Slashdot Mirror
Lawsuit Says GPL is a Price-Fixing Scheme
Soko writes "Yes, it's real. The crack team of Daniel Wallace and Maureen O'Gara have ganged up once again to protect their version of "The American Dream," he by filing a lawsuit in Indiana court saying the GPL is nothing more than a price fixing scheme designed to drive software vendors out of business, she by parroting the proprietary vendors' "The GPL kills business" mantra (as well as a few well placed insults at the free software community). I found the story on Groklaw - no links to Ms. O'Gara or Mr. Wallace from me. I'm still kind of dumbfounded at the audacity of Mr. Wallace, but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing." This Google search reveals some of Daniel Wallace's views on the GPL.
They're just mad because you tk ther jeb!
...are you telling me it isn't a price fixing scheme?
I'm surprised that Slashdot actually posted this drivel on the front page (well actually the real surprise was the lack of spelling errors!) As has been the case for several months now, O'Gara's articles have become deliberately more provocative and frankly ridiculous as she attempts to push up the banner hits on the LBW/LBN website. I don't think she even bothers to cite anything resembling a fact anymore, but simply blurts out the most ridiculous thoughts that she finds stomping around the inside of her head.
;-)
For anyone who isn't aware, one of the other regular "writers" for LBW/LBN was recently outed, caught trolling on the SCOX message board to pull in more hits with his crackpot theories. It's looking like a company policy.
There's no doubt that MOG is simply using this Wallace fellow to help finance the ailing website. Personally I'm not going to visit it, and I'd suggest anyone else with any sense also not bother. The slashdot effect is exactly the thing they wish for over there... unless everyone visits with Lynx, or images turned off, of course
LBW/LBN is fast becoming the "Jerry Springer show" of the tech news sites...
Code, Hardware, stuff like that.
what's so bad about fixing the price of software?
What will they say next? Using FOSS contributes to global terrorism? That everytime you download FOSS, the drug cartels profit? That FOSS consitiutes violates RICO laws?
Price fixing my foot!
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Bottled watter companies file lawsuit that running tap water is a price fixing scheme! Oxygen tank manufacturers claim air is a price fixing scheme! Recording Industry says making your own music is a price fixing scheme!
Is a crack tram anything like a crack house? On wheels maybe?
This is also the question in my mind. Why cannot the author of a piece of software impose any restrictions upon its use that she likes? How is this keeping anyone else from selling their work? This is like Denny's suing a soup kitchen.
The truth is an offense, but not a sin.------R. N. Marley
Read the complaint that is linked in the groklaw story.. (http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Wallace-Complaint.pdf)
It starts out as "The Plaintiff Daniel Wallace......"
and in the damages section changes to "The Defendant Daniel Wallace..."
what a moron..
---- There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't
I always thought that the idea of a price-fixing scheme was to drive prices *up*. What they have said makes absolutely no sense. Free software is causing prices to go up? I think not...
If anything, free software drives prices down (remember when IE was released for free, while Netscape was still selling for $30?). Oh, the commercial software industry is dying too. Then why is Windows still the most popular operating system in existance?
It's an absurd lawsuit brought by a nutter.
/. is because it pertains to the GPL and we all need a good laugh on a monday.
This is nothing new. Happens all the time. Only reason it's on
Hey, where's the foot icon?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The slashdot blurb here says that David Wallace and Maureen O'Gara filed this lawsuit. The Groklaw link however seems to be saying that David Wallace filed the suit and Maureen O'Gara was merely acting as volunteer PR shill for it. My OP post above took the slashdot blurb by its letter.
What exactly is the relationship of Ms. O'Gara to this lawsuit?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
It has nothing to do with reason.
It has nothing to do with justice.
It has nothing to do with quality and or merits.
It has nothing to do with "who deserves to win".
If not SCO, then someone else will win. It will be the stupidest ruling in the history of law, no doubt, but somehow it will win. IBM on our side or not. I am not a troll, though it should be obvious I'm far from being an optimist.
I hope I am wrong.
All that said, does it suprise you that with SCO being an embarrassment, that Microsoft would start up a few other legal experiments? They no doubt have people whose sole job is to dream up possible litigation, and we can expect 1-3 of these things per year, until one succeeds or they run out of money. Guess which one will happen first.
The software industry is a service industry operating under the guise of a manufacturing industry.
:)
Of course there are some exceptions -- the gaming industry, for example (though MMORPGs have the "subscription service" thing down). Unfortunately I can't name any others at the time but I'm sure there's more.
The GPL isn't a price-fixing scheme...it basically exposed the current artifically inflated price-fixing scheme that is proprietary software.
Adapt and evolve, baby. Or cry about it all the way to extinction.
Okay, normally a price-fixing scheme artificially inflates pricing. Price fixing laws are there to protect the consumer, iirc, and I'd say the GPL is the ultimate consumer protection.
Wouldn't dumping be a more accurate complaint, since anti-dumping laws protect other businesses from large competitors selling for below cost? But since there's virtually no cost involved in making copies of software and the R&D is typically recouped by service contracts with IBM, Red Hat and the like, this lawsuit would appear to fall under the catagory of 'hilarity'.
I don't mind paying for software (except for basic OS and utilities), but if you're going to charge me for it, you damn well better be offering a better product than what a bunch of students and professionals crank out in their spare time for free.
Maybe they should GPS track all GPL software authors. Then businesses can see what GPL users are in the registry and track their movements. :-)
(Seriously. The only time GPL hurts businesses is when they use code and don't honor the GPL. Their their own stupid ass mistakes.)
business practices addressed by legislation, i.e. giving away M$ windows based computers until Apple is out of business, until the GPL software drives someone out of business AND then requires payment.
You know, if you don't like GPL software, don't buy it.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
but wonder if he has an angle that might have a slim chance of prevailing
Put any issue like this in a court, especially in front of a jury, especially in America, and literally anything can happen, regardless of the lawyers or facts on either side.
Juries will do what they think is justice based upon what they think they understand.
Saying that SCO's case is lost, or this one would not stand a chance is simply not legitimate. Many experienced legal commentators seem to tend to give either side in just about any major case a 50-50 chance of winning. That is why the smartest thing you can do is to figure out how to stay out of court, unless you are evil and rich and like injustice. Over the long haul it may get corrected, but the courtroom is a roll of the dice.
That is also probably why jury-tried issues carry little if any weight as legal precedence. While it would be very incorrect to say that the facts are irrelevant, it would also be very incorrect to say that they will carry the day or that this or any other issue could not be won in court, especially before a jury.
Technically speaking, its all true - FOSS is a (somewhat loose) form of communism, the GPL is like cancer and free programs that are often better than commercial counter parts may drive products out of business. My point is, who cares? If America is a free country how can it be dictated what people code in their 'free' time? if you choose to work for nothing why should you be stopped? Should charity/volunteer work be banned too? Ok so thats a little simplistic view of what this lawsuit is about but hey..
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I think there issue is more with Open Source than with any particular Open Source license.
When a company such as M$ has a stranglehold on the industry. The most effective way to compete with them is with technology which cannot be assimilated by M$. M$ has killed many competitors by either pricing them out of the market, acquiring the technology or by hiring away the key developers.
In my mind, the Open Source movement was a natural response to the strongarm tactics of M$.
-b
Apple makes a good case study for the massive negative impact of GPLd software. You can see how their profits have been plummeting since they (partially) embraced the Open Source model.
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
No, don't do that, otherwise, you'll be spreading the image of free software advocates as harrassing nutcases. What would this accomplish? Do you think that your comment will be the one that changes his mind, the one that causes him to turn from the dark side? Your time would be better spent advocating free software instead of attacking people who don't.
Also, is it so hard to imagine that you would be sued by this guy for harassment?
It's just like those Habitat for Humanity bastards, conspiring to drive down the wages of building contractors!
paintball
Software at 0, TCO to infinity aaaand beyooond... Or possibly approaching 0 so all software engineers can do what they're really trained to do - play Quake...
My little site.
Juries will do what they think is justice based upon what they think they understand.
If I'm not terribly mistaken juries are not permitted to rule on issues of law, only those of fact. This particular suit appears to be demanding nearly purely a ruling of law.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
"Motion to dimiss your honor. The plantiff is clearly on drugs."
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
You realize, sarcasm apart, that this "price fixing" or "unfair competition" is exactly what all of the TelCo's and the Wireless carriers are claiming about municipal WiFi efforts...
It's sad that corporations think that they deserve special favors, or believe that they will receive them for the right price...
oh wait, they believe it because it happens...
"Really now, how does the GPL fix prices when it allows anyone to charge any amount of money for GPL software?"
And as people are quick to point out about digital goods. They have no value... oh wait, wrong discussion. No "asking for, and getting" are two different things. Plus much like Wal-mart it puts pressure on software practitioners to the lowest price possible.* It most certainly doesn't put pressure on anyone to raise them.
*Throw in globalization and really let the fun begin. Software's free, and the person writting it is damn close to it.
908-835-1387
That number has been disconnected now. The telco message is saying calls are "now being taken by 610.438.2241"
Do you love freedom??? Do you love freedom!!! DO YOU LOVE FREEDOM!!!!!!!!
Not very much.
When everybody has a compiler, what is your bland piece of software worth?
Not very much.
Without entering into whether or not it's right, the GPL definitely raises the bar on what makes a marketable piece of software. I think the everybody-owns-the-factory analogy is pretty appropriate.
Once upon a time, people made a living by delivering ice to your home. Now we have freezers and make our own ice. What kind of money can you make delivering ice?
Not very much.
Does that mean you should attack the freezer manufacturers or does it mean you should find a better way of doing business?
Apparently, the answer to that question will be decided in a court of law rather than the court of common sense.
Testing the GPL in court over an issue like this only strengthens the GPL. As others have already pointed out, the GPL doesn't specify a price for software, so the suit is rather absurd/hard to win.
Once this suit is put to rest, then it will be significantly harder for someone to argue the same point.
eskwayrd = m^2c^4
Strike 3: clueless or sycophant judge
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
"It's like giving away sugar, but then saying that anything cooked with it must be given away free too. And that you can never sell the bowl you mix the ingredients in."
But you're not under any obligation to use that brand of sugar. You can continue buying "proprietary" sugar and selling the result, and nobody's going to stop you.
Actually, a metaphor like that is basically fallacious in the first place. The GPL doesn't put any restrictions on buying or selling. You're free to sell GPL software, whether or not you made it, whether or not you modified it, as long as you give the source to any buyer, if they ask. The GPL is about copying and modifying, which don't really apply to physical goods. (You can't copy sugar, to use your example. Whether or not you get it for free, obtaining it means someone else loses it.)
"Legit" software manufacturers don't have to use GPL components either. If they don't want to be required to divulge their source code and allow their customers to share and modify their programs, then they don't have to include GPLed code, and nobody is put out of business.
Now, with the supposed "viralness" of the GPL out of the way: of course companies can go out of business if there's FOSS alternative(s) that are functionally equivalent or superior, because people are less likely to buy something if they can get a better thing for free. But surely nobody would suggest that people should be *required* to charge money for the distribution of software. That would be, for lack of a better word, idiotic. If people are willing to donate their time, effort, and code to FOSS projects, then big business (and small business, admittedly) will have to cope. Maybe they could try innovating.
Signature.
There is a rather vocal individual in the comp.lang.lisp group that makes the argument free software is evil, because it makes it impossible to charge enough for software to make a living. To be fair, he feels this way about ANYTHING for free, so while I strongly disagree with him he is consistent. I'd dearly love to hear him and Stallman have an hour long debate, but I doubt it will ever happen.
People seem to think they have some kind of entitlement to profits. People, the world doesn't owe you ANYTHING. Generally speaking, if you can't convince people to pay you money for your work, it's your problem. If part time hobbiest developers can create free tools that are better for the price than your commercial ones, I'd say you need to work harder.
In a true capitalistic system, profits are VERY hard to come by. This is a good thing, because people work hard without sucking in a huge amount of resources, to the betterment of society. Competition sucks, because you never get to rest on your laurels. You have to keep running to stay in place, and frankly that's BY DESIGN. It is very nearly the whole POINT. You have to really produce something people want to get a profit, and you have to keep innovating to keep it. If volunteer efforts can produce a free tool which is good enough, that means you need to step it up a notch to produce something people want to pay you for. After all, you're expecting to be paid, so you should be able to put more time/energy into it.
Seesh. What ever happened to doing something just to make the world a better place, or make other people happy? Now it's price fixing. I feel very sad when I see this kind of thing, because it underlines how little regard we have for the world around us. The world is a cold, empty place when people generously and cheerfully giving you something out of the goodness of their hearts is looked upon as price fixing, and it's enough to make me sick.
The worst part of it is, in many these companies are making a profit over and above what they are paying their employees, and yet somehow this isn't enough. Providing people with productive, well paying jobs isn't the point, the point is MAKE MORE MONEY.
At some point in the future, we are going to hit a situation where our economy CANNOT, because of limitations of physical resources, be driven by growth. It will have to be steady state, and I think the US is doomed when this happens because we don't know how not to be greedy, to appreciate the community around us, and be happy that it is prospering. We are focused on ME,ME,ME, and it can't go on forever. The Earth is finite, and the energy costs of space travel are not economic on the large scales of the global system. We WILL have to face it, and when we do I hope we can remember how to be human beings, and not just profit machines.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
from here:
WHAT IS PRICE FIXING?
What is price fixing - legal answers at FreeAdvice.com's business section
"Most state statutes provide that fixing the price of a product or service in agreement with another individual or business is illegal. The general rule provides that a vendor may not in combination with another vendor agree to set a certain price thereby creating a fixed price within a certain market. A business acting on its own and not in concert with another may use legitimate efforts to obtain the best price they can, including their ability to raise prices to the detriment of the general public. Also, conformity of prices within a given product is not illegal unless such conformity was created by a combination of vendors agreeing on a set price. For example, where competitors agree to sell their goods or services at a specified price, minimum price or maximum price and they receive profits from such an agreement, they are in violation of price fixing. Additionally, setting a price to be charged only within a certain area in order to get rid of competition or to create a monopoly is generally illegal under most state laws. A majority of states have also enacted a "Below-Sales-Cost" law wherein businesses may not sell goods below cost if they do so with anti-competitive intent or effect."
So, giving away something at a loss to drive competition out of business is illegal. I've never been a fan of anti-trust legislation, and now maybe anti-MS zealots will see my point of view if these laws start affecting them adversely.
Vote for Pedro
Wait a minute! HOLD THE TRAIN.
I'm confused now. I've been reviewing all these reports that Linux has a greater total cost of ownership. So damn. What's this? Now it's unfairly fixing the price too low?
I don't get it! What am I missing here???
Someone help a poor capitalist out...
---
Moral of the story: You can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you're a developer, and you release a useful project under the GPL, chances are you'll get patches back that'll teach you a think or two.
Happened to me today, in fact.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
You know what gets me...
Is that companies who back these kind of ideas are the same ones who will outsource your job to save a buck. In a SECOND.
So they cry when anybody taps their market (be it VOIP, FOSS, or whatnot), and they lobby for laws to *protect* their business. Yet they have no problems doing this to PEOPLE.
Companies HAVE a responsibility to their customers, and the cities/towns/COUNTRIES they do business it. They should be MADE to give back instead of just taking taking taking.
I'm tired of hearing stuff about "well it's their coumpany and they can do what they want." This way of thinking is really wrong, IMHO, and is just a symptom of how they have brainwashed everyone. Morality doesn't seem to exist in the corporate world, everything is for the blind pursuit of profit... generally by crawling up the backs of hard working people, then kicking them down when they reach the summit.
Pure capitalism is faulty, somebody needs to reign these greedy people in. It'd be nice if someone could pull the wool back up, from over the general public's eyes.
this all makes me so bloody angry.
If I can't smoke and swear I'm fucked.
Obviously, it's so inept it fulfilling that end, that it can be mistaken for nearly anything.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
15 USC 13c Exemption: Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit. Free Software Foundation is a Maine not-for-profit corporation. His case must be based on Section 13, nothing else makes sense. Yet Section 13 is limited. This will be summarily dismissed with extreme prejedice.
I feel much better now. Thank you! ^^
No, it's volunteerism. It would be communism if you forced others to use GPL'd code. But they don't have to.
Disclaimer: I grew up in Indiana. I don't live there any more.
Oh guess what...Not only is baseball exempt from antitrust laws (See Section 26b), but so are not-for-profits. Just like the good Free Software Foundation, a non-profit Maine corporation. Section 13c Nothing in the Act approved June 19, 1936, known as the Robinson-Patman Antidiscrimination Act, shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.
Ok, this guy may be a joke.
But what if [Pick Your Favorite Evil] decides to fund a real research to find a way to manipulate the laws until they make the GPL look illegal?
I guess it already has been done, by a number of companies that have interests on OpenSource. We can only speculate about their findings...
I don't know about the USA, but here at Brasil the GPL is a contract. And here, a contract is treated as a "law between peers". So, as long as it doesn't go against the legislation, it's as valid and enforceable as an EULA. Only that an EULA normaly restricts your rights, and give you lot's of rules to be followed... and the GPL grants you rights, since you follow some rules.
I'm not a lawyer, but it would be interesting to see how the GPL stands against the legislation of every country in the world. Pehaps the FSF should put a map online, wiht green areas pointing where the GPL is valid and backed by the laws, and red areas where it's just a bunch of words with no value.
The USA should be painted yellow, I guess.
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
Okay, let me see if I can distill this down a little bit. I've never heard of this guy before, but his ideas sound worthy of a little analysis, at least.
Contrary to the subject of this story, which equates the GPL to an corrupt trust price-fixing scheme, Mr. Wallace instead seems to consistently promote the idea that the GPL is invalid based on an interpretation of derivative works that requires consent from their author, in addition to the original author, for distribution.
He points out that the FSF and the GPL do not consider such consent to be necessary. He makes a distinction between a unilateral license, like the owner of property letting you borrow their property for free, and a mutual agreement, like you renting property. He claims that the GPL is more like the former, one-sided grant of license than the mutual agreement. Most importantly he claims that a derivative work, to be distributed under copyright law, requires the consent of both the original author and the author of the derivative parts, ie. a mutual contract rather than a one-sided grant of license. He argues that the GPL places no value on the consent of a developer who creates a derivative of a GPLed work.
The crux of his argument seems to revolve around the recursive nature of the GPL. He argues that the GPL may well be valid with regards to an original author and one derivative author. But since it is not a bilateral agreement, the GPL cannot then go on to bind the derivative author to it's terms with regards to distribution of his own work. That, he argues, requires the mutual consent of the original and derivative authors.
As far as I can tell, without having spent hours researching this, it boils down to a choice between two interpretations: either the original author is all-powerful in dictating terms to all successors who create derivative works based on the original, or, each author has dominion over his derivative work, with that work being made possible through mutual agreement with all prior authors, and with distribution of that work to be made possible by agreement of all parties. Mr. Wallace argues that the FSF and the GPL rely upon the former view, while copyright requires the latter.
Discuss...
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
It's like giving away a cake with its recipe, but then saying that if anyone else wanted to sell the cake, they had to give away the recipe with the cake.
As you can surely recall, the first cookbooks swiftly destroyed the restaurant and food service industries.
Simple Machines in Higher Dimensions
Didn't you hear the results of the American election late last year?
I mean, this story is pretty stupid, but I must say I've heard stupider things...
Free software isn't free until it's been written. Charge for your labor and you don't need to exert control over users afterward. Doctors and plumbers don't expect to do their job just once and then kick back and cash checks for the rest of their lives.
Your main point has been answered to ad nauseam. No one is placing a limit on being paid for the writing or maintenance of private code. The OS and basic software needed for the average box does not need to be private and in fact is probably better if it is not as we apply common standards to common purposes.
How many instances of something like "Office" do we need? If just one, then it might as well be based on open standards.
- nobody is forced to work on gpl'd software
- nobody is forcing anyone to try to make a living directly from gpl code
- people don't necessarily write code and release it under the gpl to make money
- some people WILL "do the right thing", by giving something of value back to the author
If you read the law suit, you'd have seen that the guy is complaining that he can't make a living programming because he can't compete with the price of free software, that the gpl is a "price restraint scheme".part of the "deal" behind using gpl code in your product, instead of developing it from scratch, is the value of you not having to develop it from scratch
there are other ways to add value. Or you can work with proprietary code - oh, no you can't - you don't have the source.
perhaps they are using the code in-house, and see the benefit of getting the "many eyes" of others working on it, saving their company money in the process
this can be code improvements, bug reports, etc. Its not always about money
This is utter bs. There is nothing preventing him from writing closed software. Of course, he'll have to have licenses for any libraries he uses/buys, etc., (or is he going to complain that requiring a license for closed-source libraries *also* prevents him from competing, since the copyright holder of closed-source libraries can charge any price they want ...)
Strange how all these attacks on the gpl, groklaw, etc., come just as LongHorn totally fails to wow everyone. Coincidence? Probably not.
It is good for business because ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES BESIDES THE PRODUCING INDUSTRY BENEFIT. With virtually free gasoline practically every product you buy will cost less. Software is a little like gasoline to many industries. Free software is a free public good that is non-scarce and infinitely divisible.
Is it good for the programmer job market? No. Tough titties, it's good for everybody else. Yours isn't the first industry to be decimated by progress.
I find it weird that Americans are so "anti-communism" as if its an evil thing. It's not that bad at all! Of course, I personally don't think it would be the best way to solve the problem of unlimited wants and needs with limited resources. Software is a bit different because it can be duplicated an unlimited number of times for next to no cost.
Anyway, lets look at it:
-OSS: Its communism because everyone works on it for nothing! ner ner.
-Proprietary: Its communism because its all designed from the middle and given to the masses even though they may not like it and have no control of it. ner ner...
I am Australian but I have lived in the US for 6 months and I discovered that the US is unbelievably capitalist with a huge FEAR of anything socialist. Here in Oz, we have a mixed economy that is predominately market but has some socialist aspects such as unlimited welfare (the dole) and free health care (medicare). It think its a good balance.
Anyway, my point is that we should have a BALANCE of OSS and proprietary software.
Can your karma go above being Excellent?
Did you read the article? Everyone will be forced to use GPL code because proprietary vendors will be out of business.
Why shouldn't municipal governments provide wi-fi? Internet access has become an important service, and is there some part of the US, Canadian or any other Constitution that I'm unaware of which guarantees "profit and unending dividends for all [businesses]"? The economy should serve society, not the other way around. Cities don't just decide to offer these services without a mandate from their residents, and if residents of a city want municipal wi-fi, some telco should certainly not be able to over-rule that just because their profits are at risk!
It's not the "nanny-state", it's democracy. What it damn well shouldn't be is corporatocracy.
Freedom: "I won't!"
In what nanny-state, commie pipe dream is it the government's responsibility to provide internet access to people who can almost certainly get it cheapy from commercial ISPs?
You got it backwards. When a town votes and decides to turn certain services like Internet access over to a public utility, that's called "democracy". Perhaps you have heard of it.
When the state government comes in and negates the will of the voters in some corrupt scheme to help commercial campaign contributors to make more money, that's "real communism" (i.e., corrupt, centralized government).
Honestly, you don't see any difference between a company found to be an abusive monopoly and a licence? None at all? Really?
./ers having trouble with rationality, my friend.
It's ain't the
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
What's particularly entertaining about the OSS community is they use examples like this to push the idea that OSS avoids duplicating work and reinventing the wheel...
...Yet 90%+ of the OSS software out there is nothing more than a duplication of other OSS software.
It would be communism if you forced others to use GPL'd code.
Communism != totalitarianism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarism
Hi, communism is the revolutionary theory of marxism. Marxism is a rather complicated theory involving a notion called dialectical materialism. This has fuck all to do with the GPL. The GPL is one thing, and one thing only: sharing. Nothing to do with communism or marxism. But then again, this is Slashdot, where you can equate apples with oranges and get bananas, and that is 'insightful'.
?-|||-----x<*))))><
unfortunately you can't really have the libre without the gratis
if you had to pay per unit licensing for every little bit of code you used then collaborative programming would go nowhere as projects would quickly become far too expensive to use
people coding as a hobby will always be destructive to certain segments of the software development profession
software thats freely availible will also be destructive to some segments (companies that sell boxed software)
but at the end of the day there will always be software that companies need that noone wants to develop for fun and someone is going to have to pay to have that software developed because they need to use it.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
" I find it weird that Americans are so "anti-communism" as if its an evil thing. It's not that bad at all!"
You need to read up on history. Nothing like the cold war to bring back some bad memories.
the GPL is nothing more than a price fixing scheme
Actually, it's not the GPL which is a price fixing scheme, but copyright. As in copyright allows the author to set any price they want to license their work. Somehow I don't think Wallace, O'Gara, and countless others quite understand this simple fact (or are not willing to admit it, as this pseudo-monopolistic characteristic of copyright seems to fly in the face of other free market ideals).
The GPL actually removes this restriction by allowing a copyrighted work to be licensed for any amount of money desired by any party with a copy of the work. Zero just happens to be the most typical number, for the practical reason that it is difficult to get customers to pay exorbitant sums for what is usually available elsewhere for free.
Heh, maybe we should just abolish copyright and remove this restraint of trade in all cases. This way anyone could license any work created by anyone else for however much they thought they could get, though this probably isn't the type of "solution" the software industry has in mind.
The ultimate plays for Madden 2006
when communism becomes evil is when it is compulsory. A point you seem to have missed widely.
No one gives a shit what you CHOOSE to do for a hobby, who you CHOOSE give the results to, or if you CHOOSE to run off and live on a commune with River Moonchild and a bunch of other random hippies.
It's when you demand under threat of violence (usually via government) that I do these things that we have a very, very big problem.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
That is because slashdot is moderated by monkeys and monkeys like bananas.
ya, i think they call that "competition". even when software is free, competition fosters improvement.
Your post is off-topic. They're arguing whether or not GPL is communism. So even if you're right -- and i'm not saying you are right -- to say that communism leads to totalitarianism, you fail to acknowledge some factors, which i won't bother mention, that makes GPL an example of a large scale communism without a chance to be a totalitarianism. Unless of course you consider the license itself as "a powerful overhead authority." In which case, it fails to show the ability to give direct reward to people.
Truth is like a shining mirror that's been shattered.
A huge volume of information is given away on the Internet for free!
The other day, I saw some kids in a parking lot telling each other dirty jokes without charging a fee!
Then there was Amy in high school; everyone says she gave away something for free, but I never found out what it was.
Giving stuff away free harms people who would like to sell it, and must stop immediately!
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
I'm not against the Libre software movement, but I genuinely believe that the 'gratis' software movement is screwing things up for all of us.
Um, the former implies the latter. And your main point is just spectacularly wrong. Imagine a world where Apache, Linux, Java, Perl, Python, MySQL and all similar "gratis" software never came into being. If you want to run a web site, you have to pay thousands of dollars for the software just to get started. Will the demand for programmers be more or less than in our world? Hint: not more.
And even if free software somehow were harmful to programmers, opposing it on that basis alone is profoundly immoral, as it's an unquestionable benefit to everyone else. It would be the equivalent of candlemakers sabotaging light bulb factories to keep their jobs
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Actually, it would be better to say that communism is *a* revolutionary theory of Marxism --- one that comes from an awful misreading of Marx.
The GPL is actually quite *un*Marxist, as a True Marxist cheers on the onslaught of Unimpeded Capitalism (which we plainly do not have, as there are brakes on the economy and safety nets put in place in order to prevent the consequences of Unimpeded Capitalism from driving the 99% to overthrow the 1% feeding off of them, followed by the 99% installing some sort of Workers Paradise (not unlike the Christian idea of the Eschaton, though wholly materialistic and without a Final Judgement, eternal life, etc.). The GPL throws a monkey wrench into the works, as it keeps someone's labors from being stolen out from under them with no recompense. The GPL works well with Capitalism With Governor(s) Installed by acting as a governor on the system.
Thus the GPL is about as far from communism as you're going to get, as it is designed to help keep the capitalist system from destroying itself. This makes those who oppose it suspect, as they seem to be very interested in the self-destruction of capitalism, and work to remove the very mechanisms which allow capitalism to survive.
brwski
"Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''
Why? Because that is the day Copyright law itself has fallen.
GPL is the flip side of copyright. You simply cannot question the GPL unless you first eliminate copyright laws as we know them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Quite right, parent should be modded insightful.
It's not like this hasn't happened before, after all...
There's the occupation known as "scribe"; a person who, for a fee, writes letters, petitions, etc, for illiterate people. This occupation is in demand where literacy levels are low (and sadly, this is still the case in many poorer countries today). In more developed countries, it's common for the mass of the population to be able to read and write by themselves, without assistance. Tough luck if you used to be a scribe ...
... but hey! which situation is better? Who would seriously reject mass literacy because it's tough on scribes? Only a complete idiot/sociopath like Daniel Wallace.
You've obviously never read Marx's work or taken a serious class in market economic theory, otherwise, you'd realize the GPL is more capitalistic in concept and in no way embodies a communist ideal.
Intially, communism requires a central authority directive whereby others are told what to make, how to make it, etc. by the central authority. As you can plainly see, no one in the Free Software community *forces* anyone else to make certain software to certain standards. In fact, the whole idea of the GPL is that if you dislike the direction a project is moving in, you can fork the project and make your own. Hardly a central planning scheme. You also have to look at what happens after the product is created: there's no central government that forces people to use this software. RMS doesn't come from on high and threaten to kick you out of the FOSS group if you chose to use x instead of y. You can use whatever you want - even none free software! Again, hardly characteristic of communism.
Your point that "It's a way of creating code for the community, and forcing those that use said code to in turn contribute to the community as well" is hardly indicative of communism - not does it force you to do anything. Intially, I can use OpenOffice or any other GPL'ed software without being require to contribute back. If I create derivative works of said product and intend to release my derivative works, I do have to GPL my product. You've entered a contract - it's no different from if I require a liscensing fee of so many dollars - that's the price you pay for entering the contract. You have the option not to create derivative works and instead start from scratch, creating no obligation to GPL your work. You *choose* to use GPL. And that's the fundamental difference between communism and captialism - freedom of choice.
As for why the GPL acutally espouses capitalism, the reasons seem more obfusated and possibly less obvious if you aren't up on your knowledge of free market economics - but, none the less, it's there. The GPL aids in the free flow of information - by being required to distribute your source code, your consumers are able to see exactly what your product does. Furthermore, this requirement for open source helps the market find its equilibrium price: people are able to make the best product possible, at the least price possible. You're in no way required to not sell your product - all the GPL requires is that you distribute your source code with your product. I can still sell my product for $300 if I want, so long as I include the source code with it. However, distributing it at $300 runs the risk that someone will modify my code to make it better and then sell it at a cheaper price, or might just redistribute copies of my software for free. Thus, I might decide to include some sort of support service as part of my price. Another person might decide to do the same at a cheaper price. I might have to lower my price as a result. This will continue until the market equilbrium price is reached (which very well might be zero - often times, however, it is not. Look at how much the commercial versions of Linux sell for, as an example). Rather than prices being artifically high because a monopoly exists on the product, you have a free market where supply/demand drives the price, which is based on the quality and desirability of the product provided.
Another way the GPL is capitalistic is that, above all, it provides *choice*. The whole point of capitalism is to provide a myraid of choices so that the best product at the best price prevails. The GPL ensures this will happen by preventing monopolies and ensuring consumers are informed. It also aids in the creation of new choices by getting rid of the red tape and bureaucracy usually involved in creating a derivative work. Freedom of choice is the antithesis of communism - it is at the very heart of captialism.
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the US is not compeletly a free market economy. Things such as p
Yet 90%+ of the OSS software out there is nothing more than a duplication of other OSS software.
And you are a very close duplication of others like yourself. Hopefully, in time, evolution will remove certain duplicates.
Sincerely,
Darwin's Ghost
"Let me know when the human race has eliminated that last one. It should happen slightly after the sun goes cold."
No - it should happen sometime in this century.
Of course, it means eliminating humans - but what's the problem with that?
It's not like they have any intrinsic value, after all.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
"Actually, Communism is evil. Not evil in the trying to kill you way, evil in the I know what's right better than you way."
:-)
So if a country invades other countries and brings them democracy because it is better for them... they are communists?
For example: Apache, Linux, Java, Perl, Python, MySQL?
I've managed both Apache and IIS, and there is no doubt in my mind that the Apache developers are far from unqualified, and definitely had some sort of incentive to do it properly.
A house divided against itself cannot stand.
GPL was created outside the idea of a "market", and its original focus was on individuals, and there right to code as a form of "libre" speech and expression - not as a product made by partnerships, proprietorships or corporations.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
This is a little offtopick but I to talk about a link in the blurb:
Daniel Wallace's views on the GPL..
The first page contained the search term in following sentance: "Do a google search on Daniel Wallace and GPL". This underlines one side of the problem of linking to the Google: it spams the search results. The other problem is that the Google rates pages based on the links to them. If this habbit of linking to the Google queries grows to de facto standard of linking, Google will die, because it will be unable to compare qualities of pages.
So, please, at least at such a popular pages like slashdot front page, quit linking to google queries.
No, give banana!
What's the motivation here to compete?
While I can understand 'America's' fear of 'communism' because of the cold war, I think I should point out that there has never been a proper communist government. We've only had socio facists, who used the attractive philosophy, gain power, and then screw everyone (basically...).
Marx himself said that communism is unlikely to work because of humanity, unfortunately. The best example I've seen for a *true* communist, or marxist environment has been rather strange: Star Treck (TNG).
At any rate, to a non-american (I'm British), saying that the GPL is communistic - as an insult - just seems ever so slightly, ah, how do I say this without being modded troll....it seems rather idiotic.
My UID is prime. Is yours?
You mean that period of history where most of the world was brainwashed into believing another economic system was a threat to their own, perpetuating the end of WW2 through until it became too difficult to conceal the truth about how other cultures lived?
At which point it became the War on Terror.
I agree with your sentiment, I guess, but the cold war is a bad example of since it was overshadowed by an arms race by both sides and was also a propaganda war.
I think what he probably meant was that it's wierd some people still can't examine an alternative way of organising society for what it is and leave aside the fact that the whole system was corrupt, like ours is.
It's OK Bender, there's no such thing as 2.
IAN From USA.
A funny remark but it isn't correct.
When USA invades other countries under a false pretence to bring them democracy it is not to make it better for other countries.
You can't handle the truth.
Did something specific happen to Groklaw to cause this change, or is it just the consistent barrage? Either way, I hope Grok backs off a bit. I used to read it specifically because it was free from this sort of bile.
No, it's volunteerism. It would be communism if you forced others to use GPL'd code. But they don't have to.
Actually, the GPL does count as a form of communism: "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed".
The problem here involves the typical American perception of communism - It does not mean "bad" or "evil" or "Stalinist". It just means that no one "owns" the product of that work, and no one can monopolize its use.
In some cases, communism works very, very well. For material goods, it tends to fail due to greed. As a system of government, it fails quite spectacularly (again, mostly due to human greed). But for intangibles, in which category falls software, music, movies, thoughts, algorithms, and all the topics we so often argue about here on Slashdot under the broad category of "IP" - communism works amazingly well. Everyone can contribute, and everyone can share the results equally. In fact, it takes quite extreme laws and enforcement effort to avoid IP naturally falling into a more-or-less communistic state of existence.
As an aside, I find it almost scary that people would defend against an accusation of communism by calling something volunteerism. In a perfect world, with no one going hungry or unsheltered or lacking basic medical treatment, volunteerism seems like a good, noble philosophy. In the real world, operating under a basically capitalistic economy, volunteerism actively does no less evil than put people out of a job. For every hour someone works for no pay, they have deprived someone of the possibility of working that same hour for the purpose of feeding, clothing, and sheltering themselves. In a very real way, someone who don't need that hour's pay (or they wouldn't have worked it for free) has managed to take it away from someone who does.
As the one exception to this, court-ordered community service seems reasonable, in that it allows a person to "pay" the community back for their crimes by spending time rather than dollars. For someone without extensive financial resources, this means a fine that doesn't unduely burden them. For someone with money to burn, it causes them to spend something more valuable to them than a mere monetary fine. A win/win situation both ways.
.. just like the argument for international trade.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
I think of GPL and Open Source software as the baseline.. Like those signs near the line for a roller coaster that say "You must be this tall to ride". The GPL software says "Your software must be better than this" in order to sell it.
IMHO, the GPL is good for capitalism. Capitalism is all about competition forcing companies to constantly improve their products, and competition from GPL software will force advancement at a much greater speed than it would be at otherwise.
Those who don't like it, are the lowest tier. They'll be the first driven out of business. Not because of the GPL per se, but because of their own incompetence and inability to adjust to new business reality. Incompetent companies going out of business is, and has always been, good for capitalism and good for consumers.
An intelligent company would look at the OSS movement and see what they can do to adjust to it. Fighting it won't help, the tighter they squeeze their grip, the more star systems will slip between their fingers..
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Is it good for the programmer job market? No. Tough titties, it's good for everybody else. Yours isn't the first industry to be decimated by progress.
But it is good for the programmer job market. In fact, it's great for the programmer market. It's just not good for the boxed software market.
Most programmers don't work for proprietary software companies--they work for banks, manufacturers, governments, all kinds of non-software companies, companies that need software that you can't buy off the shelf.
With the rise of open source software and a plethora of projects to start with, all it does is bring custom software into the financial reach of the millions of small businesses that otherwise are stuck with boxed software.
Do you smell the opportunity?
Open Source Solutions for Small Business Problems
Freelock Computing
Actually, the GPL does count as a form of communism: "a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed".
Except that it's not.
Software that is licensed still has an owner: the licensor. For example, the licensor is the only party who can redistribute the software under a _different_ license (a la MySQL and Qt).
I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
You've caught the point where it may indeed be possible to use open source to violate antitrust law.
*If* a company has a monopoly, or even significant market power, and that company releases or backs an open source product to distribute for zero price, and there is a competing "complete solution" for which part of the price is in software that gets replaced by the OSS, then the OSS could indeed be an antitrust violation.
Note, though, that the key here is that the OSS project is being used as a weapon to support or advance monopoly power in another product.
There's nothing really shocking there--it would take some sort of special exemption in antitrust law to allow the fact that something is OSS to be a defense to otherwise legal behavior.
A free-standing OSS project would be another issue--it's just another competitor in the market.
The grey case that will take lots of litigation is a monopolist supporting an existing project, yet not becoming dominant, in order to damage a competitor to its own product. My initial guess (though it's quite possible I could be convinced otherwise) is that there could be liability for the company, but not for the project (unless it actively conspired with the monopolist to hurt the competitor).
hawk