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.
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.
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.
That's the way it's supposed to work, but the reality is that after you lose your patent, it's useless to everyone else - at least where most software patents are concerned. The state of the art will have progressed too far, and there will thus be no real quid-pro-quo for the public.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
From the US constitution:
... to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
The Congress shall have power
The original intent of patents and copyright was about fostering innovation.
Not that the corruption of the idea we have today is about that tho.
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.
The lure of Free Software development mostly has to do with useful software that can be developed incrementaly. It doesn't necessarily make much sense for games. The fact that both KDE and GNOME produced great desktops in 4 years is pretty impressive, given what folks have spent on CDE and so-on.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Do you think that is all right? Do you think programming a computer is easier or harder than walking down a runway?
"Which is harder" has nothing to do with anything. The only question is which is more valuable in monetary terms. The model isn't getting paid to walk, the model is getting paid to use her physical assets to promote the fashion designer's product. If the fashion design didn't think it was worth it, she wouldn't get paid. Now how many people have the physical assets to do that, versus how many people can crank out code? That's why she makes $50K and you don't. Supply and demand rules all.
And by the way, if you're going to complain that she's "just" using her beauty that she was lucky enough to be born with, and turn up your nose about how superior you are, be sure and realize that you are just using a particular mental talent that you were lucky enough to be born with.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
But in practice, we're just not seeing all the innovation that you would expect.
.doc!).
What innovation are you expecting? Are you looking to be swept off your feet by the next handsome OS that you see in the elevator?
Linux and GNOME are a unique twist on the old idea of a UNIX desktop. Linux has matured a great deal over the years to rival old giants like Microsoft, and GNOME has become a very good desktop environment for many people. While they aren't earth-shatteringly innovative, they provide some relief from the stagnant mainstream desktops out there.
Then there are the countless tools that made my life livable over the years: GCC, gnuplot, ghostscript, Emacs, LaTeX, ispell, XFree86, Mozilla, and OpenOffice.org for my desktop, and sendmail, apache, and BIND on the servers. There are many many many more tools that I won't take the time to list out, but that doesn't mean they aren't there doing their part.
Many Open Source software projects are not truly innovative but provide best-of-breed implementations of standard protocols. Nearly all of the standard Internet protocols have been implemented for Linux and the BSDs. Ones like Apache steal the show, and ones like the BSD TCP/IP stack are "borrowed" by smart and successful people like Microsoft.
Perhaps the biggest contribution of Open Source is properly moving things into the "public domain" after no longer being commercially worthwhile or after becoming commodities. The protocol implementations I mentioned certainly fall into this category. For example, I seriously think the idea of a commercial web browser is obselete, and ones like Internet Explorer really serve to hold back progress rather than help it.
Another way that Open Source contributes in ways that companies can't is to provide uncorrupted software. By "corrupted" I mean: integrated DRM, proprietary file formats, proprietary communications protocols, unfair EULAs, and any other blatant company or government-driven attempt to limit what computers can do. The frequent advocacy by Open Source enthusiasts for open file formats is one way to drive innovation that really can be earth-shattering (imagine a world without
So, I'm not sure what you're looking for, but I'm pretty convinced that there is more innovation occuring than we can shake a stick at. It isn't always suprising, revolutionary, or even obvious, but to say it isn't happening is to be in denial.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
Is TCP/IP and the Internet more innovative than xns? or netbios (which came much later)?
Is Sendmail / SMTP more innovative than DEC's messaging system from the early '80s, or IBM's? (damned If I can remember their names).
Is NFS more innovative than RFS?? (actually, I'd say that they were about even -- but NFS won out .. possibly because it was more open than RFS).
______
When you think about it: VHS beat out Beta -- not because it was better but because it was more 'open' (just about anybody could produce a VHS machine, but only Sony could produce Beta).
Similarly, many people ascribed DOS's ascendency over the obviously superior MAC to openness -- the fact that anybody could (and did) build a DOS box, and put whatever they wanted into it.
Openness does drive innovation.
With two products of equivalent inovativeness, the one that is more open tends to drive more collateral innovation -- and is thus most likely to thrive.
Part of the reason for patents and Copyrights was the fear that, without them, big-money own-it-alls would usurp the works of truly innovative (usually small) authors and scientists -- make all of the money off of their work and, this remove any incentive for them to make their work known.
Copyright and Patents have now swung to the other end of the pendulum. They've become and end in, and of, themselves. They've been 'strengthened' to the point where we'll soon be 'celebrating' a Century of Intellectual wilderness -- A century during which substantially nothing has been put into copyright that has subsequently flowed into the public domain -- as envisioned by the writers of the first amendment.
Much of what was created in the early 1900s will be lost into this wilderness. Only the most famous (and, in some cases, the most mundane) works will survive. Much of the rest is caught in a legal limbo. Nobody knows who 'owns' it -- thus, nobody can obtain the right to copy it. By the time it's legal to redistribute it, the originals will be incapable of being duplicated.
Consider that recordings of the technical conversations with the Apollo astronauts were only barely recoverable -- and this after less than 30 years in storage. Imagine what another 100+ years of languishing would do to less famous works -- Those who would like to preserve them risk criminalizing themselves in the process.
Had the original works been protected under current Copyright rules, Disny's Snow White would never have been made. Similarly, most of Shakespeares works are known to have had their stories lifted from other authors.
We build on the works of others. Copyright and Patent laws are useful to the extent to which they lubricate the path from creation to public availability. The moment that these laws block that path, they become repugnant to their moral and constitutional underpinning.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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.