COMMUNISM RESURGENT
THE GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GNU GPL)
AS A WEAPON OF WAR
AND THE FUTURE OF LINUX SOFTWARE
(c)
www.imagtek.com
Unrestricted Distribution and Free Use in Unmodified Form
06 / 2022
DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
For those considering independent LINUX software development as a livelihood,
what does the LINUX model of 'Free Open Source Software' (FOSS) offer? The
answer is short and brutal.
Nothing.
Aside from the fantasy business model of marketing something that is freely
available for nothing, there exists no LINUX open-source business model for
desktop applications development. This is by design. LINUX source code is
distributed under the 'GNU General Public License' (GNU GPL). This license
dictates a business model of coercive collectivism, prohibition of Free
Enterprise, forced confiscation of private property, designation of 'enemies',
and solicitation of secret informants against enemies by a 'Compliance
Organization' for prosecution in the courts. This model has a familiar history.
It is called Communism.
The GNU GPL attacks the foundations of FOSS by fabricating a legal claim against
Intellectual Private Property (IP) that hosts freely-distributed, so-called 'Free'
computer source code. This legal malware propagates like a computer virus,
creating a contagion of liability-by-association to lawsuits seeking damages;
including forced, uncompensated forfeit of IP. Its elitist rationale is that all
users have a 'right' to modify and redistribute computer programs that they use.
Therefore software IP is 'evil' and 'takes away your rights'. This is analogous to
claiming a 'right' to modify, and redistribute books that you read.
Software source code 'freely distributed' under a license that dictates Lawsuits
against those who use it, is not 'Free'. It is Fraud to say that it is. The GNU
GPL obfuscates its Fraud via the subterfuge of an Orwellian re-definition of the
meaning of 'Freedom'. Under the GNU GPL, 'Software Freedom' means Communist
Abolition of software as IP. The only Freedom granted human Developers by the GNU
GPL is the freedom to surrender everything you create to a Communist Collective.
Failure to do so makes you an 'Enemy of the Collective' to be reported by secret
informants for prosecution in the courts. That is pure, by-the-book Communism.
Statments to the contrary are naive and uninformed, or Lies.
As may be expected, the true nature of the GNU GPL is obfuscated in vague and
deceptive legalistic jargon. Deep within the massive text of this rambling,
sermonizing, Manifesto-license, lies the crux of the issue.
' To "modify" a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the
work in a fashion requiring Copyright permission, other than the
making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a "modified
version" of the earlier work or a work "based on" the earlier work.
A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based
on the Program. '
--GNU General Public License Version 3, 29 June 2007 '
The above is a cunning legal over-reach into Magical Thinking. In English, it
means if your application is a aggregate of IP and FOSS components, and a single
component is licensed under the GNU GPL, then your ENTIRE APPLICATION disappears
into a Magical fog. There, ALL components morph into a 'modified version' or
become 'based on' the GNU GPL component; because... 'Big Magic Ju-Ju'. Your
transformed application then emerges from a Rainbow atop a Unicorn as a 'covered
work' of the GNU GPL; and thus subject to its coercive and punitive terms.
Applications sharing FOSS source code with your hijacked application are also
threatened. This is delusional IP Larceny and Fraud, by a so-called 'license' that
violates too many legal, systems engineering and economic principles to list.
Operationally, the GNU GPL seems designed as employment for Lawyers, since even
legal professionals disagree on the enforcable scope of its sweeping claims. The
outcome is one of imposing legal uncertainty and financial risk upon all FOSS
Developers. The GNU GPL is a 'third rail' that makes FOSS development a legal
morass at significant risk of litigation by subsidized Communist fanatics.
FOSS applications aggregate IP with multiple components under diverse license.
Yet the legal Foundation of the GNU GPL is a surreal Theory that a vague play on
words bestows unique, undisputed hegemony over all other software licenses; with
authority to void license and even to seize Copyright of non-GNU GPL works. It
thus presumes to abrogate the Foundations of FOSS and absorb into a Communist
Collective all IP that touches it; even remotely. This naked Absurdity is based
upon a similar theory that the GNU GPL is a legally binding contract of property
transfer, even in the absence of an informed and consenting counter-party. The
legal grounds for these extraordinary claims are a vague reference to Copyright
Law which, inconveniently, requires due process of Law and informed Consent of the
Copyright holder for Copyright transfer. Law is legislated by Governments of
elected representatives, not issued as diktats in a 'license' that substitutes
redefinition of language and Magical Thinking for Law and Consent. From a computer
Systems Engineering perspective this thing is a network crawling, recursive IP
klepto-algorithm designed to spread like a virus and harvest IP for a Communist
Collective. Here the GNU GPL commits fraud, and in any litigation for damages its
agents and financial patrons are Liable for Criminal Fraud. In a leap of irony
the 'Free Software Foundation' (FSF) calls this thing 'Software Freedom'.
Any Independent Developer creating a LINUX application risks a lawsuit by the
Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC); the 'Compliance Organization' for the FSF.
The SFC sues with intent to put out of business anyone suspected of including GNU
GPL code in an application containing IP. In a recent escalation, Independent
Developers are now threatened if any part of their application is 'similar' to a
GNU GPL work. Commonly used algorithms have similar expressions in source code
that FSF/SFC exploit as a pretext for IP Fraud. This fanaticism is on display in
the SFC 'CCFinderX Clone Detector' that flags a 'GNU GPL Violation' at a 3.68%
'Similarity Ratio'; as computed by 'peer reviewed algorithms'. Again; this is not
a joke. Proving yourself innocent is impossible because you will simply be
accused of source code 'obfuscation'. If a single component of your work can be
'de-obfuscated' [i.e. re-written] into a 'clone' of a GNU GPL work by SFC
fanatics, you are Guilty. 'Guilty until proven innocent' is a classic kangaroo-
court tactic of Communists, and absence of legal merit does not remove the risk
and expense of litigation against a subsidized rogue organization. Thus, as LINUX
dominates the computer network server farms of government, industry, finance and
academia; the LINUX Desktop is shunned by Developers.
The FSF calls its legal Frankenstein 'CopyLeft'. This is fraudulent, because there
is NO discernable difference between the GNU GPL and official Communist Doctrine.
None. Calling Communism 'CopyLeft' makes it no less Communist than calling a duck
'CopyLeft' makes it less a duck. The FSF/SFC see no irony in being a jobs program
for lawyers litigating FOSS Developers out of their livelihoods. Thus, the
official SFC corpus on 'CopyLeft Compliance' dictates a dedicated 'GNU GPL
Compliance Officer' on every 'FOSS programming team' to address litigation issues
created by the GNU GPL. This is because competence in the massive text of legalese
drivel enforcing 'CopyLeft Compliance' is a full time job for a legal/technical
professional. So if you are living in your van and creating a LINUX application in
a coffee shop, you are 'obligated' as a FOSS developer to employ a 'GNU GPL
Compliance Officer' to oversee your work as you code with the Communist Jack-Boot
of 'Software Freedom' on your neck. Good luck with all that.
Software Developers NEED a livelihood. This is non-negotiable. Yet the Supremacist
GNU GPL and its elitist supporters dismiss this most fundamental human need, while
providing livelihoods for lawyers to attack Developers and remove their work from
the marketplace. But unrestricted creation and use of FOSS benefits everyone.
There are viable business models that support creating and sharing FOSS for use
under non-restrictive licensing. The APACHE Software License, the MIT Software
License, BSD License and Imagtek CDLT License are examples. There are many more.
Source code licensing protects FOSS code from falling under Copyright restrictions
on access and use. Unlike the GNU GPL, which claims the right to cancel all other
licenses, seize IP, and dictate a coercive 'obligation' by software Developers to
labor as slaves for a Communist Collective; non-restrictive FOSS licenses do not
legitimize open Fraud and intellectual Slavery. Instead, these licenses protect
access, interests, property, livelihoods and REAL Freedom, of Everyone.
FSF/SFC websites spew skillfully crafted propaganda assuring us of benevolent
intentions toward the 'Community'; conditional upon your being 'reasonable' and
'doing the right thing' to avoid 'painful consequences'. This standard Communist
ultimatum has not varied in over a century; and things always get ugly for those
who do not 'respond positively' to ultimatums. The latest ultimatum from the SFC
is that things are getting ugly; because Developers are ignoring 'obligations'
to implement SFC 'CopyLeft Compliance Requirements'. These include surrender of
complete application source code, revision control, build scripts, run-time
libraries and instruction manuals detailing complex procedures to re-create
applications from hundreds of components. This IP must be surrendered on demand,
with full rights of re-distribution; and even sale. Again, this is NOT a joke.
FOSS and GNU GPL works are By Definition 'Freely Distributed'. Such works are
openly released to the Public with no constraints upon access and use. Unlike
true FOSS, GNU GPL source code imposes coercive liabilities and obligations that
expose the recipient to litigation risk. But in so doing, GNU GPL works forfeit
status of a Free Distribution. Under Statuatory Law, a License specifying terms
of access and a Contract specifying terms of property transfer, are completely
separate legal instruments. The GNU GPL re-defines Software Freedom as coercive
submission to Communist ideology prohibiting IP. Under Statuatory Law, coercive
liabilities and obligations may only be imposed via a lawful Contract with a
named, informed, and consenting counter-party. The GNU GPL meets none of these
requirements. There is no such thing as a legally binding 'Freely Distributed'
Contract of coercive performance and punitive IP transfer.
Developers have a right to retain Copyright to Freely Distributed Works; to
solicit Improvement of their works by others; and to retain Copyright to such
Improved Works. But that is the FULL EXTENT of Developer Rights for 'Freely
Distributed Works' under Copyright Law. An extensive infrastructure facilitating
such Collaborative Development already exists (github.com, sourceforge.com, and
others). This creates incentives and viable business models supporting FOSS.
Developers enjoy an incentive to Freely Distribute their work because they retain
Copyright to improvements made by Others even as the improved work remains a 'Free
Distribution'. Others enjoy access to functional code they may include in useful
applications, or improve and freely re-Distribute; or both. At the extreme, rights
of Copyright holders of 'Freely Distributed' works are strictly limited to
soliciting re-release of modified individual components as FOSS. There are no
Statuatory grounds for Damages or Claims against IP that hosts a 'Freely
Distributed' work. Any such liabilities disqualify a work as a 'Free Distribution'
and require an explicit Contractual Agreement signed by a named counter-party.
No sane Entrepreneur would sign a Contract to acquire 'Free Source Code' on Terms
of the GNU GPL which is, basically, a Communist Intellectual Slavery pact. So
the resort is to guile, deceit, obfuscation and Fraud. And now, serious threats
of litigation in the courts by the SFC with its bizarre 'Clone Detector'. It is
past time for LINUX to put down this swindle. The idea that it is necessary to
litigate out of existence all computer applications that do not serve as vehicles
for Communism, or toys for for a tiny, elitist clique of software 'hobbiests', is
fanatical drivel. Developers who feel harmed by their 'freely distributed' work
being freely used should refrain from freely distributing their work, or release
it under contract with named counterparties who consent to IP forfeit as a
condition of use; or see a therapist. A coercive demand that people may use a
'Freely Distributed' work only as Communist slaves is an illegitimate condition of
access in a Free society. Magical thinking that alters the definition of 'Freedom'
and re-brands Communism 'CopyLeft' does not change the Law, or Reality. LINUX is
not a Communist Gulag for Developers. The sooner the GNU GPL gets thrown out of
court, the sooner LINUX can live up to its promise as an open, Free platform
outside Monopolist Corporate 'App Store' Gatekeepers, or Communist ideology.
HUMAN RIGHTS ARE AN ISSUE
People have a basic human right to earn a livelihood from their honest labor.
The GNU GPL takes away this right.
People have a basic human right to practice individual Free Enterprise.
The GNU GPL takes away this right.
People have a basic human right to create and own IP.
The GNU GPL takes away this right.
People have a basic human right to release IP under Copyright and License that
cannot be rendered void by Communist fraud. The GNU GPL takes away this right.
The GNU GPL seeks to debase our legal system and take away our human rights with
its false claim of 'Software Freedom'. It continues the historical pattern of
Communism in it's resort to deceit, coercion, and disregard for human rights.
The GNU GPL has nothing to do with Software Freedom. It is a weapon of Communists
seeking hegemony over FOSS via the courts. Widespread source code FOSS sharing
and Collaborative Development is happening independently of the fraud and threats
of techno-Bolsheviks. The risk for litigious abuse of the GNU GPL to circumvent
Copyright and Patent Law to hijack IP in the courts is Extreme. LINUX does not
need Weaponized, Fraudulent licensing. Free Open Source Software does not need it.
No one needs the GNU GPL.
Intellectual Slavery is not Freedom (c).
References:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt
http://www.fsf.org
https://sfconservancy.org/linux-compliance/
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (2004) [1848]. 'Manifesto of the Communist Party'
