Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A New Model for Software Innovation

Posted by michael on from the out-with-the-old dept.

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.

6 of 310 comments (clear)

  1. psych by sstory · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  2. Sounds great on paper by Junks+Jerzey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. proposed revision of the GPL by Dr.+Awktagon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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:

    You can use GNU GPL Software for any purpose. You can modify, copy and distribute GNU GPL Software, including derivatives, for commercial or non-commercial purposes.
    In return, you must agree:

    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.

    if you distribute GNU GPL Software, you include two things: a copy of this license and a ready means of obtaining the source code for the Software.

    Define "ready means"..

    That if you distribute a derivative of GNU GPL Software, you include a notice explaining the changes you made.

    (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.

    1. Re:proposed revision of the GPL by Zathrus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well stated.

      The proposed revision of the GPL does "fix" some of the murkiness related to dynamic linking -- but does so by implicitly claiming them as derivative works.

      I know this is what RMS wants, and perhaps it's what the community as a whole wants, but it's also why most commercial companies won't touch GPL code with a 10' pole.

      At the very least an API as you define it should be able to form a firewall between GPL and non-GPL code (note - not necessarily commercial - I may want to distribute my code under BSD license, but it still needs to be untainted by GPL for that to be an option).

      Without this provision companies will continue to avoid GPL code for fear of losing core business logic. I code in Unix, use open source tools, and we avoid any GPL libraries even though there's no intent to distribute the code outside our company. It's simply not worth the risk that one day we'll have a component that does need to be distributed and potentially tainting everything else -- which is core business logic.

  4. Re:The Author Does Not Understand the GPL! by aridhol · · Score: 3, Interesting
    You might imagine that you hadn't agreed to the license, but how else would a court determine whether you had agreed to it or not ?


    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.
  5. Holes in his proposed GPL... by anthony_dipierro · · Score: 3, Interesting
    • AS IS isn't capitalized. The UCC requires for it to be.
    • It doesn't define "source code".
    • It doesn't require a distributor of a derivative work to distribute that derivative work under the terms of the GPL unless that distributor is the same person who created the derivative work.
    • You only have to include a notice describing the changes you made, not the changes made by others. That effectively makes the requirement meaningless.
    • A distributor cannot impose license restrictions, but the creator of the derivative work can.
    • Clause 5 is equivalent to a restriction against removing the "do not remove" sticker on a mattress. I should be allowed to do whatever I want with my copy of the software.
    • I'm sure there are others.