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!"
..i see your swartz is less open than mine..
Just don't use GPL'd code and write it all yourself.
Did anybody look at the headline for this and immediately think that Sun was being run by Dark Helmet?
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
"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
Of course his alternative is his own software, I just don't see what the problem is with GPL. All it does is make sure that if you want your code open, anyone else wants to use it has to keep theirs open as well. It encourages idea sharing, not some money making scheme for rising third world nations. If you want some interesting history of the GPL check this out http://www.free-soft.org/gpl_history/
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.
And we are working *hard* to drive ourselves into obscurity.
Sun has lead the field for so many years that they really believe the crap they publish in the trade press.
It is sad to see a technology giant succumbing to what could qualify as a form of corporate Parkinson's disease.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
A titan in the world of proprietary sales-only code does not like the idea of competition from useful programs being "purchased" for free.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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?
Wow, in one breath he talks about how GPL is bad because it doesn't allow you to keep your changes secret. He also talks about how he will not open source java for fear of forking. Then he says that companies like IBM who help Linux but don't open up all their products are "hypocrits".
Wow this guy really needs help from the cluestick.
Our Schwartz is bigger than the Sun's.
That they are actually pro-open source to save face for developers when in reality open source has virtually destroyed them (Linux).
Top 10 Reasons To Procrastinate
10.
The countries don't have any obligation, except to the extent that they're extending GPL code. Even then it's the developer that only needs to allow the IP that they're adding to GPL code that they then wilfully distribute to be contributed to the world at large.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
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.
Why would anyone take Sun's proclamations seriously? These guys have to make a good show for their shareholders.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I would say that the GPL, and free software help the poorer nations. No monies leaving their shores, and in turn, they put money back into the local economy.
Contrast that with Microsoft, raking in dollars from all over the world, back to their little stash in the North West US.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Why do we keep reading this stuff? Who thinks Sun is relevant anymore? In a couple of years, after they've managed to choke the life out of Java, what's left?
They decided to make their own lisence to release Java under, becuase this dude hates the GPL. And that's why it's non-GPL compliant like the MPL (Mozilla Public).
In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
He's quite probably right about the developing world.
The owner of the copyright is free to license it however they like. In particular they can do the standard dual-licensing trick that is done by people like sleepycat, with a GPLd version which is free as well as a more liberal one, which you pay for. Other people are not free to do this.
Most code will (initially, anyway) originate in the developed world. People in the developing world are poor, and will therefore very likely use it under the GPL, and therefore contribute changes back to the developed world (and to the developing world of course). Users in the developed world, who are generally richer, can avoid doing this by paying for a liberal version.
This would not happen with a BSD-style license, for instance.
You don't have to GPL apps you distribute, just because they run on a GPL'd OS, or interop with GPL'd apps. Opening one's source is an opportunity, not an obligation, to get communities of coders to use and improve your code. The GPL obligations are perfectly balanced with their benefits, even though some benefits are unencumbered by any obligations.
--
make install -not war
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.
This is yet another in a long line of non-economists saying stupid and ignorant things about development economics.
People in developing countries who use GPL have priced-in the potential costs of loss of their IP rights versus the potential savings from using GPL products or advantages to using GPL products.
Of course, in many developing countries, the concept of IP rights may not even exist...which can be part of the reason they are still "developing".
I find it really amusing that the QOTD at the bottom of screen was:
He missed an invaluable opportunity to hold his tongue. -- Andrew Lang
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!
as Open Source spreads. The classic battle that people think of is M$ versus Linux but Sun is WAY easier to replace.
Hell I just did it with 2 boxes here in the military establishment I work for. Sun is so schizo about Open Source. The love it one day and hate it the next....
It's typical of the wood-headed baby boom generationazis, who invented the myth of "IP" to begin with, to grandstand about their entitlements: We have the right to make up arbitrary rules and force you to live by them! Blah blah.
"IP" does not exist. It's not allowed by the US Constitution, and is bizarre in concept anyway: what, you own the part of my brain that knows your ideas? You cannot actually own something that only exists in people's heads, fella. Hand me a song and then we can talk.
The problem is, as usual, their feeling of entitlement to continue an outmoded business model as the world changes around them. It reminds me a little bit of the Sneeches, who ignored the rest of the world while it developed around them; bitching at each other was too important. (Yes, I know it's really about Palestine and Israel.) At some point soon, the world will be working with an entirely different business model, and these self-important ass-munches will still be whining about the "revenue streams" that they're entitled to.
"La la la C'mon people now, smile on your brother, everybody get together, got to love one another right now!" Fuck off and die, hippies.
I, for one, welcome our new Antichrist overlord.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd rather disgorge all our software to the the world than have my government digorging large sums of money from my taxes to pay Microsoft, IBM, Sun etc.
It is rather clear that most developing nations won't ever even the field in terms of production capacity - we will never have as many programmmers as well-trainned as the US, for instance. So Free Software makes all sense, as it allows us to divide the efforts among all interested parties. For poor nations the situation is even more dramatic, as they neither have the manpower nor the money to pay for the software.
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.
..is such as a disaster to developing countries, how come only the rich white guys in Redmond and SiValley are complaining about it?
What are they doing to help these countries, with their proprietary models? Import employees? Lots of good that'll do their economy. Outsource? Only means more profit (lower wages) flows back to the USofA.
"Use the Schwarz" is getting a whole new meaning. Seriously, go ask the folks in Brazil and Chile where they can stick it.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
On the other hand, would you rather see this developing country with low budget try spending money to buy enough tech infrastructure to start to compete with the big guys? How does sucking that much money out of a developing country help them?
If anything, GPL levels out the baseline for developing countries saying
than those same developing nations having to disgorge all their cash to the US to buy software from Microsoft and Sun.
Do you have ESP?
Weren't they arguing that Java would be the great equalizer of the classes back in the mid 90s?
This is just more of the same. They're using BS arguments to pretend that they care about the less fortunate, while obviously advancing their own interests.
Do they honestly believe that anyone falls for this?
Over time the GPL (not LGPL) has the effect of infecting all softare with the GPL due to improper mixing of software components. This puts all infected software in the the same 'community', intended or not.
Soo... um, does this mean that we hate Sun this week? Or just that Schwartz is this week's McBride?
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.
That's the primary intent of the GPL. That's like complaining that water gets you wet. The intent of the GPL is that companies like SUN can't take my code, make minor changes, and claim proprietary ownership of the result (by only distributing the object code, and deckarubg the source code a trade secret)
Sun's CDL contains some wilfull holes that might allow SUN to later shut down others' uses of the code that they release. That's something that (AFAIK) the have declined to fix so far.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
here's a BBC story supporting this. Alhtough it has to do with medical drugs as opposed to other types. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/437467 5.stm
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Licenses don't kill people; failure to read them kills people.
You'd think it was fscking rocket science to expect the manager of a software project to understand the various licenses of the software he/she was using.
Bunch of bloody commies
against it?:-). Even smart people may sound dumb when they are trying to make dumb arguments.
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.
The GPL does not "force" anyone to "disgorge all its IP" .. to anyone.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
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
Sun's president say that the pour countrie would be obligated to return they Intelectual Propriety(IP) to rich countries with GPL, but does he know a way pour countries can buy the necessary startup IP to later develop its own? Remember: if it's a pour contry it lacks money for food, for education, for health. Technology is luxury.
In other words, they want to take the free code and not give anything back.
Why is the GPL so confusing to people?
Hardware companies should be falling over themselves to adopt free software. Software sells hardware. Sun has a reputation for making good, if overpriced, hardware. Rather than figuring out a way to make a cheap SMP SPARC running Linux and make their money selling Linux support, they've decided to bash Linux, keep their prices high, and make money selling support -- of Solaris.
This is so much like the IBM OS/2 debacle that it's hard not to see Sun becoming totally irrelevant.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Without any obligation to give anything back. Yep, and you're all damned communists for not wanting to support a free ride for Sun.
His crying for the third-world is doubly laughable hogwash since it ignores completely that the GPL works in two directions and in the same way for each. Then it ignores that it is the insanely expensive nature of western software that makes much of our vaunted technology inaccessible to them to begin with.
Finally, as we've done at my company, if you really want to use GPLed code why don't you try purchasing a different license from its developer. They might not be interested, of course, or it might not be possible due to multiple copyright owners, but a number of interesting open source projects do dual-license. It's a nice arrangement: developer gets a nice wad of cash and continues to own their code and work on it and the company gets its product done faster and consequently they get to the market faster.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
How about this cluestick.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
Meet Joe Black !
.... but are they *really* in a position to be critical of anyone else? I kind of view them as an old empire, or a crumbling castle slowly sinking into the ground.
It's still not too late for them to get with the program. Superior hardware and OS? Maybe, but due to marketing, business model, shifted tech sector needs or whatever you want to call it.... It's almost a weekly occurence where I'm hearing about a couple of $400 Debian boxes replacing tens of thousands of dollars of old Sun hardware, not the other way around...
do() || do_not();
All your IP are belong to us. Couldn't help it...
So company A has 20 years of IP, AND all the GPL'd code they care to use, while company B has no IP at all.
What has the GPL got to do with this? The problem is that Company B has no IP.
Of course, Company B can use GPL'd or BSD'd or whatever code in their products. Would they be better off if they couldn't?
Oh fuck it. This post was going to be longer but I can't even work out what you're trying to say.
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.
So...
Subtract GPL, and you then have?
Company A has 20 years of IP
Company B has nothing at all.
B either has to build from scratch(much more expensive than reusing GPL), or buy/license from A(quite pricey, too)
How would adding the GPL to this situation make it worse?
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Why do these guys bother?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
GPL allows one to keep everything private one does for self/company/corporation. It's spelled out in the license. You need only release any source you have done IF you publically release the binary. We use lots of heavily modified GPL in house, but of course we could never give out our hard work for free, to anyone. It would be corporate suicide if we did that. I know we aren't the only large software company doing that. We don't, of course, ever use source code in publically released software, but we do when for nearly all private, multi-$000 sales.
I used to work at Sun(search for rburns-that's me). Sun management _could_ have listened to the folks at Sun that were telling them Open Source would be the wave of the future. They chose not to-and instead in violation of their own principles went whining to politicians to get various kinds of corporate welfare-that was supposed to help their company and create jobs for Americans-and didn't.
So why should we listen to these guys at all?
I'm not sure I understand how this qualifies as a disadvantage for a developing country. Company A also has 20 years of cruft. Company A's motivation to rid itself of this cruft is based purely on economic considerations, which, roughly translated, means that it probably won't happen unless there's a damn good reason. Open source, however, since it is very dynamic, is less susceptible to this problem. This makes open source clearly superior in some ways.
You're assuming - incorrectly, I might add - that these countries need to comply with U.S. IP laws. Both India and China, two of the fastest-growing economies in the world, have decided to selectively ignore U.S. IP law and produce home versions of products in direct contradiction to U.S. law (generic drugs are a good example).
And really, what the fuck is the U.S. going to do about it? Invade China or India? Now *that's* a fucking laugh. America can't even summon up the balls to embargo either nation for past indiscretions, much less make a credible threat against any country stronger than "bend me over please" Iraq.
There's no disadvantage when you're in a position to tell the U.S. to fuck off and mind their own business, which both countries have done on numerous occasions.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Hey no one has really dug into this to understand why he's really saying this. Sun is working with the president of brazil (see his blog entry to him) to get opensource software (esp Solaris) as the foundation for the country.
So why is he bashing GPL? Pretty simple. With Sun's new CDDL license you DON'T have to opensource products which use that code. This means Brazil could make its own closed version of Solaris and sell it.
Its not clear that they would ever want to do this, but he is not saying this just to stir slashdot up, he is positioning his license for medium developed countries like Brazil. He is not talking third world here.
Mod parent up. The GPL was written specifically to prevent people from cashing in on the work of other people, not to force anyone to give up their own work.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
Second, AIDS and other drugs would be much cheaper and more easily available for the dying in Africa.
AIDS is a drug?
What you said has nothing to do with my comment specifically
"Company A also has 20 years of cruft. Company A's motivation to rid itself of this cruft is based purely on economic considerations"
None of that relates. How is it "cruft" instead if useful IP? Is IBM's IP cruft? Of course not. The rest is just as silly.
If you're going to make incorrect, blanket, ridiculous unsupported assumptions, then don't bother with what I said, and just make your own shit up.
AIDS is a drug?
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
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.
Really I do...
But DAMMMIT!!! They have got to start keeping these people on mahogany row quiet.
That seems to be Sun's biggest problem at the moment. Allowing these people to just shoot from the hip in public.
It really turns a lot of people in the open source community away from what is actually a very open source friendly vendor.
I agree. Also I think the counter argument presented in the submission says that it forces the wealthiest to disclose their IP also, is not a good one, because the wealthiest by definition have all the money they want so they will not use GPLed tools or platforms and just buy proprietary software or develop their own software under thier own proprietary license.
- Stop distributing the (GPL-derived) code
- Pay $X for any distribution done
I realize that in some cases this could be very expensive, but 'losing IP' ? That can't happen. Period.My life is an open book ... up to a point.
"You are also ignoring BSD licensed code, which is a major omission"
When I said other options, that's what I meant. As far as major omission, that's just ridiculous. BSD is a marginalized niche OS, nothing more.
On his blog (http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan) at the April 1 entry he wrote:
...is that it's very difficult to write a good April Fools blog without feeling the need for serious engagement from the corporate legal team.
{Quote}
The Downside of Being an Officer of a Public Corporation
And much though I love Sun's lawyers, creative cooperation doesn't seem in keeping with either April Fools day, or our collective fiduciary obligations.
But it's not for a lack of creative ideas. You'll have to trust me on that...
{End Quote}
You'll notice this line:
"And much though I love Sun's lawyers, creative cooperation doesn't seem in keeping with either April Fools day, or our collective fiduciary obligations."
And then your take out the April Fools day bit, you get:
"And much though I love Sun's lawyers, creative cooperation doesn't seem in keeping with our collective fiduciary obligations."
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is Jonathan Schwartz stating that creative cooperation is bad for Sun's investors.
And what is the FOSS movement except creative cooperation? I say JS is full of caca and needs to quit his cushy job, move to the hills, write some wicked software and release it under the GPL before he talks about the GPL again.
"Piter, too, is dead."
If you cannot reap the fruits of your innovation, why bother to innovate? Where's the stimulus?
Yeah, because everybody knows we wouldn't have the internet without proprietary software IP. Oh, wait, the internet was built on open sourced protocols and open sourced software. Okay, bad example.
Why is it when someone says something that is true, it is an "attack"?
Because they say it as if it's a bad thing. The "bad" part of it makes it an "attack".
It's just that the response to this particular attack is "Well, of course it's true! That's the whole point! It's not a bad thing, it's the intended design of the thing! We like it that way!" and so on...
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Not to be a flamewar, but it would be easier to stop destroing the rainforest if USA and Europe stop to buy wood cutted ilegally. And Colombia would stop producing drugs if US citizens stop consuming it. As I said at another post, the rainforest is ANOTHER issue to a developing country, and the cost to buy proprietary software is unacceptable. GPL'd software is a bless: gives us technology, knowledge and the chance to be at the heads of computer development.
I'm glad the GPL exists. It was a great start. The the FSF legal staff are great folks. However, when I write code, I'd rather not give a free ride to companies that don't want to release their own code. In a practical sense that means offering the companies option to buy a regular commercial license if you release under the RPL because the RPL is so dang viral it will scare their attorneys.
That said, we probably need to think of some different ways of rewarded inventors internationally than intellectual property. Very little of the wealth of IP filters down to inventors/artists. Most of that wealth gets locked down into large, corporate structures.
I think that Open Source can help greatly with international economic development. That may mean giving some countries a free ride on IP to start-but that might help correct some of the excesses of the colonial era. What needs to be the overriding goals are creating a sustaineable world that works for everyone- and opening new frontiers.
RIP Slashdot. I used to love you. dead account - but slashdot wont let me delete it.
I don't quite see why folks are getting aerated about this. Again...
If you don't like the GPL then you can just choose not to use it.
It's like people complaining about the quality of programs on the telly - don't they know that televisions have off switches?
I've noticed over the past year and more, that Sun is always taking an on again, off again, stance with Open Source and the GPL. They can't seem to make up their mind, but I believe it's simply that they want to get their name in the headlines - free advertising!
Your argument about the GPL flies in the face of logic. You argue that the GPL stops companies from locking the code up. Hello!!. This is a good thing. It prevents your company from stealing code and calling it your own. Why do you want to steal code from us ? Your HUGE billion dollar company should be ashamed of yourselves for wanting to take others hard work and calling it your own. Imagine. I create some code, you take it and include it in your products then sue me for accessing the said product with my code in it. You call this fair?. Everytime you open your mouth your credibilty drops even further. This is a practice that must stop. You cannot take other's work and put it in your products then ban them from accessing the code they created. This is moronic and I would expect better from you people at Sun. Your arguement that the GPL forces developing nations to contribute all their work to the USA. This scare tactic will not work. Developing nations are not naive and they can see right through this stupid arguement. What have you contributed to developing countries may I ask? You and Microsoft have done nothing but rip off these developing nations time and time again with your proprietary licences. This has forced them to discover GPL software and they are waking up to the hijack and lock-in tactics that You and Microsoft practice. You and Microsoft will jump through hoops to prevent products from developing nations to enter the US market. The GPL facilitates a fair playing field for all involved. What you are doing here is advocating that big comanies should be able to steal code then lock it up in such a way that if I access such code freely you have the right to send the BSA gestapo to kick down the door of my business at gunpoint and demand licences. I hope all companies that use proprietary license and fake opensource licenses are aware that they give you and Microsoft and the BSA gestapo free reign to their premisis every time they license their rights away with your proprietarty licences. Companies that use exclusivly GPL softare can avoid this scenario.
And proprietary software imposes on developing nations a rather predatory obligation to disgorge all their money back to the wealthiest nation in the world. Only this disgorging goes only one way. Incidentally, that would be the way towards where Sun is.
Honestly, when was the last time they even made major improvements in the usability of their UNIX? You'd think one of the big commercial vendors would at LEAST look at the various Linux packaging systems and say "Yanno, our package management SUCKS compared to that. Lets fix it!" Oh sure they're getting gnome working on their system and acting like they invented it, but gnome looks like shit on every Sun machine I've ever seen it running on, and they're running a version that seems to be from about 3 years ago.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Elmer FUD
Sometimes I wonder if Mr. Schwartz is related to our friend Daryl. He seems to have the same foot-in-mouth gene.
I bet the GPL's Schwartz is longer then Sun's.
(Rushed attempt at a Spaceballs joke)
Exactly. It's only when you try to productize a GPL based application that the whining should begin. For something like gcc most companies are happy to have a free compiler that gets bugfixes frequently. For a company that needs some embedded kernel and chooses Linux, well they will end up giving up a lot of their changes to the kernel. But most businesses are fine with this because it's a great way to bootstrap a project.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I don't understand, the grandparent is stating that they obviously *are* cashing in on the work of others, isn't he?
but we do when for nearly all private, multi-$000 sales.
Then you are violating the GPL. You can't sell it without distributing it, unless you have them using it on your servers somehow and never sent them any binaries. (i.e. the whole dot-bomb application service provider business model)
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
They're spreading FUD that they may or may not believe. Assuming they're particularly calculating and know it's FUD, then they don't care if they sound stupid to you - they had no chance of convincnig you the GPL is bad anyway. But if it doesn't sound stupid to someone on the proverbial GPL fence, then it's effective FUD indeed.
The point of FUD isn't to convince your enemies, it's to defeat them.
The GPL doesn't say you can't cash in, it only says you must give the same rights to the people you sell the work to as you have yourself.
This does make it more difficult to cash in using the traditional business models though.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
This breaks down very simply, when dealing with "developing countries" as a paradigm:
If you were in a developing country, would you rather license something or learn something? In this case, license the IP from a proprietary (United States-centric) company, or use Free Software, under a license that encourages sharing, which increases your skills and marketability in the industrialized world.
Using Free Software and Open Source software encourages you to find solutions to common problems, work with a broad community of users and developers from dozens of other countries and language barriers, and in general encourages you to improve technology for everyone's sake, not for your own wallet's sake.
Would you rather learn how to install software? Or learn how to write software?
So you'll be dropping GNOME from JDS and Solaris then? Oh, and all the rest of the GPL software you use too. You don't want to be a hypocrite now, do you Johnny?
Zack
I have heard somewhere that if you release a program under GPL, that you still have the ability to release it under other licenses.
Example, I write a Terminal (non gui cuz I like it that way) program to manage personal finances (like quicken only non-guy fast). I release same under GPL. I can still sell a version to $company$ that is under a proprietary license. It would be a proprietary fork of my checkbook program. I could continue to develop mine under GPL, they could contine to develop theirs under their own license.
I know we aren't the only large software company doing that. We don't, of course, ever use source code in publically released software, but we do when for nearly all private, multi-$000 sales.
A "private sale" is a distribution under copyright law. You must either license the software to the recipient under the GPL and give them source code, or obtain permission from the original copyright holders to distribute their software outside the GPL.
You can't give modified versions of someone elses copyrighted work to anyone without license; even in a so called "private sale".
The GPL only allows distribution when you transfer full license (and source code of binaries) to the recipient.
I am not allowed to "privately sell" copies of the latest Star Wars movie without permission from the copyright holder. The fact that Star Wars is not GPLed makes no difference. Because when you do something outside the GPL, you are doing it as if there was no GPL.
BTW: How is a private sale more private than a normal sale?
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
If you don't like a license, don't use the software. It's as simple as that.
I don't like Sun's licenses on Java, which is why I don't use their software. It's a simple as that.
And if you value the future of open source software and programming freedom, I recommend you don't use Sun Java either--Sun is dangerous because not only are their licenses proprietary, they are also trying to trick people into thinking that they are open.
That's what he's all about. "GPL is bad for poor countries.." (Smoke and mirrors) What he really means is "GPL is bad for big corporations because we can't control the source and make everyone pay through the nose until they bleed..."
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Ah, nothing like an intelligent, well-reasoned response.
Consider the *implementation* of IP (if you can).
This outburst, from Swartz, is just as irrevant and clueless. It simply demonstrates that he is completely out of touch, and should make Wall Street even more concerned with the future of SUN.
I am very sad that a once great company, once one of the most innovative and generous in the computing industry, who figured out how to compete strongly with both DEC and IBM should be brought low by a bunch of MarketDroids and MonkeyBoys, with MBAs, who cannot figure out that their customers will remember FUD and betrayal.
It is just not true that all CIOs are PHBs, and even those who are, quickly get the message when their corporate e-mail system goes down or their web site is hacked.
The vital lesson here is simply that a complete software suite, including development tools is simply too expensive for a single company to develop, and support, the overhead is just too great!
Finally, when, not if, the desktop falls, and with the EU which will prevail the disclosure of the M$ secret formats is immanent, SUN is positioning itself to be irrelevant; they have been taking lessons from Balmer.
SUN is, however, nowhere as wealthy.
First choise make you a slave forever. Second makes you a partner.
But neither makes you wealthier, which was the point Mr. Schwartz was trying to make across.
3.243F6A8885A308D313
From his post, he is distributing the source... but only to those clients/customers that are buying it, not to the general public.
It was my impression that you could sell modified GPL made binaries to customers (with the source) without distributing the source or binary to the general public, or even contributing your modified source back to the original GPL'ed project that you started your project from.
So, from how I understand it, I don;t think that he is violating the GPL.
I have become convinced, over the years, that in our rush to embrace various forms of the open-source model, we have not given due consideration to another potentially useful model, in which the use of a piece of software would be free if that use were non-commercial -- by individuals, nonprofit organizations (including almost all educational institutions), or for evaluation and prototyping purposes by for-profit entities -- but actual commercial deployment would require payment of a license fee.
I've posted this in another forum and didn't receive a very enthusiastic response, so I'm not expecting one here either. But I ask you to set aside your preconceptions for a moment and listen to what I have to say.
There is a downside to releasing your software on an open-source basis. And it's very clear: businesses would, in many cases, be willing to pay something to use it, since they're making money by doing so. You are leaving money on the table -- money that could be used to support your project.
In contrast, with a non-commercial use ("NCU") model, you would still make your software available, with source, to lots of users who probably wouldn't have been willing to pay for it and who you would like to see using it, but those who use it to make money would have to pay you some. Doesn't that seem like a sensible arrangement?
A downside to the NCU model, which I'm sure many of you are eager to point out, is that it complicates the process of getting other developers to contribute to your project. For relatively minor contributions it should be possible to get them to simply release their code to you -- they are, after all, compensated by the increased functionality they enjoy. But for more important contributors, it will normally be necessary to give them a piece of the action -- to negotiate terms under which they will receive some portion of the license fees you collect. That's extra effort, but may well be worthwhile.
I'm not suggesting that the NCU model is appropriate for all projects or that it should supplant the open-source model. I would, however, like to see it more widely used than it is now -- and better supported, with readily available model licenses, and wider recognition as a viable approach, one that fits somewhere between open-source and shareware on the spectrum of possibilities.
Whether the NCU model would solve Sun's problem I don't know (see, this post wasn't entirely off topic :). But I think that wider use of it would benefit the cottage software industry considerably.
Your god may be dead, but mine aren't!
"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."
The point is that this is very specifically not the case. Because the developed nations developed largely without the benefit/hurdle of GPL, those wealthy nations/corporations have the choice of disgorging their IP or not. He "fails to mention" the converse obligation because it's not generally true. You/I might think this is a mistake and wish it were different, but much of the IP created by wealthy nations is proprietary.
-Scot
101010, 222, 52,
So basically your saying I can take any GPL code I want, modify it, sell it to whoever I want, but then say "its a private sale" and never re-release any GPL code. That makes zero sense to me. By it leaving the company in anyway its being distributed and therefore has to be available. The whole "oh but is a private sale" thing doesn't wash.
Perhaps I'm just wrong here but if I am I hope someone could explain why. Isn't that why we get on the cases of companies that sell GPL products but never release the changes to the public?
If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
No. The original targets of the GPL were the folks who took the public work of others on Unix, Spice and the like, and made and sold proprietary binary versions. Using those programs, even modified, for your own use has always been OK. That's not cashing in, thats what the programs were written for.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
I don't quite see why your overwhelming interest is in providing them with a govenment building?
Well played ;)
Selling software is not the only way to make money with software. The company, I currently, work for uses a piece of software that does conversions on data and the data is sold. The software never leaves the building. We could include GPL code in this piece of software and not have to release the source code. There are plenty of internal company applications that never leave the corporation, that could make use of GPL libraries without fear of having to releasing their code.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
Actually, Wall Street cares about profits. Given that Sun is trading at $4 per share right now, and given that it was trading at $30 in January of 2001, I'd say the Street doesn't have faith in Sun's ability to create future profits.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
from what i understand this is how it works.
whoever receives a binary licesened under the GPL (and derivative works are still under the GPL) has the right to request/receive the source code.
then that receiver (who could have paid or not paid or whatever) has the right to redistribute that copy but are not 'obligated' to.
basically the company would only be obligated to give the source out to people it gave the binary out to (and possibly anyone who just managed to get their hands on the binary, including theft [accepting cases where it was in-house only and never sold and thus considered a trade secret]).
the only thing is i don't see how that's a viable buisness practice because ONE buyer could just release their version for free. i suppose the only way i see that as a viable buisness practice is selling a) support and b) new versions (and thus not caring if people give out your software and figuring that they'll just buy it anyway to support you)
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 -
Sure, but then you are more akin to the application service provider I mentioned.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If that is indeed what is happening, then everything is peachy. It really doesn't sound like that is what is happening though.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
actually, if Van Gogh had considered this as an option, i think he might have wanted this .. especially considering his lifelong depression, rejection, and hallucinogenic influences - it does remind me of a lot of GPL code i've seen out there .. there's some beauty in there somewhere, but a lot of mess :)
You'd have to be a really stupid fucking schmuck to give anything to the world for free.
wow .. biting some of the hand that feeds you - sun has given *a lot* away for free, often without even looking for acknowledgement - but i guess that must be easy to forget (look at some of the more successful ideas in your kernel, and trace to see where those are coming from .. often it points back to sun) ..
i for one appreciate the non-bandwagon approach that sun seems to be taking toward the GPL and the opensource debates .. but gaging from the comments, the majority here fails to see it that way .. sorry, but to me the GPL just isn't that holy .. the CDDL suffers in some ways, but I also understand the comfort level they're attempting to draw for many 3rd party vendors who have a problem contributing to the GPL .. and rather than taking a draconian point of view (submit or die), there's a fair amount of leadership being shown here in developing a more gentle negotiative point of view
If you read Mr Schwartz' weblog entry from Monday he goes into more detail about this (I'm sorry I didn't find that earlier, to also link it in my submission). In his blog, he calls the GPL a form of "IP colonialism" -- that sounds a lot more like an attack than a benign observation.
Weirdly, the CDDL that Schwartz (in the ZDNet article as well as the blog) says he prefers over GPL endorses the
requirement that source of modifications be made available. It seems to differ mainly in someone else's ability to later
"distribute executables under a different license." So, oddly, it seems that the CDDL he advocates would also force the poor, unwashed "developing nations" to "disgorge the source code of their IP" back to "the community" where someone else (like Sun) could incorporate those, and release the application as a binary under a different (closed) license.
Maybe he is dreaming of the olden days, when Sun incorporated Berkeley BSD code in SunOS and closed it up. But if so, what's wrong with the BSD license? Oh -- right -- that license wouldn't require anyone to disgorge the source of their modifications.
Finally, I'm not sure what you didn't like about my counterexample. If "the wealthiest nations" hadn't already put a lot of code under GPL then "the developing nations" wouldn't be facing this so-called problem. In other words, they are already "benefiting" from GPL code before they start "suffering" from having to follow the GPL
The right of first sale means that you can sell your copy of Star Wars to someone else. But you can't keep a copy for yourself. If you made backups then then they have to be pitched. There is a well known flake on the Yahoo! boards who thinks this is a blank check to violate the GPL. He seems to google for mentions of his name so he has also become known as He Who Mustn't Be Named. Read the Yahoo! SCOXE board for awhile. You'll find out who I mean.
Urgh! Sorry, the URL for Mr Schwartz's blog should be4 .
http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/2005040
Note the difference betweeen ignroing patents from OTHER nations and not caring about IP. Obviously the US cared about IP. Their own IP.
Wrong. It's pretty well known that Hollywood became the movie-making center of the US because movie makers didn't want to pay patent fees to Edison - their solution was to move as far away as possible (Edison was in NY) to avoid prosecution.
The ZDNet article headline reads "Sun criticizes popular open-source license". Calling the GNU General Public License an "open-source" license is ahistorical and gives credit to the wrong movement, hiding the name of the real author of the license and the name of the movement for which the license was written.
By calling the GPL an "open source" license, the open source movement is allowed to grab credit for a trivial bit of work: constructing a set of rules which allow the GPL to be given the Open Source Initiative's imprimateur. This is nothing compared to writing the GPL and starting the free software movement.
The GPL was written many years before the OSI started. Nobody who would form the OSI wrote the GPL. The GPL was written by the FSF (most notably, RMS, who gets far too little credit for his work here on Slashdot). The OSI has dismissed software freedom for a message which does not preserve user's software freedoms (for instance, the open source definition does not guarantee a user's privacy--the OSI approved the early revisions of the Apple Public Source License which required publication and notification of a central authority upon changing APSL-covered software in most instances. The FSF did not give its imprimateur to the APSL v1.x revisions, holding out until Apple changed the license in what would become the v2.x revisions.).
Let's give credit where credit is due. I think just as RMS tells us (repeatedly) that GCC is a free software program, not an open source program because it misstates the authorship and reason why the program was written (RMS was the initial author of GCC which he wrote to provide software freedom for GNU), we ought to give the author and intentions of the GPL proper mention by calling it a free software license. That cannot be done by calling it an open source license.
Digital Citizen
Is brazil really developing? I thought it was pretty developed already?.
Oh, quick question if anyone can answer it I would be very appreciative (massivly off topic). My girlfiend and I are taking our first holiday in about 5 years at the end of this year and would like to spend it in central/south america doing volunteer work. Does anyone know (preferrably someone in the area) of a good place to start hunting to track down contacts. It's a two month period, so only a short stay, but we would like to do as much as we can while we're there.
The right of first sale means that you can sell your copy of Star Wars to someone else.
Agreed. When I said 'copies', what I meant was, new copies made without permission of the copyright holders. i.e. unauthorized copies.
However, I believe there is even a limitation to that. I don't believe I can buy 10000 legit copies of Star Wars in bulk, as a single sale, and but then resell them individually to many different consumers. I think that would be considered a "distribution" which requires authorization. I am speculating here, but I think in order to rely on the right of first sale, and avoid copyright, I may need to resell the whole lot of 10000 copies together as a single unit.
No one has a right to their *own* opinion. They have a right to the TRUTH.
Or Basmati Rice... friggin' pirates...
I think we're on chapter 3-4 of a pretty interesting book that could be written about the history of the FOSS movement, in maybe 6 years' time. In fact, I'm ready to put down a deposit for my copy!
... :-)))))
... but I'm sure they could work at that over the next few years. ;-)
And I know exactly the three people who would probably be the most appropriate for writing it
The only problem is, they'd have to become somewhat closer buddies than at present
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Yes but then your customers can give it to whom ever they choose for free.
If you're caught misusing the GPL, your only remedy is to release the source to your product which beheads your ability to profit based on sales.
Actually, I believe an alternative is to remove the gpl'ed code and replace it with your own. There is of course the possiblity that the gpl'ed code is too important to just "remove". In this case there is another alternative: contact the authors of the gpl'ed code and ask them to license it to you under a different license. If you can get all of the authors to do this, then it is perfectly legal.
In the instance that you cannot remove the gpl'ed source and you cannot get the authors to relicense it to you, then you can either stop distributing it or you must release the source code.
If the GPL is unenforceable on account of no one stepping up to the plate to catch transgressions, as open source software becomes more commonplace in the business world people will just begin walking all over the GPL.
This isn't only a problem for the gpl. The same could be said for any license. When considering copyright law, someone breaking the law and no one complaining doesn't make it legal --- the same cannot be said for trademark disputes. If company A flagrantly violates the gpl, there is a pretty good chance that they will be sued. People like the eff will represent individuals. If
an individual was really concerned, but lacked the resources, all one would have to do is assign the fsf a copyright to the software. They will help enforce the licenseing requirements.
-- john
"Then shut up and write your own damn software."
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
... provided by USian company. Millions would benefit while a few thousends, at most, would suffer (a bit, who wold be first snapped by the US company to run operations in Indonesia?).
If the inventors can't get a head start, they would not have deserved to keep control of the technology.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
As I understand the GPL, you cannot give binaries to customers, without releasing the source of your changes to the public.
You can only keep modifications, if you keep them to yourself (ie, your company, but NOT its customers, unless they don't get binaries, just access to your machines that have them).
Wow. If he thinks GPL software is unfair to developping nations and redirecting their resources to the wealthiest nations in the world, I wonder what he thinks about commercial software.
Wouldn't that depend on the terms of the contract? If the (GPL software based) software is developed as a work for hire, then it is the legal property of the client. The client can then choose to only use it internally and be under no obligation to publish the source. Of course, the developer company (who is selling person-hours) will then have no rights to the developed software after the project ends.
What is the difference between a real song and a simulated song?
What's to stop the company he sold it for from distributing it if they wanted to
Nothing.
or if someone inside leaked a copy?
In this case I think the company has some legal recourses, since they did not intend to distribute the program, and thus had no obligation to release the source.
The GPL insures a growing body of code is free for anyone to use, provided they contribute their improvements to the body as a whole.
Is this so hard?
GPL software is probably one of the few things in this world that make it possible for everyone involved to receive more value than they invest.
The economic benefits of this are blindingly obvious to me. Leverage GPL software everywhere possible, if it needs to be tweaked, do that too. Then spend your remaining dollars on closed software that is actually worth spending said money on.
None of the big boys like this because they make far too much money selling elementary computing solutions that everybody should be using gratis.
Sadly for them, a growing number of us have figured this out. Think of it as two increasingly large bodies: one being the code and two being those knowing how it works or are users.
Blogging because I can...
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
They put the instructions on the box for a reason, you know. Read them.
This just prove a thing: it can be the GPL, it can be the X11L, it can be the MS EULA, even a Sun's one... nobody, never reads and/or understand the license.
42.
But its also important to note that the two terms sprang from the same pool.
Open source is a term coined by Erik Raymond a figure a nearly as ubiquitous as RMS himself in the GPL/Linux/etc community.
Here's a teaser for those of you to busy (or lazy) to read the linked article yourself: Anyway, as I said I see your point. But its the kind of finer points that gets RMS in so much trouble. Its all a part of the big bazaar 'family' the GPL is largely responsible for creating. To you and me GLP != BSD (that goes pretty much with no arguments from either camps) but of course both are more broadly Open Source (so again, your points stand). But to try to get the media to stick to such a fine detail? Not likely. Even the ones that understand the difference have to take their readership into account. Open Source sounds better and is easier to digest for you average person...so you and RMS might be feeling a little (understandably) frustrated...but its the world we live in.
On the flip-side the mixed up semantics does nothing to truly take away from the work of RMS and the GPL and have probably helped it more then he'll ever be willing to admit. It provides a digestible entree into a complicated world of legal talk and high-minded ideals. And it does this while allowing the ideas to play "nice" with other licenses (in the long-run: providing more exposure).
Quack, quack.
Let us also assume that both application A and application X both have plugin and extension models (including scripting languages) that allow others to extend the applications in fruitful and wonderful ways (you can imagine A to be an email server or an app server and X to be a video converter/renderer/parser/streamer). In the implementations of A and X, they were written with no prior knowledge of each other and by completely separated and distinct entities.
Now let us suppose that somebody writes a new application, call it C that allows for interesting interaction between A and X and makes C interact with A by allowing C to successfully handle SOAP requests generated by A (using A's dictated formats) to provide extensions to A's functionality using functionality in X. I want to distribute C under the GPL license. Can I?
Can A legally incorporate C? Assume for the sake of argument that the SOAP conversations are deemed too "intimate" and it is not legal.
What if A unwillingly (or unknowingly) uses C because it allows for end users to submit unmanaged changes (equivalent to having an open web site where anybody can post binary extensions -- or somebody hacking Tivo to bind it with open source software and redistributing the solution)? As a manager (but not developer, distributor, or seller) of A, am I liable for the fact that I run C? What about the original seller (company B) of A ? What if a corporate member of B posts to a open forum website clear instructions for making it easy to incorporate C into A? What if the author of C becomes really famous, gets hired by company B and continues to promote C? What if B is sold under the basis of supporting C?
In the end, this is a long winded way of saying that my problem with the GPL is not with the basic idea, but with the large grey areas that exist on its boundaries. More and more code is written with discovery mechanisms to create opportunistic bindings (scan network for apps doing X, find one, ask about details of doing X, then do X). All you have to do is insert one GPL application of sufficient complexity into that mix and you can create a vast legal morass.
Obviously you haven't RTFA because if you did, you would have noticed that he is anwering why they don't want to use the GPL ON THEIR PROJECTS.Sun microsystems has been getting a lot of bashing from slashdot over its OpenSolaris license (CDDL I think) in the past three months, so, well, he has the right to answer in his blog why they created it instead of using the GPL or whatever else.
If you disagree, fine, but plz don't spit out bullshit like "Nobody is forcing Mr. Schwartz to make use of GPL software" or "Sun is in no position to change the rules". It is their source and they can do whatever they see fit with it.
"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.
you can't cause a version already released under the GPL to become retroactively proprietary
Maybe the poster meant that, but it doesn't make it true. If you still own the copyright of the code, you can do whatever you want with it. Release it, relicense it, put it in a box and throw away the key.
It doesn't matter what you did in the past with the code, if it's yours then you can put it under a different license or several licenses at once, even if it's a previous version.
Singularity: a belief in the "God" idea with the "demiurge" relation inverted.
Hmmm, let's put this to a simple numbers test...
People unknowingly buying illegally cut wood: Millions
People cutting wood illegally: Thousands
Easier to stop, according to you: Millions.
People consuming drugs: Millions
People producing drugs: Thousands
Easier to stop, according to you: Millions.
Hmmm...
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Yes, but if you paid $100,000 for a piece of software would you give it to someone else for free? What if the software were custom-written for your business, and would only really be useful to your competitors?
No, you have misunderstood. You cannot give binaries to customers without releasing the source to those customers. The GPL gives you the option of allowing public access to the source code instead, but this is not required.
sorry but you don't understand the GPL.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
Anybody who's in a position to be affected in any way by the GPL ought to be aware of the fact that it only applies if you're using GPL'd code. Of course, one can never underestimate stupidity.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
(who was also there doing a speech) beat his ass after his talk...
As I commented on another site about this story, what is it about Sun that makes all their executives loud-mouth "pundits?" An inescapable desire to be Scott McNealy?
First we had Bill Joy running his mouth denouncing every bit of new technology to come down the pike in the next thirty years.
Now we have this moron.
Hey, Sun! STFU!
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Check it out. Take the 'S':
S
Add the U, after rotating counterclockwise 90 degrees:
SC
and then add the 'n' and underline it
SCO
Oh.. my..
Cool! Amazing Toys.
http://www.activestate.com/Company/NewsRoom/white
Now, do you see the problem with GPL?
-- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
Has anyone point out to Mr Schwartz that he is under no legal obligation to accept the GPL?
He always has the option of rejecting it, and instead using the fair-use permissions that copyright gives to everyone.
Somehow I suspect this isn't what he wants, though.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
I've yet to see even a *hypothetical* business model that would allow any sort of meaningful "cashing in" from GPLed software.
(At the risk of sounding redundant)
From the article:
> 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.
Duh! That's the whole fucking point of the GPL! Can you imagine? "Oh, dear! I didn't write the code nor pay someone else to do it, but I still want to be able to make money off it! The GPL just isn't fair!"
Dumbasses!
since when is a private company that develops say treatment against the AIDS virus is obligated to release their work for the 'good of the public'? As far as I am concerned they worked pretty damn hard to collect the knowledge how to create the treatment. If I was in their shoose, I would fight hard to protect my business against anyone who would come and try using my ideas and not let me make all the money I wanted to on this thing. I would fight to protect my business obviously, doesn't mean I would win, but I would fight with all legal and illegal ways possible.
You can't handle the truth.
What exactly did we expect Sun to do once it became apparent that the FSM was going to piss all over their implementation of java ? Now we're beginning to see the response, and in all likelyhood it's going to be joined by allied concerns. This is called 'playing with the big boys'. Frankly the FSM is beginning to resemble the ol' communist international - all dogma all the time. I'm getting sick and tired of being dictated to by FSM hobby-developers. Drop the f*cking self-righteous indignation. If things continue on this path, 'free software' will be an anachronism in 5 years.
Basically we need the Editors [HINT, HINT] to post a better balance of Pro-GPL news rather than anti-GPL-violator news... The polical/media spin doctors have known this for years... people have to hear 9 good things for every one bad one...News articles on slashdot should be brimming with new [approved] ways to use the GPL rather than the constant bashing of violators.
Money represents whatever you will let it represent. Each of us is free to determine what we consider wealth, but sometimes the picture gets skewed -- as with open source without the GPL.
If I have released open source with no strings attached, I clearly don't value it as wealth -- that is, as commensurate to, say, cars and gems. But if someone else then sells it and buys the car I wanted -- driving up the price for me -- he has effectively used my code to take my wealth. If I described the entire transaction based on my values, he has made me pay him to let him use my code. In real life this probably amounts to pennies, but even so.
The GPL avoids this. Other strings could work, but I think Mr Schwartz just likes charging us to write code for him.
It should therefore be easy the millions of people harmed to provide a subsistence to the few thousands?
true...but what if I got with my competitors and said hey...we are all gonna buy this software..why not split the cost.
Money USA have to warn their millions about illegally cut wood: Trilions. Money Brazil hato to avoid illegaly cut wood: millions. USA care about enviroment? No. Why do I say that? Kioto protocol.
(...and I will allow that may have just been my unspoken interpretation of "developing")
Some of those countries you refer to may be developing economies due to political upheaval, but they are not developing countries in terms of computer infrastructure.
It is most likely that if you are still a developing country, your people are playing catch up and not on the cutting edge of programming. By necessity, they will be creating alot of the same solutions that have already been developed in "developed" nations.
This is not to say that some novel ideas won't come out of these countries that can be used by the "developed" countries, just that someone with years of experience, all the tools available, strongly supported by the economy, (bored with the current technology), is more likely to come up with new development.
Regardless, even gauged by economy, a nation where people are more concerned where their next meal is coming from are not as likely to develop as countries where the people have time to burn and money for research.
Tech will flow from rich/developed to poor/undeveloped when the IP is open. The only reason to close IP is to make those who don't have IP (higher on the poor/undeveloped side) pay the current owners of IP (more often the rich/developed).
A side note to this is that even if the IP is left closed, what makes you think that the economically developed nations won't just buy out a single developer, use their developed economic resources to mass market and suck even more money out of the economically developing nations. Just because something is developed in a nation doesn't mean that they will benefit from it.
Open source levels the overhead for economic development.
We contract open source developers to add features we need to GPL software all the time. So far all those features make it into the mainline tree, so we don't have to worry about maintaining the code as patches either.
It's a very cheap way to get a whole lot of functionality that would cost a bundle to develop in-house (or buy proprietary software for, that might only partially fill our needs), the GPL developers get paid, and we get exactly the feature we want.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Your signature is the most hilarious thing I have ever read. Bravo.
If is was a work for hire, then yes. It seemed clear to me that the poster seemed to draw some incorrect distinction between "public" and "private" distribution, apparently thinking that "private distribution" by selling it to other companies (I guess without advertising or retailing or putting it up for download) did not trigger GPL requirements.
I'm not sure why everyone wants to pick this apart, I think it's clear that the parent had this misconception.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Why would a company pay thousands of dollars for software and then hand it over to their competitors for free by re-distributing it?
This basically happens all the time in commercial software!
Suppose I buy $100,000 software from a company that serves my industry niche. I'm supporting development of the software, and my competitior can go buy that exact same software, with the improvements my money paid for. If I want those improvements I have to pay more to upgrade.
Commercial software is just as fraught with problems spending money on software that benefits your competitors.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
If I were going to pay $100,000 for software that I didn't want my competitors to have, I would make sure that my programming contractor didn't use GPL code.
What's so hard about that?
Cogito, ergo sig.
It might cost you $200,000 and take eight months longer, then. Depending on the business needs, that might not be OK.
Who's fault is that? No one is forcing me to use GPL software. If I choose to use it, I have to agree to the terms given. That means that if I distribute the software, I am required to make the source available, just like I would be required to keep the source secret if I bought the software off of, say, Microsoft.
If a solution that suits my business doesn't exist at a price I'm willing to pay, that's my problem, not my suppliers'.
Cogito, ergo sig.