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
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.
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 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?
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".
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!
It appears that he was trying to make the argument that GPL was not "some money making scheme for rising third world nations," and that instead it would hurt those nations by forcing them to make their IP freely available to the US and other developed countries.
Basically, he's making a convoluted argument that GPL is infact far too capitalist to work in today's hugs-and-kisses technology industry. It's probably one of the more insane accusations cast against the GPL, if only because it directly contradicts the conventional wisdom that the GPL is a huge communist scheme.
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
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
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
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.
.... 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();
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
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.
As others have pointed out, the customers receiving the binaries and source are free to redistribute them, and probably cannot be constrained from doing so by any non-disclosure agreement..
The point is that Ransom used to go around saying the same stuff about the GPL. It didn't help his company. And look what they became.
Bruce Perens.
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 -
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 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
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.
"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.