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.
The paper refers to a proposed revision of the GPL. A link to it is on the page.
This GPL revision seems like a completely new GPL. It's language is much simpler, and devoid of legalese. Does anyone else worry about such a complete re-write being enforcable?
#define sig "Every social system runs on the people's belief in it."
While I welcome any insight or debate into the GPL and CopyLefting, frankly, I'm not getting anything new here. And the fact that he studied under Lawrence Lessig is going to imply some bias on his part, considering Lessig's positions. Frankly, other than speculation and name calling, there's not much real analysis out there on the issue of licensing in open source. What I'd like to see is some expert opposing viewpoints, starting a real debate on the legality of the issue. I've yet to see an article from the other side of the opinion fence regarding the GPL's legality, and this is strange, considering Microsoft's attack against the license, and the fear among many in the Open Source movement that it's unenforcable. How about it, Slashdot? How about some legal opinions from people other than Lessig or his students, pro AND con? That would be an interesting debate.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Whatever the GPL says or omits, being 'best-positioned to take on closed source shops like msft' will not be possible without understanding why people will pay $550 for a word processor and spreadsheet. And dismissing that behavior as just 'lusers being stupid' isn't an answer.
When people will pay $550 for an easy, intuitive word processor that comes with restrictions (Office), rather than a more primitive, ugly, yet free and somewhat as functional word processor (Emacs or other unix WP), there's something begging to be explained. And the licening details are of secondary importance.
former Linux naysayer-turned-disciple?
That's funny... How come I don't read about former Microsoft naysayer-turned-disciple??? Anyone???
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I've read lots of papers like this, going back to Eric Raymond's rants. And you know, it sounds great on paper. It really does. And I love the idea of the GPL. But in practice, we're just not seeing all the innovation that you would expect. The classic examples are always cited--Perl, gcc, Emacs, Apache, the Linux kernel--but for a model that's supposed to be so superior, the success stories are fewer than you'd expect.
One striking example is that the GPLed games for Linux always tend to variations of Tetris, Boulder Dash, Missile Command, etc. You would expect the innovative games to be coming out for Linux: no pressure from marketing, free development tools, big community. But the games with spark, like The Sims and Grand Theft Auto 3 are coming from elsewhere.
An interesting streamlining of the GPL. However he takes out all the "social statements" which may or may not be a good thing.
A few comments:
No no, you can use the Software for any purpose. Period. If you re-distribute the software, THEN you must agree to the terms.
The license should emphasize that it only covers "copying, distribution and modification". No one should feeled compelled to accept the GPL, just because they are using the software. This also helps dispel the stupid notion that you don't have a right to use software you buy or download unless someone grants it to you.
This, in my opinion, is one of the greatest thing about the GPL. It lies dormant and only applies to you if you distribute copies. You don't need to read it, you don't need to "click-through" it. You only need to care when distributing copies, which you aren't allowed to do to begin with. In fact, if I were writing the GPL, I'd put that up at the very beginning (after a warranty disclaimer if that's necessary): "you don't need to read this unless distributing copies" or something similar.
Define "ready means"..
(Nitpick) why isn't this included with the previous requirement? What constitutes a "notice explaining the change"? A diff? A paragraph? Is this important?
The GPL is wordy, partly because it spells out some of this stuff in more detail (for instance, see item #3 in it). The "revised GPL" should also be specific whenever possible.
Anyway, the GPL does need to be streamlined and clarified to a certain extent, and perhaps the FSF can get some ideas from this revision. For instance, cutting out the Preamble of the GPL entirely might be a good idea, and replace it with a link to the FSF philosophies.
My problem is that I have invested a little under 2 years of work on my NLP tools, and although I only make about $5K a year selling them, that money does help pay the bills and I believe the long term market for my software is excellent.
I have received many great bug fixes and code improvements for my Open Source projects and even more great help with material for my free web books, but these projects have not cost me nearly two years of work.
I guess that the real question is if companies (and perhaps individuals) who use GPLed software to make money in their own closed commercial products are honest about paying a fair license fee to get a non-GPL license to use my work. I do receive many generous donations for my free web books, so I do trust in many people's generousity and fairness.
An alternative to using the GPL is to license software for free non-commercial use and then hope that commercial use users act fairly.
I think that many developers would very much like to have their work freely used by people who make no money off of their work and at the same time collect reasonable payments from anyone making money on one's work. Tough problem - please share any good ideas :-)
In any case, it is tough for me to make a decision here.
-Mark
That's why we have patent laws.
I'm not the author of the original post, but I'll chime in:
I think the paper's author's statement is misleading: it's less about "playing catch-up" than it is about *innovation* using current technology as a base. Yes, we have things like OpenOffice which reads/writes Word docs, and looks like a standard GUI word processor, yet does things like by default saves in a human-readable XML-based format (a step in the right direction, IMHO). Also, take Linux. A *nix clone, yes, but in recent incarnations has sprung some interesting things like virtual memory manager debates, in-kernel HTTP daemons, and non-core things like User Mode Linux.
Ultimately, one has to start somewhere.
If you didn't agree to the licence, you have no legal means of distributing the code - you would be breaking copyright law.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
The average user needs a browser. Konqueror, or Mozilla, or derivatives will do. .... There is some on linux already.
The average user need a mail reader. Mozilla, Kmail, will do.
The average user needs a word processor / spreadsheet. KOffice, or OpenOffice, will do.
The average user needs a MP3 player, and instant messaging client,
What else do you REALLY need? The author certainly didn't look much before making this affirmation. There are plenty of applications for Linux. And more are coming our way every day.
The author also says that the GPL is an incetive killer for developper. For COMMERCIAL applications only. The way I see it, there is a lot more programming done with no commercial intentions. I like to code; and I always though of releasing some of my stuff as shareware or freeware. GPL is even better! Someone might improve it! What I think the author doesn't get is that the GPL intends to change the buisness model of software makers. And that is a good idea.