Slashdot Mirror
Sun's Schwartz Attacks GPL
jskelly writes "Sun Micro President Jonathan Schwartz
attacked the GPL at the Open Source Business Conference in San Francisco yesterday.Other than the same old arguments (you can't make it proprietary later)
he adds that it imposes on developing nations
"a rather predatory
obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world" -- but fails to mention that the converse is also true: the wealthiest nation in the world is similarly, under the GPL, forced to "disgorge all its IP back to the developing nations" as well. Duh!"
Just don't use GPL'd code and write it all yourself.
"he adds that it imposes on developing nations "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world""
I suppose he would prefer to see the developing nations disgorging their money back to the wealthiest nation in the world's private companies (via licensing costs), thus ensuring this status remains in effect.
Does anyone see some light at the end of the tunnel for Sun?
It seems to me that they are in several type of trouble with no idea of how to get straight again.
Just my 2 pen'eth Pete
Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Interesting. The world's hottest economy right now is China, which has a poor record when it comes to IP. Other emerging nations, such as India, Indonesia and Brazil also have poor IP records.
No, IP is not needed to pull nations up. It would be nice, but it's clearly not a requirement.
Quote I've talked to developing nations, representatives from academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate GPL software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to deliver their IP back into the world
Why do these supposedly smart people Balmer, Gates, Lyons, McBride, Schwartz, etc. of the world always sound so stupid when they attept to attack the GPL? They always make it sould like the GPL stipulation to give back your improvements as a nasty surprise at the bottom of the cracker jack box.
Could I not also say:
academia and manufacturing companies that had begun to incorporate propriety software into their products, then...found they had an obligation to pay royalities back to the companies that licences their IP
evil propriety software evil evil...
You know this guy understands the GPL. You just KNOW it. The problem is exactly as the submitter says, the GPL levels the playing field. That's Schwartz' real problem with it. It's the same thing that scares the bejesus out of most proprietary software vendors. Not that they'll ever come right out and just admit the real problem: but, your honor, it's devastating to my business model!
It always amazes me when they bitch and moan about the way things should be when commercial software manufacturers make up only a small fraction of the software development world. Most people developing software are doing so for internal I.T. departments for internal projects. They benefit the most from Open Source.
But vendors like Sun and Microsoft want us to remain in the dark ages suckling on their poisoned teat when the world can now ween itself of that sour milk and move on to the glory of free beer.
Oh, wait...I'm mixing metaphors...mmm, beer...what was I on about?
I realize I'll get a bit of hate on this, but the GPL license does scare away companies that rely on intellectual property (IP). My employer has stepped up it's free open source software awareness lately to avoid inadvertantly losing IP that it doesn't wish to give away under a GPL like license. The GPL has been labelled as a "viral license" in some company policies I've seen because it really does open everything up in most cases. The GPL does exactly what it should though in promoting free open source software and it's usage just needs to be carefully evaluated before using in a project where you wish to keep all/portions of code closed. The license itself shouldn't be attacked but education of it's requirements (which the FAQ does pretty well) must be understood if thinking of using GPL source.
In this case, SUN is seriously misquoting the GPL. Deliberately, I fear. Nothing in the GPL requires general publication -- giving away IP. The only thing required is that you give users source. If there are many users, it amounts to general publication. But a lot of code is _not_ general, but just for one firm. They get source (as they should, having paid for the work), but are very unlikely to publish it generally. The only thing the GPL really attacks is per-seat licencing. Co-incidentally, this is a big part of Sun's revenue stream.
One of the most important things people forget about the GPL is that Section 5 reads thusly:
... you can take, take, take and not have to give back anything. Sun, unfortunately, is not currently in a position where they can begin dictating the rules. If they want "Open" Solaris to be a successful open source OS then they're going to have to start playing by conventional open source rules. Sun is in no position to change the rules.
You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works.
Nobody is forcing Mr. Schwartz to make use of GPL software. We in the open source community like the GPL because it's fair. You want to use all that code out there, for free? Share and enjoy. But you have to play by our rules. You don't get to enjoy the benefits of the GPL without also taking on its responsibilities.
That's why Sun (and Microsoft) love the BSD license so much
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This from one of the biggest advocates for the non-immigrant guest worker programs !!!
His motto was "All your cheap labor belong to us". Not it's, "All your property belong to us".
What a clown.
Developing nations don't give a fuck about "intellectual property". Just look at the US when it was a young country.
We live in a world where truth is a stranger. Spin is king. "Seeing both sides of an issue" is dead, and "saying whatever will get people to do what you want" is running out of control, like Godzilla in Tokyo.
Hello, truth? Are you out there? Come back... we miss you.
I think Van Gogh should have stipulated that all his unsold paintings be burnt after his death. I mean, if he didn't profit from them, why the hell should he share them with an ungrateful world? Why on Earth would anybody do anything unless they stand to gain from it? You'd have to be a really stupid fucking schmuck to give anything to the world for free.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
A Developing Country like Brazil had two choices: - Buy proprietary software and do not get knowledge to develop its own technoligy later, thus always buy techonology or... - Get free open source software, develop its own techonology and be "forced" to return its enhancements to Developed countries. First choise make you a slave forever. Second makes you a partner.
They're not obliged to use GPL code.
They're not obliged to release the software if they do use it (e.g. for internal projects).
Since they can get it for free, the amount they receive is probably greater than the cost to them.
They have choice in the matter. As much choice as whether or not to use Solaris. And personally, I think a lot of developing nations are going to be alot happier about giving "IP" away to the richest nations in the world than giving money to the richest nations in the world.
Better example would be having to openly publish government funded research.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Economies and nations need intellectual property (IP) to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
I think Schwartz misunderstands. IP isn't used to pull you up. It is used to push others down. Although I can see how he could confuse one with the other.
When you are one of the ones being pushed down, the distinction becomes more obvious.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Of course GPL is not the only open source license... But all this is a metter of trust. I may use a BSD-licensed library to build my own proprietary app, but would you collaborate to a guy that used your costless software, and than asks you money for the part of the software it had developed? It's a two-way line. I help you, you help me. Partners, as I have mentioned.
Other than the same old arguments (you can't make it proprietary later)
This is incorrect. Of course you can make your GPL'd code proprietary if you decide to retain copyright ownership of your IP. You may and can release your code as GPL, and later release it as closed-source, proprietary work.
Of course, you can't license someone else's IP. That's a different ball of wax. Exactly like I can't license Michael Jackson's Thriller album to EMI.
GPL imposes on developing nations "a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their IP back to the wealthiest nation in the world"
Again, this is incorrect to the point where it's either a gross misquote, or complete lack of understanding of IP.
The GPL does not in any way coerce any non-GPL license into the GPL. There may be financial benefits to licensing a product under the GPL license. On the flip side, there may be financial benefits to not license a product under the GPL. There is absolutely no obligation, preditorially or otherwise, to license your own IP under the GPL. The only exception is if you've agreed to a contract which stipulates that you must release your work under the GPL - and clearly agreeing to such a contract implies that there is some advantage to you to do so.
So in a nutshell, this is not an issue. And the fact that no cases were described suggests that this is just can't happen.
The Free Market is all about people freely setting whatever price they want, and taking their chances on the outcome.
No-one is forced to use the GPL. Under the GPL, contributors voluntarily set the price of their contribution (at "free") and take their chance freely on somehow making a living. So what's the problem?
If Third-World nations, or individuals decide to take their chance, it's probably because they figure the alternatives don't work to their advantage. They may be right, they may be wrong, but it's really up to them to make the call.
Some you win, some you lose .... so why does Sun sing the blues?
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
"But Schwartz said that some people he's spoken to dislike it because it precludes them from using open-source software as a foundation for proprietary projects."
Thats the whole *POINT*. People who license their work under GPL specifically intend for this, and if they refuse to permit their work to be used in a proprietary work, they have every right to make the restriction. Its called share and share alike.
Why should any corp have a right to take someone else work, that they obtained for free, and use it in their proprietary for-profit product, against that persons will? You dont have that right for code developed by anyone else thats *NOT* open source, you (usually) dont even get to *see* the source, let alone even get to consider including it in your own project. GPL isnt taking anything away, its granting lots of rights that you wouldnt otherwise have, but its specifically *not* granting the right to use GPL'd code in a project, and then not give the same rights to others that the GPL gave you. Its 100% fair, which I suppose I can understand how software corps dont like that - they like it when they can have an unfair advantage.