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.
From the article link (not the whitepaper):
"In turn, this most 'anti-IP' of licenses is arguably doing more to foster innovation than patents or copyrights ever have."
Patents and copyrights are about making money, NOT fostering innovation.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
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.
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.
But of course there are any number of situations where that reward is not the optimal means of promoting innovation, or isn't even appropriate - one example is the case of public-funded research resulting in private patents, another would be when the monopoly grants not merely methods but entire categories of business, as with today's broadly-interpreted business method patents.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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.
Dear AC,
No, I don't worry at all. If the GPL tends not to be valid, the people who have challenged it are then left with the default in copyright law, which is all rights reserved. Even if they win, they lose. Would a court say "yes, you can use and redistribut GPL code without any obligation to anyone else"? If they did, that interpretation would apply to code under other licenses as well - including that stuff in the boxes from Microsoft. Forget about that happening.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
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...ut for a model that's supposed to be so superior, the success stories are fewer than you'd expect.
... much of OS X's eye candy can be traced back to the first program to ever use images in window decorations and borders: Rastorman's enlightenment, but I digress).
That is because you are looking in the wrong places for your "success stories." You are wondering why some GPLed mapping program hasn't unseated Microsoft's Streetsmart, or why program X under the GPL so resembles commercial program Y (though often it is program Y which mimicks the GPLed program X
What you are ignoring are the tens of thousands of small firms, like my own, like the dozen's a friend of mine consults for, and thousands of others around the world, who have used free software (GNU/Linux in particular) to build their infrastructure, their inhouse software, and their business out from under the everpresent heal of Microsoft, Sun, or Apple (though the latter has become a kinder master of late than the other two, it nevertheless remains a master). The success stories you are ignoring range from the traders I work for, who earn a sizable chunk of money thanks in no small part to GNU/Linux's superiority over their competitor's infrastructrue, to Pengiun Airlines, to Wallmart, to BMW, to the German government, the Chinese Government, the Brazilian government, and others too numerous to list, all of whome are able to run their IT infrastructure on their own terms, within their own budgets, and free from the coerced upgrades and chronic, forced obsolescence of their software and their hardware at the hands of their operating system vendor, as is chronically the case for anyone subject to Microsoft, Sun Microsystems, and yes, even kinder, gentler Apple.
That is where you will find the innovation and the flourishing of the technology more than anywhere else, amongst the users which have been liberated by the Freedoms expounded upon by the Free Software Foundation, people like myself and many, many others who have been able to flourish even during these difficult times, thanks primarilly to the GPL and the user's freedoms which it helps to guarentee.
Freedoms that allow us to run our businesses and earn a living, without being subject to the whims and deprivations of a copyright cartel or a convicted monopolist.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
He's confused about licenses versus copyright, e.g:
The GPL's language, then, tries to swallow every piece of software that incorporates a GPL program or portions of it. However, it probably cannot do so under the copyright law it purports to follow. The definition of a derivative work proves highly controversial in the software world, and may not stand up in court. [Page 15.]
This has nothing to do with the GPL!
If I create a derivative work from a copyrighted piece of GPL software, I can release it under my own terms without accepting the GPL. I then probably get sued by the COPYRIGHT holder, and the courts then decide if this was a derivative work, a new creation, a copyright infridgement, or whatever.
Alternatively, I can accept the license (the GPL,) in which case copyright law no longer applies: I have freely entered into a contract that gives me certain benefits and takes away certain others (e.g. my right to claim copyright trumps the license I just agreed to.) If I now start doing evil like violating the GPL, I get sued for violating a LICENSE, not copyright law.
The GPL does not "build on" copyright law - it's a license that I can agreed to or not. If I don't agree, copyright is the operative thing, if I do agree, the license if the operative thing!
Normally we have trouble with folks posting here without even bothering to read the article in question. But in this case I'd argue that would be a good thing.
I read through about the first half of it, but his explanations of the GPL are so confused and horribly unsound that attempting to follow it was starting to muddle my brain.
In the first paragraph it struck me as odd that he claims that he was recently convinced of the GPL's innovation harming qualities, but now is convinced that the complete opposite is true. Executive summary: I know I sounded convinced yesterday. But I was actually full of shit then, and just didn't realize it. But today I really do know what I'm talking about. Honestly
However, after reading his embarassing attempts at logic, its perfectly understandable how something like that could happen to him. With logic that muddled, tomorrow he might be convinced the GPL has manged to retroactively kill the dinosarus.
My suggestion is that anyone who doesn't have a real good handle on the GPL already avoid this whitepaper like the plague. Folks who fully understand the GPL should take the Monty-Python "World's Funniest Joke" approach, and split up into teams with each person analyzing a small bit of it seperately. That way perhaps no one person will read enough of it to become fatally confused.
<RMS MODE ON>
Any part of Mr. Asay's article where he implies the GPL is bad or could use some work is merely due to his failing to comprehend or understand the meaning and scope of what the GPL in its entirety.
<RMS MODE OFF>
Isn't that pretty much what we're going to hear in a few days? I'll thank the moderators for at least attempting to have something resembling a sense of humor.
P.S. No offense meant to RMS or his devout apostles.
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".