Slashdot Mirror
A New Model for Software Innovation
An anonymous reader writes "In this whitepaper published at LinuxDevices.com, Matt Asay (former Linux naysayer-turned-disciple) analyzes the GPL, picking apart what it means (and does not mean) for users, and whether it is enforceable. Assay also details how its terms inhibit and foster innovation, and why we should care. In this next generation of software, those who understand 'copyleft' licenses like the GPL will have the upper-hand, and will be best positioned to take on closed-source shops like Microsoft. Assay wrote this paper while attending Stanford Law School, where he studied the the GNU General Public License under Professor Larry Lessig." A thoughtful piece that answers - as well as they can be answered - a lot of the questions about the GPL that we get for Ask Slashdot, as well as examining the economics of it. Good reading for anyone developing or selling software.
Interesting attitude. You need to read up on the history of copyright. It was originally intended "to promote the progress of science and useful arts." This is something that very few people understand, even many lawyers. The interpretation of copyright law has evolved into basically what you're describing, but that was not the original intent.
Comparing MS Office to Emacs is like comparing sitcoms to Mozart. I'll leave Emacs-heads to flame you for the "primitive" and "somewhat as functional" comments, personally I like Vi even though I have no idea what half of it is about.
What needs explaining is why use MS Office over, say, OpenOffice.org and the reasons would seem to me manifold:
1) Familiarity (users and tech suport know MS, they want to stick with it 'cause its easier than learning something new)
2) Value (a bizarre concept but most people still believe that something must be "worth" what it costs)
3) Anti-competitiveness (see most of the rest of Slashdot for references)
and doubtless loads more I can't be bothered to type right now.
I believe you mean this.
The quote: "The patent system added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
"History teaches us that as far as innovation is concerned, open beats proprietary every time. You have only to look at the history of the UNIX operating system to see this effect. Many of the innovations that were incorporated into commercial UNIX systems (as well as many of the foundational technologies for the Internet) were developed in universities as extensions to the original work at Bell Labs. Once AT&T took UNIX commercial, under a restrictive license, that work stopped, and didn't burst into flower again until Linux, a free implementation, took over leadership of UNIX operating system development."
When you close everything off, only enough innovation is done to perpetuate the monopoly, and no one else can share in the innovation to help further it.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
We do, from time to time, have occasion to clarify our views on the GNU GPL, and we work hard to be responsive to questions from the community on them. This does serve to generate a lot of email traffic concerning the Foundation's opinions on GPL, and out of context pieces of the whole of such correspondence can be confusing. When we get pieces together that are particular good and clear, we post them on our philosophy page, as we did with Eben Moglen's essay, Enforcing the GNU GPL, and in our GNU GPL FAQ.
As for the GNU GPL, version 3, we had indeed long ago seen Mr. Harris' proposal, but we did not feel it was representative of our plans for next version of the license. The copyright of the so-called draft of GPL Version 3 distributed alongside the article, thus, is incorrectly attributed to the Free Software Foundation. We do not hold copyright on it, nor did we have a hand in drafting it.
Efforts for development of real GNU GPL, Version 3 continue within the Foundation. We of course expect to have extensive public discussion before any draft is finalized as the official new version of the license. In March 2002, We approved the Affero GPL, which includes a draft of one major provision we are considering for the next version of the GNU GPL. Of course, when we do announce that a draft copy of actual "GNU GPL, Version 3" is available, it will certainly come directly from the Foundation.
Bradley M. Kuhn
Executive Director, Free Software Foundation
But -- as was pointed out: Jonas Salk placed his vaxine into the public domain -- and thus saved millions of lives and made polio almost extinct (with the exception of 'defensive' bioweapons stores).
From one story about Salk:
Had todays IP laws been in place back then, much of the work that Salk depended on would have probably been patented. He might not have been able to create the Smallpox vaccine, and many of us here today would have thus been dead.Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
How many more of these articles are we going to see that make bizarre claims like Apache is GPL software? (Note the passage containing "today thousands of GNU GPL software packages are already available including operating systems (like the famous Linux OS), office packages, Internet servers (like Apache running on 30% of Internet Servers".