Slashdot Mirror
Why I Love The GPL
Roblimo writes "'There are a lot of good reasons to like the GPL: the GNU Public License. For one thing, it's a David and Goliath kind of thing. It's the little guy standing up to the corporate behemoths that run rough-shod over our daily lives by virtue of their influence, legal and otherwise, on government. For another, it's virtuous.' These are the opening words to a NewsForge article praising the GPL by Joe Barr. Now and then we forget how much of the software we use and love is made possible by the General Public License. Thanks for reminding us, Joe. (NewsForge and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.)"
http://www.vasoftware.com/gateway/offshoreontrack. php
Exhibit B: Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft. The MIT license covering Kerberos provided no protection against that sort of thing.
In both cases, the guy manages to be a communist idiot and fail to notice that a) MS is not "selling" the protocol in question "back to the public" but selling a program that uses this protocol, b) you cannot "sell back" anything you haven't actually taken (it's a common communist misconception that if something is public property then everyone can have a share of it), and c) if MS had not embraced these protocols, he'd be screaming that MS has broken it by making their own version of it. And so on.
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
little guy standing up to the corporate behemoths
some points:
- why do all companies have to be evil.
- does GPL really protect against commerical companies taking the code over other open source licenses? in theory, it should. but many companies probably take GPL code and use it illegally, sometimes it's just hard to know (i know this isn't an argument against the GPL, just something that everyone should be aware of).
personally i like the BSD license, and don't mind if they take my code, heck they'll probably charge a bomb for a crappier product.
i'm not trolling against GPL here, just saying the other licenses should get more attention.
Marge, get me your address book, 4 beers, and my conversation hat.
But software in the public domain, and software covered by a BSD-style license, is not afforded any protection whatsoever to ensure those same freedoms exist for the next user, or the next, or the one after her.
Joe's article perpetuates the falsehood that non-GPLed software can, somehow, be taken away from the public and locked away.
Bullshit.
He even goes so far as to cite the cases of the BSD networking stack (used by M$ in current versions of Windows) and Kerberos, despite the fact that absolutely nobody has been harmed and despite the fact that both software suites are still freely available.
If M$ could lock Kerberos away from the rest of us, don't you think they would have? Instead, they're just sticking their own users with gratuoitous incompatibilities, while the rest of us can use the real thing.
This is even more true in the case of the Windows IP stack. All M$ did by "stealing" the BSD networking stack is keep the rest of us from having to work around their bugs. This is a win for everyone.
Any Open Source Definition-compliant license guarantees that the covered code will, always and forever, be freely available for all to use, modify, and redistribute. The GPL is not required to achieve this goal.
The only goal the GPL works toward beyond those of other OSD-compliant licenses is the perpetuation of the FSF utopia, which calls for nothing less than the destruction of the software industry as we know it. It claims to work toward freedom, while it actually works to deny freedom to those who do not share its goals.
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
It's simple: If you don't like the license, then don't use code from the program in your software. Most developers (on slashdot) who hate the GPL do so because the source code is available and technically they can do everything with it and yet the license restricts them. It's like bringing a cake near your mouth but not letting you have it. But instead if the GPL had made the software closed source, they wouldn't have complained. Developers are pissed because they can't use code developed by someone else in their own software and yet not give the freedoms to others which were given to them by the original developers. They're pissed because they can't have a free ride. If you say that you're using only one line of code from a GPL'ed software, then don't use it at all, code on your own. But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
GPL (and similar licenses) is the only license, which, when it says it protects the right, it actually protects the rights of the user. Really. BSD style licenses don't protect the user/people's right completely.
We would do well to remember that Microsoft used to be the 'little guy' standing up to the corporate behemoth of IBM and the like.
This'll probably get me flamed, but oh well.
The problem with the GPL mindset is that it looks at the world as if there are two different groups: big companies and "the people". The problem is that this model ignores, and in fact, discourages the small businesses that are already getting crushed by big business. Here's an example: Let's say I'm making a game, and I want to use some standard but rather complicated file format for my models. Now let's assume that there's a premade library that will allow me to easily support the format. Oh joy! Except it uses GPL. Now, I don't want to have to release my code, there's enough theft of ideas in indie gaming as it is. So, I can't really use the library. Neither can a big studio like EA games. Now, who gets hurt more? It's not a problem for EA; they just have one of their coders stay late(er) and the job is done. Or they can pay a third party. But a small developer is probably stretched as it is, and now has to spend even more time reinventing the wheel.
For my money, I like the LGPL. Freedom meets being able to do what you want to do. It doesn't mean being able to do whatever somebody else thinks you should be doing. Maybe someone will abuse the privilege. That's part of what it means to give someone freedom: Allowing them to do things you don't approve of.
Other licenses get TONS of attention. The Mozilla license, Sun's CDDL, IBM's Public License, BSD, Artistic, etc. People talk about those licenses ad nauseum and noone attacks those who choose them personally, but just MENTION the GPL and you are immediately inundated with accusations of being a communist and against America.
This is similar to be accused of
being unpatriotic if you just dare to
criticize the government.
Is there still democracy around,
or the seals are taking care of it?
Zed: Nothing is ever easy
I write shareware for the Mac in my spare time, and I'm asked occasionally why I don't GPL the thing and give it away. The reason why I refuse to do this is because I've invested a lot of my time and energy into this software and I want just compensation for my time. I do not feel that ESR's notion of "egoboo" would be a worthwhile payment for the sweat equity I've put into my software.
You can find free, open source applications out there that compete directly with my app, but they simply don't have the level of polish and dedication that you can see in the commercial variants (which includes, but is not limited to, mine).
iRooster, the Mac OS X a
But if that one line is important enough to be used, then the author has the right to restrict its usage.
On a few occasions at work, I needed some encryption and compression routines that I knew were available in some GPL-licensed libraries. I would have needed to make minor improvements over the existing GPL code for the routines to suite my purposes. However, I could not make use of this opportunity to use and improve the existing code. I think that it is ridiculous that 50 million lines of proprietary code that cost millions of dollars to write should suddenly become available to all just because a 200 line compression routine was used. I would have been more than happy to give back my improvements on the compression routines to the public. Instead, I had to purchase third party software and integrate that into our distribution. It is not the cost of the third party software that's the problem, but that each third party dependency destabilizes our software product and increases maintenance complexity.
alltogether quite a nice article. nothing most slashdotters didn't know yet, but still rather good.
but for some reason he had to put those nasty exagerations in there, and that's just again an example of partisan and ideological marketing!
the linux kernel is [...] the impossible notion that a bunch of kids on the Internet could create the most successful operating system in history come true.
it wasn't exactly kids and the term "most successful OS" might be swaying a BIT far from the truth!
Once again, it was piracy of public software. Stolen in order to increase Bill Gates' personal fortune. But it was legal theft.
come on, watch your language. don't throw the ridiculous piracy concept back at bill gates and what the hell is "legal theft" supposed to be? this language is no better than the whole "viral license" propaganda!
But Linux is immune to most of the kneecap-busting, air-supply cutting, baby-knifing techniques that Microsoft is so fond of.
i am no fan of microsoft, but i still find this rather harsh. if the article were meant to be journalistic, this would SO not qualify for an objective perspective!
well, all in all i totally agree with the author. but maybe he should cut back on the ideological and radical lingo!
jethr0
Not all companies are evil, but they revolve around a profit motive, aka the bottom line, which does not make their actions in your best interests most of the time. A great non-academic introduction to this is The Corporation.
The way I see it, a program controls what the user can and cannot do, it is in effect law. The "code is law" (lessig and others) and "computer programmers are the unacknowledged legislators of cyberspace" lead you to the statement:
Even if they aren't all evil, do you want corporations writing your laws for you?
And on the second count, the GPL might not be perfect (as patents escape the scope of "copyright") but it's the best thing we have right now for this purpose. The BSD licence you prefer does not protect this purpose at all, and that's ok. But if you value these things, then the GPL is your best bet.
I respect the BSD it's a good form of altruism and open source design philosophy is good re: engineering. But the GPL goes beyond open source or free binaries to get to *free software* which embodies the freedoms outlined in TFA, and it is in this that it's true strength lies.
And on Stallman, like or dislike, you have to admit the man is not only programmer, but has managed to put the work he does into the context of society and start a movement to make the world a better place. That's not something I will ever diss out. Shelly (the poet) once said: 'Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world', and by this he meant that the language which we use in the *everyday* is shaped by the poet and therefore what we are able to do with it is made possible by the poet [1]. I think Stallman has made the modern counterpart to this philosophy that it's in the *everyday* things we do that freedom resides. No need to turn people into saints and ignore their faults, but credit where credit is due I think.
I don't have anything against the BSD licence, but I do have something against a minority of BSD trolls who attempt to spread FUD about linux and how "it's for n00bs". FreeBSD for example is a great OS with parts better than many linux distros, but many linux distros also have far superior technologies than BSD. These points aren't at issue for a GPL-lover like me, because it is the *social* "technology" embedded in the legal document which is by far and away a more important thing.
Hope to see you on the GPL-side sometime.
[1] - And modern studies of the influence of people like chaucer or shakespeare on our modern language confirm this through and through. What we are able to say is shaped by them, further, and perhaps people might not agree here - what we are able to think. I suggest reading up on semiotics and wittgenstien for some trully mind blowing stuff.
I never hear the conversation cast in simple econominc terms, like buyer, seller, and market.
I think there is a licensing spectrum, whose effect is to increase market size and lower costs all around.
It's really all good. Put the religious fervor into your choice of house of worship.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Because they all do very evil things! Underpaid employees, exportation of jobs yet posting record profits, they clearly do not care about peoples lives, unfair end user liscenses, they lobby the government to leverage monopolistic advantages, they buy and sell each other then fire entire work forces just to get ownership of a property or to simply get rid of competition, they make nike sneakers for 3 dollars a month and sell them for $100 dollars in the US, they profit at all cost, even to the extent of ripping off our government during war time, they sell shitty food and call it happy meals, they sell even shittier food as trendy diet food such as "low carb" "low fat" which neither make them healthier foods but only trendy foods that are still as shitty as the happy meals, they all want slave labor at slave wages and some how think they deserve american price valued profits, they lie, cheat and steal...
Shall i go on?
Well I'm not going to flame you, but I do think you've missed some of the useful points of the GPL. For one thing, I believe that you actually can use existingly GPL'd code if you negotiate an alternative license with the copyright holder(s) of the code. Admittedly this may sometimes be difficult if there are lots of authors, but given the relatively low number of developers in many projects, I'm not sure if it would be that common. Depending on specifically what part of the code you're interested in, you may not have to contact everyone in a particular GPL'd project.
People tend to release under the GPL because they want to make their work available for use by others, but don't want others to make lots of money from it without giving back. The alternative is that the code may not be available at all.
When I've released some software under the GPL, I've effectively lifted some (but not all) copyright restrictions for anyone who wishes to use it. In doing so, though, I certainly haven't given up my right to choose to lift even more restrictions on my code for certain people. The GPL licence begins with the traditionally restrictive copyright system, and then lifts some restrictions that specifically allow the software to be distributed openly under certain conditions, still protected by copyright law on behalf of the author(s).
There's nowhere in the GPL, however, where it says that copyright holders can't choose to release their code under a different license to a different party if they so choose. Many authors of many projects do exactly this, and I think you'd find that many other authors would consider making their code available for closed source projects if they realised it could be useful and were paid suitable royalties.
My opinion is that the GPL is good because it encourages many people to release their code in situations where it might not otherwise have been made available at all. I don't see how that's a bad thing -- people who want it under closed source conditions can always ask for it and negotiate an alternative agreement. If the authors agree with your small business cause, they might even choose to give it to you for free.
In either case, nothing about the GPL itself. The GPL is not "dangerous".
If some clueless idiot puts his code under the GPL and then squawks when someone copies it, just ignore him.
If someone copies GPL'ed code into a commercial non-GPL product, it's no different from any other copyright violation. The GPL sets down the terms under which you may copy some code. Remember, by default you cannot do anything with someone's copyrighted code -- it doesn't matter if the source is visible to all. If you copy the code and are not complying with the terms of the GPL, you are guilty of copyright violation, since the only way are allowed to copy the code is if you comply with the terms.
If MorphOS is distributing a hacked version of a copylefted program "ixemul" and their modified version has not been released under the GPL -- source code available etc. -- they are in violation of the ixemul copyright. The copyright owner(s) should send them notice to either publish the full source code to their modified ixemul or "cease and desist" distributing it. (Under copyright law, only the copyright holder can enforce the copyright.)
(I don't know what MorphOS and ixemul are.)
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
There's the quote we all know about capitalism that says "it is not perfect, but it is the least flawed system we know". For open source software, this is exactly what a lot of people (myself included) think of the GPL. [ My apologies for paraphrasing and the lack of proper attribution ]
At the same time, a lot of people dislike or even hate the GPL. In my view, their opinions usually come down to the fact that there really is no general example of how to make a business of open source software development. To people who's primary concern is the business of software development, the wealth of GPL software is a false wealth, it's analogous to teasing a baby with candy that it can not have. This seems especially true for entrepreneurs, for whom the bootstrapping potential of open source systems is always a huge temptation. The reality is that when an software entrepreneur deals with the "money people", the ideals of free software go out the window pretty quick, because they have to justify their existense with some kind of asset, usually of the IP (intellectual property) variety. This pretty much eliminates the possibilty of using GPL software, because it prevents them from claiming the degree of ownership of the code they produce that investers demand. Paradoxicallly, the situation that some of the biggest current backers of open source software (especially GPL) are giants like IBM. They have loads of assets, and lawyers, and all the rest. Where it makes sense to them, and right now it does a lot, they are willing and able to play by the open soure rules.
I consider myself an open source advocate, but I can sympathize with the business issues, especially entrepreneurial ones. After all, the GPL is espcially good a protecting the rights of the little guy, which in the business world are the entrepreneurs. I think the world desparately requires a working, repeatable business model for (open source) software development--one that spans the whole corporate life cycle. I just don't see one today, and I don't see how to make the GPL business friendly without breaking it.
On the other hand, I only have limited sympathy for the software profession, and the defacto standard model for the software business. The truth is that the majority of what we produce is utter crap. In light of this, I think it is paramount that as a profession, we do everything possible to ensure that software gets better, and good software is as unhindered as possible in getting better and making it to end users. I know of no technology that I believe can achieve this better or even close to the open source process. The GPL is the center of mass for that process. So yes, the GPL isn't perfect, but for now, I say, tough. It is the best we have.
Yep. They have no soul, they have no conscience, no moral or ethical values, no sympathy, and no regrets. They're money machines which would kill people if it were in the best interest of their shareholders.
Yeah they take direction from groups of humans, but the mechanisms of the corporation can dispose of humans which get in the way of those shareholders.
For fuck's sake, it's not your routine! You don't get to say what is ridiculous about it! It's as meaningless as saying that it's ridiculous that your customers should all have to buy Microsoft Windows (or whatever OS your software runs on) to run your 50 million lines of code.
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
Fine. You may be thinking, "I can do that already with software that's in the public domain, or covered by other open source licenses, like the BSD-style license." You're right, you can. But software in the public domain, and software covered by a BSD-style license, is not afforded any protection whatsoever to ensure those same freedoms exist for the next user, or the next, or the one after her.
This is just plain wrong. Microsoft took from BSD software and brought us Windows. Then Apple took from BSD and brought us OSX. None of which prevents anyone from grabbing FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD or anything else derived from BSD code.
It doesn't seem to have done PostgreSQL any harm either.
On the other hand, I do see MySQL releasing itself under the GPL, but with an "all your contributed changes belong to us" condition that allows them to dual-license other peoples contributions and dodge the supposedly "bulletproof" protections of the GPL. Theres nothing stopping Microsoft from picking up a commercial license for MySQL and taking all the contributions that were made by the community into their closed-source products.
This isn't news, its a love-in.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
If you like the ego bost of having a company like Microsoft take your code, close it off to you and make big money charging you (among other people) for access to your own code under their onerous EULAs, -- and if that ego boost is way more important than having your code free and useful to the entire community that uses it (and able to come back to you), then the BSD license is for you.
This is so wrong and clueless that it's actually funny.
Look: I'm *glad* that Microsoft monopoly is coming to an end. Not because I hate Microsoft or Bill Gates (I happen not to be an envious person..) but simply because *monopoly is bad* for everybody. So, the sooner it ends, the better. And GPL, notwithstanding the communistic principles that are behind it, is surely helping that moment to come a bit sooner: good.
But, I'll list here all the nonsense contained in the ridiculous sentence (it's just one sentence!) I quoted.
1) Microsoft can't "take your code". They can *use* it, if they give you proper credits by distributing your BSD license along with *any* software that contains your code. They *must* do it.
2) Microsoft can't "close it off". Your code of course remains free (truly free, IMHO, since it's BSD-licensed). The only thing that they can close off is their own modifications (i.e. *their own* code).
3) Microsoft can't "charge you for access to your own code". They can charge you for their modified versions. And of course, the market laws apply: if their modifications aren't *worth* the price they're charging, nobody's gonna buy their crap.
Get a clue. Please.
--
Being able to read *other people's* source code is a nice thing, not a 'fundamental freedom'.
First off, companies are about people, it is colsed licenses that seperate companies from people. If I am in a business and I run Linux, I can share it everywhere, at home, at work, with friends, try doing that with a closed sorce product. The GPL unites business and people, and that is one reason why it has been so successfull in the marketplace.
Second off, right now, this very day - I can open a business and roll my own operating system for a few $1000 dollars of work. It can be a ksiok, it can be a platform that runs some special hardware, whatever - the point is that power enables 1000's of small businesses that would likely have had to spend millions otherwise - the GPL is anything but anti-business.
Third, I am allowing you to do things I don't aprove of - TO YOURSELF, but when you take code and information that was given to you freely by all of us, and then fence it off, and then start threatening my friends and neighbors with copyright lawsiuts - and then get angry because we now use a license that won't let you do what you "want to do" - well sorry. Tough shit.
Just because someone can make a closed source "DNS server that's exactly like bind but not" by using the BIND code, doesn't mean everyone loses bind, its still there for everyone to use just like always.
An interesting point. My (somewhat similar) philosophy regarding the BSD license is thus: if I write some code, maybe a networking protocol stack or something, and it sucks, no one will use it. If it's good, then people will want to use it. If it's good and it's BSD-style licensed, then corporations can use it freely, but if it's good and it's GPL'ed, then corporations can only use it if they open-source their project too.
So if I build a better networking stack than anyone else and GPL it, then only people using open-source can benefit - but only some of them! Even though Sun's new license, Apple's license, and the BSDs' licenses are all open-source licenses, they can't use my code. So it's not a win for open-source, it's only a win for GPL'ed open source. The GPL is, in this situation, self-serving, as it only helps itself.
If I build a better networking stack and BSD-style license it, then literally anyone can use it. If Linux wants to use it to make their networking better, than they can. If Apple wants to, or FreeBSD, or ReactOS or some other hobbyist whom no one has even heard of yet, they all can, and they can make better software because of it. Also, if a big company wants to use it in their software, like Windows, or HP-UX, or whatever, they can do that too. Some people say this is bad, but why? People use Windows, that's a fact, so if I can make Windows better, then isn't that a good thing? You don't need a reason to help people.
The GPL doesn't grant freedom to the users, it grants control to the author. They say that their code can only be used to help GPL'ed projects, they restrict you from using it in certain ways, and even restrict other open-source programmers from using it. That is too bad. The BSD license grants freedom to everyone, so if they want to make a closed-source OS or a proprietary router or a networkable baby-mulching machine, then they are free to do so, whatever I might think of it. Not that I support baby-mulching, but that is freedom, like it or not.
The LGPL is better in a lot of ways, in that they only really have to give source for their modifications to the code that you gave them, and I can agree with that. The problem is that the FSF bigwigs like Stallman see the LGPL as a necessary evil, and not an important compromise (balancing their need for control with the end users' need for freedom). It's not acceptable, it's just necessary.
Oh well. I prefer the BSD license because it gives freedom to users, and not control to programmers.
What are you talking about, I work with companies that make money using Linux all the time. And frankly, they don't want controll over Linux, I've never worked for a company in the opperating system business.
I don't care if you make money from GPL'd code - what I care about is that if I make a piece of code available to you freely - that you won't turn arround, fence off a slightly modified copy of it, and then start to sue my friends and neighbors who use it for "copyright" infringement. Maybe you think I'm a coward for not giving you that "right", well go to hell.
Fact of the matter is that that's really the way that capitalism was meant to work under Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (considered by many to be the godfather of modern capitalism. Under his view, big multinational corporations were (are) no different than big government -- both result in centralized decision making which warps local economies.
What the GPL does is it forces decision-making back down to the local levels and prevents a big company from controlling the entire market by force. This is actually far closer to real capitalism than either Microsoft's market-warping monopoly. And also far closer to closer to capitalism than it it is to Stalin's market-warping communism.
It's also far more intrinsically democratic than either.
So, the next time Gates & company starts screaming 'communist', respond
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
You're still free to fork the code and apply your own patches to the fork, which MySQL cannot touch and relicence, since your patches are GPL'ed.
Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
From a quick view of the products offered at www.infinadyne.com, it doesn't look like you have much competition from open source software.
There is still a large market for custom software, so independent programmers can make a good living coding one-off apps for their clients, and there is still a large market for niche products that Microsoft isn't going to fill, and Infinadyne can capitalize on that market quite nicely.
I don't really see how open source is a problem for you at all, even if viewed from a very selfish viewpoint instead of the appropriate perspective of what is best for the overall market. Is open source software taking any bread off your table? Can you offer a specific example, or are you just not happy with the concept that some programmers will write quality software and give it to people?
I did some programming in the distant past. In fact, ironic considering your example, I developed a large real estate program under contract. I was paid an hourly wage. The software never quite saw the commercial light of day. I don't program much any more, mostly because Windows came along and turned me into "just another Windoze luser". But I've been exclusively running Linux the last two years, and running my small electrical engineering business very effectively without Windows. I'd like to do some programming again, and I'd be very inclined to give back to the OSS community by contributing some code.
As an end user, I love open source software. Philosophically, I love the idea that the source code is available if I ever want to add features, even though I admit that's rarely done. But on a more practical side, open source software seems a lot better to me in almost every way.
When I want a piece of software, my package manager allows me to search for keywords and quickly locate interesting programs. I read a paragraph description of each. For common applications, there will be many choices and I'll click the best looking three of them and click install. With a cable modem, they usually download and install in a minute or two. No hassles with copy protection schemes, complex EULAs (that nobody reads), or lengthy registration processes. I run the software, evaluate it in a few minutes each, and remove the software I don't want.
Installation and removal are quick and easy. The package manager never asks me anything like the Windows question, "This application uses URscrewd.DLL, which may be shared by other applications. Remove?" How the hell should I know? Shouldn't the Windows uninstaller know that sort of thing? The Debian package manager does a perfect job at managing library dependencies. And of course, there is no registry to be corrupted, so I never suffer from Registry Rot or DLL Hell.
Now, for the biggy. I have been very shocked by the excellent support I receive when using open source software. Logically, I'd assume someone charging a lot of money for a $5 manual and a $1 CD in a shrink wrapped box could offer much better support than what is available with free (as in "free beer") software. But that has not been my experience. I haven't needed any more support on OSS software than I have with the expensive shrink wrapped closed source software, but when I did, the support was actually much better! Much of the support came from a community of users, often on an online forum, but sometimes the program's author provided expert support and seemed genuinely happy to do it.
Clearly, not everyone is motivated purely by money. I'm not sure why that frightens you or angers you, but it seems like a good thing to me. It isn't communism. It's actually quite nice. I hope you can enjoy it some day.
Using open source software just FEELS right, and it isn't because it's free. It's a cop-out to say this, but I don't think people will fully appreciate it until they've tried it.
Imagine, software that doesn't assume you're going to steal it if it doesn't write hidden files all over your hard drive and hassle you with registration keys. Imagine software with the primary goal of meeting the user's needs instead of generating recurring revenue through proprietary data formats and similar customer unfriendly tactics.
In what way does GPL code "devalue everything you do"?
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.