Slashdot Mirror
Congress Members Oppose GPL for Government Research
An anonymous reader writes "Rep Jim Davis(D-FL), Tom Davis (R-Va), Ron Kind (D-WI), and Adam Smith (D-WA) are trying to outlaw the gpl. Let's write to them and show them that we didn't elect these guys to screw us over." The issue here isn't the GPL in general, it's specifically what sort of license government-funded research ought to have. Code written directly by Federal government employees has no copyright whatsoever and is therefore roughly equivalent to a BSD-type license; but if the government pays a non-employee to write code, there are no firm requirements or guidelines on how that code ought to be licensed. Prudence suggests that since it's our money funding the research, we ought to make sure the public gets some return from the endeavor.
I wonder how the campaign donations compare between open source companies and closed source companies?
let's gpl congress so that we can all modify the code and prevent all the stupid laws that get passed!
track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!
"Prudence suggests that since it's our money funding the research, we ought to make sure the public gets some return from the endeavor."
That's why it should be BSD licensed.
This will satisfy everyone from RMS to Bill Gates.
--
If I actually could spell I'd have spelled it right in the first place.
This is sooooooooo fishy. Especially if question 1 has a positive answer!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Obviously they didn't come up with this themselves...so who's lobbying them and putting up soft money for their campaigns.
I can think of one big company who'd stand to gain from this type of legislation...
With a guy like Adam Smith influencing them with all that invisible hand crap, what do you expect.
...that if the government hires a non-employee to write code, the government makes said non-employee sign all kinds of papers specifically stating that whatever s/he "invents" on behalf of the government belongs to the government exclusively and they can do with it whatever they want.
Honestly, I can't believe that they're wasting time on this issue.
GOBACK.
Prudence suggests that since it's our money funding the research, we ought to make sure the public gets some return from the endeavor.
Not just flawed, but deeply so. "Our money" funds a lot of things that we don't have direct access too--many things that we SHOULD not have access to. Lets face it, some government software, regardless of who writes it, should not be open sourced.
I, for one, would like to take a ride in a spy plane that I'm sure some of my money went for.
-- yawn. --
ignoring the ever prevalent and promising 'cyber security technologies'
Would you company invest more in a country if that country offered it some free open code or no free open code.
Would you feel bad about that country having even more to offer by any efforts you put into that free open code or do you think keeping the improvements closed and to your-self is the best way to boot the economy of said country.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
If they are arguing that governement developed software can only be public domain, then fine, but I am not offended by that position.
If they are arguing that governement developed software may be given a proprietary licence but may not be given a GPL licence then I emphatically disagree.
I know that it is the hallmark of /. to be reactionary, but before we inundate these folks with email can we verify the validity of a Anonymous Coward submission of an article at NewsForge that was submitted by an Anonymous Reader?
LawMeme is dissecting the letter and note line by line.
I use the GPL on my projects. However, the GPL is not intended to benefit everyone equally. It is intented to give an edge to free software developers. I believe this is a good thing for developers and companies to do of their own free will. I do not, however, think that it is right for our government to exclude proprietary software developers from public works.
The following is a quote from "Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library":
Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it.
Again, let me stress that I use the GPL, I like the GPL, I think more developers should use the GPL. But our government should not provide preferential treatment for one group of software developers over another. We don't like it when congress gives preferential treatment to Disney, and it is not appropriate for us to request preferential treatment over Adobe.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
You cannot outlaw a license. It is an agreement
between two parties.
Mandating new govt software ought to be BSD is reasonable enough, but would this also prohibit government-funded patches to GPL software, as those couldn't be put under any non-GPL license?
Federal Money may subsidise some of the work but let me give you some truths about out Federal Government.
1. They compete with the companies.. using the companies own code.
2. They will own rights to the full product even if the product was only 5% funded by the government.
My company sells software to many countries, including the US under Fixed Price Contracts. These contracts are set by the US contracting agencies so that the US owns rights to the binaries (This was standard for a long time, I am not sure now). The US takes the binaries and then tries to sell them to the same countries we are trying to sell to. Guess our own competition is our own software.
While this seems nice, the Federal government already shows that they would use this tactic to put companies out of business. Sorry, this is unacceptable to me.
Outlawing the GPL use is unacceptable as well for the same reasons. Our company made software, enhanced for a governement, the government should not be able to use its rights to take over the software. This is what the GPL prevents.. the same scenario as above.. just think GPL.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
This is an odd thing, considering that its the Democrats trying to pass this, as something along the lines of the GPL is more of a Democratic licensing scheme. Id expect that the Republicans would be the ones to do something like this in support of big business. Thats too bad, I now know of 4 congressman that I vote against in the upcoming election. The strange thing is that their basis is that the GPL would prevent the adoption of technologies for Federal R&D using GPL'ed code. Now the way I am reading this is more like "We cant use standards that are funded by the Ferderal Govt. that makes use of GPL code to make money". If they dont like the terms, dont use the code. If they dont like the GPL, then they should develop their systems using a proprietary license and not use GPL code. Otherwise, I think the the licensing terms are up to the author of the software, even if it is developed using Federal R&D money... Otherwise Universitys couldnt conduct research on GPL based software... I think this kind of bill is actually more limiting than the GPL could ever be since it is limiting the options of what can be used...
...that the GPL is restrictive. It does make it considerably more difficult for a company to profit from code released as GPL.
However, I definitely think that the code should be public source. But what's wrong with using the LGPL?
Work funded with public monies should be available for all to use. Ideally, all work should be done in the fashion of libraries, rather than a standalone application. This screams for the LGPL to be used.
If work is done under the LGPL, then the libraries can be made public, while companies can make proprietary front-ends that utilize the public libraries. Should bug-fixes, or extensions be made to the library, then the library (and the entire community) benefit.
My main beef with the BSD license, is that once the general library is released to the public, a private company can take the library, and bastardize it however they want (ie: Microsoft & Kerberos). By using the LGPL, the changes must be returned to the public, thus ensuring the public trust.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
OpenSecrets to the rescue!
I am not your blowing wind, I am the lightning.
The idea of taxing the middle class and the poor to provide code which is then solely exploitable by corporations is a transfer of wealth up the economic ladder. Congress on the whole and particularly in the last 14 years has been working hard on transferring the nation's wealth up the economic ladder. In areas from more much strict bankruptcy law (in many ways the introduction of serfdom to the United States), to the telecommunications act of 1996 (public property being used solely to benefit the wealth with no public gain at all), to more liberal land usage in the west and revisions to farm subsidy (taking public property and transferring it effectively to big agriculture).
Congress is quite correct that the GPL would interfere with this congressional strategy of wealth transfer. Rather the GPL would keep public property in the public domain to be used by the public for the public. IMHO that is a far worthier goal than "increasing the government-private partnership".
Our great Wisconsin representative Ron Kind is a aol user RonKind2002@aol.com . This makes it obvious that somebody is targeting the most ignorant.
Got Code?
The Government uses our money to license out companies to make software for them, that they in-turn will not have to release to the public since technically the government never made it in the first place. And then the government grants licenses to other companies to recoup our costs and yet we don't get to see the program or a refund if the government liscenses out said technology? Dire Straits said it best, Money for Nothing and our Programs for Free!
Zech Harvey, MCSE, MCDBA, CCNA
...even corporations.
The BSD license is the fairest way to handle government code. Corporations are taxpayers too, and should have the same access to this code without having their own code forced open and their business model destroyed.
On the other hand, closing (non-classified) government code benefits no one. As taxpayers, we would be benefited by the availability of such code.
I think Bill Gates would very much like to see the end of the GPL in government code, but don't think he's out to ban OSS - remember, BSD-licensed code was used for implementing TCP/IP originally. MS likes to see government code too, and it is their right, just as it is ours.
As for the issue of non-Americans, you could license it strictly to Americans, but then how would you enforce that license? No country in the world is going to hold up a license which prohibits them from something another nation gets to have....
if the government pays a non-employee to write code
if the gov. is paying someone to write code, that someone is an employee.
One thing to think about: not all open-source projects are GPL. I have two open-source projects: one is LGPL, the other is BSD. If all US gov't code were released under the GPL, I couldn't use it for my projects.
Jean-Marc
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
I for one am pleased to see this. I work for a company that sells software and have been pissed several times when it has been impossible for me to use software that my tax dollars have gone to pay for because it's trendy for people at universities to GPL everything that breathes.
The most recent example of this was a set of nice Java random variable distribution libraries that I found and wanted to use for some code I was writing. However, they were under the GPL (as opposed to the LGPL which would have allowed me to use library calls), so that meant that even though they were libraries, I couldn't even call them from a commercial product. If they had been in a BSD style license, I could have used them. So I ended up spending some time implementing the ones I needed.
Many people do not seem to realize that when software is protected by the GPL, it is not only 'open source' but it is also prohibiting anyone from using it if they do not also put their software under the GPL. (There are some workarounds - you can always have the GPL code run in a separate process and use IPC/RPC to get results from it and technically not break the GPL, but that can get ugly quick.)
It's fine for someone to make the decision that they want to force people who use their code to use the GPL. BUT - if it is code that was developed with a government grant, to me it seems wrong to use a license that forces a specific use of the code and promotes what is basically a political agenda (force everything to be GPL), instead of using a BSD style license which makes the code truly open. Things paid for by the government should be used to go back to the community at large if at all possible, and the GPL limits the utility of the research performed under government grants.
But, my project used pre-existing GPL code for the frame grabing parts. Does this mean that when I go back to do more work on it, I am going to have to start from scratch on my next college break? Since I had to GPL my own code, am i aloud to relicense that, or do I have to think of a new way to write it and/or find an uncontaminated person?
"The government is going to outlaw the GPF! All copies of Linux will be confiscated!"
Moron. Outlawing the GPF would get rid of Windows.
Okay, let's stop that lie dead in it's tracks.
Code that is written under contract to the Federal Government is the property of the Federal Government. It is not, to paraphrase, sold back to the Government so you pay twice for the same code. That issue has come up on every contract I've worked on. And when the code is owned by the Feds, if they want to re-use it for another Fed project they can. It's their code. It happens a lot.
If someone gets a grant to change the Linux kernel, they can license their changes under both the BSD and the GPL. If a private company gets a grant to write a diet analysis program, they can license it under the BSD, and also integrate the code into their own product.
This is the right thing to do anyway. All government funded development should be made available to the public without restriction.
The article does not say at all that Congressmen are trying to "outlaw the GPL", as the poster's inflammatory words would have you believe, but that they do not want taxpayer-funded software to be licensed under the GPL. That's a significant difference.
One thing a lot of people don't seem to realize (or just don't think about often), is that the GPL only applies to code, not the ideas behind the code.
:)
Say, for instance, I want to use the GNU readline library (it's the library that gives the text-interface to a lot of programs the same feel. bash, mysql text interface, and others.. ). It's GPL, not LGPL. But I don't want my program to be GPL'd. What do I do? I rewrite the functionality. There's absolutely no problem with doing this.
By GPLing the code from government sponsored works, it only means you can't copy/paste the code into your non-GPL program. It doesn't mean you can't take the idea behind the code (and even look in the code to get the idea) and then recode the idea.
Basically, anyone complaining about code like this released under the GPL is just lazy and looking to make a quick buck.. do we know any companies like this?
I know damn well that you are going to have problems using my GPL code in a commercial application and then selling it. This means that the GPL is working for me exactly as it was intended. You have absolutely no right at all to profit from code that I wrote. A company exists to make a profit but it has no rights, only the voting public has rights.
Got Code?
The whole world already gets a shitload of cash from the US. I pay taxes to the US, not to any other country. The US should be the ONLY government benefitting from software that I paid for. If I hear that the US Gov't is not giving away software (in addition to everything else, including money, military support, intelligence support, etc.), I'll be pissed as hell. I'm sure that the American people wouldn't stand for it, either.
We've all been wondering how we could possible effect the political process to defend against the likes of Disney and Microsoft.
Let this be a wake up call to the senet.
Over load their phones till they melt. Flood their snail mail and email. Let them know there is an active body of individuals who are pro-GPL, and will not stand for any more DMCA legislation.
Even if this isn't true, and it is. These congressmen are on a Technology subcomittie. It's time for
I would rather be ashes than dust!
Congress is not trying to "outlaw the GPL" as the article and submission suggest. They want to avoid GPLing a very specific sector of Federally funded research.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
First, let me get out my special padded helmet to protect myself before I get smacked upside the head by some of you.
Our company recently did a website for an organization which was organizing a web broadcast for a governmental organization. So, although we were technically being paid by the organization, we were indirectly being paid by the governmental organization.
But let's remove those distinctions and say the governmental organization themselves had hired us to create the website for them.
Well, our site used software which we had developed in house, at our own expense, prior to being hired. Some of it, however, was developed and coded while hired by them.
Technically, none of the modifcations we made to the software could have worked without the software we had written before.
The question is: if we were required to license this software as Open Source or GPL, would we have had to license *all* of it, including the code that was written prior to the bid?
Also, say that we had had to write the code from scratch. We might have charged less for our work than we could have, thinking, "We can reuse this code and sell it to customers later on."
I think that except in cases where the government is actually purchasing the software outright froma developer, it gets very sticky to say what should and shouldn't be freely developed.
While I agree that there are many cases in which making software open source is a good thing, the truth is if we were required by law to have, say, a section on our website that said, "By the way, here's all the code we've ever written, available for your own use. For free." it is unlikely that we would be able to continue to function as a profitable business. After all, what customer is going to pay for software that is being advertised or described as "free"?
Our tax dollars go to all sorts of projects. For instance, medicines are often developed through the help of government grants. Ever tried to get prescription drugs for free?
Karma: Chevy Kavalierma.
Having worked in a DoD office whose job it was SPECIFICALLY to foster relationships between the governement and civilian entities in doing research I would like to add this one idea.
First to set the stage: While this is geared more towards scientific research and not specifically software coding, it holds that much of the computational research done requires, duh, software code. Be that as it may, my statement is slightly more general than just that but relates to all such cooperation between Gov and Civ to produce something.
While it might seem immediatly obvious that if the government in anyway pays for something to be made than it should be considered "by the people for the people" there is something else to be considered. In many cases the government doesn't have the people, money, or equipement to do the research. In that case, whichever of those three items are missing (or we are the experts in) we will partner with civilian companies in an effort to take advantage of what they are experts in and bolster what they are deficient in. This is a VERY common occurance and I traveled to many trade shows (SEMA, CIS, etc) to try and get the word out on exactly this type of partnership.
The problem becomes that no company will get into this partnership if there isn't some way they can make some money off it. The typical agreement is that it is licensed free of charge to the government but for all other commerical uses they have an exclusive right for some given time. Typically it just revolves around a patent granted with free use for the Gov.
If this didn't happen then the governement would pay a lot more money to try and get this "thing, or in some cases simply never be able to do it cause we don't have, typically, the expertise or equipement to do it. At the same time the public will never get this "thing" because the company was never able to do it either.
Finally what happens is if the government DOES end up making this thing it is VERY expensive because we are the only ones buying it and typically from one vendor. But if we can get someone else making it for a profit and selling it to the greater public, the price scales down from the over all increase economics of scale. A perfect example of this is semi-conductors. The price of those in the early years for the government were astronomical not just because they were new but because we were the only ones buying them. As soon as commercial applications existed to increase both supply and demand, then the price drops both from volume as well as research performed to decrease production costs.
So why all this blathering, just to let you know that it isn't always in the best interestes of anyone for all governement funded research to always 100% go free as in beer. And for those that are 100% against anything looking like a patent monopoly, I will add that most contracts do include verbage to ensure fair licensing to competitors (unlike say, drug patents) to ensure a healthy diversity of sources to prevent price gouging as well as the possibility of the only supplier going belly up and supplies drying up.
If you can't be good, be good at it!
When any company and institution that ever received any kind of government loans or grants is not allowed to turn around and patent/copyright/lock up the things that were produced in any way downstream as a result of that government money.
But seriously, if the government wants to write software that's useful for everybody, it should be put into a BSD/MIT license instead of a GPLed license, or else it is worthless to a lot of the industry.
As much as I hate to admit it, this does make sense to me in terms of freedom. The GPL isn't really about freedom. It's about control over your users. It's a different kind of control than you find in regular software, but it's still control. I happen to prefer that control greatly to the kinds of controls that other pieces of software put on me and it has its places such as when you're trying to fend of giant corporations and their lock-ins, but the government shouldn't try to control how the fruits of its research are used. Again, I know this is naive in the face of how corps get grants and loans and then create stuff and lock it up, but it is the way it SHOULD work.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Let's write to them and show them that we didn't elect these guys to screw us over.
Y'know, it's notsomuch that. We know these guys are going to screw us over. . . nowadays, I just vote for the candidate that promises lubrication.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Another Socialist bitching about a free market. I love it when they put their "community" provided foot in their mouth. Keep tagging em as you see em!
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Rep. Jim Davis
3315 Henderson Boulevard
Suite 100
Tampa, Florida 33609
(813) 354-9217
FAX: (813) 354-9514
Rep. Tom Davis
730 Elden Street, Second Floor
Herndon, VA 20170
Phone: (703) 437-1726
(703) 437-3004
tom.davis@mail.house.gov
Rep. Ron Kind
205 Fifth Avenue South
Suite 227
La Crosse, WI 54601
PH: 608.782.2558
FX: 608.782.4588
Toll Free: 888-442-8040
ron.kind@mail.house.gov
Rep. Adam Smith
1717 Pacific Avenue #2135
Tacoma, Washington 98402
Telephone: 253-593-6600
Toll Free: 1-888-SMITH09
(1-888-764-8409)
Fax: 253-593-6776
adam.smith@mail.house.gov
http://www.kubuntu.org/
at least it shouldn't be mandated to just one license. there should be choice, but unless it is code for a classified, government-only application, it should be made available to the public in a form that can be gpl'ed. i am yet undecided on mandating the use of the gpl, but there is the argument that if the government gives researched code to companies for free that those companies can turn around and sell without restrictions, why don't they just straight up give the corporations money? probably because even though they are the same in effect, it looks worse to the public to see money change hands than it does to see code given to companies for free that they can sell without restrictions. the government should provide an environment that american companies can operate in, but it shouldn't be doing the companies' work with taxpayer money.
i am not an expert in the gpl, but wouldn't it be legal for a company to review gpl'ed code and then use ideas in the algorithms and functionality of the code in their own code written from scratch (yet inspired by the gpl'ed work)? seems to me if somebody wants to make all of th money off of something without providing source, they should be willing to make it all by themselves.
an important side effect of outlawing the gpl for government research would be that the government would not be allowed to research any gpl'ed software that it already uses as well as the large amount of gpl'ed software generally in use. in effect, all previous government research under the gpl would have been a waste because it would be useless to the government. certainly it would benefit both the government and the people if research continues on these projects. something that benefits government and people is a good use of tax dollars.
you probably shouldn't have read this.
This seems a partisan rant by GPL political activists. Where is the call to "outlaw" the GPL? Where is the justification for putting government code under the GPL, instead of one of the other very similar licenses out there?
It is a reality that many commercial vendors won't touch GPL code. If you're primary goal is to eliminate commercial software, this kind of gambit makes sense. If you want to avoid closing avenues for widespread distribution of software, it doesn't make sense.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
While preventing "restrictive" licences is a good idea, it would be a much better idea to mandate a completely unrestrictive licences instead.
I mean, if they say "no GPL" what about MPL or any other OSI license? They need to mandate everything under Public Domain.
"Prudence suggests that since it's our money funding the research, we ought to make sure the public gets some return from the endeavor."
in may cases the return for the endeavour is that they protect whatever they just coded with everything they got so only we have that information because its sensititve and shouldnt be anywhere near the public.
I hear where you are coming from, that the public should get some gain from money spent by the gov.... but dont forget you are getting value. Code is like any other commodity, and just because you cant go use the coffee maker on Enterprise doesn't mean you aren't getting that ever so fragile value of it keeping enemies at bay.
Yeah, it might be cool to be able to see some target aquiring/tracking/gps code.... but I dont want you to have it. No offense, but I just don't know you that well, whearas the military, I've come to feel somewhat safe with them having it.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Let's look at these points...
1) They use the Internet, by virtue of TCP/IP, as "proof" of their thesis.
Very insightful. If the TCP/IP libraries and utilities from the BSD distribution had been GPL'ed, the technology would never have been integrated into so widely a diverse population of operating systems and utilities. That is, you would not today see Macintosh, Windows, Netware, Solaris and many other systems supporting it. These companies would have had to come up with something different, and more than likely not one of them would interoperate with the other. So we'd still be back in the world of AOL, Prodigy, MSN and Compuserve.
2) They state that you cannot improve OR adopt OR commercialize GPL software.
Do they really? My guess is they said you cannot improve or adopt it for commercialization. Which is true, and is one of the fundamental points of GNU.
3) They state that you cannot integrate GPL'd software with proprietery software.
This is true as well.
4) They say you should keep publicly funded code away from the public sector, so that proprietary interests can make money from the work.
This is pretty much in tune with the Technology Transition legislation passed back in 1980 promoting collaborative work between commercial and research entities. Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler acts.
Sounds to me like these representatives do understand the GPL and are willing to discuss it in an intelligent manner. I find it curious that the only way the GPL defenders can push their agenda is by distorting the purposes of the GPL. Sounds intellectually dishonest to me.
...since it cannot stop open source by its usual monopolistic practices, the best way to attack it is to utilize government (read: bought senators) and what's left of the law. Make it illegal, or at least damn inconvenient to develop under the GPL and the beast will have its back broken.
You make it sound as though the GPL imposes requirements on corporations that it does not impose on natural persons. I find that bizarre, and don't understand where that reading is coming from.
What the GPL would prevent is having someone take a government-contracted GPLed product, slap a gui front end on it (maybe even with a few silly interface pattents), and then sell the result with a do-not-copy, do-not-reverse-engineer license.
I'll grant you, that's an action corporations are more likely to take than individuals, but the corporate discrimination angle you're trying to play up is downright silly.
Frankly, the no GPL rule makes no sense without a similar rule against standard proprietary licenses; government contractors routinely develop code and then incorporate it into their own do-not-reverse-engineer programs. What happens in that case is that the government gets the code and a license to use it wherever they want internally, but they can't release it to non-governmental institutions.
Certainly the public gains less from that arrangement than it does from an identical arrangement that also allows the government to release said code to the public under the GPL.
The article says there is
This is pretty different than "Congress Members Oppose GPL for Govt. Research.' It's much narrower, and the total number of congress members involved is 2. That's 2, as in 2 out of 635. And it's to be applied to the security software only. The headline is much too broad, and therefore misleading. And it's a suggestion that licences be banned only if they "prevent or discourage commercial adoption" of the technologies. Given the way most corporations have shied away from GNU licences, I think you can easily make the case that in practice the GPL discourages commercial applications.There is one primary exception to that - standalone programs or systems. Note, for example, that Linux and GNU emacs are wildly popular, but the various FSF C function libraries were not. The GNU library licence was written because people were shying away from developing with GCC because FSF libc.a was required for gcc usage (I don't think that's true any more). Libc.a was under GPL and that meant applications that were developed with gcc would come under GPL. FSF created the library licence in an attempt to address the issue, but lately they seem to think that it was a mistake. IMHO, they're confusing cause with effect. Those libraries came into wider usage because the GPL didn't apply to software developed that used them, not because they were good libraries (though they are good libraries). But IMHO if they weren't under the library licence, they would not have come into as common a use as you now see.
Let us also note that releasing the code to the public domain does not prevent applying the GPL to it by others! You can grab a copy, hack it up to your hearts content, slap the GPL on it, and go. If your mods make it superior to the unrestricted original and the public thinks the GPL restrictions aren't a problem, cool. If not, well, the market has spoken. IMHO, this proposal will simply prevent the GPL from being applied before the market has spoken.
Feh, enough of that, I'm ranting.
ok so if you're doing government funded software research you have to give it away for free ... no GPL no nothing.
If on the other hand you're doing government funded medical research you get to patent the results.
Is there something wrong with this ?
They're talking about private work done by organizations which get government grants to do research. In every other industry that private organization gets to choose the terms the license their work under .... including patenting it and charging everybody else to use it.
Public domain is NOT the same as Free software. It's nowhere NEAR Free software. With public domain, anyone can take my code and change the license and sell it to me with a restrictive license.
Permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, the so-called "public domain", etc.) are still free software licenses. They're just not copyleft licenses.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Thanks, at the time I wrote my post, I couldnt think of the words... Licensing Scheme wasnt exactly what I meant, actually they terms "liberal" and "conservative" were the two that escaped me... It seems that trying to outlaw a licensing scheme infringes on the right of a software developer to decide his or her own grounds for distribution and use of that software. This seems, at least to me, in conflict with a liberal ideology. The words "Licensing Scheme" were not the ones I wanted to use....
And the US government wants to take away my freedom to murder other people
Not necessarily. In the United States, homicide is a crime at the state level. Only killing a federal employee is a federal crime.
Will I retire or break 10K?
If the software relates to national security, then it should be made top secret.
Here's two examples...
1. A goverment contractor builds an encryption system that'll be used to encrypt communications between locations, that should be designed top secret.
2. If DARPA gives a grant to a university to create a better piece of weather modeling software, it should be public domain. Now, if a company goes and takes that software and builds upon it and sells it, fine.
However, I as a citizen of the united states should be able to obtain a copy of the source code, since ultimately, my tax money went to fund the creation of that software.
What it sounds like is that the congress wants to possibly put some regime in place were tax payers money goes to find a project and then that project gets handed off to the highest bidder/(company who gave the most ammount of money to their campaign coffers...)
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
This is just another approach that Microsoft is taking to lobby against government adoption of Linux. Think about it: if the government isn't allowed to hack on Linux's GPL'd source code, then all of the advantages of free software are instantly nullified.
Many will argue that common sense dictates that the government should only write BSD'd code, but this will inevitably lead to the end of projects like the NSA's selinux. This is one case where even those who don't agree with the GPL ought to stand up and fight for it.
GPL exists because proprietary software exists. If software was not protected by copyright, all software would be public domain and #1.) there would be no proprietary software #2.) there would be no GPL.
The sole purpose of GPL is to turn copyright against itself with the goal of defeating proprietary software. If all software in the world was forced to being GPL, it would be identical to all software being public domain. So, in a sense, the GPL aims diminish or remove the institution of copyright with respect to computer software.
So it's a simple question: Do we want proprietary software or not? If you believe there should be proprietary software in this world, then government funded software should be BSD or public domain. (depending on if the authors want credit.) If you believe proprietary software is unnecessary and damaging to society, government funded software should be GPL until the government agrees to stop recognizing software copyrights.
For my own interests, I would prefer GPL, which is the core of what my business is based upon. I provide complete Open Source consulting services. All software I write is covered by GPL so that my proprietary-minded competitors cannot benefit from my work, while other community-focused businesses can.
The government is funded by taxes. Both citizens and companies pay taxes. Most companies can't use GPL'd code in their products. If they do BSD type licensing, then everybody who pays taxes, including companies, get to use the code. Using the GPL is just not fair to some taxpayers (the companies) while BSD type licencing is fair to all taxpayers.
A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
Ok people. Those of you who say they cannot make money out of GPL. Are you something different from IBM? Are you something different from thousands of small developers and sysadmins like me? What in GPL really HAMPERS you from making some money? Technical hurdles? Where I'm in this world for nearly 10 years and I have not seen professionals crying foul from any GNU tool that would really HAMPER any chance to create a new program. Well Linux is an example of this, isn't it? Frankly I don't see where Linux may hamper you on having a decent revenue. And I don't see IBM filling bankruptcy in the next years.
You can't charge for that piece of code? Correct. Why would someone give you a 200Kb of software to help you write 2Kbs and sell the whole thing for $2000? Well that's one of the things GPL is about - don't be a parasite. And do not try to stop other people doing something with those 200Kb. Moreover, when this 200Kbs may be good taxpayer dollars.
On what concerns what should a state do with licenses. I believe that a "just GPL" license is bad. I do believe in the right of an author, or intellectual property owner to rationally choose the best form to share its product with someone else. A state may either choose GPL, BSD or an 100% commercial license, depending on conditions and circumstances that lead to the creation of the product and its potential use. However we are talking here about cyber security, right? That's what is the news about. What is the usefulness of kick out GPL from this field? I see one and only one reason. To hold up information on new security technologies. Is anyone trying to make a slippery move to make "security through obscurity" an official ideology of the US? If so, one day you americans don't blame the rest of the world for being better than you, and don't ever claim that we betrayed you, somehow. The treason is right behind your backs.
"The best argument against democracy is a five minute chat with the average voter."
--Winston Churchill
I would personally like to see a clause required for government funded software that is required like the old bsd license that says "Parts of software funded by XXX agency of the United States Government."
Then maybe people would realize how much of our open source, and closed source software has been created and or funded by the US government.
The GPL specifically states that changes made for one's own use do not have to be distributed.
In other words, feel free to take this publically funded work and do whatever you want to with it. However if you are going to distribute your changes (for example, make money by selling the derived work), you must then make your source code changes available.
Let's not be like the politicians. Making sweeping statements like "obligate one to make one's own code freely available" is an inaccurate statement about the GPL and completely ignores its intent.
As,
A long time software writer/consultant to the US Government I can assure you that the GPL has already caused me great grief while trying to write software.
Specifically, I'm writing an open-source simulation model which I'd love to make GPL. But, I can't. Why?
Because the minute I make my open-source model GPL those dirty rotton competitors of mine are going to take the code, go straight to the guys I deal with in the government and get that next big contract to "upgrade" the software.
I'm the one inovating here, but I'm a small fish in a big pond. My competitor is a VERY large aircraft manufacturer, guess who.
Do I stand a chance against those guys if I cannot specifically control the code. No!
Keep in mind I have a lot of algorithms that I've created on my own. And sure the government has paid for XYZ project, but they got a good deal because I was able to provide them binaries of my code.
Otherwise, they would have had to pay 10 times the amount they paid me for project XYZ from somebody, see above, that doesn't already have the algorithms.
So, think about it really hard before you write that letter to that congressperson. In a LARGE percentage of cases, when the government contracts for a piece of software they are getting 10 percent new code and 90 percent code that's been invented utilizing somebodies hard earned time.
I'm just worried that if this goes through, there will be another push to prohibit the government from contributing to GPL'd software, such as the NSA has done with SE Linux.
On the grounds that "would prevent or discourage commercial adoption of promising cyber security technologies developed through federal R & D", I just remember, Snort is GPL based software, that is a VERY promising cyber security technology, and is used in the commercial market quite often, IE Foundstone..... I think their point is flawed....
What exactly is an American "New Democrat"? Unless ive missed something, you only have Democrats and Republicans... one of which has formed every government for over 100 years.
Canada has a New Democratic Party.. Im happy to hear you Yanks are finally paying attention.*
*that was a joke, i know nothing of the 'new democrats' in the USA, but im betting they are even MORE right than the ever so vibrant Right-Right duopoly of the American Republicrats.
If they outlaw the GPL, which has its basis entirely on copyright law, then wouldn't this be invalidating copyright law?
In other words, are we getting to a point where we are defining what types of restrictions copyright is allowed to enforce/license? So if there are only certain types of restrictions allowable in copyright law, then isn't all of copyright impacted? Wouldn't the precedent be set that says that certain types of restrictions would permit you to violate them w/out violating copyright law?
(Flamers: remember I'm asking a question, if I thought the answer was patently obvious I woulnd't need to ask)
On the other hand, this seems to me to be a ploy. It's not a serious bill that anyone expects to pass. It's probably a bill to say to certain coroporate sponsers, "See you should donate more to my re-election campaign, and encourage your employees to vote for me in next month's elections."
$.02
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
I read the article, which only served to confuse me further. Are these people saying that software funded with government money should *not* be under the GPL, or are they saying that these people are trying to put an outright ban on the use/making of software by anyone? The story (both here and on NewsForge) seems to be a bit exaggerated, or is it correct? Can someone please clarify what is actually going on? Thanks.
________________________________________________
suwain_2
Hooray! I live in Tom Davis' district, and he is finally doing something that I can really stand up and cheer for. I'm going to write him, thank him, and encourage him not to back down.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Instead of arguing GPL vs BSD, why not step back and release it to public domain without restriction. You can usually achieve this with enough time, patience, and FOIA requests. I'd rather see it codified as public domain explicitly, rather than debating which license is the least restrictive or most appropriate.
That way, both individuals and corporations are free to use it in any way they see fit.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
License for Security-Enhanced Linux
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Any reason why I should be able to use code that your tax dollars paid for? Maybe I'm British, maybe German, maybe Chinese, maybe North Korean. Maybe I'm Saddam bin Laden. You still want to give me access to "your" source?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
It's important to note that this isnt against open source software just GPLed software. I see the GPL as a corperation, everything done to GPLed software is kept within the GPLed domain, just like anything a closed source company does is kept within their domain. If the government is going to put time and money into developing software I dont want to see it being trapped by the GPL anymore than I'd like it if they gave the code to microsoft.
Arguing that anyone can just use the GPL and this wouldnt be a problem isnt really consistant too, becuase that limits the freedom that most GPL advocates love to shout about so much.
--aiee
The government has an obligation to release the code it creates and data that it collects into the public domain. Corporations are not only allowed, but encouraged to commercialize government funded research. I think this is a good thing.
The bad thing I see is the interaction between the government's obligation to release code into the public domain and their ability to incorporate open source code, be it under GPL, BSD, or whatever. If you have to release your code into the public domain, incorporating GPL code can be an issue.
A government-wide source repository could address this issue, by allowing only the government-funded portions to be released into the public domain, rather than the entire system. That would allow the goverment to link the licensed components without having to redistribute the derivative works.
http://drteknikal.blogspot.com/
The GPL might be good for the developer who writes the code originally, but it is bad for the public at large. You have to understand taht there is nothing inthe GPL that says I have to give you the source code for free! the condition is that i have to make the source code available, but not really for free download, or whatever. The code writen by goverment should have zero strings attached, as in a purely free license. After all, a license that has "requirements", and "conditions" is not free as in freedom, not in the true sense of the term. That is why the BSD style license is so good since it only exists to confirm the code is free (as in freedom), and the zero liability. I would think its is reasonable to say that goverment assigned contracts that involve the generation of source code should be mandated to use a goverment approved lisence that benifites the public. By "public" I also mean to include the commercial interest in our society. A goverment should nto have to make available changes or modifications to source code that it payed a contractor to write! Furthermore, a goverment should not release source code that forces it citizens to make changes available. Would these citizens being violating a stautory law, or a small-claims court battle with the US goverment? Don't get me wrong, the GPL isn't all bad. After all it does do what it designed to do very well; protect the selfish desire of the developers to steal that improvments that other people make to the code that appears to be available for free, but really isn't. =) The GPL is good for one thing, education. It is a good way to make code available so pople can read it, learn from it, and possibly write source code in the BSD license that is FREE, or NOT.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Oh and if a company wants to erect their own toll booth on a highway, they should be allowed to - after all, companies should be allowed to profit from the publicly funded highway system.
Oh and of course if the same, or a different company starts charging children to allow them to enter a school, well they are only profiting from the publicly funded school system.
All in all, I think it's an excellent idea allowing private companies to profit from publicly funded projects. It will surely put some life back into the stock market.
Around here this may seem like a troll statement, but I do not mean it as so.
I do remember one thing Bill Gates (who I'm not a fan of) said last year, the GPL is a virus. I'm not insinuating that its a bad virus, but nonetheless everything it touches gets changed, and its main purpose is to spread itself around. To me, that sounds like a virus.
The GPL is new. Open source is new. How can we possibly enlist such a license that is as restrictive as it is, that has very little legal experience, and makes all derivatives GPL. I think thats wrong.
The major gist of the GPL is that if you want to use this code, you must make your derivives GPL too. In a government atmoshphere, this is going to do nothing but create unusable code. The government needs a level of secrecy. If the GPL were to be used, you can rule out half of the potential applications off the bat.
The government is here to serve us, and do it as cheaply as possible. If they hire someone to make GPL code, and then later have to re-write the entire thing for use in another application because it cant be open-source (for security, secrecy, whatever reasons) thats costing us money.
The GPL has certain applications, government use is not one of them. If government created code starts getting licensed as GPL, then someone isnt doing their job.
Too many problems with requiring either GPL or BSD licenses. Would screw over too many existing programs, like the SBIR program. And what if the best way to solve a problem is with licensed but not open code? Encourage, sure. Require, no.
Actually, the US very rarely gives away money to foreign powers. Instead, the Federal Government will take the money and buy goods that the foreign country needs and then give those goods to the foreign country. In the end, it works out both for the US business that the government bought the goods from and the foreign country.
Dinivin
I don't see RMS lobbying for EULAs to be more restrictive. I don't see RMS hovering over my shoulder, stopping me from using software. I don't see RMS setting up hooks in GNU applications that check, over the internet, how I'm using the software. I don't see RMS holding a gun to my head, forcing me to use the GPL for my code.
RMS has a licence. A licence he believes is the best for allowing a programmer to release software that is meant for use by people who are also programmers, without some company scooping it up and possibly using it in a way the programmer doesn't want. You can choose to use this licence if you want, or choose to not use his licence. There are other licences around (BSD, MozillaPL, et all), and they all have their own little bits and pieces that are different. Find one that suits your work. Use it. You, as the creator of content, have complete freedom to say in a licence how you want your work to be used until its copyright expires. No one is forcing you to use the GPL.
Now get back under your bridge.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
You don't understand a whole lot about the US electoral system do you?
In the USA, a registered voter can "vote against" up to six candidates for congress: the Republican and Democratic candidates (2) for each of 3 candidates: first senator, second senator, and representative.
Will I retire or break 10K?
From the article:
Well, now this all makes sense. Microsoft wants the government to close source so they can use the DMCA against terrorism, entrenching the position of Palladium. Or not. I think I've gone a little wacky in the head from too many long nights.
"..that the GPL is restrictive. It does make it considerably more difficult for a company to profit from code released as GPL."
No. The GPL removes artificial scarcity, since anyone is free to ask for the source code and use it themselves. As I mentioned yesterday, you can easily make money off of it by putting your own time into. This is how Red Hat (et al) make lots of money on freely available software.
Software is digital. Its only non-negligible cost is its creation cost. You have to either reconsider your approach to it and live with a changed economy, or enforce artificial scarcity via something like DRM to make it fit into a traditional economy. It doesn't make it more difficult to profit, it merely changes the method by which you generate your profit.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
While the arguments for releasing publicly funded software under a PD or BSD license may have a point to some degree, they completely ignore the basic purpose of GPL.
GPL allows the user to make modifications. That's why most people use it, including governments.
Now, if there would be laws prohibiting government workers to writing GPL licensed software, they could not make the modifications, which is the biggest reason why anyone would use GPL software in the first place.
Therefore, by prohibiting writing GPL code, the government would, to some degree, exclude itself from using (and I mean really using) GPL licensed code. Everyone would suffer, except maybe Bad Bill.
Then, you say, government should only use PD or BSD licensed software, right? Not really, it wouldn't work in practice because any sensible subcontractor or other company developing the government-funded software further would certainly re-license it under a proprietary license. The company might even offer the modified version a bit cheaper if they get the copyrights and can re-sell it with big bucks to others. However, by purchasing that new software, which it probably would do since it's "cheaper", the government would lose the freedom to itself modify the code that it wanted to be free in the first place.
Such situations could, of course, be prevented by appropriate contracts with the subcontractors, but I would say it's quite certain that, in practice, such important factors would most certainly be ignored when writing the contracts, just as they are always when buying software from companies. This would probably cause an inevitable privatization of all software originally developed by the government and lead us to a world with only closed-source proprietary software.
One good way to correct the problem would be to make it a law to use only PD or BSD licensed software in goverment, but this would probably make some proprietary software companies even less happy than with GPL.
Hence, it may be best to allow the government agencies publish their software under any Open Source license they choose to be best for their purposes, including the PD non-license, BSD, and GPL.
Not that I'm a US citizen, but this might apply to other governments as well and, after all, the future of GPL licensed Free Software does affect the entire world. It's not just the US government developing software for itself, but many governments in the world do participate in common GPL licensed projects.
Dear Congressman Kind,
I recently found out that you sent out a statement opposing the use of GNU-style licenses such as the GPL for Federal software R&D. Your letter indicates to me that you may not be aware of certain aspects of such licenses.
As a WI taxpayer, I wanted to voice my concern to you, that tax-funded software development may be licensed under restrictive proprietary licenses by commercial entities, with the intent to sell products to US taxpayers. This seems wrong to me, as the software development is funded by public means, so it seems that any intellectual property funded by the public should remain property of the public, forever.
Licenses such as the GNU GPL license ensure exactly this. The GPL license would prevent a company from line-for-line replicating federally funded R&D software and repackaging it as *their own* product. This scenario would remove publicly funded intellectual property from the public. Commercial entities are in no way prevented from looking at federal R&D efforts and re-implementing the research for their own commercial products. They are also not prevented from taking a GPL'd product and selling it, at a profit that they determine, to the public. These are all allowed under GPL licensing terms. This latitude is obviously not something that opponents to GPL software, such as Microsoft, want congressmen to know about, of course, but nevertheless, the latitude exists.
The only stipulation the GPL makes is that if a company distributes, in any way shape or form, a product that uses GPL code internally, they must provide the source code to the product using the GPL'd code to anyone requesting it. Within the software engineering field, there are many, many ways to use and interact with code that would allow a product to use GPL'd code without being subject to the GPL's license terms. The main thing the GPL prevents is the outright copying of code and repackaging of that code as one's own. This, in my opinion, is absolutely correct for publicly funded software projects.
You cite TCP/IP as an example against GPL licensing. However, TCP/IP is a protocol definition, not a software project. Most of the operating systems and software that use TCP/IP these days use software that is written under a variety of open and proprietary licenses, with the original code maintaining little or no resemblance to the initial *reference* implementation of TCP/IP. This initial *reference* implementation is the only item covered by the BSD-style license that is credited with allowing TCP/IP to flourish. However, the research papers that explain TCP/IP and allow a software developer to reimplement a 100% compliant TCP/IP system are not restricted in any way. Commercial entities can and have used these papers to create highly optimized TCP/IP systems (see the high-availability servers by IBM, Sun, Microsoft et al.) Had the initial *unoptimized* reference implementation not been licensed under a BSD-style copyright, this would STILL be possible. Had the initial reference implementation been licensed under the GPL, there would be little or no difference to the landscape of the Internet today. If anything, the Internet would have arrived sooner. Commercial entities would certainly not have made any less money.
Let me reiterate one important point: having R&D licensed under the GPL does not in any way shape or form prevent commercial entities from using the research to sell products. This is if they reimplement the results of the research OR if they choose to use the GPL'd code directly. If they choose to use the GPL'd code directly, they must simply honor the request to access the source code of the product using the GPL'd source to anyone requesting it. This does not in any way prevent a company from selling a product, for profit, based on GPL'd code. It is being done today, successfully, by many software development businesses.
By and large, for the vast majority of citizens in the US, having access to the source of a product is worthless. Allowing other developers, to whom the source might have value, to view the source of a product based on GPL'd code will only promote innovation in the high-technology industry.
I urge you to use the Internet and other resources at your disposal to learn more about the possibilities and the *true* limitations of licenses such as the GPL. Please, do not support the use of proprietary licenses, such as those used by Microsoft, to limit the public's access to federally funded R&D and software that is based on publicly funded research and development.
Most respectfully,
Brice D. Ruth
Perhaps the BSD license would be more 'fair' to everybody, but there's a difference between starting up a new government project and contributing enhancements to an existing project.
This law prevents Government agencies from contributing to existing GPL projects. The Government can't just waltz in and say "if you want our enhancements, you have to relicense your code".
So, exactly who is it 'fair' to when you disallow the Government to contribute to, say, Linux or Mozilla, etc.
Maybe various GPL projects should switch to dual licensing. Keep the code GPL'd, but make it available for a (large) fee under a license that allows incorporation into closed-source projects but disallows changes. All GPL'd enhancements become immediately available to the closed-source guys too, but they can't 'embrace and extend'.
It would be quite interesting to find out just how eager the closed-source guys would be to get their hands on the code if they can't use it to exclude others.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Most people here are confusing government research and government funded research. Private corportations doing government funded reasearch decide how to license it.... in the case of drug companies they don't license it they patent it and make a mint off of taxpayer funded research.
From correspondence I had with RMS not long ago:
(Indented text mine)
<quote>
I understand that US law prohibits any works created by
the government from holding any copyright, but immediately
fall into public domain.
That is true. However, work done by contractors with US government
contracts can be copyrighted and therefore can be GPL'd.
But by releasing modifications to
GPL licensed software, US government modifications would have
to fall under the public domain would they not?
Modifications written by government agencies would be in the public
domain.
This is no disaster. They would still be free software, and the modified
program as a whole would still be under the GPL.
</quote>
Those are Stallmans views on the US government and GPL code.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
Of course you're not. If you want the original, you can have it, just the same as he can. If you want his extensions as well, you have to compensate him in exchange. It's your choice, but you're not being forced to pay twice for the same thing.
And why is that a problem? Why should I have to give you the results of all my efforts for you to use as you see fit, without any benefit to me? What you describe is a very narrow version of freedom: it's all yours, and none of it is mine. Considering that I'm the one doing the work -- if you don't want my work, you've got the original anyway -- that seems a bit unreasonable, no?
Interesting that you tell me what I cannot do in the same paragraph that you use the term "free" software.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
In particular, this sentence
unfairly singles out the GPL and ignores all of the other restrictive licenses- such as anything of the form Copyright 2002 XYZZY Corporation!!
These Congressmen+lobbyists are deliberately mistating the position of the "Open Source Government" initiative (or cherry-picking some more extremist proponents to serve as strawmen).
And they're leaving out an important intellectual-property fact about the standard procedures of software contracting: when you contract for code, unless you explicitly specify something different, both the customer AND the contractor get rights to the code. If the contract was for a compiler program, then the customer gets rights to some binaries, and the contractor still keeps code rights. (This many "consultancy" houses work- they resell the same source code over and over, with small customer-specific modifications each time)
What the public should desire is for us to get some benefit from software development paid for by the government. Today, a federal agency will fund a project, get it installed & maybe working, and then forget about it. The contractor typically searches around for other agencies needing the same functionalities and sells it to them, again. (Taking advantage of the government's poor inventory management to rack up more sales- but that's the customer's fault for not being more organized).
The change I'd like to see is, when the government enters into new software contracts, they ask for a GPL (or at least PD) source code package amoung the deliverables. That way all of the researchers and developers in the government, academia, and the private sector can examine and build on the taxpayer funded work. This doesn't have to be a law, just an executive directive, or mere recommendation. Not only will it encourage "the progress of science and the useful arts", but it will increase bueraucratic transparency and reduce dangerous security flaws.
This says NOTHING about taking away the separate right that every contractor has to reuse their own code. The developing company can maintain their own copyrighted version to use as they wish. But that shouldn't be the ONLY copy of the source code- we paid for it, we'd like to look it over too.
Creation or change in software is expensive, copying it is not expensive at all.
And it is a lot of work. But if you'll notice, a core group of 5 developers who communicate will with each other can create a lot of software if they put their minds to it.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
These are the words that came from the same visionary who predicted that 640K or RAM outght to be enough for everybody.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
So when the NSA (a government agency, I think) contributed to a well known GPL project, they were breaking the law or something?
You say they were "disallowed". How so? Is it that you can trust these sneaky spooks to obey the laws of their own country?
Or maybe the new breed of Software Lobbyist was upset that the government could start to shut off the dollar faucet by pursuing cheaper economic models for creating computer programs?
Take TCP/IP, which is BSD licensed originally. What would have changed if it was GPL as well? Would it have prevented MS from adopting it (after much resistance anyway)? Would it have prevented "Embrace and extend"? MS does lots of proprietary protocols layered on top of TCP/IP, but I doubt GPL would really prevent that. SMB, WINS and such would still be much as they are now. They (MS) may have even read GPL code before coding their varient of the basic protocal stacks rather than just deriving from the BSD source base. None of this would have changed much. Free software would still be free, and commercial would be commercial.
OTOH, languages are different than protocols, and I think it is very important to prevent embrace and extend for languages at all levels. From HTML and Word .doc formats to Java, C, C++, and all the associated standard APIs, system call interfaces and such. All of these require open standards and GPL style copy protection for a standard toolset. Anything less tends to destroy the long term value of any program written 'with' the tools. This doesn't preclude proprietary implementations of various tools and standards.
Legislation to prevent the use of GPL or similar license terms by governments agencies would prevent them from making a decision that GPL is in the public interest for a particular program.
A little off-topic I know, but I couldnt resist looking at the entertainment/music section. All of our favorite supporters of the DMCA are there along with all of our favortie companies (Disney, RIAA, etc) Look at it from all different angles using the selections on the left. They donated only 5mil total in 1990, but jumped up to almost 40mil by 2000 (2002 isn't over yet).
Is that somehow a bad example?
The GPL presents restrictions on traditional software commercialization styles (i.e. closed source development) that other licences do not.
And as far as 'proprietery' means 'closed source', which it usually does, you really can't integrate GPL'd code.
How would using a more liberal licence, such as BSD, keep publicly funded code away from the public sector? It allows anyone to make use of the code. This is an inflamatory and totally unsubstantiated claim.
Blah blah, more inflamatory rhetoric.
Where is this coming from? What a huge steaming load of FUD.
Publicly funded means funded by tax dollars. Taxes are paid by corperations as well as individuals. As much as I would love to screw MS out of some free code, I cannot in good concious support something so unfair. They pay their taxes just like everybody else, and as such they're just as entitled to use publicly funded works as the rest of us, even if some of us don't much like what they do with it. The way to
I wonder what would have happened if the IP suite had been licenced under a GPL-like licence. Hmm, how many OS's would have implemented it? Would we still be in the midst of a protocol war? What a lovely thought; the Compuserve/Prodigy/AOL days with no escape. Think about it.
I suspect that Microsoft is pissed off about SE Linux.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
People are arguing over the wrong thing. People are debating about what license an academic scientist chooses to release a new project under. That is a legitimate point and I see things going both ways---personally I will release my data analysis code under a more BSDish Academic Free License license.
But this is NOT at all the real point of the law.
The reality is much more insidious----this law is designed to STOP all government funding of even academic researchers from working on any improvements to Linux, and in fact any GPL software whatsoever.
It is Microsoft's attack on Linux or any other already EXISTING GPL project.
For instance, the NSA secure Linux versions.
This means that a federally funded CS professor (and most are) could not pay any grad student or postdoc to work on improvements to GCC or the Linux kernel, or any number of similar projects.
In reality it means that they could work only on the BSD's which ironically have far less commercial penetration and significance than Linux.
Which is exactly the REAL intent: harm the competition to Windows.
If I ran a business, and I paid taxes, and I found out that my taxes were going to something that was directly in competition in my product, I'd oppose it too.
Hell, as a buyer of Windows, I oppose it. Some of the cost of MS Windows goes to pay Microsoft's taxes. And some of Microsoft's taxes are going to fund Linux development? So when I buy a copy of Windows, I'm funding Linux. WTF?
grep -ri 'should work'
That's a real threat to Microsoft. It's quite possible that a later release of NSA Secure Linux might be mandated for all DoD sites that handle classified information. That would fuel even more broad adoption, inside and outside DoD. That could make NSA Secure Linux the de-facto standard for anybody serious about security.
That's why this latest move is directed against government-funded secure software released under the GPL. Such software already exists, and it's a threat to Microsoft's profits.
This should be explained to politicians and the press as follows:
This is a move to sabotage development of the nation's computer security infrastructure so that Microsoft can continue to sell their insecure operating systems.
With public domain, anyone can take my code and change the license and sell it to me with a restrictive license.
.223 caliber round from 100 meters?
... though I do think that is something for each agency to decide, not Microsoft via their paid Washington lackey ... uh, I mean, "representative." If the NSA feels the public good, and national security, would be well served by strengthening the security of GNU/Linux, then they should not be prohibited from doing so merely because Linus and RMS have chosen to GPL their code, any more than they should be prevented from submitting patches to Microsoft to plug the latest gaping security hole in their products (if such a feat is even possible).
Yes, and that's part of the freedom. You know, freedom doesn't apply only to things you approve of. It also means freedom to do things which you don't like.
You mean, like the freedom to put a toll booth up on a public road, the freedom to park my car on the flowerbed of the local park, the freedom to put a fence up around your property (but not on it, of course) and charge you a toll to walk through the gate? Or perhaps you mean the freedom to rape your wife, or cap a bunch of random innocents with a
I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other with respect to using a BSD or GPL style license
However, I do think it is time, once and for all, to put a nail in the coffin of this misguided notion that freedom in general equals the "freedom" to do things that take away everyone elses freedom as a result (i.e. the "freedom" to oppress others), when it is clear to any thinking being that such is not the case. You do not have the freedom to take away my free access to my property by abusing public lands around it, why should you have the "freedom" to take away my access (or usability) of public code by embracing, extending, and destroying it?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
GPLing software denies the ability for proprietary software makers to touch the software in question. Excluding them from use of such software when it's taxpayer funded is no more fair than if the taxpayer funded software is patented and the patent holder collects royalties (thus making everyone pay twice).
I believe a more fair situation would be if such software were LGPLed. That is, everyone who distributes the software must open-source any modifications they make to the software itself, but need not open-source any software they wrote that is separate but happens to link to (or otherwise use) the taxpayer funded stuff.
Congress is quite correct that the GPL would interfere with this congressional strategy of wealth transfer. Rather the GPL would keep public property in the public domain to be used by the public for the public. IMHO that is a far worthier goal than "increasing the government-private partnership".
All of what you say is basically correct (and shut put an end to the myth that subsidizing the rich is solely a Republican vice, when it clearly is an Equal Opportunity Vice engaged in liberally by both parties), but I have one minor nit to pick:
Rather the GPL would keep public property in the public domain to be used by the public for the public.
That should read public commons, not public domain. GPLed code is a part of the public commons, however it does remain under copyright, and is therefor not in the public domain. Otherwise, very insightful post!
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Since the BSD-style license is "more free" than the GPL (it just doesn't force freedom for modifications or commercial use), I don't see what the problem is.
Anyone who wants to use BSD-style licensed code is free to do so. I'm cool with that.
Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
As I recall, the NSA released some GPL'd code and then dropped it like a hot potato.
But, in this instance, the same circumstance applies. If the NSA had created some original security code as part of the SE Linux project, and if they wanted to offer that code, gratis, to all -- commercial, free and open source -- developers to ensure rapid inclusion in as much software as possible, the GPL license of SE Linux would have introduced a poison pill into the mix. Everyone with a reason to avoid the GPL would avoid using the code.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It is the government trying Microsoft for antitrust violations. Why is the government proposing a bill that would basically require them to use Microsoft?
This sig no verb.
True, companies that wish to violate their user's rights can't use the GPL, but is that what government money is for?
The refusal of some software vendors to reveal their source code is poor proof of the GPL's incompatibility with comercialization. Several large companies such as IBM and Red Hat seem to be doing just fine exploiting, modifying, distributing and profiting from GPL'd software. You don't HAVE to rape your users to make a buck and those that do won't be arround.
Adam Smith and friends are ignorant and confused. It's disgusting to see this tired old bullshit dressed up in post September 11 security hysteria. This line of reasoning will be turned on BSD next, with arguments about how insecure software that everyone can see is. There are people trying to ruin our way of life, and we voted for them!
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Microsoft is currently working on a new campaign against open source, particularly how to convince the government (and probably other governments as well) not to require GPL'ed software, similar to the measure that Peru recently passed.
While most of their arguments are a load of shit, I will say this: I don't think the federal government ought to restrict all of the federal government, agencies, contractors, etc to GPL'ed software. I think it does tie the hands of some development.
Microsoft is using their typical "it stifles innovation" argument as if the GPL somehow stifles innovation. I get the feeling that their tactic is to misguide people (i.e. Congress) into believing that if someone writes code using GPL'ed tools (such as gcc), they're automatically restricted by the GPL license.
It's their typical misinformation tack that they use all the time with people who don't understand technology.
Most of their arguments are typical Microsoft and try to mislead what the point really is, though.
I have to agree, I don't think the GPL is good for a knee-jerk one-size fits all license. Depending on what you are doing the LGPL is better, especialy if some commercialization is anticipated. The only thing I don't like about the BSD license is you can fullfill it's requirement almost invisably. I'd rather the Congress criters would have said something like use some sense in licenseing so the maximum benefit to all taxpayers is achieved.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"it is essential that the National Strategy affirm federal tradition by explicitly rejecting licenses that would prevent or discourage commercial adoption of promising cyber security technologies developed through federal R&D."
Its not clear to me that this eliminates GPL, but it sure as s--t does imply that restrictive patents that allow "commercial adoption" by a single company are Good. By implication, we can also deduce that for a single company to collect (er, um, "extort"?) licensing fees for patents obtained in such ways is a good thing as well.
And when Mr Smith is the (can there be any doubt?) well paid Senator from Washington. I imagine he'll be well supplied with guaranteed perennial assistance (cash, checks, gifts, prepaid investigative trips to (Unnamed Tropical Resort) to investigate claims that the Bikini Industry there is illegally underpricing their product in competition with Legitimate American Corporate Interests (LACI - pronounced "lackey")). With (to continue that sentence) that assistance coming in from Those Who Must Be Obeyed, will there be any real surprise when he initiates the passage of a Law - requiring everyone to use The Only Software System Around We Like Or Trust ("TOSS-A-LOT")?
(Hmm, the "Microsoft" act. "Mandatory Iliminiation of Computing Rights Or Satanic (o?) Foundations of Terrorism". Needs work, but it shoul appeal to the "anti-terrorist" ad campaign, the "Satanic" obsession of the Satanicly obsessed (possessed?), and the Illuminati who are undoubtedly funding it all. By the time he gets to be senator I'm sure they'll work it out.)
The government can't license its code under the GPL or under BSD. Both of those licensing schemes rely on copyright, and the government is not allowed to copyright its works. They can hire private contractors to write copyrighted works, and in that case, I see nothing wrong with recommending the default use of BSD.
But it's not as simple as that. The real issue is: should the government be allowed to use GPLed code (and make slight modifications to it where necessary)?
For instance, let's say the government really needs a piece of software to calibrate widgets. There's nothing on the market that does exactly what they need, but there is a piece of GPLed software that, with a minimal investment of development time, could be modified to do exactly what the government wants. The alternative is to buy an imperfect, packaged solution for many times the cost.
Should the government be allowed to go with the most appropriate and least expensive solution in this case, or should we allow these Senators to pass some general beaureaucratic measure that prevents people from making appropriate case-by-case decisions? If this law goes through, the government is essentially banned from distributing even the smallest tweaks to GPLed software, and that could very well cost us all money without gaining us a thing.
The government uses this program at almost every installation, maps produced by GRASS tells every instalation about things like where various endamgered species are nesting and just about everything else related to enviromental impact. Replacing this one program with a commercial alternative (if it even exists) would be prohibitive.
Before they start attacking GPL'ed software they had better do an audit, they'd be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Pure handwaving.
Hardly. And while I don't have any expectation of swaying your opinion, be it an honest one (my assumption), one stemming from political or religious dogma (a possibility given the number of Ayn Randian zealots that expound hereabouts), or a paid bit of astroturfing (you've made enough intelligent comments on other subjects that I'm inclined to seriously doubt this, nevertheless the possibility is real, and it certainly does happen here rather often. Furthermore, what better way to cloak an astroturf than by presenting intelligent discussion in every subject save the one a person is paid to astroturf in. Such as strategy would, while despicable, be quite intelligent...nevertheless, you certainly the benefit of any doubt, small though that doubt may be. Indeed were it not for this evening's rather liberal libation -- a fine Bordeaux a lady friend keeps insisting I have 'just one more glass off' -- I probably wouldn't have mentioned the possibility at all...and will doubtless regret doing so tommorow I imagine), I will the try to illuminate why I believe your argument, and the assumptions it entails, to be flawed.
Now, let's say I picked up this code and reworked it into a Photoshop plug-in, taking the public code as a base (embrace), but also adding extra functionality (extend) so that it's useful for general-purpose photography. I am now selling this plug-in as a closed-source commercial product.
A contrived example designed to avoid the issue at hand, which is the vulnerability of unprotected code to being embraced, extended, and destroyed in classic Microsoftian fashion, as has happened to numerous other products in the past (both proprietary and open).
A more telling example would be your picking up code to a free and open security package, like, say, Kerberos, implimenting it in your already widely adopted operating system (the leveraging of which to destroy competition in other markets for which you are already a convicted monopolist), deliberately extending the code and protocol in incompatible, and undocumented, ways, and thereby making 90% of the deployed computer systems incompatible with the original code virtually overnight.
For the unaware, Microsoft has already tried precisely that, something they were able to do because the code, while not public domain, was inadequately protected by a *BSD style license. (Microsoft did not succeed in this effort, though they certainly have in other, similar efforts).
Please explain how this
(1) took away your access to the original PD code
I did not claim that it did.
(2) took away the usability of the original code
If the code becomes useless for its original purpose because virtually none of the other machines with which it must communicate are now running incompatibly extended, proprietery derivates of that code, the usability of the code by any reasonable metric has been reduced, quite possibly eliminated altogether. This hasn't happened with Kerberos yet, thankfully, but it has happened to plenty of other inadequately protected products (and inadequate protection isn't limited to public domain and BSD-style licenses, it can and often does include proprietery licensed products, which are then sold and killed, or embraced, extended, and destroyed).
In other words, such actions clearly and demonstrably take away the usefulness of the original, public code.
(3) destroyed the original code?
Another strawman, requesting that I defend a claim I am not making.
As with my example of an enterprising corporation that bribes local government and obtains the privelege of putting a fence around your property (by misusing the public lands around it to erect said fence), then charging you a toll to enter and leave your own proprety, the property (code) has neither been taken away or destroyed, but it's usefulness has been severely denigrated, perhaps eliminated altogether.
Think I'm making up a contrived example? Study your history. A very similar event to my analogy, which should illustrate to any open mind the flaws in your argument, happened for real in the United Kingdom several hundred years ago in a thinly veiled landgrab from which stems the myth of the so-called "Tragedy of the Commons."
Keep in mind, just because not every instance wouldn't result in the diminishment of the public commons doesn't mean many, perhaps even most, cases of it wouldn't.
Also, lest we forget, freedom is something the constitution intended to afford the people, not coporations or governments. The sad fact that our government and courts ignore the intent of our founding fathers shouldn't distract us from that important fact. The point? Freedom of choice is something we want for people. There are many contexts in which such freedoms our inappropriate and even destructive in the hands of governing bodies. The constitution was written to deny the government as much freedom as it could (c.f the oft-ignored 10th amendment).
In the case of projects and knowledge financed and paid for by public moneys, it is highly inappropriate to permissively allow them to be privatized by private interests. Whether it is NOAA seaway navigational charts (paid for by public money, copyrighted and made only available from a private firm for $100.00/cd despite the fact that our tax dollars paid for it), or software, the end result should not only be a product that is free, but a product whose freedom and accessibility is guarenteed into the future. Unfortunately, time and time again we find instances of entities, like Microsoft, abusing the public domain in much the way I described (though numerous other abuses abound, e.g. patenting medicines derived from research largely financed by public moneys and charity contributions, being granted exclusive rights in back-room deals a la the NOAA chart data I alluded to earlier, and so on).
The GPL, while certainly not the only way to protect against such abuses, is certainly one very effective and time proven way.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
"The GPL is new."
The GPL 2.0 is what, all of ten years now? Earlier versions (and of the emacs license) even older, maybe roots back to the seventies.
"The major gist of the GPL is that if you want to use this code, you must make your derivives GPL too."
Yes. This is not a problem. It is a benefit.
"The government needs a level of secrecy."
So? The GPL does not prevent you from keeping your modified source code secret as long as you're not distributing binaries, in which case closed source is a lot less secure than GPL anyway...
That isn't what this is about, however.
It's about Microsoft wanting to be able to take governmentally (tax-payer paid) developed code and making proprietary, non-free versions of it. The GPL prevents that.
Non-free software has less "use value". This is an economic fact. (I'm not discussing its "trade value".) Thus, it can be argued that making proprietary (non-free) versions of software is destruction of capital. Not something that should be sponsored by the government, I like to think...
If I ran a business, and I paid taxes, and I found out that my taxes were going to something that was directly in competition in my product, I'd oppose it too.
It isn't as if the government is actively funding any efforts whose sole purposes are to compete directly with anyone's products (including Microsoft). The government has not formed a software company to compete with anyone -- the government simply solves problems and provides services. The fact that they can sometimes use GPL'd software in doing this and then release the solution for anyone else -- including Microsfot-- to use is an incidental benefit.
Of course, it's a powerful one, and will have an effect on private entities that provide similar solutions and services. But frankly, if a focused private entity can't compete with an organization which incidentally produces a viable solution all in a days work, they shouldn't be in the market in the first place. That's what all that private enterprise efficiency is for, right?
Incidentally, this is how deregulation ought to work. Want a deregulated utility market? Seperate the service delivery network from the gov't utility provider (in order to make sure competitors have equal access to the delivery network). Then wait for the competitors to come. The day the competitors provide better/cheaper service is the day the gov't entity goes out of business.
The day MS can produce something better than NSA secure linux (hah) is the day that the GPL should cease to matter in gov't funded projects. Until then, restricting folks from using the GPL in such projects is as ridiculous as requiring it.
The fact that any product that the government contributes to could be useful -- competetive, even -- in the same space that a commercial product is shouldn't disqualify it from being used and developed.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Unless I (as a government employee) *NEED* to use GPL code in my project (which I am doing now). There is no way I could release a derivative work without violating the GPL (by changing the terms). Forcing me to use a particulr licence would prevent me from considering not only GPL, but any other licences that impose restrictions on redistribution (for example, commercial source code licences)
Secondly, your example is flawed. You can do whatever you want with GPL code and not release the source *unless* you give/sell it to someone. This is where a BSD licence would be grossly unfair , if a person develops a novel tool, any other person or company could make no or minimal change to that tool and use superior resources to foist it on marketplace as the official version, at least with GPL, they'd still have their copyright.
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
In a world without copyrights, you'd be right. Let me give you an example of why (unlicensed) public domain is not the most "public" license out there:
All Federal legislation is required to be in the public domain. The government, however, does not necessarily do the work of publishing and disseminating those public domain texts, so publication often falls to private companies. These companies add copyrighted material (page numbers!), making a proprietary work out of a public one.
In a world without copyright, that sort of thing wouldn't be an issue. There wouldn't be such a thing as copyrights on works derived from the public domain, so you wouldn't need complex compensatory licensing schemes like the GPL to prevent it from happening. This world is not a perfect place.
You could, of course, argue that anyone has the right to obtain the original legislation and thereby avoid the trap of copyrighted stuff. The problem is that in the general sense, it's not always so easy to a) find the original, unaltered public domain sources of something (and here I'm talking about things other than Federal legislation), and b) insure that the source you're using really is the public domain version and not some modified, proprietary version (lack of copyright notices don't provide this guarantee, as someone could have simply taken them off before it reached you.)
For example, let's say I want a high-quality image of some famous (old, out-of-copyright) painting. I can't just go into the museum and take a photo myself in most cases, so I have to settle for an image someone else has taken. But what if that person has made digital edits (resizing, cleanup, color changes) that are acceptable as copyrightable proprietary modifications? I can't use it (or at least, I might get sued for doing so.) There are whole worlds of material in the public domain that aren't accessable because the only published copies are modified and therefore proprietary.
Therefore, in a world with strict copyright laws, sometimes a license is the only way to keep something public an accessable.
And this, of course, is the key. Under the proposed law, if an agency has the option of spending $5000 modifying a GPLed program to suit their purpose, or alternatively spending $100,000 to get the same thing from a proprietary software vendor, they have to go with the more expensive solution.
Folks, wake up! This won't be about spending to create GPLed software vs. spending to create public-domain software. It will a choice between using a cost-effective GPLed tool vs. sending excessive amounts of dough to Microsoft for exactly the same service. In the first case, at least the public might benefit from the government's contribution to the project and from the tax savings. In the latter case, only Microsoft shareholders benefit (and we all pay for it).
What bothers me most is that the people who are currently babbling about the "restrictions" of the GPL today are the same types who are going to be bitching about their high taxes tomorrow. Blame it on boondoggles like this.
The GPL prevents companies from keeping their sources proprietary. This is incompatible with some companies' business models. Not, however, with companies like IBM, Tivo and RedHat, which all make money thanks to GPLed software. ASPs and other sorts of businesses can also benefit from free software, not to mention the enormous number of companies who use software rather than writing it, and therefore have lots to gain from free, flexible software.
I cannot think of a single instance where a GPL'ed piece of software has had nearly the wide adoption of software licensed under BSD. Apache, sendmail, bind, etc. all use BSD style licenses.
On the flipside, there are a huge number of applications that simply don't exist in BSD-licensed form. And the gap between the two groups appears to be getting wider. While BSD-type licenses really shine in a few areas (Apache, Sendmail), if you need a free program to do something, chances are that you're going to find a GPLed version that's more mature than the BSD version. As much as I love the BSD OSes, it's hard not to notice that they rely increasingly on GPLed components. Perhaps this is due to simple religious fervor, or maybe the GPL has some advantages.
Pick your metric and run with it.
You haven't read the Bayh-Dole act, have you? It grants Federal research institutions the rights to license and patent the work they do. One of the other ongoing goals in this realm is to help make research institutions somewhat self-funding through licensing fees.
I work in a private (non-governmental) computer research facility, so I have some insight into the needs of researchers. While it's fun to imagine that we're all about writing new code from scratch every day, that's rarely the case. One of the biggest challenges of the job is not reinventing the wheel every time you need to solve a problem.
In this area, Open Source software is extremely useful. The code is available, it's free, and it's easy to modify. Ditto for tools. It's wonderful to be able to leverage these projects, and it's not unreasonable that the price should be some contribution back to the community. Naturally we don't give away our proprietary secrets, but it would really bum me out if some regulation came down preventing me from having any dealings with GPLed software at all.
The point here is that we all know what our job is, and that's to make money for the company. We also recognize, however, that this doesn't always involve writing software and licensing it. For one thing, you often can't make the case for a particular research project until you've created a market for it (think of the fax machine here-- what can you do with a single fax machine?) Open Sourcing a piece of software is useful because it can create the beginnings of a market while still giving you a leg up if you eventually want to sell your code as a proprietary product. Using the GPL is especially good, because it insures that you probably won't see your code made proprietary and distributed by your competitors. You can still go to them and say, hey, would you like to license our work for your proprietary products?
The key here is that the GPL is an useful tool here under certain circumstances. If that purpose doesn't suit the mission of the lab, then they won't use the GPL. But there's no good reason to prevent anyone from using it.
Finally, what if the government wants to use a piece of GPLed software. Should they be prevented from modifying it to suit their needs, if the alternative is buying expensive proprietary software? Note here that we're not even talking about research; this is essentially a question of fiscal responsibility. The public gains nothing if our hypothetical agency is forced to buy expensive proprietary software rather than making a few changes to a GPL project and saving a bundle.
Go here and search for "microsoft" to see why this bill is up. Also, the software industry as a whole has given almost $10,000,000 so far in this election cycle.
Oh yeah, and Microsoft is Smith's #1 contributor with $22,900, more than double the #2 contributor.
$22,900. Is that all it costs to buy a senator these days?
Man, you do have your priorities screwed up, you know that? Instead of paying attention to your lady friend who so graciously supplied you with a fine red, you are writing an answer to a Slashdot comment
:-) We were taking a break. She was napping, I was sitting a few feet away in a darkened loft surfing the web. No negligence was involved: play resumed a couple of hours later (not that it's anyone's business).
heh.
You see, you assume that if the private sector doesn't do it, somebody else will and will provide the code/information/etc. for free. That's not true
You assert that, perhaps as an axiomatic belief. Can you provide evidence to back that belief up?
If something is required or desired by someone (a person, a company, a group), and they cannot purchase it at any price (because, as you assert, no proprietary interest has marketed said product), they can and will most likely scratch that itch themself. That is, provided they have legal access to the source materials (code, data) needed, which is of course exactly what licenses such as the GPL insure.
Indeed, it is quite arguable that people are more likely to scratch an itch and create a product that no commerical venture would bother with (transcode anyone), than it is that the failure of a commercial interest to produce something will mean no one, anywhere, ever bothers to create a similar thing.
I don't know much about navigational charts, but I've dealt with topo maps. You *can* download the digital data for the topo maps from the government websites. It is free.
The same is true of aviation data.
It is, however, not true of NOAA navigational data and maps used by boats, because the government has granted a private concern exclusive rights to distribute the data.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
How can I possibly "destroy" the public work? It's still there, and everyone else has as much right to it as I do. Saying that I have control of the only functioning version simply isn't true: anyone who wants to use the original can still do so. The only thing I have control of is the version that has extensions in it that I produced, and why shouldn't I? It's my work that sets it aside from what everyone has anyway.
I'm in two minds about that one. I certainly don't agree with the broad range of legislation such as your DMCA and the similar European law that's going through the process at present. OTOH, I'm not sure why having software with proprietary standard file formats and such is a problem. If you don't like it, you're free to choose an alternative and not use my product.
The only time it becomes a problem is when you have no alternative to choose, and that's why there are monopoly-regulating laws in most western countries. The fact that yours patently don't work (pun most definitely not intended) is the problem, not the proprietary software.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to accept arguments that support the GPL, free software, open source or whatever other idea you choose based solely on the facts that (a) you/RMS/someone doesn't like Microsoft's abuse of its monopoly position, or (b) lots of people have worked effectively on some widely useful software such as Linux, Open Office, GNU tools, etc. by following these principles.
Again, I would point out that I haven't deprived you of anything except the extensions to what you have that I have written. Those are my work, and it is my right to deprive you of them. If you don't like it, you're free to extend it yourself instead.
Don't be so damned naive.
The GPL is a means for those who wish to develop collaboratively to do so, and it's a pretty good basis for that if that's what you want. If it is, I have no problem with that, you go right ahead. I have no sympathy for people who want to take GPL'd software and nick it to use it within their own proprietary code, because that is against the wishes of the people who put in the work to develop it.
However, if publicly-funded software were to be GPL'd rather than completely open (effectively with no licence), then you impose an artificial burden on me, which says that even if I put in the work to extend what everyone has, and make useful additions to it, I cannot benefit from that by selling my work. Never mind not being greedy, I am no longer able to make even an honest profit from a hard day's work. That is my own labour you're talking about, and you are the one who wants the free benefits from it, not me.
Please bear in mind also that, at some level, almost all software development is derivative. Unless you implement truly original ideas in assembler all the time, you will be building on the work of others who have gone before. If those others have an express wish that the fruits of their labour be used in particular ways, that is their right. If no-one in particular has any claim over the original -- as might reasonably be the case with publicly-funded work -- then no-one in particular should have their will imposed upon it.
See "machine epsilon". If I make any change, no matter how small, to code that is publicly available, then that is my work. If I wish to sell it to those it would benefit, I should be able to do so. They are not paying twice for it, for they could already have everything but my work without extra charge. Presumably they will only pay for my extras if the price is worth it to them. See "economics, basic" for reasons why I cannot charge an unfair price here and expect to remain in business for long.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
IMO the GPL is not a virus.
Viruses infect things.
If a piece of software is GPL'ed it means: that software and any other that uses code from it will be GPL'ed. Describing the GPL as viral gives an impression that is just not true. The GPL doesn't surreptitiously spread it self to other software. Someone has to make a conscious decision to used GPL'ed code.
As far as the role of the government...
Government funded reasearch should go into the public domain. GPLing software put it in the public domain, and makes sure it stays there.
You're statements about the GPL ruling out half the potential applications are simply FUD. You don't back them up in any sensible manner. If you understood the GPL you'd know that an organization can take GPL'ed code, modify it and use it internally, without ever releasing it.
Life is too short to proofread.