s because one party wants to share code and the other doesn’t. The GPL isn’t a vehicle of agreement between those two parties.

A disagreement over a unique drafted agreement  isn’t what happens when people have a GPL issue – it is invaribly someone who wants to benefit from GPL software, while not being bound the same requirements that made it possible and available to them in the first place.

If there is any failing on the part of the GPL here, it is not in the eyes of the second party – that person doesn’t want to share his code anyway. If there is a failing it is that the GPL has failed to enforce the terms that the first party expected – which I think are in line with the expectations of Free Software.

Commenting on comments to the commentary

As usual I find much interest in the comments. Consider this bit (sorry couldn’t find a direct link, it’s the second comment):

The second biggest problem is the attitude that there is only one correct interpretation of the license and if you don’t agree with that interpretation you’re breaking the law.

Eh? Isn’t the entire problem – assuming everyone is not acting malicously – that there isn’t one correct interpretation?

If there were “one correct interpretation”, then exactly how would one go about justify acting in defiance of that interpretation?

Checking them logs

For a long time, I would get a bit of traffic now and again from the Wikipedia page on Moonlight, as someone had placed my exceedingly brilliant analysis of 10 Problems with the New Moonlight Covenant.

Today I was looking through the logs and it struck me I haven’t seen any Wikipedia traffic of late, so on a lark I went to the site and saw someone had (anonymously of course), removed the link to my site, with the following “explanation”:

The Source and BoycottNovell are not trustworthy “news” sites and are known to be anti-Mono/anti-Novell propagandists.)

Note that same users edit history; every edit (excluding a handful back in 2008) is a .NET/Mono-related topic and in every case that I bothered to look at are all non-factual and (in wiki-speak) non-NPOV edits.

Especially devious is how this individual edits articles to downplay patent concerns for Mono, while emphasizing the issue of patents for Portable.NET.

Gotta let people know where they can get that “IP peace of mind” I guess.

umad?

This is just more of the same from Team Apologista. I’ve said multiple times that the number one thing that soured me personally on Mono was the dishonesty of its promoters – the more I learned about Mono and Moonlight the more offensive I found their arguments and actions.

It’s one thing to betray the community and work up an end-run around the GPL. It’s one thing to turn on Free Software and carry Microsoft’s water. It’s a whole ‘nother thing to be devious and deceitful about it. (Although I’d argue you need the qualities in the last bit to do the actions in the first two bits.)

Lying, personally attacking  and attempting to simply silence critics are both so rampant among Mono Apologists – and so rarely condemned or even corrected – it’s easy to think such behavior is not only approved but encouraged.

An interesting note

As an aside, this is another nice example of the favorite standby of Team Apologista: the ad hominem. Some people absolutely adore trying to discredit the message by attacking the messenger. It’s a tactic with a long and proud history, so I guess they are just going with what they feel has the best chance of success.

Because I guarantee you that addressing the argument is scary as hell to them.

Awhile back I saw this sort of thing play out much more candidly than usual on Reddit: read if you want to see someone lead off the attack ad hominem, when corrected (by directhex!) shrug it off by asserting “they are all the same as far as I am concerned”, and then finally admitting that the exact same information from someone else would be acceptable.

It doesn’t work like that people. Facts are facts, regardless of where they come from. And if you reject facts simply because you don’t like who is delivering them that is a personal failing on your part.

For the record

I’ve never edited any Wikipedia article related to Mono or Moonlight. I didn’t reference my site from the article, have no idea who did, don’t care to know who did, and don’t care if the reference is restored or not.