We Don't Need the GPL Anymore

jpkunst writes "In a lengthy interview with Eric S. Raymond by Federico Biancuzzi at O'Reilly's onlamp.com, ESR defends his position that 'Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it.'" From the article: "I don't think the GPL is the principal reason for Linux's success. Rather, I believe it's because in 1991 Linus was the first person to find the right social architecture for distributed software development. It wasn't possible much before then because it required cheap internet; and after Linux, most people who might otherwise have founded OS projects found that the minimum-energy route to what they wanted was to improve Linux. The GPL helped, but I think mainly as a sort of social signal rather than as a legal document with teeth."

Comments

Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, this guy is sensible. Dismiss him with the contempt he deserves, and go do something more worthwhile - like reading Dilbert or hating on Intarweb Exploder...

He's right, of course

[A nonymous Coward]

If it were under the BSD license, Microsoft would have adopted it by now, under the hood, invisibly. Windows popularity would soar even more, and its reputation for stability and speed would have made Linux distributions obsolete, thus putting a stop to all independent peer-reviewed Linux development, leaving it to Microsoft, where it belongs. Then, with the lack of competition, Microsoft would stumble, dropping the ball, possibly scoring yet another own goal, and another Unix-lookalike would spring up, only this time the developers would be so mad about Microsoft's embrace extend extinguish of Linux that they would adopt a new license, called ... the GPL!

And ESR would have another chance to get it right.

Re:He's right, of course

[millahtime]

If it were under the BSD license...

If what you said were true why didn't Microsoft take say FreeBSD and do the same thing? It's BSD Licensed, UNIX based and a pretty solid system.

Re:He's right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

They Did.

Re:He's right, of course

[dj28]

That's a ridiculous argument.

FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, and all the other operating systems based on the BSD license were not made obsolete by Microsoft, even if they do use some BSD code. The introduction of BSD code into Microsoft Windows did not magically make it a superior operating system. Neither would Linux code in Windows.

Your entire argument is a straw man.

Re:He's right, of course

[joib]

If what you said were true why didn't Microsoft take say FreeBSD and do the same thing? It's BSD Licensed, UNIX based and a pretty solid system.


AFAIK MS did in fact use the BSD network stack for some version of NT.

Re:He's right, of course

[Ingolfke]

Apache doesn't use the GPL and last time I checked IIS was losing group to Apache.

Re:He's right, of course

[bheer]

They didn't take BSD and 'create a whole OS'. Slashbots often whine about the 'strings ftp.exe | grep 'University of California' shebang (I even saw it on someone's .sig once) but those that do display an amazing inability to understand commercial software development and the BSD model.

While shipping NT 3.1 Microsoft was under pressure to add TCP/IP so they bought a commerically available stack rather than write it themselves. This commercial offering was a BSD derivative -- completely legally. For NT4 Microsoft rewrote the stack substantially, retaining old bits for backward compatibility. If this is 'stealing' from BSD, we should just scrap the BSD licence since it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Re:He's right, of course

[indifferent children]

Agreed. I like ESR's work, but he's dead wrong on this one. The guarantee to developers that their work cannot be hijacked and taken closed-source is critical.

Re:He's right, of course

[91degrees]

Yes, there's several bits and pieces of BSD code in Windows, but that's not the point. They never decided to simply extend BSD for their own OS. Presumably they wouldn't have done the same with Linux even without the GPL. The difference between the two operating systems isn't that great.

Apple did simply embrace and extend BSD. Nobody seemed to mind, and Apple ended up with a rather good OS.

Re:He's right, of course

[Egregius]

And Apple has and is contributing back, and MS hasn't contributed anything back so far.

Re:He's right, of course

[Egregius]

Yet the BSD stack has made Windows more competitive in the server market. Ohterwise they possibly wouldn't be there anymore. So yes, in a way it's made the BSDs and Linux less attractive.

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

Except for two minor details: 1) History shows that someone who tries it - whether the code is GPLed or not - invariably shoots themselves in the ass, and 2) your work cannot ever be taken closed-source without your consent. You always retain the rights to it.

Re:He's right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not stealing, it's just BSD. MS did it legally, and couldn't do the same with GPLed SW. And that was the main motive behind GPL.

Re:He's right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

An argument which is often used against the BSD licence, is that code can be "taken" and made proprietary.

And ?

Does this make the original BSD code non available ? The answer is no.

Does this make the original BSD code trapped ?
The answer is no.

So what happens ?

We have BSD code and people can grab it to build upon it. This has no impact on the free code itself and it is still available to us.

What does happen in the long term ?

Company X takes BSD code and builds on it. When the next release of the BSD code appears, they have to integrate their changes to the new version. This costs time and money.

And the risk is that BSD people could make changes that heavily break their own proprietary code.

In the long term, and as we get important changes to the BSD code, they will understand that their benefits are to release their code to the BSD people. Hoping that some of their stuff will get integrated into the BSD base, because the more of it gets there, the less work they will have to do.

If we base ourselves our real world facts concerning this, company X starts building on BSD code and keeps their changes proprietary. After some time, they will open the code and propose it as they build more code they won't release immediatly.

The BSD and GPL licences are complementary. We should use BSD licence for code we want to spread as much as possible like formats, protocols. TCP/IP was spread in part because of this in an era where each vendor tried to push his own proprietary network protocols.

The GPL licence should be used to protect everything that could have a value in the commercial world that we want to protect like office-like programs and so on.

This idea of complementary BSD-GPL licences does come from a friend called Emmanuel Dreyfus, a NetBSD developer and the more I think about it, the clever it looks to me :)

(Gilbert Fernandes)
(gilbert.fernandes _at_ club-internet *dot* fr)

Re:He's right, of course

[bigman2003]

So the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft from adopting open standards?

What if Microsoft incorporated more open software- would that be a good thing, or a bad thing?

Re:He's right, of course

[CaymanIslandCarpedie]

Well Apache certainly has a huge lead which I don't expect them to lose, the link you posted actually shows Apache losing ground to IIS in June.

Not really important, just thought it was funny your statement was about IIS losing ground and you link to a page showing Apache losing ground ;-)

Re:He's right, of course

[pesc]

So the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft from adopting open standards?
No, it is good because if you improve GPL software, like M$ did with the BSD TCP stack, you must give the improvements back to the community. M$ kept their improvements to themselves, legally and according to the BSD license. M$ weren't stealing. They just want to take and not give back.

Re:He's right, of course

[TheRaven64]

Apple did simply embrace and extend BSD. Nobody seemed to mind, and Apple ended up with a rather good OS.

NeXT took 4.3BSD and Mach 2.5, and built a kernel which used Mach to provide a hardware abstraction layer and key services (e.g. threads), BSD to provide a UNIX personality, and their own driver model. They licensed Display PDF from Adobe and built their AppKit on top of it. They created a BSD-derived userland with several of the BSD utilities. They added support for Objective-C to gcc, although this wasn't particularly useful without an Objective-C runtime - NeXT had one, and GNU now has one as well.

Apple bought NeXT (or NeXT bought Apple for a negative amount), stripped out the old 4.3BSD code and replaced it with 4.4BSD lites 2 code to make Rhapsody. They took some userland tools from NetBSD and created a Mac look and feel. A bit later, they updated more of the BSD code with bits from FreeBSD, which gave them a more modern kernel.

Saying that they did `simply embrace and extend BSD' is a gross oversimplification. You might like to compare the Darwin kernel source to any BSD kernel at some point and see how different it is. Sun (and other UNIX vendors) did simply embrace and extend (and extend a lot in some cases) BSD in the early days of commercial UNIX, although modern Solaris is a lot more SysV than BSD.

Re:He's right, of course

[dhasenan]

Not necessarily.

Let's deal with something we know about: Mac OS X. It's BSD-based, with changes. Their kernel development is somewhat independent of the operating system, as long as they update the compatibility layer as necessary. The largest issue would be the display manager.

If BSD changed today, and significantly enough that OS X's display manager would need to be rewritten for the new version--or the new version would have to be significantly modified--why would Apple update OS X to use the new BSD code? If anything, they'd port sections of the new BSD to their operating system.

We're talking about forking development into proprietary and open source versions. If Microsoft appropriated BSD, would they do any different? The best-case scenario would be like the relationship between Wine and Transgaming: the proprietary version takes the interesting bits of code from the open source version, and throws an occasional bone back in return. The worst case is as the original post said.

Of course, this is assuming that Microsoft uses whatever OSS OS under a BSD license. And it's a description of what could happen to FreeBSD / OS X.

Re:He's right, of course

[Rakishi]

Do you even read what the discussion is about or just blindly reply whenver certain terms come up? Legally neither did anything wrong, however even if something is legal doesn't mean people will not complain. Welcome to the great field of "ethics."

Re:He's right, of course

[Waffle Iron]

No, it is good because if you improve GPL software, like M$ did with the BSD TCP stack

IMHO, Microsoft is welcome keep all to themselves "improvements" such as having to call WSAStartup(), making sockets and file handles incompatible, and making it so select() doesn't work on files.

Re:He's right, of course

[IpalindromeI]

Please explain why it is critical. I honestly would like a good explanation of how the GPL is more beneficial to the programmer than a license such as BSD. If your intent is to share, why purposely step on the toes of someone who may want to take you up on the offer?

Re:He's right, of course

[Mr_Silver]

Do you even read what the discussion is about or just blindly reply whenver certain terms come up? Legally neither did anything wrong, however even if something is legal doesn't mean people will not complain. Welcome to the great field of "ethics."

I read the discussion quite clearly.

This has nothing to do with "ethics". Both companies adhered the the BSD licence. End of story.

Like the parent poster, you are trying to imply that one company is better than another for doing something that is simply not a requirement in the BSD licence.

Re:He's right, of course

[N3WBI3]

like M$ did with the BSD TCP stack

Im sorry did you say MS made the BSD TCP stack even better? I was under the impression they just used it.

Re:He's right, of course

[R.D.Olivaw]

ok, let's take an example. Suppose the gimp was released under the BSD licence. Some company takes the code, pulls a magic wand and enhances it until it's the best app of its kind around and starts selling it for big bucks. What did the people who wrote the gimp get in return?

Re:He's right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

i'd say, check your RAM. Mac hardware is VERY picky about RAM, and because Apple charges pretty high prices if you buy RAM from them, most of the time people buy RAM from other sources, but not every piece of CAS3 DDR400 RAM are alike, if you get what I'm saying. the overwhelming majority of indeterminate-kernel-panics has turned out to be incompatible RAM. The x86 side tends to have pretty tolerant designs for RAM and many more-technical "switchers" get hit by this because they're just not used to having RAM give them this kind of problem. My guess is as Apple adopts standard Intel chipsets these problems will fade away.

Re:He's right, of course

[m50d]

What if they don't worry about integrating their changes? If they make the fork once, and then maintain their own divergent version, like Apple is doing with Webcore. We now have what is effectively another open source web renderer - webcore has diverged sufficiently from khtml to count it separately. If khtml had been BSD, that would (probably, since they haven't displayed much concern for keeping the codebases compatible, so they wouldn't have much need to open it up) be one more closed source web renderer and one less open one.

What if the original maintainer has given up, and it needs a lot of porting to work on modern systems? With BSD software, where's the incentive to make the "new" version open source?

Re:He's right, of course

[CoolVibe]

Because the BSD license calls for correct attribution, the people who wrote the gimp can find a reference to their project in supplied documentation/release notes if they used the BSD license with the advertisement clause.

In short, they get recognition and attribution, and the satisfaction that someone out there didn't reinvent the wheel all over again.

Re:He's right, of course

[iggymanz]

actually, MS has "given back" in the sense that the one thing the BSD license requires is RECOGNITION to the authors, which is one thing most who write software want. And it is worth something, looks great on resume....

Re:He's right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's take another example. Suppose The Gimp was released under the GPL license. Millions of people and numerous companies use the software to create cool stuff, and sell what they've created for big bucks. What did the people who wrote The Gimp get in return?

The point you're missing is that open source isn't about getting something in return. If you really want something in return, try SELLING what you write instead of giving it away.

Re:He's right, of course

[compass46]

My job requires me to do X, Y and X. I do X, Y, and Z and in the rest of my time I post on Slashdot. My coworker does X, Y, and Z but also does A, B, and C related to our job while I post on Slashdot. My coworker does a better job than me simply by going above and beyond what is required of us.

Seriously, I can't stand halfwit attitudes like, "Well I only do what I am explicitly required to do." Lazy.

Re:He's right, of course

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is good because if you improve GPL software, like M$ did with the BSD TCP stack

Do you have references for this assertion? What improvements were made to the stack that Unix stacks do not have?

This is the same old BS. It is *good* that they used it otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this over the Internet -- we'd be using the Microsoft Network (remember that?).

The *great* majority of clients out there are Microsoft Windows clients. If Microsoft hadn't accepted TCP/IP, they would all be using some Microsoft protocol and we'd be using Microsoft servers instead of free webservers on every platform. The fact that a monopoly can embrace an open standard makes it possible for non-monopoly players to play too.

Re:He's right, of course

[Frank T. Lofaro Jr.]

Because Netcraft confirms, that BSD is dying.

Re:He's right, of course

[hymie]

The GPL is not meant to be beneficial to the programmer. The GPL is meant to be beneficial to the user, giving to the user the ability to read, modify, and redistribute the program. If this inconveniences the programmer, too bad. The programmer can choose not to use the code.

Re:He's right, of course

[unapersson]

"In short, they get recognition and attribution, and the satisfaction that someone out there didn't reinvent the wheel all over again."

But if they then want to implement the new enhanced features added to the closed source version, then they do have to reinvent the wheel again.

Re:He's right, of course

[IamTheRealMike]

But only real contributions to the [L]GPL licensed projects, and even then you have to sometimes have to pull teeth to get them (eg, ObjC++ support is still not upstreamed, ditto for the dead symbol stripping).

Re:He's right, of course

[freshman_a]

They just want to take and not give back.

If they didn't make an significant changes to the BSD TCP stack, what is there to give back? How do you know they made improvements and didn't just copy the code into Windows?

Re:He's right, of course

[Catiline]

I honestly would like a good explanation of how the GPL is more beneficial to the programmer than a license such as BSD.

YMMV, but:

1. The Programmer may fear the "tragedy of the commons" is not offset enough by his sharing alone.
2. The Programmer may not believe in the socialist "gift culture" implied by the "take without reciprical costs" BSD-style license.
3. The Programmer may be working on a project with intricate, long term, social and/or legal ramifications (e.g. anti-DRM), where knowlege itself is more important than mere action.

I would fully agree that the GPL is not for everyone, but it is also not without its' place in the scheme of things.

Re:He's right, of course

[Darth]

When Microsoft sold Zenix to SCO (back when they actually were in Santa Cruz), part of the deal was that Microsoft agreed to a non-compete clause that prohibited them from creating or marketing a unixlike operating system.

I am kinda curious who retains that contract. I imagine it follows the os portion of old-SCO and would now be in the care of McBride & Co.

Re:He's right, of course

[OblvnDrgn]

But if they then want to implement the new enhanced features added to the closed source version, then they do have to reinvent the wheel again.

Yes, they do. However, the features might give them new ideas for developing the open source version. The attribution mentioned by the earlier poster might attract additional developers to the project. It might help their personal professional lives to have their names on this product as well. These aren't the world's largest benefits, sure, but I think we're operating under different assumptions. I believe, and forgive me if I'm mistaken, you're assuming that if it was licensed under the GPL, the work would've been done and the changes returned. I'm assuming that if it wasn't under the BSD license, they wouldn't have done the work in the first place.

Re:He's right, of course

[walt-sjc]

By "improvement" do you mean "embrace and extend" or the totally horrible winsock interface?

Re:He's right, of course

[Midnight Thunder]

Quartz does use "Display PDF", just take a look at the following Ars Technica article:

Mac OS X Update: Quartz & Aqua

Re:He's right, of course

[mrogers]

A programmer contributing to a BSD project gives his code away in the hope that others will do the same. A programmer contributing to a GPL project gives his code away in the knowledge that others will have to do the same (unless they want to maintain a private fork of the software).

Re:He's right, of course

[jacekm]

Why give back something that you legally bought ? Are you a communist ? JM

Re:He's right, of course

[grammar fascist]

M$...

Hi. Are you twelve? Do you realize it makes you look like a total yutz when you do that?

You had a good point, but you lost me with the dollar signs. In writing circles, it's called a "roadblock." Try to avoid it.

Re:He's right, of course

[indifferent children]

1) History shows that someone who tries it - whether the code is GPLed or not - invariably shoots themselves in the ass, and 2) your work cannot ever be taken closed-source without your consent. You always retain the rights to it.

Your first point is somewhat valid, though Microsoft and others have incorporated the BSD TCP stack in their OSes, and made changes that have not been contributed back to the community. In fact, I can take the BSD stack, add a printf statement that prints "pong" whenever a packet arrives, release it under an all rights reserved license, and sue anyone (including a prolific BSD developer) if they 'share' my 'improved' version. They contribute 10,000 lines of code, including all of the tricky debugging, but I get to sue them for 'stealing' my improved version. No thanks; I would rather release any code that I feel like sharing under a GPL-style license.

You second point can be interpreted two ways: yes I will retain the right to use it, but that doesn't mean that another company won't take my code, add a "pong" printf, and start selling it under a closed source license. I do all of the work; they get all of the profit. They have taken a copy of my code closed-source.

Re:He's right, of course

[indifferent children]

The BSD liscense has the right idea. The people that can actually use the code (programmers/developers) are the ones with the most freedoms.

The first programmer to modify BSD'd code has more freedoms than if the code had been GPL'd. However, he is free to re-release the code, with his changes, under a M$ style EULA, and thus the second generation of programmers who want to build on what was built-on, are screwed. This scenario shows how the BSD license can foster a lack of 'progress' as improvements are not required to be contributed back to the community. That lack of progress hurts end users who are not even programmers, and cannot read source code.

Re:He's right, of course

[indifferent children]

The Programmer may fear the "tragedy of the commons" is not offset enough by his sharing alone.

The "tragedy of the commons" has already been shown to not apply to Open Source software (because the use of the resource does not diminish the resource). Rather think of it on a small, personal scale: I am willing to donate my time and effort to help someone who is 'nice'. My definition of 'nice' only includes people who want to help others and share, and especially only those people who are willing to re-share things that have been shared with them. I am not willing to donate my time and effort to help dicks; especially those who would take my donation and refuse to share it with others.

Re:He's right, of course

[harkabeeparolyn]

Sure, because as our corporate overlords like to say, "Your Time Is Our Money."

Re:He's right, of course

[Z4rd0Z]

Users don't read and modify source code, programmers do. What was your point again?

Re:He's right, of course

[Zak3056]

The GPL, accessible guilt-free wide-spread piracy, and socialism are all related in that they remove the valuation of a product or service.

I disagree with you. More importantly (and far more influentually) the market disagrees with you. Ask IBM, HP, Intel, SGI, Disney, Pixar, Google--I could go on, but I won't--how much value GPL software has. Seems to me that the value of the Linux kernel alone is measured in billions--if not tens or even hundreds of billions--of dollars.

Beyond that, the comparison of GPL code to socialism (a comparison designed to equate the GPL with an idea many consider to be evil) is that the GPL is entirely opt-in. Someone unfortunate enough to live in a socialist or communist nation will find that the products of their labor are forcibly taken and given to others "more deserving" or who "need it more" with the alternative being prison or death. On the other hand, engaging in the development of--or using--software licensed under the GPL is entirely voluntary. RMS is not going to come to your house wearing jackboots and demand you use GCC.

Let's not beat around the bush--companies and individuals HAVE been screwed by productizing GPL software and finding either someone else doing the same, or getting threatening letters from the copyright owners demanding source code. To this, I say: they COULD have elected to develop from scratch, but instead opted to use someone else's work. Exactly why would a rational person expect to be able to take someone else's labor and profit from it without remuneration? THAT sounds more like a socialist state to me, while the GPL's quid-pro-quo sounds quite capitalist in comparison.

Re:He's right, of course

[Emperor Cezar]

I hate the attitude that everything MicroSoft does and did invovled a corporate board meeting with Billy G. Not all of Microsoft is bad, there a divisions with good people, and divisions with bad people.

If the BSD people wanted anything back THEY WOULD HAVE PUT THAT IN THE LISCENSE! Microsoft is not evil for using the BSD code.

Re:He's right, of course

[ciroknight]

Simple; Apple beat them to the punch ;).

But seriously, I'm totally expecting to see this in the next version of Windows (whenever that will be). Whether it is a derivative of some BSD, a grounded up UNIX (with a compatible driver model to something that already exists), or if it's just a massive hack of NT and BSD together, it should happen.

Perhaps this is the real reason Microsoft flinched on the delivery of their MONAD shell?

Re:He's right, of course

[Pentavirate]

This is the most common sense thing I've seen posted in a while. Too bad it was posted as AC. I'd like to know who did it.

Re:He's right, of course

[PygmySurfer]

My G4 shipped with 256 mb RAM, and I added 2x512MB DIMMs. I pulled the Apple memory module, and the machine has been fine since. I think mixing and maxing memory modules from different manufacturers causes some issues (why OS X is so picky about memory is a bit of a mystery to me).

Re:He's right, of course

[2short]

"the second generation of programmers who want to build on what was built-on, are screwed. "

No. What was built on is still available. Those who want to build on the additions to that may or may not be able to. But if those improvements are going to be closed-source licensed, they'd just never get done if the original was GPL.
I make additions to BSD licensed code, and release the results under the BSD. I don't make any improvements to GPL licensed code, because I can't use it (since I am not willing to open all code I might wish to link with it). I am far from alone in this. I'm dubious whether the BSD ever fosters a lack of progress; I know the GPL does.
The person who would make improvements to BSD code and close them will not be forced to open them undcer the GPL; they just won't make them at all. And quite a few of us who would make improvements to BSD code an open them also won't make them at all to GPL code.

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

Nope. You always retain the right to your own work. If you use a non-GPL license, you do not claim any rights to anyone else's work; this is the GPL's distinguishing feature.

Nobody can forcibly take away your rights to your own work. This is a common misconception among GPL zealots and those who only listen to them. If I release a piece of software under a BSD license, even if someone takes that code and incorporates it in their own closed-source product, I still have complete rights to the original software.

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

Eric's point is that people who take steps such as the ones in your first example always lose in the marketplace: they simply can't keep up with the pace of innovation in the open source world. Your first example also ignores the fact that the original code is always and forever freely available.

The second argument is the same: Yes, they can create a closed-source version of your code. History shows, however, that companies that do that never win. Not one company based on this business model has survived.

Re:He's right, of course

[quanticle]

But do they not have rights to the derivative work under the BSD license?

Re:He's right, of course

[einhverfr]

M$ kept their improvements to themselves, legally and according to the BSD license. M$ weren't stealing. They just want to take and not give back.

What improvements might these be? NT4 had a TCP/IP stack that was among the most unstable I have seen. It wasn't until Windows 2000 that was reasonanly stable in this regard... Is there *really* any part of the NT TCP/IP stack that you would want in Linux?

Now, wrt something like DCE/RPC you might have a point but then it was not so much a matter of improvements as extensions.

Also I would point out that the GPL only protects code, not ideas. There should be no reason why commercial products should not be able to interoperate with GPL'd software.

BTW, I think that reference implimentations are best licensed under the BSD license, while real products probably do better under the GPL. After all the idea of a reference implimentation is to stimulate the production of separate products, while the idea of a real product is to capture the market. Horses for courses....

Re:He's right, of course

[indifferent children]

No. What was built on is still available.

You're right, my phrasing was clumsy (and wrong.) What I meant was that you cannot build upon the changes (unless they are also released Open Source).

I'm dubious whether the BSD ever fosters a lack of progress; I know the GPL does.

Personally, I like to think that my work contributes to an ever expanding 'progress'. Perhaps I would hesitate to use GPL code if I thought that I could create a product and make a lot of money with it.

Irony: since I know that I as an individual cannot hope compete against (or coexist with) M$ in the software econosystem, I am not worried about preserving the profit potential of the software that I create. M$ (by extinguishing hope) is the driving force behind OSS.

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

They may or may not. That's up to the developer of the derivative work to decide, and he gets to choose the license for his work just as the original developer gets to choose for his work.

In no way can the developer of the derivative work take, destroy, influence, infringe, or inhibit the original developer's rights in his own work. This is the point that GPL zealots keep forgetting, ignoring, glossing over, or just plain lying about.

Re:He's right, of course

[falconwolf]

The GPL, accessible guilt-free wide-spread piracy, and socialism are all related in that they remove the valuation of a product or service. In socialism, the state controls the value of everything. With the GPL, all work and contribution is on equal footing. No one would argue Linus' contribution is much greater than someone who wrote an obscure kernel driver. Yet Linus receives equal reward (i.e. the Linux kernel code base) as the person who wrote a single driver. Take this concept further to worrying with social concerns, as you argue MS should do, and you have socialism.

There's one big difference b etween the GPL and scoialism, whereas the GPL is freely available to choose to use or choose not to use, socialism has the potential armed use of force by the government to force compliance. Freedom of choice versus threat of violence.

Adam Smith would disagree with you that giving back is better for the society. In a free market, it is the self-interest of capitalists that ultimately enhance society and sustain the free market.

It's been too long since I've read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations to recall what he said of giving back to society but I'd say that in some cases it is to a person's self interest to "give back" to society.

Falcon

Re:He's right, of course

[spauldo]

You don't have to send changes to GPL code to the author. You only have to give the source code to anyone who:

A) You have distributed binaries to

and

B) Requests it

If you don't give a binary version to the author, you are under no compulsion to give him code either. Of course, it's considered common curtesy to do so, but if your company makes changes to a GPL program and only uses that internally, the author has no rights to it.

Re:He's right, of course

[Pentavirate]

Who in their right mind would purchase a piece of software that they can get completely free? I don't think the "pong" feature you meantioned would be enough to get people to purchase it. A company using the shared code would have to have enough value added to it that it would be worth a purchase.

Re:He's right, of course

[rthille]

M$ kept their improvements to themselves, legally and according to the BSD license.

^improvements^modifications^

Re:He's right, of course

[Dionysus]

There's one big difference b etween the GPL and scoialism, whereas the GPL is freely available to choose to use or choose not to use

Not if it's up the FSF. If you read some of their stuff, they pretty much says everybody should be forced to GPL their code.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

Microsoft gives away "Unix services for Windows". Windows + Unix Services is a Unix like operating system.

Re:He's right, of course

[master_p]

Beyond that, the comparison of GPL code to socialism (a comparison designed to equate the GPL with an idea many consider to be evil)

Important note: the above is valid only in USA, where there is tremendous propaganda against socialism. The rest of the world thinks otherwise.

Re:He's right, of course

[falconwolf]

Not if it's up the FSF. If you read some of their stuff, they pretty much says everybody should be forced to GPL their code.

If true then I disagree. There is a place for both commercial software and for FOSS, as well as for shades between.

Falcon

Re:He's right, of course

[Knara]

I'd venture the problem is more with the reader in this case than the writer. Seeing as this isn't a formal, edited publication, I'd suggest you save yourself the time of writing this sort of pointless reply next time around.

Re:He's right, of course

[MattWhitworth]

RMS is not going to come to your house wearing jackboots and demand you use GCC.

If you're really going shock people, he would be wearing a dress with a silver tiara.

Actually, I think the whole of Slashdot will have RMS-induced nightmares for weeks to come now.

*shudders

Re:He's right, of course

[cheesybagel]

Theoretically, yes. But it is also true Linus got GCC and other software which helped him make Linux more easily, and contributed little in return to GCC development. It is also true that was it not for him making Linux, I doubt he would be in the USA right now and got the proposals he did.

So yeah, if you analyse it in a case by case basis, it can be unfair. But if you analyse it iteratively, you will see you benefit much more than what you give back.

It is little coincidence this is the way scientific research has been done. Both scientific knowledge and software are incremental and easy to reproduce. On such an economy sharing is more efficient than privatizing. On such an economy, coopetition is much more powerful than competition. Because less valuable man hour resources are wasted, because you can reuse code.

It is only when you start applying these concepts to the material world, which has scarcity, that everything collapses quickly. Land ownership being a good example of something which is best if privately owned.

I still think all software development should be a consulting business, like plumbers, electricians, or mechanics. The business of selling software as a product should eventually cease to be. If the scarce factor is your labour, that is what should be charged, you should not charge for doing a copy which has zero cost. People are not stupid. They can see you are making them pay for something which is basically free. People do not like being cheated. Trying to force people into paying for things which they perceive to have zero cost leads to market distortion, draconian persecution, and other evil things.

You might claim this is also the case for all manufactured products. I claim it is not, because in this case we all own viable production machines. In the manufactured products case, you need to pay for the production machinery, which is too expensive for any one person to have. If someone invented a replicator which everyone could own, which made copies for basically no cost, then I could make a case that it would be the same. You could also claim that it is necessary to spread the initial production costs across more clients, because the cost to make a product is so high. I reply that is nonsense. No piece of software I know was born complete. Once you have a quick working prototype, you start selling it with limited functionality. Combined with the ability to reuse other people's code to make the prototype, that argument falls down. Except if you are only interested in maximizing your profit and do not care about your clients. If that is the case, then yes, selling them for hundreds of dollars something you can get for free is a great business.

Re:He's right, of course

[synthespian]

It doesn't change the fact that, under say a BSD license, the code base would still be there for everyone.
Your argument is highly flawed, because a company like Micro$oft would not choose GPL in the first place. Therefore, you have no contribution anyhow and your hypothesis is totally void of a probability of even coming into being. However, because the BSD license is unobtrusive, you have a higher probability that at least some code would merge back to the code base. We've seen this with Apple and FreeBSD. (I wish I knew some Bayesian theory, it can probably be explained with that ;-)) Anyhow, wether they merge back the code they evolved or not is completely irrelevant to you because your code is still there.
So, unless we factor in pyschological, moral, or political factors, the GPL makes less sense than the BSD license.
You have to understand the setting in which Stallman nurtured his idea of the Free Software movement. He was working in the MIT AI lab, they wanted to make money with Lisp machines, Symbolics came in and hired the best hackers of the lab under NDAs (Symbolics is a great lesson on failure, greed, and the Lisp Machine war probably hurt software development more than we can fathom) and Stallman was alone, the lab was torn apart, all the knowledge there under a NDA hood...And then the AT&T licensing problem with Unix...Back then, "everything was Free Software", there wasn't a need for licenses. But society changed, laws changed, corporations changed. And the hacker mentality gave in to the dot-com bubble and nowadays, those insane patents and lawsuits.
The BSD license represents the really true, free, "do what you like" mentality.
I believe it's a terrible misjudgement to expect every community to behave like the Linux community. Some communities don't: the BSD community, the Forth community (still in a wonderful hacker mindset), the Lisp community, the Delphi community, the Java community, etc., they're all very different and relate different to the issues of proprietary/free software.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

If your intent is to share,

Because the intent is not simply to share a specific piece of code but rather to engage in a cooperative cocreation process with a community. That's the difference between sharing a meal with family (where this is an ongoing process) and with some people at a public concert (where its a one time thing).

BSD people and GPL people have different goals.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

Users have interests that are often directly contrary to those of commercial software developers:

1) High cost vs. low cost
2) vendor lock in vs platform freedom
3) high consulting expenses vs. low consulting expenses
4) high maintainance contract costs vs. low or no costs
5) forced upgrades vs. voluntary upgrades

etc... Giving certain types of freedoms to certain types of programmers is in the user's interests.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

We had this discussion before. Explain what happened to X. Why was it that users on Irix, SunOS (later Solaris), AIX, HPUX... had to pay for value added X implementations and there were no free ones. The MIT work existed and was freely downloadable it was just completely worthless to end users.

Re:He's right, of course

[chris_mahan]

You mean to tell me that multibillioned microsoft could not write a competent TCP stack? If that's the case, what makes you think they can build a secure and reliable OS?

Oh wait...

And besides, Microsoft know how to get GPL software non-GPL'ed: They contact the author of the software and offer him $150K/yr job to work on their "innovative solution".

Which they've done with some of the firefox people I think, and the guy who wrote ironPython.

I say that's great: Be a hacker, forgo the corporate ladder, write some bitchin software on your PIII, and get a great salary for a few years... Can't argue the GPL does help some people financially.

Re:He's right, of course

[Dionysus]

Why Software Should Not Have Owners
./ Interview with Bradley Kuhn, VP of FSF

Re:He's right, of course

[Medievalist]

Adam Smith would disagree with you that giving back is better for the society. In a free market, it is the self-interest of capitalists that ultimately enhance society and sustain the free market.

Last time I checked, Adam wasn't the sort of idiot who denied the evidence of his own senses. Dig: I am a capitalist. It is demonstrably in my self-interest to "give back" as you guys put it. Therefore, according to another dead guy named Aristotle, giving back does not conflict with the self-interest of a capitalist. Therefore, your argument is constructed of Green Moon Cheese [TM].

I have doubled my salary by using GPL'd code (which, oddly enough, I actually pay for, because that's in my own self-interest) to increase my employer's profitability.

Stop theorizing and acting like your theories are reality. You have no idea how evil Bill Gates is, he could be the reincarnation of Jesus or he could be secretly running puppies through a blender in his basement and you would have no way of knowing.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

Not one company based on this business model has survived.

www.hummingbird.com (X)
www.sun.com (ATT's Unix)
computer associates's ingres database

I could go on and on and on. History shows the exact opposite of BSD proponents claim.

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

You didn't reply to my answer before. You're confusing X with the desktop. Since X explicitly excludes the desktop, Irix, Solaris, and the rest all did their own. That MIT X was worthless to end users was their own doing.

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

Sun's business model was based on hardware, not software. CA's business model is as a large,, diversified software company (and Ingres is open source now, or didn't you notice?). Hummingbird did substantial work to get X running on Windows; surely that counts for something.

None of the examples you cite are actually examples of open source software being "taken closed" and making money. There are plenty of examples of ones who have not done well, including at least one X vendor for Linux.

Re:He's right, of course

[MrResistor]

The difference is that roads are funded through taxes

This isn't necessarily true. Roads are quite often funded and built entirely by private interests.

In a rural area such as where I grew up, the vast majority of the roads were built by landowners. Much of the land was at one time owned by logging companies who, when they were done logging it, subdivided it and sold the parcels to individuals. The logging roads were then improved and extended by the new landowners, many of whom built houses on that land, and naturally wished for more reliable access. Some of those improved roads were later incorporated by the county or a town, who would then maintain them using tax money, but most are still privately owned and maintained.

In more urban and suburban areas developers are almost always required to do infrastructure improvements as part of their developement, and most of that involves creating new, or upgrading existing, roads to handle the traffic their development will create.

Re:He's right, of course

[2short]

I'm not suggesting that the GPL prevents progress; only that if your goal is maximum rate of progress, BSD might be a better choice, because more developers are able to contribute.

If you release your software under the BSD, and it does something that would make my (closed) software more useful, I might bundle the two of them together. If I do, and I decide your software could be more useful to my customers with some improvements, I'll make those improvements. Then I'll send the improvements back to you; not because I'm a nice guy (though I am), but because it will be better for me if my improvements are bundled together with those of others. I've no reason to close my improvements to your code, because your code isn't why customers come to me. They come for my closed code, which your code makes somewhat nicer. On the other hand, if you release under BSD something that makes my closed code nicer, I will combine the two, sell it, and not give you any of the money. That might bug you. If you don't want to help me make money, don't use the BSD. If you don't care, but would like me to potentially contribute to your code, BSD may be a good choice.

Anyway, I think you give up hope of making money in software too easily. Microsoft is big, but the software industry as a whole is many times bigger. Sure, you'd probably have to be crazy to start a business based on going head to head with MS in operating systems or office suites. But OSes and office suites strike me as terminally boring in any case! But consider that what looks like a tiny niche to MS can look like a vast market to a 5 developer shop. I, and many others, do pretty well working for small software companies; and when we need some auxilarry library code to do something related to, but outside our core competency, we look first for something BSD.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

I'm not talking about the desktop I'm talking about the X implementations that were used. And if X had been GPLed things like the window managers (being derived works) would also have been gpled...

Re:He's right, of course

[MrResistor]

Nice job of completely missing the point.

I'll give you a hint: the point still holds if the two guys are the sole proprietors of their own small businesses.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

CA only recently acquired Ingres. For its first 4 years or so it was open source, then commercial for about 20 and now open source again.

Sun made a lot of money selling Solaris licenses. Since they were part of the open systems movement and Solaris was avaiable for Fuji computers as well I think this counts.

As for Hummingbird that is a clear cut counter example. Of course the commercial company's have to do work to create a product they can sell. The point is that history does not show the companies can't take open source software and create a closed version making tons of money off it. Heck I worked for a company that took an open source (BSD license) 3D visualization engine from Nasa and created two closed source solutions from it. Incidentally when we used GPL software components we had to and did publish our source: like a SNORT agent or a middleware app for MySQL.

You had made a statement about commercial companies not being able to close up code. My examples of X and these among others show that's not true at all. In practice the BSD code can be effectively unusable even if its commercial children are widely used.

Re:He's right, of course

[2short]

"the comparison of GPL code to socialism (a comparison designed to equate the GPL with an idea many consider to be evil)"

Actually, I think the ideals behind the GPL do have a lot in common with the ideals behind socialism. Yes, many people (in the US) consider socialism to be evil. But they are ill-informed idiots.
Compared to capitalism, Socialism is really bad at some things (e.g. emerging-technology development) and completely kicks capitalisms ass at other things (e.g. health care). Many are fortunate enough to live in countries that strike a better balance of socialism and capitalism than the US. They may be in a better position to judge when the GPL, or open source generally, is the way to go, because they can recognize that it is indeed socialism, but that may be a good thing.

Re:He's right, of course

[reflective recursion]

The irony, you see, is that Linux and GCC would both not exist without Bell Labs.

You are seriously discounting research and development costs in your argument. Without R&D, there is no future software. Good ideas (ones that work) are the scarcity. The cost is distributed over all consumers. Not much software is "born complete" as you would say, but I have yet to see software that has evolved from nothing and been supported monetarily all the way. Sure, quite a few might pay to add new features and fix bugs that are in already completed software, but not too many people will pay for code that does absolutely nothing (alpha/beta/vapor).

I still think all software development should be a consulting business, like plumbers, electricians, or mechanics.

This analogy falls apart when you realize that programmers are also filling the role of architect. Plumbers, electricians, and mechanics already have the structure built to work with.

The cost of physically copying software, music, movies, etc. should never enter discussion of producing those items. For centuries we have relied on abstract concepts to provide and carry the concept of value, such as patents, copyright, trademarks, and even the concept of money itself. Just because it's convenient to make digital copies does not mean it's the best way to determine or relate value.

On a tangent, I feel obligated to point out a contradiction in capitalism. The idea of a free market and capitalism is that individuals can achieve greater reward than their effort. The underlying assumption is that there is an abundance of resources, all there for the taking. Yet, the concepts of economics are all based on the idea of scarcity. Take this however you wish...

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

You could run X on your SGI just fine. You couldn't run 4dwm on that, though.

You and the rest of the GPL zealots listen to yourselves too much. If X had been GPLed, the computer manufacturers would simply have chosen some other windowing system. The big reason that X beat out NeWS, for example, was that X was freely available to use and modify without forcing others to do anything.

Re:He's right, of course

[Jay Maynard]

Even if the derived works are closed source, there's nothing stopping someone sufficiently dedicated and interested from duplicating those features in an open source program.

The simple fact is that if, say, the BSD TCP/IP stack were GPLed, Microsoft wouldn't have used it anyway and published the source code. They would simply have continued with their own buggy stack. The GPL is totally ineffective at its stated objective, creating a body of work so compelling that it would supplant closed source software entirely. Companies are going to avoid GPLed software if there's any hint of a possibility of it forcing them to open their source.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

The GPL is totally ineffective at its stated objective, creating a body of work so compelling that it would supplant closed source software entirely.

That's not the stated objective. Its close but the objective is creating a body of work sufficiently compelling so that end users will not be forced to abridge their freedoms. It is not necessary that closed source software be supplanted entirely though it would be helpful.

Companies are going to avoid GPLed software if there's any hint of a possibility of it forcing them to open their source.

Companies in the business of creating commercial software for broad customer basis will avoid it. That's a very small percentage of companies and one that the GPL may very well be succesful in making much smaller.

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

Look at the 90s where lots of stuff is GPLed. The Linux kernel gets work from hardware vendors. KDE is getting support. GCC has been getting support. The fact is companies have been willing to use and support GPLed code ( and in terms of support I'd say more willing than with BSD code). Again history is showing your point is false. You don't know what choices Sun and SGI would have made or would have been forced to make. Maybe they would have adopted a 90's attitude and been thrilled that supporting a windowing environment was one expense they didn't have to carry year after year.

Re:He's right, of course

[synthespian]

shows how the BSD license can foster a lack of 'progress' as improvements are not required to be contributed back to the community.

No, the 2nd generation is not screwed, because the original codebase is there. This is a cognitive distortion. In some cases, it's called envy...
It's true that ideally all improvements should be merged back. In the Real World (TM), where it's very hard to survive on free software alone, a compromise may be necessary. Meaning the BSD license can provide a baseline of code that can be improved in-house. OTOH, fact is, BSD code is everywhere (protocols, for instance). So the advantages of BSD are not just theoretical.
And you might not consider "progress" if company X takes top-quality code but, personally, for things like internet protocols, I'd rather they'd do it.

Re:He's right, of course

[Z4rd0Z]

None of the things you mention require that the software be "Free" or open source. Some basic ethical standards among vendors could go a long way towards eliminating those problems.

Re:He's right, of course

[Rakishi]

Yes. It's not a requirement thus if one goes above the call of duty it is seen in a better light. What in god's name is so hard to understand about that? If I work at a job and help a client more than required to wouldn't people view my behavior as better than if I had simply done what is required?

You seem to lack understanding of what people are saying, they're not saying a company NEEDS to do anything however if it does then they'll think more highly of that company, specifically BECAUSE it doesn't need to do that. Furthermore some people not only look at companies which do so more highly but look at companies which don't with disdain. This too is perfectly acceptable as it's their own damn opinion, and they have every right to it.

I can refuse to buy products from a company which uses sweat shops (I actually don't since I'm not really that nice), does that make me a bad person because the company can legally do so?

Re:He's right, of course

[DA-MAN]

So the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft from adopting open standards?

No, the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft (and anyone in general) from bastardizing open standards. Kerberos (MIT License, similar to BSD) anyone?

What if Microsoft incorporated more open software- would that be a good thing, or a bad thing?

Probably a bad thing, considering how they've bastardized everything they touch.

Re:He's right, of course

[6]

They did. That's essentially what Microsoft Services For Unix is.

Re:He's right, of course

[cas2000]

> In the small lab setting, the point-of-view
> that all results should be open is valid. On
> the larger, macroeconomic scale, this
> point-of-view hurts the free market.

no, it doesn't hurt the "free market". at all. it may (or may not) hurt a particular company (or two or three) but individual companies are NOT the free market. the free market also includes the hundreds or thousands of companies and individuals who are restrained from participating by trade secrets, non-disclosure agreements, copyrights, patents, and so on.

in fact, any restriction on the free exchange of ideas and implementations of ideas (i.e. patents and copyrights) is INHERENTLY harmful to the free market. copyrights and patents are a socialist intervention into the free market.

this isn't necessarily a bad thing...there may be benefits in limiting the free market in this way, but that's because the world isn't as simple and black & white as american cultural programming (aka brainwashing) would have it - it's nowhere near as simple as "capitalism good, socialism bad".

Re:He's right, of course

[cas2000]

> I honestly would like a good explanation of
> how the GPL is more beneficial to the
> programmer than a license such as BSD. If
> your intent is to share, why purposely step
> on the toes of someone who may want to take
> you up on the offer?

because your intent may be to share with other people who are willing to share, but not with those who just want to take without giving anything in return.

that's a perfectly reasonable desire, and that's why many programmers and users choose GPL projects
over BSD-licensed projects. it's a way of giving without risk of feeling ripped off by parasites and leeches.

the GPL doesn't eliminate the free-loader problem, it just makes it irrelevant. it's still possible to take without giving (of course - some people aren't able to give anything valuable in return), it just ensures that if you do make and distribute a useful enhancement or derivative then you are required to share it.

it's not altruism, it's enlightened self-interest.

programmers who prefer BSD and similar licenses may not care about parasites and leeches (and may not even see them as such). that's fine. it's their software, they can choose to give it away in whatever manner they like. similarly, GPL fans can choose to give away their stuff in the way that they prefer.

Re:He's right, of course

[cas2000]

> I'm not suggesting that the GPL prevents
> progress; only that if your goal is maximum
> rate of progress, BSD might be a better choice,
> because more developers are able to contribute.

only the developers who DON'T CARE that their contributions can be taken into a proprietary derivative by future unknown third-party without any compensation at all (and yes, the chance of getting back improvements which is guaranteed by the GPL *does* qualify as compensation, even if the chance is minimal or remote).

there may be lots of programmers who don't care, but there are many more who DO care, who won't contribute purely for that reason.....or who will make a GPL derivative/fork of the BSD-licensed original, which is far from an optimal result.

in that case, either the GPL version is significantly better than the BSD, so it ends up replacing it (an acceptable, but not good, outcome) or it isn't, in which case it vanishes into irrelevance taking the contribution along with it (a completely useless outcome).

Re:He's right, of course

[jbolden]

No they don't require open source. Open source helps to facilitate them. You had asked what were the advantages for end users in software freedom and I listed a bunch of things that become much more likely with free software....

Re:He's right, of course

[styrotech]

No, the GPL is good because it keeps Microsoft (and anyone in general) from bastardizing open standards. Kerberos (MIT License, similar to BSD) anyone?

Ummm Kerberos being GPL wouldn't have made one bit of difference. Even if that made sense - Kerberos is a standard protocol (RFC 1510) not a codebase therefore the GPL vs BSD debate isn't applicable.

And that standard allowed MS to do what they did with it. There was a specific part that allowed for extensions.

MITs implementation of Kerberos is MIT licensed, but MS didn't use that codebase anyway. They wrote their own implementation based on the published standards. So even if MITs implementation was GPL it wouldn't have made any difference to what MS ended up writing.

Re:He's right, of course

[chris_sawtell]

If it were under the BSD license...

If what you said were true why didn't Microsoft take say FreeBSD and do the same thing? It's BSD Licensed, UNIX based and a pretty solid system.

MS couldn't change to a unix-like o/s at that point, or now for that matter, because they have too much legacy baggage programming distributed as binaries to support, both their own and other people's.

Apple managed it because they have a _far_ smaller load of legacy applications, which are by and large far better written.

Re:He's right, of course

[2short]

No, no, I mean more developers are able to contribute in that developers such as myself, who do largely proprietary development, are able to contribute to BSD projects. The GPL does not gaurauntee that I will make contributions; rather it garauntees I will not. I can't use it, so I'm not going to improve it.
For example, lets say I write some (closed) software that does some complex statistical analysis. It does it better and faster than the competition, so I'm selling a bunch. Now one of my customers says "Hey, this is cool, but could you show the output on a graph?" Now, I'm not particularly interested in writing a graph-drawing library, so I go looking for one. There are various proprietary ones I could pay for, but I trust I don't have to explain why I'd rather use an open source one. So there's a nice one that's GPL licensed. But I really want to build graph-drawing ability right into my software, and I'm not going to open the stats part, so I can't use it. Hey, here's a nice BSD one. Great, I use that, compile the code right into my program, now I can draw graphs. But this lib doesn't support pie charts, and I'd really like it to. So I write some pie-chart code. Am I going to hoard my improved graph lib all to myself, cackling evily? Of course not. Nobody is choosing me over my competition because I've got nice pie charts. If I send my pie-chart code back to the maintainer, he'll roll it in, and next version I'll get that, plus some other guys bar-chart enhancements. Really, I think the fear that someone will take the whole thing and sell it as their own proprietary version is overrated. Their going to have to add a lot of their own work to make their product attractive vs. the free bsd version. Worst case, they make some money off my nice pie-charts. Who cares? I've lost nothing, still got the bsd version that does what I need, and I already decided I didn't want to be in the graph-drawing-software business.
Yeah, their are developers doing stuff on their own time and unwilling to take the chance that someone else will make a buck off their work (why, I don't know). But I'd argue their are many more like me who can't touch GPLd code, but will happily contribute to BSD projects; and we have more time to do so because we're getting paid for it.

Re:He's right, of course

[DA-MAN]

MITs implementation of Kerberos is MIT licensed, but MS didn't use that codebase anyway. They wrote their own implementation based on the published standards. So even if MITs implementation was GPL it wouldn't have made any difference to what MS ended up writing.

Not entirely true. Microsoft did use the reference MIT implementation to better design their own. Microsoft does have rules against going near GPL code.

It's possible Microsoft may have built their own protocol instead of bastardizing kerberos.

Re:He's right, of course

[Bush Pig]

ESR can be a real dickhead.

Re:He's right, of course

[cheesybagel]

This analogy falls apart when you realize that programmers are also filling the role of architect. Plumbers, electricians, and mechanics already have the structure built to work with.

Erm, no. Architects are into consulting as well. As for your second point it makes no sense really.

Just because it's convenient to make digital copies does not mean it's the best way to determine or relate value.

If it is easy to make digital copies, the market value of a copy should be low. Simple as that. Ignoring this fact introduces a market distortion, which will rapidly be compensated by the market. If not the regular market, then the black market. Hence you will need to waste resources fighting the black market with force to enforce your view, in a war you will never win. The greater the market distortion you try to push, the more force you will need to use to supress the market response.

Re:He's right, of course

[pbhj]

Well said!

Re:He's right, of course

[reflective recursion]

As for your second point it makes no sense really.

I like how you simply shrug off any point-of-view that does not agree with yours. Keep it up. If you want to pay out the ass for a programmer to design and implement the software you want and then you give it away for free, be my guest. You can do this today, but I doubt you do it because you probably do not have enough money for R&D (the architect+programmer, which was my entire point). Either shut up, or put up...

If it is easy to make digital copies, the market value of a copy should be low. Simple as that. Ignoring this fact introduces a market distortion, which will rapidly be compensated by the market. If not the regular market, then the black market. Hence you will need to waste resources fighting the black market with force to enforce your view, in a war you will never win.

You are quite ignorant. We do this today. The concept is individual ownership. It is much easier to walk across the street, hop in my neighbor's car and drive off than drive five miles away to the dealership and spend all day purchasing a car. Countless resources are wasted in negotiation of property ownership and the securing of that ownership. You are arguing for a socialist system whether you realize it or not. You want state (or public) owned goods. Copyright and patents, et al. are good for providing incentive to produce. You want to know the "market response" when those virtual forms of property disappear? The products vanish completely. No more music, no more movies. No more vaccines. No more books. Or we could increase taxes and give out grants (some states already reimburse movie productions) and, what do you know, we have a socialist system!

Of course, your response will be that digital copies are different from actual physical goods, such as a car. Try this. Look outside in your neighborhood or down your street. Each time I do, there is a 100% chance another car will be sitting somewhere on the street. Never have I looked outside and not found a car. Digital copies, while nearly free, are not. They do take resources to recreate however small that may be. Cars are not sold at-cost of production. Other factors such as research and development are factored into the price.

Now you may say, "what if I take my neighbor's rare diamond, which there is only one in the world?" (in a world with public-owned property) I'll have to say that you will never have such a neighbor, because he or she will hoard such an item and never let anyone know about it. The same will happen with talent and knowledge in a world where copyright does not matter. No one wants to be taken advantage of. Talent and knowledge will be squandered.

Re:He's right, of course

[welsh git]

I just knew this topic would generate another GPL vs. BSD argument - I really don't know why people write such long replies to the topic - it's all been said before, and whichever side you're on, you won't change the mind of the other side.

There are those that don't want evil MS and others using their code.

And there are those that want their code used to make the computing world a better place.

With all the legalise, politics, and fanboyism of the GPL, I'm firmly on the BSD side, but nothing I say will change your mind, and nothing you say will change mine.

Re:He's right, of course

[cas2000]

> The GPL does not gaurauntee that I will make
> contributions; rather it garauntees I will
> not. I can't use it, so I'm not going to
> improve it.

yes, i understood your point, no need to belabour it.

you seem to have missed my point, though, which was that there are many more programmers who *won't* contribute to BSD-licensed projects because they don't want to contribute to something which *could* be stolen and made proprietary - they see that as wasting their effort, throwing their time away, and being exploited by parasites.

note that "could" is significant - it doesn't matter whether it actually is stolen or not, the potential is enough of a disincentive.

> So there's a nice one that's GPL licensed.
> But I really want to build graph-drawing
> ability right into my software, and I'm not
> going to open the stats part, so I can't use
> it

that's the GPL working as designed. if you're not prepared to share then you're not allowed to use the code. write your own or find some other library - it may not be as good as the GPL lib, but that's the price you pay for not participating in the free software game. only those willing to share are allowed to play.

> Yeah, their are developers doing stuff on
> their own time and unwilling to take the
> chance that someone else will make a buck
> off their work (why, I don't know).

it's not about making a buck, it's about reciprocity. it's about not wanting to be exploited by leeches and parasites - i.e. "if you're willing to share, welcome and feel free to use my stuff. if not, then write your own".

> Really, I think the fear that someone will
> take the whole thing and sell it as their
> own proprietary version is overrated.

why overrated? it happens all the time. there are thieves out there who will do whatever they can get away with if it will make them a quick buck. it happens to BSD licensed projects (in which case it's legal) and it even happens to GPL code (in which case it's not legal, and it is possible to enforce compliance with the license).

the BSD license has no problem with that kind of exploitation. in fact, it doesn't even see it as exploitation - that's just the software being used as intended by the developers. that's fine, that's the way it's supposed to work. no problem.

the GPL license, however, does see that as exploitation. if you want to use GPL code then you have to be willing to share. if you don't want to or can't do that then you don't get to use the code.

> But I'd argue their are many more like me who
> can't touch GPLd code, but will happily
> contribute to BSD projects;

no, there are far fewer who can't touch GPL. very few programmers actually sell (or intend to sell) proprietary software. most programmers are in-house programmers.

in fact, there's probably more amateur/hobbyist programmers than retail shelfware programmers.

Re:He's right, of course

[Zak3056]

I just knew this topic would generate another GPL vs. BSD argument

I can't help but wonder if you replied to the wrong post? Personally, I see the merits of both BSD and GPL licensing. While I personally prefer the GPL because it forces the code to remain free, I wouldn't presume to tell somebody they had to use it because it was MY preference.

GPL, BSD, CPL, Apache, Public Domain, whatever you want to license your code under--hey, it's YOUR code, right?

Re:He's right, of course

[welsh git]

>> I just knew this topic would generate another GPL vs. BSD argument

> I can't help but wonder if you replied to the wrong post?

Oops :blush: I did, sorry. Right thread, wrong post. Sorry, my reply was not directed at you.

Re:He's right, of course

[leecn]

... yutz...

Hi. Are you twelve? Do you realize it makes you look like a total fool when you do that?

You don't like the dollar symbol, get over it.

Re:He's right, of course

[IpalindromeI]

it's a way of giving without risk of feeling ripped off by parasites and leeches.

This is the point that everyone seems to believe about the GPL. "If I use the GPL, I can't get ripped off! If I use BSD, someone can steal my code and my effort will be wasted!" (Almost a direct quote from another poster above.) This is the point I don't understand. How is the effort wasted? Presumably you wrote the code for a purpose. It is still available for that purpose. It has not suddenly disappeared from the earth. How are you being "ripped off by parasites and leeches" since you are not receiving compensation either way?

because your intent may be to share with other people who are willing to share, but not with those who just want to take without giving anything in return.

Now we're getting somewhere. The desire to share only with others who are willing to share is a true reason to use the GPL instead of BSD. I have no problem with that. All of the other reasons and arguments that have been given are misleading and betray a lack of thought on behalf of the presenter on how the situation actually works.

I personally use BSD because I mainly code for myself. Once the code is written, I've gotten the usefulness out of it. If others find it useful then that is a bonus for them, but it has no real impact on me. In that siutation, I don't see the point in forcing other restrictions on them. I can respect the opinion of wanting to share with other sharers, however. Thanks for pointing that out.

GPL Teeth?

[millahtime]

Can anyone tell me if the GPLs teeth have been tested or evaluated? How sharp are they?

Re:GPL Teeth?

[pe1rxq]

With most companies "we don't wan't to open EVERYTHING we write" usually translates to "We just want to leach without giving anything back".
Alternativly they just don't read it properly.
You don't have to open everything. Just the stuff that is a derrivative of the GPLed program.

Those companies try to make you believe they have this huge pile of code and they add a little bit of GPL code. It usually is the other way around: they use huge amounts of GPL code (e.g. an entire kernel) and add a little bit off their own.

Jeroen

Re:GPL Teeth?

[cortana]

It's strong enough that those who have fallen foul of its conditions in the past have always settled out of court.

Here is what would happen if someone infringing upon the GPL ever refused to settle:

Plaintiff: Your honour, the defendant is distributing my copyrighted work without a license. Please make him stop.

Judge: Stop it, defendant!

Defendant: Golly, I just spend thousands on legal fees to appear in a case I had no hope of winning.

(Paraphrased from a talk given by Ebden Moglen. I don't remember which it was, but I think it was one of the ones linked from that article.)

Re:GPL Teeth?

[dgb2n]

What I can tell you is that at least on the program I work (a major middleware software development for the Army being written by a "major" defense contractor"), the corporate attorneys are scared to death of the GPL.

LGPL is fine. Dual licensed open source products are fine where you can pay the developer for a license other than compliance with the GPL.

There are lots of reasons that companies and government entities don't want to expose all their source to the GPL including security considerations, protection of intellectual property etc.

The fear is not based on any doubt about the quality of open source/GPL code it is more a concern about the "viral nature" of the GPL. Even where changes are not made to the open source code and its dynamically linked with proprietary code, the attorneys will not allow it. We're actually paying to replace GPL components with non-GPL components to avoid any perceived risk of future litigation.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[91degrees]

Hard to say. The GPL does have a pretty nasty bark though. Legal threats and bitching from the OS community usually makes violators back down.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[arose]

Sounds like this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/moglen-harvard-speec h-2004.html.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can anyone tell me if the GPLs teeth have been tested or evaluated? How sharp are they?

The International Standards Organization carried out a study last year; in order of increasing sharpness:

• Ruminants
• GPL
• Carnivores
• Richard Kiel in Moonraker

Re:GPL Teeth?

[saider]

With most companies "we don't wan't to open EVERYTHING we write" usually translates to "We just want to leach without giving anything back".

No, more often than not, the GPL software is a small component of a larger system (i.e. code to handle graphics formats). The GPL'ed code is not changed or improved, but somehow the communitiy expects to get all the other irrelevant code for free. This is what turns companies off to it.

You don't have to open everything. Just the stuff that is a derrivative of the GPLed program.

You do if it is statically linked. Of course you can decouple the GPL code from your application, but you might take a penalty somewhere (in size, speed, or complexity). Most companies are not going to hassle with that and just pay someone $30,000 to write the widget.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[pe1rxq]

Take a random broadband router or access point that runs linux.
It usually comes down to a standard kernel with just a little bit of hardware glue such as the memory layout and maybe a few device drivers.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[pe1rxq]

If it is worth $30,000 it is not just some small irrelevant or trivial part....

Re:GPL Teeth?

[zerocool^]

You don't have to open everything. Just the stuff that is a derrivative of the GPLed program.

And even that's not entirely accurate. If you take GPL'd code, modify it, and use it in house, you don't have to release it. The ONLY time that you'd have to release code is when you're distributing a derivative work. For example, if you modify code, and then turn around and sell it, when you sell it, you also have to provide a copy of the source to the people who buy it. If you release it for download, you have to release your changes. That's it.

~Wx

Re:GPL Teeth?

[saider]

Writing an image library can take some time. The image library may be needed to simply put some pictures on the user interface. The meat of the system probably has nothing to do with images. Why should the company be forced to release this when they can get a better license, and free up a developer to work on the meat instead of the fluff? $30,000 is a small amount if the project budget is tens of millions of dollars or if you don't want your developers reinventing the wheel.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[Nugget]

You remember this article? The one where legions of poor spellers furiously railed in the comments about how spelling and punctuation don't matter as long as the reader is able to comprehend meaning?

Here's a tangible counterpoint to that argument: There's no confusion -- pe1rxg has obviously mispelled "derivative" using two r's. I'm confident that any reader will completely understand the intent despite the misspelling.

But you know what? That one extra "r" conveys a message which completely overshadows what's been said. That extra "r" says "The person who has written this has no FUCKING idea what they are talking about." People who understand licenses do not misspell that word. People with the understanding and training necessary to tell you what a complicated license like the GPL requires do not misspell that word. With that one extra "r", pe1rxg has instantly demonstrated that his opinion on licensing issues have no merit.

I wouldn't hire a programmer who had difficulty spelling "include" and I sure as hell won't take legal advice on licensing issues from a person who doesn't know how to spell such a basic term of art like "derivative". You just can't develop an understanding of licensing issues without consequently developing a familiarity with the terms used in discussing licensing issues.

It's sort of the same way that everyone who uses command line ftp learns how to spell "anonymous" :)

Re:GPL Teeth?

[pe1rxq]

Nice rant for someone who can't even be bothered to write 'pe1rxq' correctly :)

Re:GPL Teeth?

[mixmasta]

Typos happen. Deal with it.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[Tony Hoyle]

You do if it is statically linked. Of course you can decouple the GPL code from your application, but you might take a penalty somewhere (in size, speed, or complexity). Most companies are not going to hassle with that and just pay someone $30,000 to write the widget.

You do if it's dynamically linked too.

The FSF define any piece of code that uses any piece of GPL code as derivative, so to take an extreme example you can't create a DLL of GNU getopt and dynamically link it to a nuclear power control system - the larger program becomes 'derived' from the GPL subroutine and the choice would be to remove the GPL component or GPL the entire system.

There are lots of more mundane examples.. the LGPL is much better and I'm using it more and more now because of this silliness (basically as I write new code I LGPL it and slowly the GPL code is being removed).

Re:GPL Teeth?

[91degrees]

I wouldn't hire a programmer who had difficulty spelling "include"

Surprising. I keep typing it as "inlcude", yet seem to be quite capable of holding down a C programming job.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[mark-t]

And the reason for this is consistent with the Copyright act as it currently sits.

Since even without explicit permission from the Copyright holder, the Copyright act _does_ grant unlimited permission to copy a copyrighted work for personal use. It's the act of distributing in the first place that negates the notion of personal use, and that requires permission from the Copyright holder to do. The GPL grants said permission to all people that agree to its terms. If you don't agree, then all you have left is personal/private use, or are stuck trying to negotiate alternative terms with the copyright holders (which they are not under any obligation to provide).

Re:GPL Teeth?

[swv3752]

Though given a standard Font and underlining the name, it is not immediately obvious if pe1rxq ends in 'q' or 'g'.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[Lumpy]

This is a 100% true statement.

The company I work for origionally had a CTO that was freaking out about GPL'd software.

It came to pass that he was simply acting that way because of the FUD and scaremongering that the MS rep he was buddy-buddy with was feeding him on a regular basis. After his "demands" and we presented a proposal for rewriting and purchasing everything needed to eliminate all GPL software in the business plus a letter from the Company's law firm telling him that the GPL is 100% harmless in every aspect unless we are shipping GPL code as or in a product.

The whining was still there, finance refused to approve a 2.2 million dollar budget line to buy all new MS and other commercial software as well as hiring programmers to rewrite from scratch some of the other solutions we rely on for revinue.

the GPL is not "dangerous" or "viral" and also is not scary in any way, shape, or form to anyone but someone trying to steal code, get something for nothing or are underinformed or relying on lies/bad information.

We proved it to a CTO that was pigheaded, must have his way, and trusts his personal friends more than the experts he hires.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[ckaminski]

Why not find an LGPL image rendering library and link to it, statically or otherwise (which the LGPL allows, BTW).

Most libraries, true utilitarian libraries like this, are being licensed this way. It's not the concern you make it out to be.

Before LGPL, viral infection was a problem, and it still is, if the code you want to use isn't licensed as such. So I guess you could still argue that the GPL is a serious problem, while ignoring a whole other license that was invented to fix the problem of code REUSE, as opposed to code co-opting, while still staying true to the intent of the GPL.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[noamt]

You don't have to open everything. Just the stuff that is a derrivative of the GPLed program.

So, if I take some GPLed (not LGPL) code, extend it, and embed it in a much larger application (use it as a library) - what do I have to release under the GPL, the entire application or just my extension to the original? And were is the line between them?
The GPL (which I have read a few times) doesn't make it very clear for non-lawyers.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[ckaminski]

If you're gonna pay someone, why not pay the GPL authors of your libraries/code 50% of what you'd pay in replacement costs, to simply have them LGPL it? Seems like a greater idea, you get all the benefits of the GPL and LGPL, and you don't even have to rewrite your code.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[Tim Browse]

I'm getting pretty sick of this argument.

Any professional developer* worth anything will ask the following questions when investigating a library for use in a product:

1. Does it do what we want?
2. Are we allowed to use it, and what are the license conditions?

It's not Rocket Surgery - I do this as a matter of course when evaluating libraries at work.

It is Job #1. Not Job #DoItAfterWeShip.

Sure, the GPL might scare people off using a library, but then...so what? If they don't want to share, then they write the code themselves. Their choice. If they don't want to share, I'm not saying that's 'evil', just that they don't get the benefit of the free software someone else produced on the condition that others share too. I myself have been in both positions, and whether you choose to use GPL software for a particular task is specific to what you are doing. You make a choice and you move on.

Whining about the license stopping you use a library is like whining about the price of a commercial library stopping you using the library. In either case it doesn't do you any good, and to paraphrase Linus, whoever wrote the code gets to decide the license and the cost, and nobody else gets to complain.

But this "we used GPL'd code without doing even the most basic license checks on our libraries, and now we have to release our code! no fair!" stuff is just bullshit. They fucked up. They're idiots. End of story.

As for 'holding developers back', it's a bit like calling out a roadside recovery service when you break down in your car, and getting upset when they tell you they will charge you. "You won't tow me unless I pay you? If I don't agree to your terms, I'll have to do it without you?! You're holding me baaaaaaaack, man!"

* Or any developer worth anything, come to that.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[pe1rxq]

In part you gave the answer already... it is clear since you already seem to know about the lgpl.
The GPL is very clear about linking it (even non-static). The whole becomes a derivative.
If you don't want it search for code under another license such as the lgpl you already know about.

Jeroen

Re:GPL Teeth?

[cHiphead]

Its a very dubious argument to make, since changes to a GPLed system that are strictly "in-house" and not distrubted (ie shared outside of the same org than changed it, i think the federal government as one blanket org would suffice) do not have to be shared and released to anyone. If you want to design a system based on GPLed software for the government, have the government get a copy of the software, then hire you as a contractor to make the changes 'in-house' for them, so technically its theirs already and you are acting as a representative of said government. Whats so hard about that? The inability to resell your work to private entities? That is simply the 'cost' of doing business. Instead of being able to get paid for making digital copies of software, you actually have to WORK for the money every time. Whats wrong with working?

Cheers.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[arkhan_jg]

That's why such code usually ends up in libraries, under the LGPL so it can be used without being embedded into your current software.

Most GPL code I've seen that people wanted to use was complete apps, that they just wanted to use virtually lock stock and barrel, with a prettier frontend on it that melded with the rest of their code.

If you're not prepared to abide by copyright that the creator of the GPL'd work wanted, then why should I abide by copyright on your work?

Re:GPL Teeth?

[ciroknight]

Usually. It's worth more to the company to have a one-time contracted $30,000 piece of code that's closed and proprietary than a free to use GPL code if it requires them to open up the rest of their $1,000,000 software suite. That's why companies I know about fish around for libraries that are LGPL and latch on.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[electroniceric]

What I can tell you is that at least on the program I work (a major middleware software development for the Army being written by a "major" defense contractor"), the corporate attorneys are scared to death of the GPL.

I'd speculate that's a combination of couple things. One is that earlier versions of the GPL were reputedly a little shaky on the contract-law side of things, so for an attorney managing that scale of legal risk it would be pretty scary to try to work with a contract where you know the legal language is not that clear. The second is that this is a new kind of contract law and as such when your client asks you what might happen if things do wind up in court all you can do is shrug. Does your client have to release all their code, or will it be sufficient to cease distributing and possibly pay damages? Hopefully new versions of the GPL will clarify this, as well some kind of court clarification on the interpretation of the GPL.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[jbolden]

Yes it has been, MySQL vs. NuSphere (NuSphere lost). MySQL was able to show that:

1) Gemini was a derived work of MySQL
2) NuSphere didn't fulfill the terms of the GPL and thus were in violation of MySQL's copyright.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[Pentavirate]

I don't think anyone is whining about not being able to use GPL code any way they want. The point of the article was that the GPL license, when compared to the BSD license, is prohibitive to a company producing software to sell and therefore it is holding back Open Source software from becoming more widely used.

Programmers who have a problem with the GPL don't use the GPL. The discussion is simply putting out things to consider when a developer is deciding under which license to release his/her code. Nothing else.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[jbolden]

Lets be clear for most open source projects its not going to matter too much how the FSF defines a derivitive work (the licenses definition is copyright laws not a seperate but weaker definition). What's going to matter is how the courts do. The courts have generally been much more aggressive about defining derivitive works than the FSF is. The fact is that most likely the GPL is far more viral than most /.ers think it is. Things we would consider aggregation are likely enough to cause the viral clauses to come into effect.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[7-Vodka]

No one is saying that every company needs to use GPL works when they are available.

If you're only going to use a small widget (as in your example) then there is no reason not to just pay someone to write it. Hell, they could just buy a proprietary widget that's already made, or even get in touch with the copyright holder of the GPL'd one and work out a special license.

But when the company has a different choice, like it needs a whole OS to go on it's router, then the smart decision might be to use GPL code for most of it and just throw the source in with the bundle.

That's the rules of the GPL, it's a very straightfowrard license when compared to most proprietary licenses.

What I'm saying: "the GPL is great in a lot of cases!"

what you are saying: 'the GPL sucks because it doesn't work in this one case!'

In my experience, people who argue that the GPL sucks because of one case like this are doing it because this happens to be their case.

It's really annoying to have what you need right in front of you but not be able to use it. It's like a chocolate cake that you walk past at a fair. You can see it's delicious, the smell is making your mouth water but you don't want to pay for it or you have dinner ready when you get home anyway. It can piss you off :)

Re:GPL Teeth?

[synthespian]

Yes, but this might change in v 3.0, right? So there's no garantee...

The reality I've seen is that GPL lends itself to politics... I don't mean that in an abstract way. I mean real-world politicking, ass-kissing and what not. At least, I've seen a lot of that from the Free Software crowd in Brazil (I was once on the Themes Committee of the Forum mentioned in the ESR article).
I've seen a couple guys open quite successful consulting firms and drop their old jobs, once the current (corrupt, it seems) leftist party ruling Brazil won the elections...
The GPL would mean my code would get incorporated automatically and used by parasites, who would then get government contracts because they are, after all, parasites (and Free Software is all the hype with the lefties, betting their egos swollen with Lessig and Maddog massages).
The BSD means I control the code, and it can be advanced in-house to my advantage, so projects can win based on merit. Not filthy ass-kissing low-life politics. You see, I have a very different view on Free Software.
Also, ain't it funny how the GPL can make you dual-license your stuff? You license something under the GPL, don't even document it properly, then propose "support" or a proprietary licensing (I'm sure you're aware of some 2-3 big projects who chose that path). That is so dishonest.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[Leto2]

Actually, he spelled it corectly. You just don't know how to spell your nick...

Re:GPL Teeth?

[goulo]

Well of course the nick is misspelled, but surely it was intentionally done to be L337!

Re:GPL Teeth?

[pe1rxq]

Actually, it was the dutch government that made it up... Its my amateur radio callsign.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[vwjeff]

For example, if you modify code, and then turn around and sell it, when you sell it, you also have to provide a copy of the source to the people who buy it.

I could be wrong but I didn't think the modified code had to be included. I only thought the modified code had to be available upon request.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

My right hand just gets to that l faster than my left gets to the c everytime.

Try Dvorak, which I've been using for about six months; c and l are both dextrous.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[zerocool^]

You're right, of course. By "provide", i was just trying to get across the whole "anyone who you voluntarially give access to the software also has to have access to the source" angle.

Re:GPL Teeth?

[cow-orker]

Has been tested more than once and the teeth are sharp. Best of all, it has been tested in Germany and resulted in injunctions, while it wasn't even clear if a license written for US american law would apply in Germany at all. Now the silly discussion can end: the GPL is legal binding document.

See http://www.gpl-violations.org/ for more.

GPL is very much needed

[rajeshgoli]

Agreed that GPL may not have been the most important ingredient in linux's success. But can you imagine how many people would take away your code and claim as their own, sell it and not give back to the commnuity had it not been for the copyleft "GPL"?

Re:GPL is very much needed

[Anonymous Coward]

kinda like CherryOS with PearPC yeah ? oh wait...

Re:GPL is very much needed

[SpartanVII]

But can you imagine how many people would take away your code and claim as their own, sell it and not give back to the commnuity had it not been for the copyleft "GPL"?

CherryOS?

Re:GPL is very much needed

[jaseuk]

Linux IS GPL, the GCC toolchain IS GPL, the GNU file utilities ARE GPL, BUT the vast majority of the server applications and remaining development tools are in fact BSD licensed (or roughly similar terms).

Re:GPL is very much needed

[fitten]

But can you imagine how many people would take away your code and claim as their own, sell it and not give back to the commnuity had it not been for the copyleft "GPL"?

But can you imagine how many people would take away your ideas and claim as their own, sell it and not give back to the commnuity had it not been for the patent laws?

Re:GPL is very much needed

[m50d]

And notice how the community got them to stop? Wheras if it was BSD they would have been on the right side of the law and gotten away with it, and other people could have done so too.

Re:GPL is very much needed

[electroniceric]

I would strike a middle ground between totally needed and not needed.

I recently evaluated SugarCRM for use with andinternal system we are building. The internal system wraps up IP that extends well beyond strict software development, and releasing that system right now could well kill our company (and definitely get me fired). This is exactly why we used Postgres instead of MySQL - Postgres is BSD. On the other hand, anything we did to Sugar would basically be a reasonable candidate for release, because it does not touch our IP. If Sugar were not GPL-ish, I'm not sure we'd get off our duff to release any changes to Sugar. After all, this requires figuring out what the line between releasable and non-releasable is, and the easier position is just not to release.

The point is that there's often a less bright line than the GPL draws. There should be some push to release code that builds on stuff you've drawn from the commons, but not one that demands that everything touched by commons code be released. Frankly, I think the LGPL does a pretty good job there, and I'd like to see that type of license adopted more widely.

Re:GPL is very much needed

[naelurec]

I recently evaluated SugarCRM for use with an internal system we are building.

Hmm.. its internal? I thought section 3 of the GPL allowed companies to build on GPL software WITHOUT releasing source as long as it wasn't distributed outside the company?

Re:GPL is very much needed

[doubledoh]

My question is: what does it matter? If it is the intention of a company to release a closed source product, they are going to do just that. Why does it matter whether the code inside their program is proprietary or open?

It just seems to me that GPL people aren't really interested in opening up their code, they are just interested in boxing everyone and everything into their rather closed ideology.

If you really wanted to open up your code, you would just release it to the public domain without any expectations whatsoever. That's what I do, and believe it or not, I get more business from companies asking me to customize it for them that I would if it were under some "open" license. As for everyone else that downloads it without so much as a thanks, I don't care. And why should I? At the end of the day, I'm helping people out unconditionally and helping to promote a REAL open source ideology. That's enough for me.

Re:GPL is very much needed

[Al Dimond]

If a company installs an internal modification of a GPL program on internal computers, does this count as distribution to the user of that computer, who can then request the source code? Or does it not count, because the software is never licensed to that user, only to the company itself?

I think that the second would apply, and the people responsible for developing the program in the company would have to be careful about defining their work as for the company.

Re:GPL is very much needed

[itronic]

Well, good luck trying to sell something that is given away for free elsewhere.

RTFA

[Hieronymus Howard]

I know that this is going to degenerate into a licensing argument about his comments on the GPL (which I don't agree with), but please read the whole interview, as ESR talks about a lot of other interesting non-GLP issues too.

While we're at it...

[DarkHand]

We don't need that pesky constitution thing anymore, either. I mean, it was nice at the beginning and all, but it's just getting in the way of corporate profits now. What with the DMCA, the Patriot act, and others like it, it's mainly a sort of social signal rather than a legal document with teeth.

Re:While we're at it...

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I agree. I personally prefer the "copyleft" that helps ensure that whatever work I contribute doesn't get co-opted and "extended" without that extension also being put out to potentially further the public good.

That isn't to say that there isn't a place for BSD-like licences. Each OSS project manager should decide for themselves what benefits and drawbacks they want.

Re:While we're at it...

[menix]

who is the idiot that called this post insightful. Slashdot has the most stupid reviewers in the world. FUCKING IDIOTS. yeah, give me that negative karma bitch!

that was a funny post!

Re:While we're at it...

[bzipitidoo]

We don't need copyright, patent, and intellectual property law anymore. What with DRM's total ineffectiveness and rampant piracy, those are mainly social signals rather than legal documents with teeth.

As long as there is copyright, copyleft is needed. What does ESR think we should use, if not the GPL? Nothing, because Open Source is so superior that, even unprotected, it will win out in the end? Only if the playing field is level!

Re:While we're at it...

[tetsuji]

Satire can be insightful, you know.

ESR on drugs

[Tom]

Looks like ESR has gone over the edge, finally. I've always been more a fan of Free Software than of Open Source, but in the end I always thought OS is just the marketing name for FS.

The GPL is the one well-thought out licence, and AFAIK it's the only Free/Open-Source Software license ever to actually stand up in court.

ESR, shut the fuck up, you've done your good deeds, now don't start destroying it all just because you're not in the spotlight anymore.

Re:ESR on drugs

[tomreagan]

I agree - ESR is a lunatic gun nut, and not a particularly good hacker. Eric sure didn't need the GPL for CML2. And does anybody else remember a few years ago when he got into a fight with someone over a project they were working on, and threatened to kill him?

He sure has an eye for the spotlight, though - almost as good as John "Mad Dog" "Never Done Much But Show Up For the Victory Parade" Hall.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Cronopios]

ESR, shut the fuck up, you've done your good deeds, now don't start destroying it all just because you're not in the spotlight anymore.

Exactly. He got it right with "The cathedral and the bazaar", but everything he has said or written ever since was crap.

Why does Slashdot keep publishing his idiocies?

Re:ESR on drugs

[halivar]

I fear the day that Linus starts losing his marbles like RMS and ESR. I mean, yeah, the guys are brilliant visionaries and incredibly creative people... I just don't necessarily like what they're doing with that potential right now.

Re:ESR on drugs

[ForeverFaithless]

..perhaps it's time to say:

We don't need the ESR any more.

Re:ESR on drugs

[ConceptJunkie]

If /. stopped posting idiocies, there would be like 3 people discussing the weather.

You know they often get more mileage out of a provocative article than an informative one.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Reverend528]

AFAIK, RMS never "lost his marbles". He's saying pretty much the same things now that he was 20 years ago. If anything, he sounds more credible now that people are actually agreeing with him (on issues like software patents).

As for ESR, he seems to have taken the whole Open Source vs Free Software debate too far. The movement as a whole doesn't need two sides shouting FUD about eachother. Free Software has its place and so does Open Source. I wouldn't try to sell Open Source to a grassroots movement just like I wouldn't want to sell Free Software to IBM.

Re:ESR on drugs

[hahiss]

I find myself sympathetic with this sort of response (after all, much of ESR's libertarianism is knee-jerk on a good day), but I think that there are two reasons not to want him to shut up:

(1) He makes an important point, even if it doesn't lead to the ``we doan need no steenkin' GPL" conclusion. The popularity of the linux kernel has a lot to do with community structure and excellent timing (w/re: technological advances). I think it is a bit much to suggest, as ESR seems to, that the GPL was just the window-dressing to make everyone feel right about Linux; it actually represents a fundamental rethinking of some standard conceptions of property. That is, the GPL is the codification of a moral reformation of the notion of (intellectual) property. ESR's suggestion is an interesting one, and it dovetails with his libertarian views about social organization. (Note, I'm not endorsing either his conlcusions about the GPL or his libertarianism. I don't think that the technological/social stuff is sufficient without a proper license---at least currently.)

(2) It can be useful to have creative and smart people articulate views that are unpopular as a check on the tendency toward mental inertia. Given what I say above, there is some use to asking whether the technology and social organization are sufficient to support Free Software independent of the GPL; it, in some sense, asks us to consider what our ideals are in supporting Free Software (if there are any, and if we do).

Re:ESR on drugs

[Decameron81]

"Exactly. He got it right with "The cathedral and the bazaar", but everything he has said or written ever since was crap.

Why does Slashdot keep publishing his idiocies?"

I personally found that he has a very interesting point of view regarding the GPL. I am not saying that he is right in what he says, but discarding his position as "crap" simply because you disagree is wrong IMO.

I believe that what he is saying in his interview is that there will be always companies willing to contribute to open source projects even if they are not licensed under the GPL or similar "freedom ensuring" licenses.

Why? Because by publishing their core source codes they can get people to fix it, modify it and make it evolve for free. They can get their code debugged by other companies that share the same interests and so on.

I am not against the GPL, but isn't the freedom to keep part of your work to yourself an interesting feature of an alternative open source license? What's so bad about companies like Apple open sourcing their core OS but close sourcing their GUI?

Just my thoughts.

Re:ESR on drugs

[AnObfuscator]

Looks like ESR has gone over the edge, finally.

Did you READ the fucking article?

Before you start accusing someone of "being on drugs", maybe you should look at what he has to say. ESR's claims are not that the GPL is bad -- in fact, he says that the GPL is a very good license that protects the user's freedoms, and defends the GPL in several ways. He is just claiming that it is no longer necessary for F/OSS to grow; he claims that the "Bazaar" model has proven itself to be successful, and has grown powerful enough to not need the protection of the GPL. Thus, because F/OSS doesn't need the benefits of the GPL, yet may suffer harm from the GPL (that is, companies are afraid of it), the GPL is no longer necessary.

I remain unconvinced, but it's worth considering, rather than dismissing out of hand in a broad, sweeping generalization.

He then goes on to defend reverse-engineering of propriatary data formats for F/OSS -- and it is one of the best defenses of this that I have ever seen.

try giving the article some thought and consideration next time.

Re:ESR on drugs

[SquadBoy]

With a uid that low I'd think you would recall the unplesantness with BSD and AT&T back in 1992. But maybe I'd be wrong on that.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Enry]

He sure has an eye for the spotlight, though - almost as good as John "Mad Dog" "Never Done Much But Show Up For the Victory Parade" Hall.

You don't know maddog then. Sad.

Re:ESR on drugs

[SumoRoach]

That may be a bit extreme. Better than your average but quite a bit overrated hacker might be more accurate.

Re:ESR on drugs

[gmhowell]

No, it doesn't, 'tard. If it is your code, and you wrote it, you can, *gasp* dual license it. The only time the restriction you noted applies is if you license SOMEONE ELSE'S code and then distribute it.

Re:ESR on drugs

[ckaminski]

Not really. Not when YOUR work is 10 lines of patch on my 10,000 lines of work. Nope. Not allowed. If you sell it or distribute it, I have to get those 10 lines of patches... sorry.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Billly Gates]

Its been said here before and I will say it again.

What if I write a program that uses gtk+ and decide to sell it to a corporation or my employer? I can't because it must be GPL and free. In other words its viral.

I read previous posts here which state its only if you modify the gpl code itself. But then why does the copyleft license exist? Obviously its to allow linking. Go read the license yourself?

As long as its GPL I infringe on someone elses work whenever I link or include the code and yes its unacceptable in a corporate environment. Sure its ok if its an inhouse app but what if I want to work on something I want to sell? I am not in the IT department but want to write the app to get in or at least make some money selling it. Then I am screwed.

Re:ESR on drugs

[doubledoh]

I agree with you. The entire "open" source movement is pretty damn closed in my opinion. Real open source is BSD, or even more, public domain. Telling people under the GPL what they can and can't do doesn't emenate with any openess in my book.

Re:ESR on drugs

[lcapitulino]

Agreed, they should create something like 'erc.slashdot.org'. Rationale: easy to ignore.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Grizzlysmit]

ESR, shut the fuck up, you've done your good deeds, now don't start destroying it all just because you're not in the spotlight anymore.

Exactly. He got it right with "The cathedral and the bazaar", but everything he has said or written ever since was crap.

Why does Slashdot keep publishing his idiocies?

hmmmm ESR does appear to be on crack here, the interview was appalling though the guy hardly let ESR get a word in edge ways at times so bent was he on his own agenda's. But in the end ESR made a complete fool of himself without help.

Re:ESR on drugs

[zborgerd]

"Its been said here before and I will say it again."

This is not correct. You do not have to make your program "free software" simply because it links against LGPL software. GTK+2/GLIB are LGPL.

From the homepage:

GTK+ is free software and part of the GNU Project. However, the licensing terms for GTK+, the GNU LGPL, allow it to be used by all developers, including those developing proprietary software, without any license fees or royalties.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Nevyn]

What if I write a program that uses gtk+ and decide to sell it to a corporation or my employer?

That's fine, gtk+ is LGPL so you can do that ... much like libc.

Maybe you were thinking, "what if I take source for random app. X that's GPL'd ... and want to sell the improvments". At which point I'd retort with "what if I want to take the source for internet explorer and sell the improvments" ... same difference, the person who wrote the code gets to decide ... if you don't like it don't use it.

Re:ESR on drugs

[drew]

I was a little confused reading that link at first, but I've come to the conclusion that you must have read about a different metaphor than i did. I remember reading some time ago about the metaphor of the "Bazaar" and the author made a lot of good points even if he did come across as something of an egomaniac. You (or the author of the blog if it is not you) apparently read about the "bizzare development model" which apparently is a model where everyone does whatever they want and there is no coordination or teamwork among contributors. And you're right- that does sound quite bizarre, and usually does result in dead projects.

Re:ESR on drugs

[jbolden]

Remember the cathedral vs. the bazaar was a critique of the development model used for Linux vs. Emacs. Commercial software was incidental. ESR hasn't liked the FSF or RMS for a long time.

Re:ESR on drugs

[despisethesun]

If you take his 10,000 lines of code, contribute another 10, and close-source everything, then who's the freeloader?

Re:ESR on drugs

[Brandybuck]

it's the only Free/Open-Source Software license ever to actually stand up in court.

The BSD license is the only one to ever stand up in court. The GPL is in court right now, but lawsuit is still ongoing.

ESR, shut the fuck up

Maybe if you didn't treat the GPL like a holy text and RMS as its prophet, you wouldn't be so nearly upset by his heresy. He's not destroying anything, he's bringing up a valid point that some of us with much less fame have been bringing up for years.

He also brings up a good point, lost in all the cries of heresy, that the popularity of the GPL is due to its role as a social marker, rather than its copyleft nature. How many times right here on Slashdot have you seen people get up to defend the GPL with righteous wrath, only to utter some stupid untrue statement about it, betraying the fact that they have never actually read it.

Re:ESR on drugs

[ckaminski]

Pot, meet Kettle...
Pot: Dude you're black!
Kettle: na-uh! You are!

Who's the freeloader?

A bit combative aren't we, MoneyT?

Re:ESR on drugs

[MoneyT]

He's the dumbass that released his 10,000 lines of code to the public.

Re:ESR on drugs

[msuzio]

I agree totally. He's strayed into complete nutball territory, and I predict a shack in Montana in his future :-).

Re:ESR on drugs

[despisethesun]

And you're the dumbass that used it.

Re:ESR on drugs

[MoneyT]

That is besides the point, what gives you the right to demand my code from me?

Re:ESR on drugs

[despisethesun]

The same thing that gave you the right to use my code. Don't like it? Don't use my code.

Re:ESR on drugs

[MoneyT]

If you didn't want me using your code, you shouldn't have made it freely availible. Freedom is freedom is freedom. Don't give me bullshit about how your code is free and open and then proceede to dictate to me how to use your code.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Decameron81]

Err, you didn't get my point. I am not saying the GPL is evil. Simply that it may be more likely that companies are going to embrace other licenses.

In any case I just wanted to say that I don't think that this guy is attacking the GPL as a bad thing.

Re:ESR on drugs

[gmhowell]

That's right. Because if I write RandomFooBarBaz and GPL it, I can't decide how I want to distribute my software. Did your mother have any children who lived?

Re:ESR on drugs

[AmoebafromSweden]

>If /. stopped posting idiocies, there would be like 3 people discussing the weather.

I notice that your post doesn't contain any info about wether... ;)

Re:ESR on drugs

[gmhowell]

Big fucking deal. Since in your example, RFBB is an extension of some sort to an original product, of course you can't split things up. Do it all from scratch (your other alternative) instead of standing on the shoulders of others, and you can do whatever you want.

Re:ESR on drugs

[that _evil _gleek]

I was looking for a thread with Subject "We don't Need ESR Anymore, ( if we ever did )", but I think this seems as good a place as any ( and I can sponge off the Score: 4 Insightful ). Rather than a hypocrite, he seems to have revealed himself as
a opportunist: He says he didn't like the GPL from the start, but only reveals this truth now, If I believe this I got to say, seems pretty uncool, un-transparent, and IMO un-hacker like ( but hey ,, I don't own any dictonaries to back my opinion ), and I think I'd have to reject his excuse, and say simply, if his book had been anti GPL, it would not have
sold anywhere near what it has, there was a market among FSF/GPL, Linux, fans for the book, something they could pass on to friends and family, give as gifts, etc, seems like the reason was sales (and therefore money). Everyone I know, who had a copy, was big into Linux, and FSF stuff, I don't believe the book was as popular in the BSD camp, not really needing the hype seemed to be gist, so despite what he says about "soladarity" , wasn't it really just money? Has not the FSF
spoke against publishers profitting from books about GNU software?

And doesn't one typically call B.S. on only any claims of "thought this way all along?"

Re:ESR on drugs

[Tom]

The BSD license is the only one to ever stand up in court.

Reference?

The GPL is in court right now, but lawsuit is still ongoing.

No, it's not. The GPL has been tested in court:
Frtinet Injunction

Moreoever, a lot of companies have http://www.gpl-violations.org/">settled out of court, a good indication that their lawyers told them they had a considerable chance of losing.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Tom]

he claims that the "Bazaar" model has proven itself to be successful, and has grown powerful enough to not need the protection of the GPL.

History books are full with things that had "proven itself to be successful", and we can easily add Netscape and other M$ victims to that list.

Just because you're successful doesn't mean you don't need to protect yourself anymore. I would even say far to the contrary.

Re:ESR on drugs

[Tom]

Why not, 'here is the code, use it if you like for whatever, who cares?'

For software I have written 100% myself, I usually dual-license it along the lines of "GPL for everyone who wants it, if you want a commercial, proprietary license, talk to me about money".

The point is that it's my work, so I choose if and how you can use it. So if I like the BSD license, you get that. If I like GPL better, you get that. And if I'm Bill Gates, you can buy it for $199 but you get no support and updates only when I feel like it.
And all of that is ok, because if you don't like it, you can go and write your own.

On the contrary

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't need Eric S. Raymond.

Note the lack of "anymore" in that sentence.

Not really.

[LegendOfLink]

ESR defends his position that 'Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it.

Considering large organizations even consider the move to Linux (thanks in part to IBM and their pretty commercials) today and the fact that even a large Microsoft competitor moved their core operating system to an BSD base, I'd say open source is moving along pretty darn well.

Then again, I should probably watch what I say, otherwise my username will appear under the jargon file as a new, ESR-arbitrated, slang word ;)

Re:Not really.

[amliebsch]

But your example of Apple proves his point, somewhat. Apple used code with a BSD license. Do you really think Apple would have made such a decision if it had to comply with the GPL? I certainly don't think so.

Re:Not really.

[donscarletti]

Then again, I should probably watch what I say, otherwise my username will appear under the jargon file as a new, ESR-arbitrated, slang word ;)

If that utter piece of LegendOfLink known as ESR thinks he can threaten people like that he can just shove it right up his intergalactic basement.

Re:Not really.

[timeOday]

Apple used code with a BSD license. Do you really think Apple would have made such a decision if it had to comply with the GPL? I certainly don't think so.

Are you saying it would be good if OSX were built on Linux? As a Linux user, I don't think so. I don't see how building closed extensions to Linux would help it at all.

And the GPL didn't scare Apple away from contributing to gcc (which is GPL-licensed), because in that case they (apparently) didn't mind opening their contributions.

The GPL is only repellent to those who don't want to give back. Why reach out to them?

Re:Not really.

[MoneyT]

Now ask yourself what the world would look like today if microsoft avoided the BSD TCP/IP for their own implimentation because of GPL concerns?

Re:Not really.

[amliebsch]

Why reach out to them?

Because the viability and usability of a platform is in great part a function of the number of people using and developing for it. That's why Windows, despite being pricey and closed source, has the best hardware support, game support, the largest number of developers, arguably the largest availability of techincal support, and the largest number of users.

Re:Not really.

[mewphobia]

So basically you are saying that BSD style licenses have their place. And i totally agree. Lots of good has come from BSD licenses.

But that does not negate the need for the GPL.

Re:Not really.

[mrchaotica]

You know Apple uses GPL code too (just not for the kernel). WebCore and GCC come to mind, among other things...

Let alone the fact that -- despite the fact that they don't have to -- Apple has released their changes to the BSD-derived parts of OS X. Isn't it funny how even if it had been GPL, their actions would be in compliance anyway?

It's not the GPL that makes people nervous

[SpaceLifeForm]

It's the attack against GPL via FUD and software patents that make people nervous.

Re:It's not the GPL that makes people nervous

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It's the GPL that makes people nervous. Take where I work as an example. We want to do some commercial software development on Linux but because we don't want to GPL our code we have to look at everything in Linux that we use to make sure we don't catch the GPL virus in our code which forces it to be GPL as well. So, in order to develop commercial code on Linux, we spend measurable time making sure that we don't fall into a GPL trap. This means writing our own code (reinventing the wheel) in a number of cases. So, as long as you want to do something of "your own" and make money off it in ways other than trying to sell support, developing on Linux is very costly. If all you want to do with your life is repackage and tweek existing software that other people wrote, then Linux is right down your alley.

Re:It's not the GPL that makes people nervous

[McFly777]

Nothing against being safe, and sure in your safety. But, with one notable exception, as long as you don't copy code into your product you should be as safe running/developing on Linux, as you feel you are on Windows or MacOSX.

The exception is that you DO need to understand the licencing status of the libraries that you link into. Even that isn't much different from windows, etc. If you are using somebodies library to provide additional functionality, you need to be sure you can legally redistribute that library (or its runtime loader etc.) This is why most of the libraries in linux are released under the LGPL, which removes much of the viral aspects that you seem to fear.

As a lousy example, but one that I can speak for personally, I co-published a reference cd-rom a few years ago. The documents were all distributed as PDFs. In order to put the Acrobat viewer on our CD we paid Adobe $150 for a licence to redistribute the viewer. People could download it free, but the licence was worth it to make the cd self-contained. (This was '99, before you could assume that most everybody will have or be able to get the reader independantly.)

Re:It's not the GPL that makes people nervous

[Billly Gates]

No BSDS and copyleft licenses are more acceptable for redistributing code.

What is a modification that the gpl supporters mention?

If lets say I am not modifing the code for a GPL product but decide to link to it or include a function or two is that a modification? Does the whole program become GPL based? Can I sell my program to my employer or at least give it to the IT department with the hope of being hired as a programer?

I want to use some libraries and browse some code for graphics for simple primptives (I am making a calender/schedule) and any GPL software for that is unacceptable if I want to sell it.

Copyleft seems more friendly for me and I wish more FOSS software developers would use copyleft rather than GPL.

BSD is a great license for that reason. Many corporations like Sun have contributed huge projects and code like Pango and NFS under it (or similiar licenses).

Re:It's not the GPL that makes people nervous

[ckaminski]

Developing on Linux is NOT costlier than developing on other platforms. Those same libraries that may have been GPLd or LGPLd on Linux will be available to you on Windows or BSD. The very act of reusing something someone else wrote already saves you time and money. It's only if you're ALTERING someone elses work that you have to be worried, and if that's the case, on any other platform, you're already paying for it.

How tough is it: oh, project be is GPLd, according to the Copyright or Readme.txt. Shit, time to find a new project. Oh wait, library b is LGPLd, sweet, free code.

It's FUD. No more difficult in maintaining complaince than assuring that all your BSD attribution notices show up in your manuals and Help dialogs.

Other licenses are becoming more common

[Peter Cooper]

As a semi-open source developer (most of my code is closed, but some is open) I have noticed a big swing away from the GPL in many areas. The Ruby on Rails project is MIT licensed, and most Rails developers who release their code also use the MIT or BSD license.

Major projects like Apache, MySQL, X11, Perl, and PHP eschew the GPL in favor for homebrew alternatives, and while the GPL offers a single license for a disparate range of software.. I agree with ESR, and I believe that licensing of open source software may be better done in a simpler, less arcane way.

Re:Other licenses are becoming more common

[arose]

Having homebrew licenses for every piece of software is "simpler, less arcane?"

Re:Other licenses are becoming more common

[Anonymous Coward]

Both MySQL and Perl are availiable under GPL!

Re:Other licenses are becoming more common

[Cronopios]

Major projects like Apache, MySQL, X11, Perl, and PHP eschew the GPL

No sir. Perl and MySQL are GPL'd.

Re:Other licenses are becoming more common

[3dr]

Two wrong posts finally make a right.

Perl is either GPL'd or covered by Wall's Artistic License.

http://dev.perl.org/licenses/

Re:Other licenses are becoming more common

[TheRaven64]

Indeed. It is possible to build an entire server software stack out of non-GPL, Free Software:

• FreeBSD
• PostgreSQL
• Apache
• PHP
• Ruby-on-Rails

Re:Other licenses are becoming more common

[iabervon]

X11 came out before the GPL, so it could hardly have used it; the license was set even further back (they didn't start with version 11). Of course, they could have switched at some point, but trying to change the license is what killed quite a number of the organizations which have maintained X over the years, and excluding non-GPL versions would cause fragmentation, due to the various commercial versions.

Re:Other licenses are becoming more common

[swv3752]

You can also do it with Windows, but that does not make it a good idea. A while back some one did some benchmark comparisons of different x86 Unix OS, and Linux the very clear leader for performance. In some cases it was twice as good as the *BSD's (and FreeBSD was usually the best performing one). In no case did Linux not place first.

PostgreSQL is good, though there are advantages and siadvangtages to choosing another Database. Almost other databses will have a more complicated licences than BSD.

A number of addons to Apache are licenced under the GPL, so you have to restrict the utility of Apache if you want to avoid the GPL.

Ruby appears to try to have a licence like the GPL (ie tries to force you into opening your code by entering it into the Public Domain) but legally would seem unenforcable.

PHP and Rails are essentially MIT with more restrictive clauses.

-1 Flamebait

[Lejade]

ESR is such a troll.

He's just sour he couldn't come up with the GPL in the first place. All he has done with his so-called "open source initiative" is try to steal the FSF's thunder. The guy is chronically jalous of RMS.

If not, he would acknowledge that the GPL is far more than the licence of Linux. Truth is, the GPL is the constitution of the Free Software movement. As such, it protects all software under it. Not just Linux.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[markhb]

Truth is, the GPL is the constitution of the Free Software movement.

I don't think that ESR has ever been a fan of the "Proprietary software is morally wrong" aspect of the FS movement; that's why he advocates the Open Source mantra of "the right tool for the right job, and open-source Bazaar development produces better tools." He's not the person with such beliefs, either.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[joib]

ESR is such a troll.


While I don't consider myself an ESR fan, reading TFA, I got the impression that the one doing the trolling was in fact the interviewer. IMHO his questions are constantly trying to sucker ESR into saying something stupid (more page views => more advertising revenue?), but this time ESR manages to keep his head cool and answers pretty rationally.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[Jay Maynard]

ESR is not jealous of RMS. If anything, the reverse is true. There's some personal history between the two that it's not my place to divulge, but it makes the parent comment completely laughable.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[gowen]

Given your sig, I'll take that with a pinch of salt.

ESR once described himself as "one of the senior technical cadre that makes the Internet work, and a core Linux and open-source developer", which is so mind-blastingly far from the truth that I've taken nothing he's said seriously since.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[Jay Maynard]

FWIW, ESR disagrees with my .sig too.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[BRSloth]

Part of your impression is that you weren't in the International Forum of Free Software, which the author (and myself) were.

ESR said some very stupid things in his talk and dodge every fucking question that put his ideas on a corner with rage and angry instead of trying to make people understand his points of view. It was the most impressive display of naiveness I ever saw. Even Stallman, in the first forum, didn't say things so naive.

To me, he thinks he is so awesome that he sould be emperor of all open source projects...

Re:-1 Flamebait

[drew]

IMHO his questions are constantly trying to sucker ESR into saying something stupid

Even more stupid than usual, you mean?

Re:-1 Flamebait

[vyrus128]

I don't know if I should ask for you to be modded Troll or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt: the ESR quote you're waving around is fake. He never said it. A Google search trivially reveals that it's from a fake news article on Humorix.org.

I can't imagine you were too fond of ESR to begin with, or you would have fact-checked that rather out-of-character quote.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[gowen]

Wrong.

That fake news article quotes a genuine ESR quote for comic effect (because it is very, very funny indeed). The original quote comes from an opinion piece that ESR wrote for American Prospect magazine. The original article is no longer on line, but you newbies can read it using the Wayback Machine... http://web.archive.org/web/20000510011639/http://w ww.prospect.org/controversy/open_source/raymond-e- 1.html

Now fuck off.

Re:-1 Flamebait

[vyrus128]

Wow... I apologize, then. I had no idea Mr. Raymond had such a case of Foot-in-Mouth disease. That makes me sad on many levels.

Just how much of the document has teeth, anyway?

[DanielMarkham]

Didn't slashdot run a story a while back about GPL being a price-fixing scheme? Aside from the inital buzz, I never heard any more about it. Is the GPL just kind of a social abstract to kick around, or is it really being enforced and used? I think FSF and the GPL are great ideas, but they're really more _ideas_ than anything else. The articles I found about GPL were mostly companies settling out of case before the case was heard.
How Much Is A Friend Worth?"

Oh for Pete's sake!

[A nonymous Coward]

Can't any of you responders recognize satire when you see it? Are you all so brain dead and numbed out that you have to take everything seriously?

Sheesh.

Re:Oh for Pete's sake!

[llamaluvr]

Your post isn't valid HTML because it did not use the SATIRE tag, or even the now-deprecated SARCASM tag.

Re:Oh for Pete's sake!

[Gulthek]

Without vocal nuance only good, well written satire is recognizable.

Re:Oh for Pete's sake!

[91degrees]

Can't any of you responders recognize satire when you see it?

Of course we can't.

Re:Oh for Pete's sake!

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF you talking about man?

Re:Oh for Pete's sake!

[mlrtime]

I don't think those are actual html tags, you'd better check with w3c.

Amazing

[sphealey]

It is amazing how a person can do a small amount of good work (and edit a book based on the contributions of others), which is fine, gain a small amount of fame as a result, which is fine, and then abuse that tiny amount of fame/reputation to make pontificating pronouncements for years afterward, possibly doing a lot of damage to the cause that orignally made him notorious.

sPh

Re:Amazing

[PaxTech]

He did write "The Cathedral And The Bazaar", which introduced the concept of open source to many a PHB. Credit where credit is due.

I don't see what damage he's doing. He's entitled to his opinion, just as Linus is entitled to his and RMS is entitled to his. I don't know if I agree with him on this GPL point, but it's an interesting opinion at least.

Re:Amazing

[squiggleslash]

In fairness, the guy's been pontificating for years. People who pontificate a lot usually end up being the same types of people who go out and end up leading particular projects, simply because they're the most outspoken. One of the biggest ironies of Open Source is that the movement was inspired, in part, by complaints that Richard M Stallman was "too political." ESR swept in as an anti-Stallman, not anti-Stallman in the sense of being non-political, but in having many opinions that gelled easier with the general libertarian-streak popular amongst the computing community of the time.

I'm not a great fan of ESR. I think the OSI almost passed into irrelevence under his reign (and was staggered after they choose Russ Nelson to succeed him to find out Nelson, at the time at least, was "more of the same, only with even less tact and social skills") While "Open Source" made an impact with the name, the OSI itself seemed to have relatively few successes under its belt, with often the most promoted successors being absurdly controvertial. It's interesting that one of the first messes Nelson and his successors had to deal with, for example, were the number of incompatible licenses.

Why were there incompatible licenses? Because, under ESR's active encouragement, every major business dipping a toe in the water were producing their own customized licenses that usually only minimally furfilled the requirements of the Open Source definition, usually being some form of "copyleft for you, proprietary if we want it for us." This severely damaged the usability of much of the code entering the Free Software world. The worst case were the original APSL (Apple) "Open Source" licenses, which even contained provisions allowing Apple to arbitrarily stop people from distributing APSL licensed code in the future. Only after heavy lobbying from the FSF and a war within the OSI did Apple fix this and other headline issues.

Raymond's saying the GPL isn't necessary now. I can't say I agree. The GPL remains the perfect license for both Open Source and the wider area of Free Software. A company that releases code under it knows any competitor using it will have to contribute any advances they make back. In the real world, where 90% of commercial programming is done in-house to create in-house applications, no license comes closer to meeting corporate requirements. And Raymond's wrong about Linux. The problem with Linux is not that it's protected under the GPL, it's that it hasn't been protected strongly enough - that is, there's not enough enforcement of the GPL when it comes to Linux. There are still frequent attempts to sneak proprietary device drivers into the kernel, for example. This directly hurts free software, because information about how those drivers work becomes unavailable. Users aren't able to fix bugs. Users of other, less famous, free operating systems are unable to create compatible drivers themselves.

One can probably make a whole bunch of ad-hominem comments here about why he isn't supportive about the GPL, but ultimately, it doesn't matter. We're going through problem after problem caused by people thinking they're being "practical" and screwing it up for everyone else. Linus adopts Bitkeeper. X11 users use nVidea drivers. If no-one else will, at least we'll always have the FSF to "get it" if those who like little centralized pockets of meritless power don't.

Re:Amazing

[sphealey]

I understand; I was speaking of The New Hacker's Dictionary, which was based on the Jargon File.

sPh

Re:Amazing

[PaxTech]

Yeah, I knew what you meant, but to me TCATB is ESR's real claim to fame. TNHD was first, but that was more an inside hacker thing, TCATB explained open source to the non-hacker.

Re:Amazing

[dwarfking]

Just an aside to one sentence in your well spoken comments:

In the real world, where 90% of commercial programming is done in-house to create in-house applications, no license comes closer to meeting corporate requirements

I used to work for a large multinational retailer that did most of its development in house as you mention for in house applications.

We were under restrictions from legal when using GPL'd code because there was no clear definition of 'distribution'. According to some of the legal review of the GPL, we would have been distributing our code when we made it available to solely owned affiliates of the parent company. They were part of a separate business line with their own IT and executive staff, more a maintenance organization than a retailer (they did not have stores).

As an overall enterprise we were consolidating on common platforms (bulk purchasing power) across the board, but were still separate entities. The legal advisors indicated that our sharing of code with GPL components to these affiliates consituted distribution which would have activated the viral nature.

Whether this is accurate or not IANAL and can not answer. All I know is this very large organization with a large legal staff determined it was a possibility, and therefor restricted us to not use GPL code unless it could be alternately licensed or was supplied as part of a software purchase from a vendor that had the liability.

Re:Amazing

[sajithts]

Say it, bother. You see, I created a slashdot account just to thank you.

Re:Amazing

[Dr.Evil]

We were under restrictions from legal when using GPL'd code because there was no clear definition of 'distribution'. According to some of the legal review of the GPL, we would have been distributing our code when we made it available to solely owned affiliates of the parent company. They were part of a separate business line with their own IT and executive staff, more a maintenance organization than a retailer (they did not have stores).

As an overall enterprise we were consolidating on common platforms (bulk purchasing power) across the board, but were still separate entities. The legal advisors indicated that our sharing of code with GPL components to these affiliates consituted distribution which would have activated the viral nature.

Is it really such a problem to have to distribute the source code to your own solely owned affiliates? I would think they could be trusted to keep it all "in the family." Even if they have the "right" to redistribute it freely, they could still be under "guidance" from the parent company not to exercise that right. The only time it would get sticky is if you sold off that subsidiary to a competitor.

The GPL only requires that you give the source code to those who get binaries. Just because you "distribute" it to your subsidiaries doesn't mean you have to set up a public FTP or CVS server for the code.

Re:Amazing

[dossen]

I'm just wondering why it would matter to legal if a wholely owned affiliate has the same rights to the code they use as their mother company. It's not like any third party would have the rights to the code, even the original author - using the "written offer" option is not mandatory.

Re:Amazing

[dwarfking]

You are correct and these were the types of questions we (the developers) asked in response.

The answer was that the language was fuzzy as to whether it could be restricted to just the family of companies. The concept of the GPL, as I understand, is to ensure that the community as a whole benefits from work/changes. Many people point to the fact that if you are using it only internally, then you don't need to share changes. But our legal staff looked at the fact that sharing the code amongst affiliates constitued actual distribution, and determined that could have required the company to share any work back to the software community as a whole.

When it's fuzzy, legal errs on the side of caution. So your points are valid, but as there is no clear distinction between 'distribution amongst a family of companies' and 'distribution to the world as a whole', the legal staff said no.

Re:Amazing

[castlan]

There is nothing in the GPL that equates "comunity" and "the world as a whole". There is no default community that is entitled to anything. Once you distribute software to somebody, then they are brought into your "community". Neither you nor they are obligated to give anything to Torvalds or Stallman, only the sources to what you already provided the community you created.

Now that doesn't explicitly exclude them either - any party in your community can later decide to give (sell) this software to Stallman, which would then bring Stallman into their newly formed "community". This would cause no further obligations on you towards Stallman, but they would be obligated to offer Stallman for 3 years, the source to what they gave him - regardless of whether they originally got it from you.

Corporate policy should be able to limit your subsidiaries from then practically bringing unwanted members into any community with access to your in house software.

Perhaps as a precondition to any divesting of these subsidiaries, they could be required to stop using this software - not as per the GPL, but as a condition of the spin-off or take-over. Even if not, there is no requirement to give them the source, only to formally offer it for 3 years. So then the company must remain fully in your control until the term has passed.

The GPL was intended to be comprehensible by the General Public, so as to be useable as the General Public('s) License. All in all, other than a less legal than technical points, it has done a pretty good job of that. In this case, it sounds almost as if your lawyers were going more by misunderstood gossip than by the letter of the license, which IMO keeps a fair approximation of the spirit of the license.

Of course, I'm no lawyer. But I am a member of the General Public, and I present this official opinion as a member of the General Public. I futher acknowledge that in fact and in deed, GNU is Not UNIX. (But it might be Unix.)

Counterpoint

[vondo]

The part of his interview summarized by the post is that he essentially argues that since open source software is so popular now, it can be BSD licensed because no one has the resources to outperform the OS community with their own fork. This is demonstrably false, just look at the KHTML/Apple situation. If they could truly go their own ways without Apple showing anything they did but KDE showing everything, I think it's pretty clear Apple could run ahead of KDE.

KHTML isn't the biggest project out there, but it's in the top few % for size and complexity, I'd bet. Imagine what a private company could do to a smaller project.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

just look at the KHTML/Apple situation

Yes, do, because this is a great example of where the GPL doesn't make any difference. Apple effectively forked KHTML (as near as I can tell, accidentally), but it was legal to do so under the GPL... they didn't need to do anything more than release the source code. Instead, in response, they opened up the CVS and the bug database. Not because the GPL forced them to, but because the chose to.

If KHTML had been under the BSDL, would Apple have taken it away completely? Legally, they could have, but they haven't done that for other open source components in Mac OS X... the source trees at opensource.apple.com and opendarwin.org include code under BSDL, APSL, GPL, and more.

AT&T took BSD code and forked it, and nobody cared until USL tried to shut down the open-source BSD... and that BSD code turned out to be just the lever that Berkeley needed to bring USL to heel.

Microsoft's using GPL code and BSD code in Interix, and that has neither let them "outperform" Cygwin nor forced Microsoft to open Interix one skerrick more. Microsoft's been using BSD code in Windows for years, but that same code was re-implemented in Linux... if the code had been GPLed, would Linux somehow be more outperforming BSD in the market, would NT have been less successful? Personally, I wish Microsoft had used more of the BSD stack rather than mostly borrowing userland tools, it would have made socket programming in Windows a lot easier... and more compatible.

So, over and over again, we see that it's not the license that matters, it's the attitude of the people using it.

The GPL doesn't stop you from forking the code base. The GPL doesn't stop different open source groups from forking the code base. The GPL doesn't stop groups using the same code base from developing functionally equivalent packages on top of that GPLed code. Heck, sometimes the only way to bring a code base forward is to fork and switch, and Nokia at least seems to think that's a great idea...

If they could truly go their own ways without Apple showing anything they did but KDE showing everything, I think it's pretty clear Apple could run ahead of KDE.

But instead, Apple is voluntarily choosing to take part on the open market of ideas to a far greater degree than any license commits them to. They could easily pull a Sveasoft and release source code grudgingly enough that KHTML would forever remain the junior fork.

What ESR's saying now is what BSD advocates have been saying for years. Companies that are interested in being productive partners will be productive partners no matter what license you use, and companies that aren't will find ways to stick to the letter of the license while completely gutting its spirit.

Re:Counterpoint

[m50d]

If they were trying to be obstructive someone would have sued them for it eventually. They may have opened up CVS to be good guys, but remember they didn't at first. I think part of the reason they did open it was they realised that legally, they didn't have a leg to stand on if they didn't.

And even before they did that, khtml devs were better off with the big patches they sent than without them. Not that much better off, but a bit better off.

Re:Counterpoint

[alonso]

Really this is a non sense. The BIG difference is that if One grup fork code take it proprietary and have the best product if the code is BSD the grup si not oblyed to share the code. Do you have the source of W2k tcp stack?

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

I think part of the reason they did open it was they realised that legally, they didn't have a leg to stand on if they didn't.

Apple had absolutely no legal requirement to do anything that they weren't already doing. None. They didn't even, legally, need to send patches! Just dumping a tarball of what they'd produced on an FTP site somewhere would have satisfied the letter of the GPL. Apple has continually so far exceeded any legal requirements for the use of the open source software that they have been employing that claiming they opened up CVS out of any concern, however remote, that they would be subject to litigation is downright offensive.

Re:Counterpoint

[endofoctober]

"Yes, do, because this is a great example of where the GPL doesn't make any difference."

I think it actually /does/ make a difference, although it's not obvious - the GPL kept Apple from legally sucking up source code and not releasing it per the license. The GPL sets a minimum standard of behavior for companies. The GPL may have started as a way to subvert the system and give the code freedom, but it's evolved into a set of legal protections. That's the point Raymond seems to be missing.

"So, over and over again, we see that it's not the license that matters, it's the attitude of the people using it."

If you're talking about companies who choose to go over and above what the license requires, then sure, I agree with you. But for every company like Apple, there could be a dozen others who take the code and don't give back their source. For those companies, it's the license /and/ the attitude that matter.

I don't think forking is the issue of greatest concern. You're right that companies likely to contribute will do so regardless of license...when they don't, though, at least the license holders have some way of defending themselves in court through the GPL.

Re:Counterpoint

[zerocool^]

Your comment can be summed up like this:

"It is dangerous to underestimate the resources of corporations"

Re:Counterpoint

[NotZed]

Actually just dumping stuff on an FTP server isn't "to the letter" of the GPL, neither is CVS for that matter.

"To the letter" includes things like written offer, so many years, physical media, etc.

It is a little out of date.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

Do you have the source of W2k tcp stack?

No, and I don't have the source to Interix either, even though the Interix distribution includes both LGPL and GPL code and so Microsoft has to release at least part of the code base. I'm sure they do, but they don't need to release enough of it to make it worthwhile even looking it up.

But I do have the source to the entire Mac OS X kernel, even though it's primarily based on BSDL rather than GPL or LGPL code and this they are legally entitled to hoard almost all of it.

Microsoft does not want to be part of the open source community, so they use open source code but give away no more than they absolutely have to.

Apple wants to be part of the open source community, so they use open source code and give away far more than they have to.

THAT is the big difference. The attitude of the companies involved, not the license you put on your code.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

the GPL kept Apple from legally sucking up source code and not releasing it per the license

The GPL did no such thing. You can't say "this license or law stopped X, Y, or Z" unless there's a likelihood of X, Y, or Z happening. There's a law against my pulling out a gun and shooting my boss, but you can't say "the law kept me from shooting my boss" unless you had reason to believe that I would have done that if the law didn't stop me.

Yes, there are companies for which this is true. There are, for example, companies that have taken BSDL code and not released their changes. But there are companies that have taken BSDL code and have released their changes. Apple is one of them, and given that they have released the source to their entire kernel and just about every other part of OS X below the GUI and big chunks above it as well, I find it hard to believe that the license KHTML is under would have made much if any difference to what Apple released.

Apple is not just paying lip service to open source. They're making open source part of their business model. Because open source works better for them. And that's what ESR is pointing out here, that companies are seeing that open source works better than going it alone, even if you're Apple. Yes, the license has now and then prevented some bad actors from releasing proprietary versions of open source tools, but it's pretty rare that the resulting code has been more effective than the open source version.

I mean, look at Windows NT. The use of the BSD TCP stack in Windows NT (however much debate there might be over HOW MUCH was used in the kernel, or how much remains, they definitely used BSD code) is the poster boy for how Big Bad Companies use BSDL code and don't give back to the community. Is Microsoft's code superior to the open source version? If you had the choice, would you pick Microsoft's TCP and socket library? There's no question but that Microsoft's TCP implementation is one of the least flexible around and the fact theat their socket library doesn't use file handles is a major shortcoming.

Do you think Microsoft would be better or worse off if they had completely open-sourced their TCP implementation? If it was possible for me to go in and fix stuff, and improve NT's networking? To give it the kind of NATting and packet filtering that BSD and Linux TCP has had for years? To fix the socket library so you could implement a superserver like inetd?

Hell yes, they'd be better off if it was open sourced. No matter HOW big they are, they'd still have a better product.

THAT is the point that ESR's making. That when you're using open source software, the people most hurt by fighting it and only begrudgingly doing what the law allows... are the code hoarders. And THAT is what companies are catching on to.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

"To the letter" includes things like written offer, so many years, physical media, etc.

"Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"

They can include a file that says that it's available on FTP.APPLE.COM in such-and-such a directory, and they've kept copies of software on their FTP server for over 15 years in some cases so 3 years is no stretch. That's the kind od "dumping it on an FTP site" I was thinking of, and that certainly satisfies that requirement.

That's all most GPL software provides, after all.

Re:Counterpoint

[Omnifarious]

I distrust any voluntary cooperation by corporations without any teeth. No sane corporation would enter into a contract that did so little to safeguard their interests as the BSD license does, and I don't think we should either.

If they want to play the game, they can play by our rules.

Re:Counterpoint

[Q Who]

Microsoft's been using BSD code in Windows for years

No, it didn't.

Re:Counterpoint

[endofoctober]

"The GPL did no such thing. You can't say "this license or law stopped X, Y, or Z" unless there's a likelihood of X, Y, or Z happening. There's a law against my pulling out a gun and shooting my boss, but you can't say "the law kept me from shooting my boss" unless you had reason to believe that I would have done that if the law didn't stop me."

It doesn't matter what your intent was, nor Apple's. Shoot your boss or no, the fact that there is recourse if you violate a law prevents you from doing so without consequence.

It doesn't physically stop you from pulling the trigger or hoarding the code, rather it keeps you from getting away with it unless a court decides otherwise. I'm afraid you're still missing the point here.

"THAT is the point that ESR's making."

Then he's not making it very well. No license will prevent laws being broken (see above), but the GPL prevents companies from doing so without any recourse for the license holders...key point.

"...the people most hurt by fighting it and only begrudgingly doing what the law allows...

Begrudingly, willingly ...don't care -- at least they're either doing it or can be forced to do it by a court. No GPL (or other form of copyleft license), no recourse. We should encourage companies to give their code back, but you have a lot more trust than I that all that will require is a friendly request to do so.

I can imagine that some license holders and contributors will stop contributing to open source if they have no recourse to fight companies who ignore such requests. Talk about some real harm being done to open source...

"And THAT is what companies are catching on to."

If companies recognize this and act on it for the good of the community, then great and "yay, us." If they don't, at least license holders can do something about it with a GPL-oriented license.

Re:Counterpoint

[Brandybuck]

You're missing the whole point. ESR says that we now have the experience and history to demonstrate that Free Software doesn't need GPL style protection. Regardless of what license KHTML is under, nothing Apple can do will damage it. Even if they decided to be assholes and keep all of their modifications secret, no harm would come to KHTML.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

I distrust any voluntary cooperation by corporations without any teeth.

I distrust any involuntary cooperation on open source by anyone. Once the other partner in the relationship has decided that they're not getting enough benefit out of it to justify continuing cooperation, then all you can expect out of it long term is what you already have in your hand.

I have an irrevocable license to the source code, which I have whether it's BSDL or (assuming I'm not going to be so hypocritical as to sue Apple over a software patent) or APSL. That's it. Anything else is gravy.

No sane corporation would enter into a contract that did so little to safeguard their interests as the BSD license does,

There's lots of insane corporations out there then.

Look... about the only interest I have in open source software that I lose by using the BDSL or equivalent instead of the APSL is the ability to offer someone a less strict license in exchange for money.

It would be nice to believe that I could compel people to enhance my software for me by releasing it under the GPL, but I believe that the inherent advantage of the open source process itself is a much better inducement than litigation.

Consider a sane company that truly believes open source is a problem rather than a useful tool. If you face them with litigation over a GPL violation then the logical response is not to embrace open source, it's to do the minimum they have to to comply with the GPL while working on an exit strategy, whether that involves in-house development, licensing a for-pay closed-source package, or terminating the product line. Those are all rational responses.

So... what's going to happen if I try and compel cooperation is that some companies who aren't interested in cooperation will use a different piece of software. If I don't try and compel cooperation, then some of them will use my software and not give me anything for it.

I would much rather have the cooperation of companies that want to send me patches and updates, and failing that I'd rather have the potential of cooperation, but forcing them to cough up a little code under threat of litigation has no attraction at all. And in the meantime I'm a heck of a lot better off if they're using a version of software I'm intimately familiar with than if they're using Windows CE or something like that.

Other people have other interests, and there have been a few cases where someone wavering on the edge HAS come around on the GPL... and if you think those cases are worth the lost opportunities, if that's the game you want to play, then go for it. But that's not my game.

If they want to play the game, they can play by our rules.

My rules are the rules of the open source game. And those rules are called "open source works better". If I didn't believe in those rules, I guess I'd use the GPL, but since I do believe in them it's really not that attractive.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

Microsoft's been using BSD code in Windows for years

No, it didn't.

C:\WINDOWS\system32>strings *.exe | grep -i california
C:\WINDOWS\system32\finger.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
C:\WINDOWS\system32\ftp.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
C:\WINDOWS\system32\nslookup.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
C:\WINDOWS\system32\rcp.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
C:\WINDOWS\system32\rsh.exe: @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
C:\WINDOWS\system32\vmnetdhcp.exe: $Id: inet_addr.c,v 1.1.1.1 1999/11/22 00:57:05 edward Exp $ Copyright (c) 1983, 1990, 1993 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

And, from the release notes from Windows XP:

This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors.

Portions of this product are based in part on the work of the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Because Microsoft has included the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, software in this product, Microsoft is required to include the following text that accompanied such software:

Copyright 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

It doesn't matter what your intent was, nor Apple's. Shoot your boss or no, the fact that there is recourse if you violate a law prevents you from doing so without consequence.

I. Get. That. Already. You've made that point good and hard. Now listen to this one: intent matters, because intent gets all the good results of consequences, and a bunch more besides. When you have people only cooperating under threat of legal sanctions you don't really get cooperation at all.

Not to mention you get a society that sucks. The really cool thing about the open source community is that it doesn't suck, and having someone as a member of that community is so much better than having them on the outside just "getting along". Whether that someone is an individual or a corporation, I much prefer them to be part of the non-sucky community than the sucky one.

Re:Counterpoint

[Q Who]

So? This doesn't prove squat.

The copyrights are due to API emulations.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

The copyrights are due to API emulations.

Those copyrights are due to actual BSD source code.

There is no copyright on the API itself. There is no requirement that anyone put these copyright notices in because they use the API. There's certainly no requirement that anyone put a copyright comment from the actual BSD source code tapes in an executable where nobody's going to see it.

Here's some more of them:

nslookup.exe: @(#)nslookup.c 5.39 (Berkeley) 6/24/90
nslookup.exe: @(#)commands.l 5.13 (Berkeley) 7/24/90
nslookup.exe: @(#)debug.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/29/90
nslookup.exe: @(#)list.c 5.20 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
nslookup.exe: @(#)subr.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
nslookup.exe: @(#)skip.c 5.9 (Berkeley) 8/3/90
nslookup.exe: @(#)getinfo.c 5.22 (Berkeley) 6/1/90
nslookup.exe: @(#)send.c 5.17 (Berkeley) 6/29/90

Those are the actual names of source files still in the nslookup source in bind (albeit with newer versions than Microsoft's using):

% grep '@(#)' *.c
debug.c:static const char sccsid[] = "@(#)debug.c 5.26 (Berkeley) 3/21/91";
getinfo.c:static const char sccsid[] = "@(#)getinfo.c 5.26 (Berkeley) 3/21/91";
list.c:static const char sccsid[] = "@(#)list.c 5.23 (Berkeley) 3/21/91";
main.c:static const char sccsid[] = "@(#)main.c 5.42 (Berkeley) 3/3/91";
send.c:static const char sccsid[] = "@(#)send.c 5.18 (Berkeley) 3/2/91";
skip.c:static const char sccsid[] = "@(#)skip.c 5.12 (Berkeley) 3/21/91";
subr.c:static const char sccsid[] = "@(#)subr.c 5.24 (Berkeley) 3/2/91";

(a few lines of comments and things deleted to keep the Slashdot lameness filter from freaking out over the special characters)

Re:Counterpoint

[nxtw]

Those files themselves are based on BSD code. However, the actual kernel code that was in Windows (NT3) was rewritten nine years ago (NT4). Also, that code was never directly from BSD; it was bsed on a commercial product Microsoft had purchased.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

the actual kernel code that was in Windows (NT3) was rewritten nine years ago (NT4)

The fact that part of the code in Windows NT was rewritten, while interesting, doesn't change the fact that the rest of the code is still there. Microsoft has also picked additional pieces of BSD code since: for example, the last line of my first example was added in XP, that piece of BSD code wasn't there in Windows 2000. They also used a lot of the OpenBSD code base in the enhanced POSIX subsystem they acquired when they bought Softway Systems. Microsoft also seems to have acquired some software through the Berkeley DNS server (though more recent versions of BIND itself are fresh reimplementations).

Also, that code was never directly from BSD

So? The BSD code in System V came by multiple paths, both directly from Berkeley and via Lachman Associates. The BSD code in Interix comes via Softway Systems and OpenBSD. The BSD code in Mac OS X comes via NeXT and FreeBSD. There's BSD code all over the place.

Re:Counterpoint

[cahiha]

Microsoft's using GPL code and BSD code in Interix, and that has neither let them "outperform" Cygwin nor forced Microsoft to open Interix one skerrick more.

Well, it does a couple of things. First, it forces Microsoft to release GPL'ed source code and to admit that that source code exists and is useful. So much for their arguments against the GPL.

It also immunizes any such code they ship from future patent claims by Microsoft, because by shipping it under the GPL, they have already granted permission to any patents they may hold.

What ESR's saying now is what BSD advocates have been saying for years. Companies that are interested in being productive partners will be productive partners no matter what license you use, and companies that aren't will find ways to stick to the letter of the license while completely gutting its spirit.

That's true, but it only covers part of the reasons the GPL is useful. The GPL also gives users of the source code legal guarantees that BSD doesn't give.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

First, it forces Microsoft to release GPL'ed source code and to admit that that source code exists and is useful.

That's interesting, but it seems to be happening in homeopathic amounts.

It also immunizes any such code they ship from future patent claims by Microsoft

I think you'd better wait for ALL the fallout from the SCO trial before you blithely assume that will hold.

Re:Counterpoint

[Omnifarious]

Consider a sane company that truly believes open source is a problem rather than a useful tool. If you face them with litigation over a GPL violation then the logical response is not to embrace open source, it's to do the minimum they have to to comply with the GPL while working on an exit strategy, whether that involves in-house development, licensing a for-pay closed-source package, or terminating the product line. Those are all rational responses.

So... what's going to happen if I try and compel cooperation is that some companies who aren't interested in cooperation will use a different piece of software. If I don't try and compel cooperation, then some of them will use my software and not give me anything for it.

My interest is not getting the source code the company writes. My interest is in not helping out someone who isn't willing to help me out in return. I don't want to give them the benefit if I don't get the reward. Plain and simple. You seem to be under the misapprehension that Open Source is pure altruism, and it is not.

Your rules are not the rules of the Open Source game. The crucial difference is that people get to reap the benefits of years of Open Source development without giving anything in return. That's not a bargain I'm willing to enter into. It is the reason why I refuse to use BSD, even though (until recently) I considered it in almost every way to be technically superior to Linux.

The GPL is the bargain that states "If you use my code, you have to let me use the changes you make to it.". That's the bargain that accurately represents my ultimate desires and provides a fair trade for my work.

Re:Counterpoint

[cahiha]

I think you'd better wait for ALL the fallout from the SCO trial before you blithely assume that will hold.

I don't need to "assume" or "wait for" anything. I was already using the software before Microsoft started shipping it, so whether Microsoft ships it or not doesn't affect my actions.

The question is what Microsoft is assuming. If Microsoft assumes they can weasel out of GPL requirements on patents or anything else because of the outcome of the SCO trial, they are fools. Even if there were a remote chance for SCO prevailing, betting on that would be a bad bet.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

My interest is in not helping out someone who isn't willing to help me out in return.

But the vast majority of people who you help out with your GPLed software do not help you out in return. Most of them make no changes, even the ones who redistribute it with their own products.

I do not write open source software out of altruism. I do not write open source software with the expectation of getting something back. I simply believe that I will get more back from a pure gift than from a begrudging one.

I sow my seeds and let them fall where they may. Some fall on stony ground, and don't sprout. Some fall on fenced off land, and I can't pluck the fruit that grows. Some falls on fertile soil, and I get back what I sowed tenfold.

I could take more care, I could refuse to sow my seeds behind fences, but sometimes fences are just decoration, and sometimes the gate is open, and sometimes you can just walk around them. Sometimes fences come down and sometimes it's my seed and the seed of other prople like me that brings it down. Sometimes I find myself visiting people behind the fences, and I benefit from finding familiar fruit there. If I sowed more carefully, making sure I only sowed on public land, all those opportunities would be lost.

Software hoarding hurts the hoarder most of all, and that's true even if you're doing it to fight hoarding. Why should I do that to myself?

Honestly... I have benefitted FAR more from my contribution to BSD than I ever would have from sitting back and waving a finger at fencebuilders. Without BSD licensed and other TRULY open licenced software, there would not be a Mac OS X.

I don't lose anything if crabby old Farmer Gates nurses his twisted tree up in Redmond, and I've won far more now that Former Jobs in Cupertino's torn down half the fences on his land and opened up half his silos to whoever wants some seeds.

You could look at this and say "hey, Farmer Jobs still has SOME fences, he's not giving away ALL his seeds". To me, that's not just miserly, it's foolish... it's not saying "I don't want to help out people who don't want to help me out in return", it's saying "if you don't give me EVERYTHING, I don't want anything".

The BSDL is the bargain that states, "Here you go, do what you want, I trust you." If some of the people who accept that bargain aren't worthy of that trust, there's more than enough that are that the bargain works... spectacularly.

And the ones who take advantage of my trust, hey, most of them are doing the same thing to you. They just have to be a bit trickier about it. If I was going to make that bargain AND make it mean anything, I'd have to spend time making sure they kept it... so not only would I have given up the harvest from the half-fenced fields, and from the fields with rickety fences, and from Farmer Jobs and others like him, but I'd have sown less seed in the first place.

Damn, man, I'll take all the fruit I can get. Why work harder to get less of it?

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

I am not a lawyer, but I think if you were to ask one he'd tell you that patents don't work the way you think they work.

Re:Counterpoint

[m50d]

Nope. Source under the GPL is defined as the preferred form for making modifications, if a tarball isn't what you work with then you can't just dump that.

Re:Counterpoint

[cahiha]

I suggest you actually bother to read the GPL, which was created and extensively reviewed by lawyers: it explains very clearly what your obligations are with respect to patents under the GPL.

Re:Counterpoint

[argent]

I think you're the one who hasn't read it closely enough.

At the very least, the authors of the GPL were clearly not as sure about section 7 as you are: "If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances."

That's the only section of the GPL that contains that kind of language.

He is right !

[Anonymous Coward]

Read my comment before marking me "troll" or "flamebait":
Raymond has it right: The Open-Source-Movement does not need the GPL. As he says:

"That is, if we really believe that open source is a superior system of production, and therefore that it will drive out closed source in a free market, then why do we think we need infectious licensing? "

He is an Open-Source Guy. He thinks, that Open-Source is good, because the developement model (that is: the organisation of the programmers) is better.
He does not care about "Freedom" or ethics. The Free-Software Movement cannot live without the GPL, because without the "virulent" nature of it, no Freedom can be taken away.

This interview proves, that RMS was right, when he rejected the term "Open Source" !

Re:He is right !

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

His choice of words shows how little he understands, after all this time. Infectious implies that you have no control over it. But you do... you can choose not to be infected, write your own damn code.

GPL is about "converting" in the religious sense. Is this a bad thing? You tell me. You can choose not to be converted, and continue making excuses why you are so stingy with your source code, or you can share it freely. Be stingy, I don't care, but don't expect me to continue giving all my source code to you, so you can go off and sell it...

Re:He is right !

[Brian Blessed]

"That is, if we really believe that open source is a superior system of production, and therefore that it will drive out closed source in a free market, then why do we think we need infectious licensing? "

He's wrong about this "free market" idea because closed source can be given an advantage if it is a small improvement to an open source project (and makes use of a large advertising budget).
Fortunately, open source projects can ensure that their code doesn't become proprietary, by using a license such as the GPL.

- Brian.

Re:He is right !

[m50d]

The reason we need it is we want open source in our lifetimes. Like why the soviets supported revolutions in other countries. Ideologically, they knew that everyone would rise up and overthrow their capitalistic masters, but they wanted people to come to marxism now.

Re:He is right !

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

If I was truly interested in freedom, I'd be ok with you and a few thousand of your fascist friends overthrowing the US government and running the country as some sort of dictatorship?

Same thing with the code, you're free to do with it what you like except try to take it for your own and make it so no one else can use it.

Oh, and go fuck yourself.

Re:He is right !

[MoneyT]

Except your analogy is entirely flawed.

If you release code A to the world, and then I go and write code AB and release it binary only. What have I removed from the world? Code A is still availible because it is physically impossible for me to remove code A. In all, I could easily argue that if you consider closed code harmful, then allowing me to close your code into my program is the least of the harmful actions.

Consider in this situation, the only harm done to the world is that B is closed.

But what if I had to write A again becuase I didn't want to open up AB? Then I would have program CB and now not only is B closed but so is C and to make matters worse, both A and C do the same thing in general, which means future development is now forked.

Now ask yourself what happens if C becomes the standard way of doing what A did? Say by for example, me succesfully marketing my program so that a large enough number of people use it to make it a defacto standard. Now you've failed completely because while you have A still, no one really cares about or uses A so A might as well not exist.

By contrast, had I used A for my program, and A became the defacto standard, then any further development, whether by me or others is based on A which is open for all to use.

If you think this was all a bunch of bull, ask yourself what the world would look like today if microsoft didn't use BSD's TCP/IP

Re:He is right !

[synthespian]

Now ask yourself what happens if C becomes the standard way of doing what A did?

If that happens, it means your software didn't address the needs of people. If you really care about A, you'll stick with it.
Otherwise, it's like assuming, for instance, the OpenBSD community gives a shit about what Microsoft does. D you imagine they whine on misc@openbsd that there's no MSOffice for them?
Also, in your scheme of things, you don't consider the possibility that D evolves from D and re-seeds A.
In Biology, it's called speciation, selection, survival of the fittest and mutation. These are facts of life. But the /great/ thing in software is that, under a free license, your code doesn't die.

Re:He is right !

[MoneyT]

It doesn't die in a truely free license either. However, the GPL actively works to against the goals of real freedom.

Without GPL were doomed!

[MindPrison]

Thanks to GPL weve got thousands of pieces of codes that the community can both learn from and distribute amongst each other.

Dont even think for a minute that the world is so "well-adapted" and would play nice if we took away GPL.

Let me take http://www.blender3d.org/ as an example. The community bought this excellent piece of 3d software free from the grasp of shareholders and re-licensed it to GPL.

Thanks to that, its relatively safe from its actual competitors such as Discreet(AutoDesk), Alias etc. This program is so powerful that it actually can compete with the big ones, I know... I use it commercially today to develop artworks for ad-campaings that bring food on the table, but the GPL license made it affordable for me to get a "start" on my own instead of having to invest thousands of dollars into expensive 3d-software.

The big companies see us as potential customers as long as Blender where inferior to their software, but now as it has grown bigger...and more companies/personal users etc. are using it...

Dont go thinking theyll play it nice forever...losing customers theyll look for an "edge" somewhere...such as a license infringement...maybe code or functions that are equal to theirs SUE SUE SUE!

Darl McBride anyone?

We need GPL, now more than ever!

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[snorklewacker]

> Thanks to that, its relatively safe from its actual competitors such as Discreet(AutoDesk), Alias etc.

Don't count on it. The moment Alias or SoftImage or Discreet sees Blender as a threat, they will throw a fusillade of patent lawsuits against it.

Count on it.

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[mav[LAG]]

It would be a brave company indeed that threatens GPLed code with patent lawsuits these days. The landscape has changed enormously in the last six months, and almost right under our noses. I can imagine a few things happening:

1. The developers laughing at the threats, something along the lines of "So sorry, but US patent law doesn't apply to me since I don't live there. Go stick your patent claims in the nearest available orifice."

Even *if* one was filed in *Europe* and *if* it was upheld, the Blender Foundation would just make sure that all development happened in patent-free jurisdictions. A patent lawsuit would be a sufficiently strong attack to warrant such a radical move.

2. A PR disaster. Tens of thousands of people have got their start in 3D graphics thanks to Blender and the backlash would be extreme.

3. IBM or some other large pro-Linux patent holder coming down like a ton of bricks on the plaintiffs. Does Max draw menus along the top? Sorry, we have a patent on that. Does your text flow algorithm do such and such? Sorry, we have a patent on that. Either you can drop your lawsuit against Blender or we'll be after you.

4. Accusations of hypocrisy. If Alias or SoftImage or Discreet see GPLed software as a threat to their businesses, then they better be able to prove that no GPLed software has helped their businesses in the past. Tricky.

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[jbolden]

5) A really good prior art defense. The open source community has shown itself capable of doing research for legal cases well beyond what is typical or standard. Very few ideas are generally "new" and quite a few patents might have a great deal of "prior art" in them if presented to a jury.

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[MoneyT]

So if blender were released under a BSD license you would have had to pay thousands of dollars for it?

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[synthespian]

The big companies see us as potential customers as long as Blender where inferior to their software, but now as it has grown bigger...

It'll drive people out of business. You'll have a monolithically huge pile of code which you'll think is great, until people start doing shitty development, and then it'll fork, restart everything again from the ground up.
Then, some of those previously commercial software will be relicensed under the GPL. There will be about 3 or 4 of those, but the community will not have the manpower and the expertise to work on those projects (not everybody is that good with huge matrix calculations and geometry, particularly Blender user types). They will stall or crawl.
Believe me, that's what happened to Mathematical softwares (granted, there was the difference that back in those days, computers weren't so widespread and you would only get to use powerful, e.g., Axiom graphics of expensive workstations).

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[MindPrison]

it wont.

Shitty code "as you say" will be replaced by better code - thats the beauty of OpenSource.

Everyone have total insight into whatever you contributed. Therefor you (and others) can make changes anytime you want to, or spot an error...or even just want to improve on the existing code.

Ive been witnessing the "blender" explosion over 3 years now and its absolutely amazing, kind of like Linux additions. People see that something could be improved upon...and they add their bits. These bits gets scooped up by the main contributors...and they approve of the changes....thus it evolves into better code..

..and who benefits fromt this? Us! The end users.
Ive been using the 3dstudio max software myself for 3-4 years because I bought it with my really HARD earned money, but every time I complained about a bug to Discreet...they either dismissed the problems as a "problem-with-your-computer-or-windows-installatio n" or incompetence on my part...

Whereas the Blender coders didnt even act that arrogant or nasty and just searched and "fixed" the problems in 2-3 days after reporting it

This kind of efficiency is incredible - and made me "switch" on the spot. I immedately tried to "sell" my license and luckily got a legal-license transfer from my license (3dstudio max).

Now - We receive software updates faster than we can compile (and yes...even me as a software user...have gone into compiling and error checking on the software because of the joint community effort put into Blender) because I too want to help out developing this incredible piece of software

This is an enormous demostration that OpenSource GPL software really works...and that the "idealism" behind it also really succeed with it.

I make a living of it...therefor Im entirely convinced!

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[synthespian]

Shitty code "as you say" will be replaced by better code - thats the beauty of OpenSource.

You sound overly enthusiastic. I'm more skeptical, because things don't happen via magic spells. There are design decisions to be made, and one might exclude the other. If you end up with only one product, you may regret it later.
Also, I'm a bit skeptical with hacks instead of designs, and a lot of what you see in free software projects is hacks.
Software monoculture is bad, even free software monoculture.

I make a living of it...therefor Im entirely convinced!

I think it's fantastic that the tool suits your needs to that point. However, this is detrimental to the other people who developed proprietary software. In the end, everybody might be losing something. But only time will tell.
In the case you mention, it seems that people responsible for the proprietary software did not take customers seriously. It's up to them to face the competition.

Re:Without GPL were doomed!

[mav[LAG]]

Very good point - I'd forgotten about that. It would be embarrassing if a patented technique could be shown to be straight out of Foley and Van Dam or predated by some independent source.

Missing the point

[KrisCowboy]

RMS insisted on GPL as it provides the ``freedom'' for programmers. No matter what the software is, if it's GPLed, I can be assured that it comes with the source.

People who do what the GPL tries to prevent (e.g., closed source forks of open source projects) wind up injuring only themselves

We just can't sit and wait for them to hurt themselves. They can't steal the code without having to show theirs. The world need GPL as long as people try to close up their source and make loads of money.

Re:Missing the point

[Jay Maynard]

RMS's insistence on the GPL is based on freedom for users, not programmers. In fact, programmers are the group that the GPL denies freedom to.

That people who try closed forks of open source projects hurt themselves is shown by history. For example, there were at least two companies that did closed-source versions of Apache? They're not around any more. They couldn't keep up with the Apache developer community.

Naive Optimism

[sjbe]

"I don't think the GPL is the principal reason for Linux's success..."

Someone's been hanging around too many honest engineers. This statement grossly underestimates the selfishness of people and corporations as well as the impact of a strong legal system. Look, I'm not saying the GPL is the only important factor but I can't logically see linux existing in anywhere near its current form without it. Even if most individuals would respect other people's work (and that's retardedly naive) some people and most corporations will not. In fact, corporate management has a fiduciary duty to make as much profit as possible for their shareholders and they're under a lot of pressure to do it. There are MUCH easier (and proven) ways to make high margin profits with software than the open source model. Without legal teeth to enforce keeping software in the community it simply wouldn't happen. It's pretty safe to assume that nearly all people and companies act in their short term self interest first and foremost. Always. No exceptions.

Re:Naive Optimism

[Anonymous Coward]

I think what you are touching on, and what ESR completely misses, is that the GPL gave developers who wanted to share their work the warm-fuzzies.

In the beginning, the question wasn't "will the proprietary software industry run off and make money with this", it was a sort of prisoner's dilemma of "i'll share my software if you share yours". That's the nut that the GPL cracked.

today, is it still necessary? Look, let people share their stuff the way they want to. It's about freedom.

Re:Naive Optimism

[Twylite]

Corporate management has a fiduciary duty to maximize stakeholder wealth in the long term. Maintaining acceptable profit levels is only one aspect of that goal. Companies that go all-out to maximize return to shareholders find that their business model is unsustainable and they burn out.

Contrary to your assertions regarding short term self interest, most people engage in long term planning and understand the risks of sacrificing long term returns for short term profits. Around the world most public companies now face government regulation or bourse rules for corporate governance, which makes stakeholder wealth (not shareholder profit) their fiduciary duty.

So if a company can sustain a business model by taking and not giving back, it will probably do so. But in most cases it is in the company's interests to give back. For example, it makes economic sense for a company with an embedded Linux platform to contribute fixes back to the original source tree, because it takes more effort to maintain a separate patch tree in-house.

Re:Naive Optimism

[Anonymous Coward]

What ESR seems to be saying is not that companies won't "give back", it is that it does not ultimately matter.

If a company takes a library X and adds features A & B, they will have the difficulty now of maintaining X on their own or remerging A & B into every new release of X. In the long run, it is more trouble and expensive for them than just releasing A & B back to the original open source project.

If features A & B look good to the community, they can probably be added to the library relatively easily. Let's face it, how many times do you see features in a proprietary project and think, "Wow, I could never write that feature!". The real danger here is patents, not the effort of writing the code.

If a company likes X, but doesn't want to deal with the license, they'll write their own version and there is 0% chance that any features are "given back". More importantly, if the company is big enough, it will split the developer community between them.

Here is an interesting analogy I haven't completely thought through: would .NET and C# exist if Java were BSD-licensed? I would bet they wouldn't. Microsoft did not want to be at the mercy of a competitor. They may have forked it, but would that be better or worse than C# vs. Java. (Please, no posts about how you hate both. I don't use either one either, but let's stay focused on the example.) We like competition, but both cases involve competition. One is competing features and implementations; the other is competing projects.

Re:Naive Optimism

[greggman]

Hmmm,

Apache has done just fine with a BSD style license as has XFree, PHP, Python, Boost and hundreds of other projects.

By your arguement, that linux would have failed if it wasn't GPLed then all the projects above should have failed as well.

If this were true...

[Limecron]

...then why isn't one of the BSDs the more popular open-source OS?

I think it's clear that the reason most open-source developers are inspired to work on Linux is the knowledge that their work won't be commercially exploited.

Re:If this were true...

[SpinJaunt]

Actually you're quite wrong; if you spent a week looking at as many open source/free software projects source, you would actually see a huge difference in each of the developers motives behind doing what they do, even just peering in to linux's source can give you so much insight as to why.

Now, IBM sometime ago done some adverts making Linux as a so called prodigy, here to re-cap:

IBM is fronting the bill for Linux's TV debut -- the company is advertising Linux as being the key to an "open" future. The ad was directed by Joe Pytka ("created" by Ogilvy & Mather), and debuted in the US on September 7, 2003, during an NFL game and the US Open men's finals.

The ad stars a stonefaced young blond boy, sitting in a nondescript chair in a Matrixesque white expanse, facing another chair in which is seated, over the course of the ad, 13 other people, each elucidating some important topic to the Kid (as well as a soccer player, who juggles a ball). These aren't your average after-school math tutors, either: the guests include Penny Marshall (actor; director), Muhammad Ali (boxer), Sylvia Nasar (author, "A Beautiful Mind"), Henry Lewis Gates (professor, Harvard; African-American community leader) and John Wooden (former coach, the Bruins). The nuggets of wisdom spoken to the Kid:

• "This is a G chord."
  
• "Homo habilis was the first to use tools."
  
• "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself for the group for the good of the group -- that's teamwork."
  
• "We've always watched the stars. If you look at the sky, you can see the beginning of time."
  
• "Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom -- but sharing data is the first step toward community."
  
• "Poetry. There's not much glory in poetry. Only achievement."
  
• "One little thing can solve an incredibly complex problem."
  
• "Everything's about timing, Kid."
  
• "This is business -- faster, better, cheaper. Constant improvement."
  
• "So, you wanna fly, huh? Wind speed, thrust; it's physics."
  
• "Res publica non dominetur."
  
• "Plumbing -- it's all about the tools."
  
• "Speak your mind. Don't back down."
  

"Does he have a name?"
"His name is Linux."

As the ad ends, "LINUX" blurs into view, and is then replaced by "THE FUTURE IS OPEN", and finally "IBM" with the URL ibm.com/open underneath it.

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=77113

think of the above from a developers point of view, working on Linux.

Re:If this were true...

[HitScan]

Yes, I don't suppose it could have anything at all to do with the BSD's having legal trouble when Linus felt like playing with a free unix clone.

He's basically said as much as if they weren't legally ambiguous that he wouldn't have bothered. Then it would be BSDs vs. Hurd, and I think we all know how that would have turned out.

Re:If this were true...

[10101001 10101001]

I would second this. As a developer, I really don't care if my software is commercially used. I mean, fundamentally, my software is there to be used. But, the second my software is distributed, modified, repackaged, or sold as just a binary, it just feels rather crappy to know that I'm missing out on all the modifications to a tool that I created. Ie, having to play catch up on features I want by extending my software in the ways others already have really sort of makes the whole "give out the source" idea seem rather pointless.

Now if the GPL didn't exist, I'd probably be release software under a BSD license. I like open source/free software also because I sometimes make modifications myself to code of someone else. And I'm quite happy to give back changes I made (partly because then I don't have to repatch if a new version comes out). In the end, I'm most interested in have the most useful software I can get. And the GPL seems to at least provide a mechanism by which that can occur without many disadvantages.

So, yay for user freedom because I'm a user too.

Re:If this were true...

[Limecron]

There's a difference between use and exploitation, and I'm sure that opinions will vary on this issue.

Although IBM is using many people's code by utilizing Linux and other OSS to make money, I would argue that IBM is not really making it by selling the software. Sure, the Linux is great for the functionality of their hardware, and the availibility of free, robust server software is a great selling point. But don't forget, the reason IBM did all that Linux marketing to make people and businesses feel OK about using Linux. IBM is still making their money building and supporting high-end hardware.

I would also venture to guess that the reason IBM chose to USE and ADVERTISE for Linux over a BSD variant was the rapid growth and momentum of the Linux "movement".

If software is still remains free including any changes that were made to it, it is very difficult to truly exploit.

Re:Just how much of the document has teeth, anyway

[PastaLover]

I do know the FSF actively enforces the GPL by contacting individual vendors etc. Many open source projects probably contact individual vendors when they learn about a violation of their license. Usually, the vendor quickly complies (at least from what I have seen).

On a side note, I think the biggest problem with the GPL is the whole 'derivative work' confusion. Are you or are you not allowed to link against GPL code from different-licensed programs? I haven't really seen anybody reach a conclusion on that yet. Note that the FSF FAQ takes a quite extreme position on this.

Re:Just how much of the document has teeth, anyway

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, it has scary teeth. That's exactly why nobody bothers to fight it, and companies settle instead.

Shortly, it works like this: Company Foo infringes the GPL. If they go to court, they can try to argue the GPL doesn't apply - bad idea, since now it's entirely a copyright matter. And copyright says you can't take somebody else's stuff without permission, which means they're screwed.

Here's the thing, the GPL is the only thing that gives you the permission to redistribute the code. If you don't like it, that's fine, nobody forces you to agree to use it, but then the whole thing falls back to copyright law, which doesn't give you the permission to redistribute anything.

The GPL is unique in that it *grants* you privileges, instead of taking them away. Fighting the GPL will result in losing those privileges.

That's why nobody goes to court, because they wouldn't even be talking about the GPL there. They'd be deciding if there was or not copyright infringement.

ESR Needs Therapy

[musicon]

You know, back several years ago I agreed with most of ESR's arguments, and even more recently with all of the Aunt Tillie stuff.

But in the last year or so, betweeen this latest rant, and the one a couple of months ago regarding a new cathedral and bazaar, he's gone off the deep end.

I understand his point here, but he's being extrordinarily naive if he thinks we can abandon the GPL.

GPL the bane of my life....

[ChiGodOfKarma]

If I didn't have to check the legality of every Open Source Library and OS feature I would easily use them in my commercial work. I will in no way however do anything which will draw another set of threats. I.E. the OSS community has sent threatening letters to the company I worked for because we linked with libraries considered to be GPL'd forcing us to write wrappers and stop using some of them. Not a very good way to get fan boys. CGoK

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[wasabii]

Sounds like the GPL makes this very clear. We don't want you using our software if this is your attitude, so fuck off.

Follow the terms of the license or don't use our software. Like any other. We just happen to think our terms are better than everybody elses.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[Chris_Jefferson]

Well boo hoo for you. You decided to try to use someone else's work for free without giving anything back, and then are suprised when people complain. You have three choices

A) Go and buy a licence from a commercial company
B) Use a GPLed library and release your code or
C) Rewrite the damn library yourself.

I'm sorry, but what you really want is free well written code while giving nothing in return. Well as a programmer who puts his code under the GPL, I don't want to give it to you unless I get something in return.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[ChiGodOfKarma]

No all I did was try to write an application that ran on Linux. I didn't modify any of it. I had no idea that linking to the OS's API's would cause the Idealogues to try to make me OSS our own software which shipped with source. I guess in OSS's opinion I should be sorry that I want to make a living from software not software support. CGoK

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[rpozz]

Are you trying to prove his point or something? Out of interest, which software have you written ("our software")?

Many open source libraries are licenced under the LGPL specifically because the authors obviously want people to have the freedom to use them for closed-source software. However, some are licensed differently, and his point was that it can be a PITA to make sure that the licence isn't being violated.

Most developers genuinely don't want to violate the GPL, and an abrasive, angry attitude when it is done purely by accident doesn't do the open source community any favours at all.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[Alioth]

That's the whole point of the GPL. It's not to get 'fan boys', it's to ensure if I release my work for free, it stays free - i.e. you cannot subsequently derive something off it then close my work up.

What you have had to do is the entire intention behind the GPL. If you want to write closed-source software, don't use GPLed libraries and code, it's as simple as that. It's not a popularity contest - it's because the authors of the original GPLed work wanted to stop people from being to take their work and close it up.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[ChiGodOfKarma]

I didn't make anyone's work not free. I simply linked to free libraries that are part of the core Linux OS. CGoK

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[mcc]

I.E. the OSS community has sent threatening letters to the company I worked for because we linked with libraries considered to be GPL'd forcing us to write wrappers and stop using some of them

Uh, wow.

And then did you get all indignant when Microsoft started sending you threatening letters just because you'd been distributing mass-copied Windows XP CDs with your product?

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[GauteL]

My heart bleeds for you because you can't just rip of other people's work.

I'm sorry, but you have no divine right to use any of other people's work other than what they give you. The GPL give you much more rights than commercial software do, but it does require a bit of decency on your behalf.

If you do not have that decency, you deserve nothing but the contempt the OSS community gave you.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[ChiGodOfKarma]

No, when you write progam's that link to MS's DLL's they don't threaten you. I would never modify or give away someone elses work/source code. Linking to a library on the other hand I would do. Although now I don't write many Linux apps because I have to find LGPL stuff or make my own LGPL wrapper libraries to access things that aren't. If MS owned everthing that linked into their OS's Core DLL's would anyone use it? Answer: No. CGoK

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[ChiGodOfKarma]

I didn' use, modify, or distribute anyone elses work. I simply linked to the libraries necassary to run on Linux. We didn't even include them with our distribution because it was a Source based distribution that had to be compiled once it arrived on the site. The only lack of decency I can think of is having my lively hood threatened for making software for a particular OS. CGoK

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[Anonymous Coward]

Which of the OS's APIs is GPLed? I think you are lying.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[gowen]

If I didn't have to check the legality of every Open Source Library and OS feature I would easily use them in my commercial work

Whereas no proprietary library has ever been sold in a shrink-wrap of pure legalese. No sir. Legal constraints are found only in open source...

Sure, George.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[m50d]

There's no "considered to be GPL'd". The libraries are GPLed or not GPLed, and if they are GPLed then you have to use the GPL for any programs that use them, that's the entire point of them being GPL. They're there as a carrot to encourage you to use GPL for your programs. People who use the GPL for their libraries don't want you using them in a propriety work. It's not like your any worse off than if they'd never been written, and without the GPL they may well not have been.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[CoolVibe]

What you are forgetting to grasp is that the GPL has _NOTHING_ to do with use, and _EVERYTHING_ to do with distribution. The GPL is not an end-user license.

You don't have to agree to it to use, but if you re-distribute, you have to agree to it. It's really that simple.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[stevey]

There are no "core libraries" in Linux in the sense you are suggesting.

There may well be core libraries for particular purposes, such as libgtk, libqt, etc.

But you can't expect anybody to believe that you linked statically to a library, after looking up it's API enough to use it - then were suddenly suprised by licensing conditions, can you?

Your mistake was to a) ignore the license, and b) think that 'free libraries' didn't have conditions attached.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[hayne]

I simply linked to free libraries that are part of the core Linux OS

I'm quite curious to know exactly which libraries you linked to that caused the problem. Most "core" libraries supplied with Linux are under LGPL.

If you linked to a library that was under GPL, then of course you need to adhere to the GPL. But it is your choice to use or not to use such libraries. Calling it the "bane of my life" seems like a gross exaggeration. It isn't difficult at all to determine the licensing requirements of a library (or any other software). If it says GPL then you know what you need to do - or not do.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[emurphy42]

Seconded, for the benefit of those who (understandably) take the words of all ACs with a grain of salt.

Most of the code I write at my day job is custom mods for individual clients, on top of a commercial accounting software package. None of it is OSS, but we routinely leave a copy of our code on the client system for convenience. They could have someone else work on it, but their easiest option is to keep us involved (because we grok it, because we wrote it); this holds true unless we disappear or piss them off.

Granted, this is less true of entire software packages, but some businesses even work around that - they give the software away for free, then charge for services such as tech support. Red Hat Enterprise, for instance.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[NotZed]

And which core libraries would these be?

Or are you just lying to make the impression that writing proprietary applications for linux is not possible?

Core libraries, libc, libX11, a few other little things. None of those are GPL.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[Coniptor]

"If I didn't have to check the legality of every Open Source Library and OS feature I would easily use them in my commercial work."

When your coding within your company or ANY company you HAVE to check the legality of using ANY software which is not completly owned by your company regardless of whether or not it's GPL'ed or not. Even then you would have to CHECK with your manager and how ever high up the command chain you need to go to determine when and how it's ok to use the companies software/code. In short your just a winey little bitch here.

"I will in no way however do anything which will draw another set of threats."

That's good, you should't be using GPL'ed or other Open Source licensed software if your not going to bother to read the license and *UNDERSTAND* it before you start coding. In fact any source code made available under any license you have a responsability to read and *UNDERSTAND* before you begin coding. Just because you didn't sign a retarded NDA does not mean you don't have to worry about how you use someone ELSE'S code!

"the OSS community has sent threatening letters to the company I worked for because we linked with libraries considered to be GPL'd forcing us to write wrappers and stop using some of them."

Didn't read that license until you *UNDERSTOOD* it, DID you?

"Not a very good way to get fan boys. CGoK"

Neither the Free Software community nor the Open Source community need ANYONE claiming to be a member of them or speaking of them who doesn't understand nor respect them.

Further more if you consider it such a hassle then DON'T USE IT/THEM. If GPL'ed or Open Source licensed software did not exist then you'd have to turn to other resources or, being unable to code everything your self, give up! Just because it's out there does not mean you can do with it what you want, how you want. Your car sits out front of your house or in your garage. Just because I'm aware of it gives me no right to go steal it does it?

All together your just a selfish whiny little bitch who doesn't respect anyone elses property or what these communities are trying to achieve.
Why don't you just shut the fuck up! MORON!!!

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[ckaminski]

Now I'm guessing you're trolling, because glibc is LGPLd which means you can link to it explicitly without fear of threat. Either that, or you came into this information from a friend-of-a-friend.

There was a time in the past, 1996, 1997 where this would have been an issue. Certainly not in the past five years...

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[MoneyT]

And yet somehow you think that because you wrote some piece of code that you should be instantly entitled to the work that someone else puts in to making your code better. Can we say "Greedy motherfucker"

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[MoneyT]

Why should "free" libraries have any strings attached? How does that promote open development?

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[emurphy42]

Why should I use the GNU GPL rather than other free software licenses?

Using the GNU GPL will require that all the released improved versions be free software. This means you can avoid the risk of having to compete with a proprietary modified version of your own work. However, in some special situations it can be better to use a more permissive license.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[MoneyT]

If I am competing with a proprietary version of my own work, my own work must not be sufficient enough.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[Chris_Jefferson]

Hey, it's my code. I could just lock it away in a box and never give it out to anyone, or use it but exert my standard rights under copyright and not let any use or extend it.

As far as I can see, the GPL is just another way of charging for use of your code, but with their code instead of money. If that cost is too high for you, go and pay with money for someone else's code instead.

Re:GPL the bane of my life....

[MoneyT]

That's my point though. The GPL isn't about freeing code, it's just another form of patents and copyrights. GPL code is neither free as in beer nor free as in speech. And for a lot of people, the cost is too high.

ESR's point is that the GPL and it's high costs are unnecessary since open source and active participation is inherrently a superior model, and that the use of GPL marginalizes your software rather than making it more open and accepted.

Paper to come

[Jay Maynard]

ESR is in the process of writing an essay on the subject, although he tells me it's not quite ready for release just yet.

Advocacy lessons

[ewe2]

To correct the rather skewed summary by the poster, all ESR is saying is that FOSS is big enough not to need the kind of protection the GPL offers. I disagree, mainly because I don't see companies which get big suddenly go easy on the market either, like say Microsoft.

But the nature and tone of the questions here are very interesting: it's hard to decide whether the interviewer genuinely does not understand the issues behind GPL, implications of the patent system, or the logic behind open implementation of standards, or is making an indirect point of his own.

There are worrying signs that many people are relying on woolly "common-sense" interpretations of these issues and the distinctions are escaping even their lawyers. It's a FUD FUD FUD FUD world!

NO, DON'T DO IT WRONG AGAIN!

[John.P.Jones]

If you don't need the 'protection' of the GPL then do it RIGHT. Free (as in speach) Software belongs only ONE place, the PUBLIC DOMAIN!

Re:NO, DON'T DO IT WRONG AGAIN!

[CoolVibe]

Hell no.

Do you actually know what the public domain is? If you put your work, which you put blood, sweat and love in, into the public domain, some asswank can just take that stuff, change one byte, and claim that he wrote it.

No thank you very much.

Mac too

[matt me]

Mac OS uses a BSD kernel too, right?

Re:Mac too

[Golias]

Mac OS uses a BSD kernel too, right?

Wrong. Close... but still wrong.

OS X uses a Mach microkernel with a BSD compatability layer.

Which, as far as most users are concerned, is pretty much the same as saying "it's BSD," but under the hood that's not exactly true.

Infomercial, not an interview

[amightywind]

This article is a phony astroturf campaign by two entities (O'Reilly and Raymond) who have vested interests in the survival of the muzzy "open source" philosophy. It is more infomercial than interview. Why these yahoos feel qualified to influence the future course of the Linux kernel, I'll never know.

Re:Infomercial, not an interview

[chromatic]

Care to back up that assertion?

Re:Infomercial, not an interview

[amightywind]

O'Reilly publishes 2 books by Raymond. Onlamp.com is run by O'Reilly. O'Reilly benefits very much from its association with the OpenSource camp headed by Raymond. O'Reilly is also a natural enemy of free software because of the FSF call for free documentation, and its ambivalence toward corporations. Raymond also hates the FSF. He has been out of the spotlight for some time and needs to get noticed (i.e. say something controvertial). What better way for both to get some shots in than a flamebait interview sure make its way over to the ready audience at slashdot?

Re:Infomercial, not an interview

[chromatic]

I don't speak for ESR and won't speculate as to his motives.

I will speak for myself, though. I decided to publish this article because I found it interesting and thought it would start some conversations. Federico was at the conference in Brazil, heard ESR speak, and asked if an interview along these lines would be interesting. Federico also interviewed RMS last December in Freedom, Innovation, and Convenience, also on the O'Reilly Network, also on a site I edit.

You are certainly welcome to believe that there's a sinister plot (of which I am unaware), but I think your theory is completely nutty both in premises and conclusion.

Re:Infomercial, not an interview

[amightywind]

You are certainly welcome to believe that there's a sinister plot (of which I am unaware), but I think your theory is completely nutty both in premises and conclusion.

I am flattered that one of the principals in this event has choosen to reply to my post. Seems to me that you call my reasoning nutty without making any attempt to refute it. The facts I present are true. One would have to be pretty obtuse not to come my conclusions. Are you really trying to maintain that O'Reilly is a neutral observer in the open source slimfest against free software? The term sinister plot is yours. I would just use the word disengenuous.

Re:Infomercial, not an interview

[chromatic]

Let me be more clear then.

• I work for O'Reilly, covering free and open source software.
• To my knowledge, there is no company policy, stated or unstated, opposed to the idea or practice of free software.
• I chose to run this interview. It was my decision alone. Whether I or my employer agree with the opinions of the interviewer or the interviewee is irrelevant to that choice; I chose to run it because it brought up interesting questions worth considering.
• O'Reilly is no enemy of free software. We use it heavily, promote it, and help to sponsor some projects, donating time, resources, and code. (We recently made part of the third edition of Programming Perl available to include as part of the core Perl documentation.)

You can believe me. You can also disbelieve me, in which case you either think that I am lying to you or deluded. You're welcome to believe what you want to believe, but I think the simplest explanation is that I'm telling the truth.

How would it have evolved then?

[mindaktiviti]

"the right social architecture for distributed software"

Would linux have developed as much as it has if it didn't have the GPL? Would it become just like BSD then? Don't both OS' have a place in the computing world? ...And yet if linux didn't have the GPL in the beginning then you would only have more or less "LinuxBSD" along with OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc.

I believe it's only now that things like this are being said, because GNU/Linux is so successful. Whatever anyone thinks of RMS, the GPL is a wonderfully written piece of work and has allowed the average hacker to be able to mess around with his programs If he really wanted to.

"NetBSD is a worthy project, but, let's face it, the fan base for it simply is not large enough to justify spending marketing effort to recruit them."

Would linux become like this? Would the same programmers with the same ideals (i.e. keep it open and mandatory for source code included otherwise I don't want to help out etc) end up not spending their spare time adding to linux?

Just like people think that proprietory software has a place in the world, free software has a place in this world as well.

Fast or well

[Ocrad]

'Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it.'

Things can be done two ways; fast or well. It seems that Raymond prefers the fast way.

Re:Fast or well

[NotZed]

Wasn't that 3 ways? Fast, good, cheap; but you can only choose 2?

I can't believe i'm spending my Friday night reading dumb comments about another rubbish article that tosspot ESR wrote.

wow

[jnf]

I live in phoenix and I sware I just heard RMS scream.

That's not the problem

[Otter]

The GPL isn't the problem. It's the mob who enforces "GPL violations" by:

1) Not having the slightest idea what the GPl requires. (See countless "They don't have downloadable source code on their website! GPL violation!!!" stories here.)

2) Declaring violations of "the spirit of the GPL" that pretty much cover anything "the community" decides it deserves and isn't getting.

The recent Safari-KHTML brouhaha indicates why companies face risk from even the most careful use of others' GPL code.

Re:That's not the problem

[slavemowgli]

You've also got to ask yourself why and for who free software is developed, though. Contrary to what some (many?) people, seemingly including ESR, believe, it's not primarily done so that companies can use it for free; it's because the developers care about software that is free in the "freedom" sense as well. Companies, like everyone else, are allowed to use the code, but they do have to meet requirements - free (GPL'ed) software is NOT the same as giving software away for free without any strings attached.

The KHTML case may be a good example. Apple does have the right to use KHTML and incorporate it into their own products, but they do have to play by the rules and obey the license, and the community or the developers are not being unreasonable when they ask for that to happen. Free software may not cost money, but that does not mean that you can just take it and use it in any way you see fit - it still belongs to the developers, just like, say, Windows belongs to Microsoft.

If somebody used Windows in a way that is not in compliance with the license - for example, by making free copies and handing them out to people -, and if Microsoft demanded that the licensing terms be obeyed, then nobody would think this unreasonable. It is their software, after all - you can use it under their license, but you don't have a fundamental RIGHT to using it (in any way at all).

The same goes for free software, but people seem to have difficulties understanding that.

Re:That's not the problem

[Otter]

The KHTML case may be a good example. Apple does have the right to use KHTML and incorporate it into their own products, but they do have to play by the rules and obey the license, and the community or the developers are not being unreasonable when they ask for that to happen.

That's precisely the point. There are two sets of "rules" here* -- what the GPL actually requires and what "the community" thinks the rules ought to be. There is no real question that Apple was in full compliance with the licensing terms; that doesn't protect them from a) idiot zealots who think that they're required to backport code to the original base and b) less idiotic zealots who realize that there's no violation but invoke "the spirit of the GPL" anyway.

That's precisely my point -- that obeying the rules is *not* adequate.

* Actually there's a third set of rules consisting of terms asserted by the FSF (like about dynamic linking), the true legal status of which is entirely unclear.

Re:That's not the problem

[slavemowgli]

Mmm. I admittedly don't know the details of the KHTML case, but if Apple was in compliance with the license, then it shouldn't really matter to them what people on - say - Slashdot say.

As for expecting more than to-the-letter compliance with the license... that's a difficult question. Personally, I'd say that while things like working with the community and giving back after you took in a manageable form instead of just giving back in the technical sense aren't required by the license, it's not entirely unreasonable to expect them, and I wouldn't automatically label someone who asks for that an idiot zealot, either (of course, someone who claims that Apple strictly *has* to do so is indeed an idiot).

But that's really another thing entirely - it's not about the technical side of the GPL, but rather about the social side, and, for that matter, about the social side of free software in general, no matter whether it's GPL-licensed, BSD-licensed or something else entirely. Clearly there are no strict requirements here, so a company is within their rights to not work with the larger development community, but it shouldn't expect to be liked if it doesn't, and I can understand developers who aren't happy with things like this [1], even though there is no actual license violation as far as the legal side of things is concerned.

1. Note that I'm not talking about the Apple/KHTML case in particular - I don't want to comment on that, since I don't have enough background information on what really went on to form an opinion.

Re:That's not the problem

[Omnifarious]

Corporations face those kinds of risks every day. It seems like every day some corporation has a PR hassle over something they've done. So, I don't think that's an inherent risk with GPL code.

Weather forecast

[Egregius]

I feel a s***storm coming nonetheless. ;-)

Re:Weather forecast

[TheRaven64]

Why did you have to censor `snow'?

Hum hum

[andr386]

IMHO this is nonsense. Some things must stay FREE like the air we breath, the water we drink (or at least the water from the river), the linux kernel ...

Quitting the GPL now, it's like saying Now I want to pay to breathe and drink the water from the river.

The corporate world is happy to polluate and overuse what is free. The GPL is a good compromise. You give, you receive !!!

I think , IMHO, that everything in GPL is a bad idea. Maybe the licence should be more suple. Maybe you should be able to do something that is not free out of it... but again there are already solutions like the LGPL ... We're always going forward. Maybe slowly but steadily.

We would better try to protect what we've got now than giving it away. When you see stuff like "cherry Os" and the like you wonder what "teeth" they are speaking about...

Re:Hum hum

[ckaminski]

If someone wants to purchase Linux and sell it in a commercial project, they can offer monetary recompense to all the kernel contributors to relicense it to them in term favorable to said entity.

Qt has dual-use licenses, so do other projects.

So could Linux. Hell, Microsoft could conceivably license Linux to use underneath a Win32 API...
The License does not remove rights the copyright owner already has.

Very Odd

[richarddshank]

Something I noticed here, the dispute over the open source, uh, free software (another debate) gets the same type of responses that religion does. That seems a bit curious to me. Maybe there is just a little to much dogma going on? The thing I've never quite understood about the GPL and the arguments for "free software", if the software is truely free for me to do with as I will, how does putting constraints on it, ie I cannot close it if I feel it is in my best interest, make it free, as in liberty. Shouldn't I be able to make that choice? Or is free only if you agree with the philosophy of RMS? (no disrespect intended)

Re:Very Odd

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL takes away your freedom to be selfish; if you want to be selfish try a BSD licence...

Re:Very Odd

[Jay Maynard]

You've got it exactly right. The FSF and its carde of GPL zealots are arguing based on their religion, not on the real world as it is. ESR's a lot more in touch with the real world.

Re:Very Odd

[NotZed]

ESR's a lot more in touch with the real world.

HAHAHA oh boy, this is funny!

He's just spouting the same crap as he always has, no real-world involved here.

Re:Very Odd

[argent]

The GPL takes away your freedom to be selfish

If I release my software under the BSDL, how am I being selfish?

Bad Idea

[mothlos]

While GPL definitely has its problems, one of its advantages (and disadvantages) is that it keeps the project open source. The review talks about how GPL harnessed a community in the past, but doesn't buy the argument that perhaps the GPL is keeping the community today.

On top of that the interviewer totally blew the second question. This guy is fully concentrated on how to sell open source to private industry and his response shows this bias. He read this question as asking about if building on Linux increases the branding of the product because it has "Linux Inside!". He completly misunderstands that the draw isn't for consumers or private business, but from free range devs who see a product with lots of momentum.

GPL is also a social movement because it forces for-profit users of the information to raise the blinds and let the people see what they are doing. Business doesn't want to let us see in there because they are afraid we will tear apart their code either through reviews or attacking security vulnerabilities. For anti-business types, strong GPL projects that are tempting to business and with lots of buzz and knowledge in the dev community becomes a mighty crowbar to pry open the shell of secrecy that they fear. Without some of the features of the GPL that this interviewee suggests aren't needed anymore this important feature and draw of the Linux community would die.

Something like the Creative Commons, but for code

[Peter Cooper]

I think I wrote my post in a ambiguous, confusing manner.. oops! I apologise for that.

I was trying to get at the point that something more like the Creative Commons licenses for code would work well. The Creative Commons licenses let individual content creators add and remove certain provisos to the core license, whereas the GPL is rather concrete, and many people do not understand what it actually states. CC licenses, on the other hand, are very simple and flexible.

Awww.... the GPL makes you nervous?

[solios]

Use a BSD. Stop whining.

Talent and time are the only things holding FOSS back. :P

MPL?

[dtfinch]

You still have to share their changes, but the license is almost entirely non-viral. Only changes to existing source files are covered. Mozilla releases their code under an MPL/LGPL/GPL triple license, with an optional clause that bridges the three for as long as you neglect to remove it from the source file.

I'm a fan of the GPL, and have released many small programs under it, but it gets a little scary if you want to release proprietary software which runs atop a GPL'd framework. You need to look at every library you use, see if it's BSD, LGPL, GPL with a linking exception, etc., or pure GPL which you just can't link to.

Regardless of anti-viral sentiments, there's not much that can or should be done. Software that is under the GPL will always be under the GPL, with rare exceptions. Switching to a less viral license would require rewriting almost everything, except the stuff that was just copied from BSD anyways. New software will be under whatever license the author pleases, but if it's not the GPL they will still run into some of the difficulties that proprietary software developers face, though to a lesser extent.

Re:MPL?

[Alioth]

The GPL is *not* viral, that is FUD put out by Microsoft.

Re:MPL?

[dtfinch]

For lack of a better word, I use viral to describe the license's desire to take over new code that is not simply a modification/derivative of the original GPL'd code.

superiority of open source

[_|()|\|]

What you have to understand about Eric is his belief that open source is a superior development process. He states:

As far back as 1998, I suspected that allegiance to the GPL is actually evidence that open source developers don't really believe their own story. That is, if we really believe that open source is a superior system of production, and therefore that it will drive out closed source in a free market, then why do we think we need infectious licensing?

In effect, Eric is saying something like: if you're innocent, why do you need a lawyer?

Much has been made of the difference in philosophy of the "free software" and "open source" camps (too much, perhaps); this is a pretty clear statement of Eric's perspective.

Re:superiority of open source

[AndreyF]

Even if I'm innocent, I'd still want a lawyer. What Eric is saying is that, in a perfect world, in a perfectly free market, in the very long run, closed source models would win lose to open source ones. This assumes that Microsoft will compete fairly, not use it's market dominance, etc.

It's horsefeathers! RMS believes in freedom as a right - the freedom to know what's running on your computer. He wants anything he writes to never be run on a user's machine without their knowing what it is - hence, the GPL.

Re:superiority of open source

[ElNotto]

if we really believe that open source is a superior system of production, and therefore that it will drive out closed source in a free market, then why do we think we need infectious licensing?

Because it is not a free market. Copyrights, patents, corporation-controlled legislators passing corporation-authored bills, etc. all place restrictions on the market.

The GPL eliminates substantial barriers to entry and provides other means to gain back some measure of freedom in the market.

Re:superiority of open source

[argent]

What Eric is saying is that, in a perfect world, in a perfectly free market, in the very long run, closed source models would win lose to open source ones.

Where open source works, this is already happening.

Where open source doesn't work, the only viable open source products are closed-source products that have failed in the market.

And the first really big example of an open source license keeping an open source tree out of private hands wasn't even using the GPL. And the hook that made that possible (which was also the an attempt at creating the freedom to know what's running on your computer) was opposed so aggressively by the FSF that it was eventually taken out just to shut the beggars up.

Re:Eric playing flute.

[Jay Maynard]

Nice picture. Wish I'd taken it. Well lit, good use of depth of field, well composed, shows the subject well.

I also wish I could play a musical instrument, but that's one talent I completely lack.

Contributors! Contributors!

[iamacat]

Although I have nothing against proprietary software, I am using GPL for stuff I release for free. This way I can be confident nobody will plagiarize and sell my stuff without even telling their customer where to get the free version. And if someone has more honest code reuse in mind, they can always ask - and compensate me as appropriate.

A lot of people already wrote GPLed software before Linux was released for that and other reasons. I wonder how feature-rich Linux distributions would be if they accepted only BSD-licensed software. Even people who do serious kernel work might want to get paid if someone uses their kick-ass algorithms in a closed-source OS.

kde, gnome, gnu*

[SolusSD]

He forgets to mention all the software that composes a working linux system. Linux as a server/desktop and not just a kernel to plus into someone elses non-gpl'd system would not be where it is today without the gpl. just look at all the shared resources that go into today's open source software.

ESR RMS.

[everphilski]

There. I said it.

*runs*

But in all seriousness I think ESR has a point. Let me spin it from my point of view: RMS is very caught up in himself. RMS claims the GPL to be his own literary work. I don't see the same thing beind said about any other license. He has such a big head he should start selling real estate to astronomers or something. Maybe then SETI would find ET.

-everphilski-

Re:Nice Troll

[wheelbarrow]

I think GPL is great. There are true believers out there, though, who would use force to make it mandatory for everything. I'm against that.

Re:ESR RMS.

[everphilski]

I should have used the preview button.

ESR (greater than) RMS. should read the title.

-everphilski-

I thought we didn't need ESR anymore...

[Pac]

Eric Raymond served the community well when he broke off with Richard Stallman and started what was called the Open Source Movement (slightly in opposition to, but never quite apart from, the Free Software).

His main contribution, I think, was attracting corporate attention to the benefits of Open Source. A secondary contribution was to show, along the years, how well thought and important the GPL was - as many weak, badly written and loophole-ridden open source licenses started to appear and people started getting their fingers burned by corporate greed. The Open Source people eventually generated a couple of good licenses, but the good ones were never much different from GPL.

I think now it should be quite clear to everyone involved that the level of protection from "corporate leechers" GPL offers is one of the fundamental pillars of the innovation we see today in software developement. As another poster put it, GPL is the only thing that stands between your open code and Microsoft (Oracle, Adobe etc).

Good stuff from ESR

[aCapitalist]

The fact of the matter is that many companies get creeped out by the GPL. And one of the reasons is that the FSF, and specifically RMS pull the strings on much GNU software. Now with the talk of GPL v3.0 extending the virality to web services, you're going to see a lot more people pushing against the FSF - and of course their omnipresent political goals.

What I found particularly interesting is the talk about re-licenseing Linux. How is that even possible with all the contributors? They haven't all signed over copyright.

The worse thing about GPL zealots is that the loudest among them don't even code. I can see a developer wanting to protect his code, but when I hear some punk kid who throws in a Mandrake CD and thinks he needs to start spewing Stallinisms - you just want to bitch slap him.

In any case, I'm glad ESR has the balls to start speaking out. At the very least, we have a counter-balance to RMS and his minions.

Re:Good stuff from ESR

[argent]

And one of the reasons is that the FSF, and specifically RMS pull the strings on much GNU software.

And some of the RMS interpretations of the GPL are indistinguishable from interface copyrights. In particular, if you use a package that's only available in an FSF-owned GPL-ed version, you have to be damn careful how you interact with it. Even if you never distribute any GPLed code, if you depend on GPLed code they can claim your code is covered.

I understand why they do this, because without it there's no substantial difference between the GPL and the LGPL. That's the end that justifies these means. But these means are so toxic I can't see how the LPF could have come from a man willing to use any end to justify them.

I predict that there will be at least one followup to this message trying to devise some kind of doublethink that

You miss his main argument

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't claim that people wouldn't do what you describe. He just claims that those acting that way would ultimately hurt themselves.

Now the way he arrives at this conclusion is the interesting part, I think.

His basic argument is that open source developement is a superior system of production.

Now if that is the case, there really is no need for the GPL, as companies who don't participate in this superior system (that is, take open source code and turn it into closed source) are in fact punishing themselves.

I don't know if I really agree with him on that, but it's at least an interesting and thought provoking argument.

Re:You miss his main argument

[lexluther]

He doesn't claim that people wouldn't do what you describe. He just claims that those acting that way would ultimately hurt themselves.

In fact, he is probably correct that in the long-term these people would hurt themsleves, but he fails to consider that in the near term people could certainly benefit from the exploitation of OSS.

The GPL is important because it prevents these near term exploitations and fosters innovations/open-standards because private institutions are beholden to the community.

Now if the markets were perfect, ESR might have a more valid point, but just as economists loathed including anti-monoply clauses in law, it became necessary because the market is not perfect -

Why tell ESR to shut up?

[backslashdot]

ESR, shut the fuck up, you've done your good deeds, now don't start destroying it all just because you're not in the spotlight anymore.

Why tell anyone to shut up? If their statements have merit then people will absorb the idea. ...When people have ideas I want to know them.

Maybe you don't, but I do. What are your acheivements that you can go around telling people to shut up?

After all, by your own admission, ESR has done a good deed in the past.

Re:Why tell ESR to shut up?

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Why?

If someone continues well past their prime, they end up damaging the good they did in the past.

Maybe John Katz did some good with his Columbine-related stories, he undid himself simply by being too verbose and too prolific with less and less relevant or worthwhile tangents.

Re:Why tell ESR to shut up?

[CoolVibe]

If you don't like what someone says (in your case, you don't agree with what ESR is saying), you are free to ignore him.

We did that to John Katz too. :)

Re:Why tell ESR to shut up?

[Tom]

What are your acheivements that you can go around telling people to shut up?

How about actually writing some Free Software (and also some proprietary)? I'm one of the people affected by the GPL, and I've made licensing decisions. There were good reasons why I choose the GPL for the programs I put out under GPL, and good reasons for choosing something else for others.

As to why I tell him to shut up - polemics. He doesn't seem to have anything useful to say recently, so for all I care, he can shut up.

I have to disagree

[Todd Knarr]

I have to disagree with Eric. Certainly open-source would be more widely adopted if it didn't use the GPL, but it wouldn't be more successful. A lot of it's success is because of features that've gotten added over time as people needed them. The GPL is what enforces that add-back. Without it individuals would probably contribute back but corporate-sponsered development would've probably been locked up on the grounds of "protecting our precious IP". We would've lost a lot of features, and we would've seen a splintering like we did with Unix itself as companies fought to make their own subtly-incompatible versions of software to insure their customers stayed locked in and buying from them. We saw Microsoft try this with the non-GPL'd Kerberos software, and the only thing that prevented it was MIT getting nasty about trademarks. Without the GPL this would be the norm, not an exceptional example.

Re:I have to disagree

[Twylite]

• FreeBSD doners gallery
• NetBSD doners gallery
• ActiveState pays several developers to work full-time on PHP, Python and Tcl, and a lot of their work goes into the core distributions not just ActiveState's proprietary development environments.

None of these products in under copyleft. Enlightened self-interest is more effective than a big stick.

Re:I have to disagree

[RLiegh]

Is this the same NetBSD that recently had to beg for donations on the front page of its' websight? Nothing wrong with NetBSD (I'm using it for this post) or with soliciting donations; but the fact they have to beg for them highlights the flaw in your theory there.

Also, looking at the numbers ((debian,kde,gnome,linux,gcc, etc) > (freebsd,netbsd,openbsd)) it's pretty clear that the big stick is more effective.

The right tool for the right job

[stox]

GPL is right for some. BSD is right for some. There will never be a one size fits all licensing solution. What we really need is an "Anyone but Microsoft" license, but as far as I know, you can't legally craft such a license.

Anyone who'se tried to understand mysql's licence

[Miros]

will probably tell you that it made them quite nervous. The GPL, while awesome for some things, also seems to have the potential to be used both for good, and for evil.
On the good side, it provides one of many frameworks within which to develop open software. On the other hand, there are no GPL police, nobody is out there ensuring that people OS software that use GPL'd code, and "clean rooming" happens the other way too (to avoid the GPL's viral nature).
On the bad side, the GPL muddies the waters for honest companies that want to save money by using some open source software, but are afraid of inadvertantly GPLing their code. This is usually most prevelent in businesses that really like OSS, and thus, want to adhere to the GPL. Once again, MYSQL is a great example. A quick search of google will quickly reveal how much chaos their "dual licence" scenario can cause for some honest people.

Actually ESR misses the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've read the article and some of what he said is just plain wrong. For instance:

> NetBSD is a worthy project, but, let's face it,
> the fan base for it simply is not large enough to
> justify spending marketing effort to recruit them.

I agree that NetBSD is cool and appreciate all their hard work. It's allowed me to have a modern desktop on my Solaris 8 system at work without having root privileges. No Linux, not even Gentoo can claim to be able to do that.

That being said, the xBSDs were actually ahead of Linux in the late 1990s. The xBSDs were more widely deployed for enterprise systems. But Linux still overtook them. The initial fan base isn't really an issue.

It's also not the applications issue. NetBSD can pretty much run any app that's on Linux. There may be a bit lag (since the apps are developed on Linux most of the time and there's a bit of a porting effort), but the apps get there without too much time.

It's not the compile your own source code culture of the xBSDs since pkg_add supports binary packages, and Gentoo has more popularity than the xBSDs. There is also version of Debian for the xBSDs.

It's not even the kernel. A few years back, the BSD was superior in many ways, but Linux still outstripped it.

When all is said and done, there is only one key difference between Linux and BSD, the license. Companies like IBM don't mind GPLing their technology for the same reason TrollTech doesn't mind GPLing Qt....If anyone wants to use it in a commercial product, they have to pay IBM, TrollTech, Sleepycat, etc for the right to take the code prorietary. And although your competitors may have access to your source code, they can't do anything with it without releasing their changes so you can benefit from it. When a company GPLs their product, they haven't really given it away.

GPL is a quid pro quo license (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). Businesses understand quid pro quo and use it every day as a means of getting things done.

BSD is a charity license. As far as businesses are concerned, charity is good, but business is business and the last thing you want to do is give charity to your competitors.

It's not politically correct to say this, but "it really is the license, stupid".

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[pizen]

GPL is a quid pro quo license (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours). Businesses understand quid pro quo and use it every day as a means of getting things done.

BSD is a charity license. As far as businesses are concerned, charity is good, but business is business and the last thing you want to do is give charity to your competitors.

You've got it backwards. Companies would rather use the BSD license because they can take the work and do whatever they want to it without having to release the source for their competitors to use. You'll notice that Microsoft doesn't have any problems with BSD and used the BSD network stack code in their OSes.

Now I think I might need to duck and cover.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[snorklewacker]

> It's not even the kernel. A few years back, the BSD was superior in many ways, but Linux still outstripped it.

I have one word for you. kswapd

Pick a BSD, any one. Their virtual memory subsystem far outstrips the unstable mess that Linux's has been since at least 1998. VM ain't just swap, it's virtually every every single memory access you make in protected mode. And Linux, across kernel versions and distributions, has consistently made a dogs breakfast of it.

I am dealing with the kswapd issues on three different machines running three different distros, some with 2.4, some with 2.6, some with RHEL (which is practically a version unto its own). I am sick to death of it. If I had any say in the matter, I'd be running FreeBSD.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Pooh22]

When all is said and done, there is only one key difference between Linux and BSD, the license. Companies like IBM don't mind GPLing their technology for the same reason TrollTech doesn't mind GPLing Qt....If anyone wants to use it in a commercial product, they have to pay IBM, TrollTech, Sleepycat, etc for the right to take the code prorietary. And although your competitors may have access to your source code, they can't do anything with it without releasing their changes so you can benefit from it. When a company GPLs their product, they haven't really given it away.

The problem with this reasoning is that although this process allows others to use and improve the code, the original owner (say IBM) can never use that improvement in their own version unless the changes were given a more charitative license than the GPL. This is because their own product becomes a derivative work of the improvements by a third party.

Otherwise I agree with your interpretation of TFA. The GPL certainly has its uses, especially when protecting the future of a small fish in the ocean full of sharks.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Lukey Boy]

Companies would rather use other peoples BSD licensed code. Companies would not like that license for their own code, because then competitors could use their code with no restrictions.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Tony Hoyle]

When companies like TT or IBM GPL (or Digium, MySql, etc.) a product they also refuse to make changes without you assigning copyright to the parent company. This allows them to charge for the product including all the user contributions.. it's an interesting business model.. efectively using the GPL against itself (using it to stop a program being 'free' by tying it to a single company with commercial licensing terms).

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[pizen]

Which why the GPL loses. It's not the way companies want to work.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[jubei]

it's an interesting business model.. efectively using the GPL against itself (using it to stop a program being 'free' by tying it to a single company with commercial licensing terms)

Yes, but anyone is free to take the codebase and fork it so that any new contributions could be GPL-only. Likewise people can publish patches and elect not to give up their copyrights. In general, it allows the copyright holders to do whatever they want with their code.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[adtifyj]

The dual licenses of Qt and berkleydb are good examples of why the GPL is not good for commerce. These software dev. firms have a business plan that depends on other software dev. firms not releasing source code.

Now I love Qt and think Trolltech are doing a great job; I am merely pointing out that these OSS-firms know their industry: Software dev. firms do not want to release source code! As a result, there is a short-term market created out of providing the OSS production improvements to firms that cant grasp it, and are willing to pay to purchase the voodoo.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[ckaminski]

How the hell can ANYONE, nevermind all my fellow slashdot users, even pretend that the GPL somehow has LOST? When nearly every major project licensed under the GPL is growing, and at phenomenal rates?

I don't get it... it's like the whole "BSD is dying" crapflooding, it makes no sense, and the evidence proves otherwise.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[pizen]

In the business world there are tons of companies using GPLed OSS to run their businesses which is why the projects are growing. But how many actually incorporate GPLed OSS into their products? Very few. Even fewer when you take the subset of companies that intend to sell the product (thus excluding Apple's use of KHTML).

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[greggman]

Every major project? Ever heard of Apache? It's got a BSD style license. How about Python? Also BSD style. PHP? also BSD style.

There also Boost, Subversion, Lua, and thousands of other projects.

I guess BSD actually does work.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Build6]

what you're saying is true, but the problem for them is that for them BSD doesn't actually meet their needs. I deal quite a bit with embedded hardware, and I can say it's pretty much a wasteland for non-linux deployment when it comes to embedded devices. Why is this? surely in terms of competitive advantage etc., as you pointed out, it would be better for them to use BSD and not have to release any source?

Well the problem is that embedded hardware is moving at a pace + includes so many variants that BSD simply doesn't do the job that they need - which in this case is to run at all. For a firm to want to make use of BSD they will have to undertake, on their own, the full costs of development of drivers, support etc.

and yet, almost everybody chooses to just use linux. why?

it definitely sounds great to a business-type to just "hey there's something out there people can get for free, but I just do a little fiddling and slap my logo on it and I can get $$!!!" (e.g. Dasani?). But when this "free" thing can't actually be used by you without a lot of effort, then... most people would just give it a pass and not invest the effort.

Those who DO invest the effort, however, are damn well not going to consider giving "charity" to competitors and release their code under a BSD licence. And this is why BSD hardware support etc. has fallen so far behind that of linux's.

(don't point out netbsd's many supported architectures to me - that's not the point. the point is whether it "can be used on *this* particular embedded doohickey with the peripheral devices I need to ship out")

the term "tragedy of the commons" comes to mind. all the firms who are excited by the "free"-ness of the BSD-licence AND have the wherewithal to actually develop/further the code DON'T recontribute back to the community, and the community gets basically stuck where it is while the genuine BSD-lience believers contribute slowly to the codebase. the greed of those who involve themselves in the BSD world for reasons OTHER than "to make the best code available" end up hurting the spread of the community itself; i'm certain plenty of work is duplicated again and again by those who grab a snapshot of the codebase and use that to develop.

Linux, in contrast, thanks to the GPL, by *forcing* returns to the community, even if a particular user (by which I mean company)'s motives are greed, will use that greed against it *for the good of the community nonetheless* (GPL enforcement is VERY important here).

and plenty of hardware manufacturers in the embedded space have decided that it's STILL worthwhile to put out GPL-ed code with their routers and doohickeys. win-win, for them and for anyone else who needs to do anything similar.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Blurgle]

Companies would not like that license for their own code, because then competitors could use their code with no restrictions. Actually you don't know the BSD license that well. When you release software under the terms and conditions of the BSD license, it's not a free for all as you suggest, there are infact, restrictions that you need to comply with otherwise you would loose your right to use the software just as you would if you broke a condition of the GPL. I.e., consider Joe User took source code from a BSD licensed project, used a module that was part of that project in his own and did not credit the original author (that is to say, include a copyright notice and the terms of conditions and disclaimer in his distribution). Now consider that the same Joe User took a module from a BSD licensed project, and used it in his own without complying to the conditions that he need to redistribute his project's source code. Joe User would be breaking the allowable terms and conditions set forth in both the BSD license and the GPL, it's a no brainer really, Joe User is not permitted to steal BSD code any more than GPL code. Read the BSD license.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[snorklewacker]

Just google for "kswapd". Every question is pretty much the same: "How do I keep kswapd from eating up 99% CPU on my machine?"

There's been patch after patch on it since 1998. There was just recently one in 2.6.11. I look forward to another patch in 2.6.12 and beyond. The changelogs in the kernel indicate they don't even know what causes the problem. It's sheer insanity, and I've thrown up my hands at this point and declared it beyond fixing.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Lukey Boy]

Sorry, no restrictions was incorrect, you're right. "Few restrictions" would've been a better description. Including a copyright notice is a fairly easy restriction to comply with. I like both licenses, and I'm glad we have both (and others) to help spell out the authors' intentions concerning their software.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Billly Gates]

Still a competitor can illegally take your GPL trade secret and include it in their code without you knowing. Its nearly impossible to prove.

COmpanies do not like to opensource software. They love overcharging customers to have their own programmers at inflated rates fix their bugs or add features. Its a threat to their business model.

Corporate America is there to make money. Not be a charity for free software. They do what is profitable to the most maximum return.

FOSS hackers meanwhile have a different philosphy. They are incompatible.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[ckaminski]

Note, I never said BSD was failing. I'd never argue that point. The post I responded to claimed the GPL has lost. "Every" was a bad choice of word, but there are certainly plenty of GPLd projects that are progressing along mightily...

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[synthespian]

Linux, in contrast, thanks to the GPL, by *forcing* returns to the community, even if a particular user (by which I mean company)'s motives are greed, will use that greed against it *for the good of the community nonetheless* (GPL enforcement is VERY important here).

The GPL protects big corporations because they know that enhancements made will not be incorporated in a proprietary system by their competitors. These big corporations backing Linux do not make money from software, and when they do, it's under a proprietary license (WebSphere comes to mind).

The GPL protects some businesses because they can offer an alternative proprietary licensing. Which means their livelihood comes from proprietary schemes.

The GPL does absolutely nothing to the independent software vendor, who must taylor code to different needs. This is the rest of us not currently employed by a big corporation selling hardware, or selling Linux under licensing restrictions similar to Microsoft. This myth of kids hacking at night at the Linux kernel is, we know, a myth. Apparently, they're largely a group of people paid to work at it by corporations of the kind mentioned above (or form academia).

The free software community has been brain washed and is largely uncapable of analysing when the GPL makes sense.

Stop lying to yourselves. Use the BSD license.

Re:Actually ESR misses the point.

[Build6]

The GPL protects big corporations because they know that enhancements made will not be incorporated in a proprietary system by their competitors.

OK. good point. but I would say their having a "collateral advantage" from the GPL doesn't lessen the fact that having the source code out is what we want in the first place?

The GPL does absolutely nothing to the independent software vendor, who must taylor code to different needs.

I don't get what you mean?

Nazi (not of the Godwin's Law variety)

[killmenow]

GPL does more harm then good.

So, what you're saying is: The GPL does bad things before it does good things?

Re:Nazi (not of the Godwin's Law variety)

[leonmergen]

So, what you're saying is: The GPL does bad things before it does good things?

The GPL scares companies off, so yes, it does.

Re:Nazi (not of the Godwin's Law variety)

[nurb432]

Scares off a lot of people too...

Re:Nazi (not of the Godwin's Law variety)

[EastCoastSurfer]

It's possible. A company who may have used, improved on and released their changes back might not use the library because of the GPL. Even if that library ended up being a small part of their overall application, fears of the viral nature and the possibility that someone might take them to court to release their entire application are big risks for a company to take on.

Re:On the contrary

[idontgno]

PHB (Reading memo to staff): "Tim will be leaving the company to pursue other opportunities." Note the abscence of key phrases such as "We regret" or "years of dedicated service." And notice that his new opportunity is not called "exciting."

Dilbert: I think you're reading a little too much into that announcement.

PHB: No, I'm reading the footnote.

-- Dilbert, Scott Adams. (Used without permission; I hope he doesn't mind.)

the political argument vs. what the consumer wants

[aCapitalist]

The GPL is so politcally tainted that it just turns so many people off. And at the end of the day, the consumer doesn't give a damn if Microsoft or Apple or whoever "steals" code that has a liberal license. They just want good software.

If you're a developer, then you have every right to choose any license you want, but it always seems that we have non-developers trying to tell people what is "freedom".

How many BSD developers are bitter that Apple co-opted their code (which remains open anyway) and are making money off it? Probably none. It's a gift an they're most likely proud that their code is in a kickass operating system.

But it's always the GPL zealots that think they have some right to tell BSD developers or people that give out code under a liberal license like BSD/MIT/X11 that they're not doing the right thing because it can be "closed up".

And that's always the big lie that GPL zealots throw out. That code can be "closed up". Nobody buys it, because everybody knows that unless all the source code from all the hard drives disappears then that's impossible. But they continue to lie to promote their political agenda and turn people off.

Re:So what?

[ChiGodOfKarma]

No, under even MS's evil rules if you write a program that runs under their OS and uses thoir API's they don't own your code. It's only natural to assume that my APP which simply linked to thinks would not be in Violation. Expecting every programmer to keep a lawyer at hand is getting a bit ridiculous. CGoK

IBM, Sun, HP, Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros?

[Bob9113]

Does ESR sincerely believe that IBM, Sun, HP, Red Hat, Linspire, and Xandros would be feeding their enhancements back if it weren't for the GPL? Those are very pragmatic companies; they use Linux because they believe there is a competitive advantage to be had by doing so. If not for the GPL, they would be releasing proprietary extensions of Linux. Could the altruist community have brought Linux to where it is today in the same short time without the help of those companies? The GPL has done exactly what it was meant to do; "Here's a cool party. If you don't want to come, that's OK. If you do, it's potluck - you don't have to bring a dish if you can't cook, but you can't just take some food and leave."

Re:IBM, Sun, HP, Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros?

[caseih]

There's more to it than that even. IBM chose to invest billions in Linux precisely because it *was* GPL. IBM wisely understands that the GPL allows IBM to partake of a very rich platform and community, and to enhance it for their own purposes while maintaining a level playing field where no company is advantaged over IBM because of IBM's work. This is a great example of Adam Smith's idea of self-interest vs self-interest. In this case, the GPL plays on this conflict to actually promote mutual benefits to all parties. The GPL is a marvelous example of how free market, capitalist forces can actually benefit the all participating parties under certain conditions.

Turning back to IBM and the GPL, if IBM had invested in FreeBSD, for example, then everything IBM did would be used to compete directly with IBM--they would be forging the very weapon that could be wielded against them. If you use a more liberal code license, the only way for a company like IBM to invest in it safely is to completely fork the code. This is what Apple did, and it has worked fine for them, except that they had to shoulder the entire burden of development now, and basically given up the existing community. Had Apple simply built on FreeBSD rather than fork it, Apple's investment would end up as a weapon used back against themselves.

Thus Eric is wrong, but maybe for different reasons than most people think. Having watched what IBM has done with linux lately, I can say with some confidence that Linux would be dead right now had it not been for the GPL. If not dead, as insignificant as *BSD.

Re:IBM, Sun, HP, Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros?

[metamatic]

Does ESR sincerely believe that IBM, Sun, HP, Red Hat, Linspire, and Xandros would be feeding their enhancements back if it weren't for the GPL?

And clearly you'd never see IBM spending money developing software from scratch and then releasing it under the GPL, right?

Oh, wait...

What the GPL needs is...

[jazman]

...an executive summary for PHBs, perhaps along the lines of:

"Look, the point of this licence is this: if you steal our stuff, you can expect to get crapped on. If you don't, you don't. That's all there is to it. It isn't 'viral'; it isn't going to 'infect' your company unless you do something to initiate such an infection. Which boils down to this: not respecting our wishes."

It's about the users, stupid !

[kaltan]

What ESR notably underestimates (or at least does not mention) is the protection the GPL offers to its users, not the developers. No other licence gives the user of a piece of software so many Freedoms. Replace the GPL, take away the Freedom, and the some person is using some piece of software which he can no longer, modify and share, with his/her friends.

It's not the point if Developers need the GPL, WE need the GPL !

Re:It's about the users, stupid !

[aCapitalist]

Guess what, developers are the only ones that get to choose what license end-users get.

Or, in other words

[mcc]

"Guy who has been trying to deemphasize the FSF within the open source movement for over a decade now trying to deemphasize the FSF.."

The GPL has become the most popular free software license because it enforces a contract where you can't take without giving back. This may not be what you want for some programs, particularly programs which are platforms, such as Apache or Perl. But for most cases it is. It sends an important message to the people contributing to a GPLed project-- it says, your contributions won't be wasted, if people use this you benefit. It gives you a reason to contribute rather than boredom of philanthropy.

Meanwhile the only people who would be made "nervous" by the presence of the GPL are the people who want, or think they might want in the future, to take from open source software without giving equally in return. Think about that for a moment.

I tend to release my personal code under the LGPL because I feel the GPL is too restrictive, and I care more about the things I release being useful than I care about knowing I'll get something back. But that doesn't mean I'm going to deny how important the GPL is. The GPL made the open source development model as we know it today, with corporate and private interests sharing resources toward a common goal, possible-- we may be at a point now where lots of companies are contributing to open source purely voluntarily, but this is at least partly because open source is "hip" right now. There was a point in the past where it wasn't "hip" and companies sometimes had to be made to contribute, by holding the "you have to contribute to take" aspect of the GPL heads. There will be a point in the future where open source is not "hip" the way it is today. When that point comes, good luck convincing companies to contribute to your Apache licensed projects rather than just taking. It won't work all the time.

Picking the right license for the job

[cowbutt]

As far as I can see, there is a need for a minimal set of about four Free software licenses:

BSD-like for code that either isn't terribly interesting or important enough to care about it being embraced and extended or code that represents a canonical implementation of a proposed standard that it is hoped will be widely adopted. Yes, even by Microsoft.

GPL-like for interesting and unique code that presents a "Unique Selling Point" for Free-as-in-speech software. Organisations that want use it to reduce development costs and to later redistribute products need to accept the author's terms, or get off their arse and develop their own equivalent code.

LGPL-like for code that would, if it weren't for its intended usage, be otherwise licensed as GPL-like above, but it's better if it's widely used. Yes, even by proprietary applications.

MPL-like for 'donated' code for which the original author wishes to reserve rights for themselves that they don't necessarily wish to grant to others. Their code, their right to choose. If you don't like it, play somewhere else.

None of what I've written above is original, even rms has said similar things in the past.

Conceivably, I can accept (and even hope for) the theoretical possibility that the time will come when everyone accepts that Free software is here to stay and that no-one wishes to try to selfishly exploit it. Just like the possibility that one day humans will learn to treat each other with respect and consequently, police forces, weapons, property rights and even laws are no longer necessary to deter unwanted exploitation. Sadly, that day is not yet here. And that's where I disagree with esr.

Sing along now...

[argent]

We don't don't need the GPL no more
Saw the light and walked right out the door
We don't live in GNU's house
It's more fun in old Chuck's house
We don't need the GPL no more.

(apologies to Chumbawamba)

Misread the title

[snorklewacker]

See, this might have carried a little weight if the headline had read

Linus: We Don't Need the GPL Anym joeore

As it is, it's just ESR talking smack to RMS. I swear it's going to devolve into "yo momma" insults any day now. God, we need more Bruce Perens and less Eric Raymonds doing the talking.

Re:Misread the title

[snorklewacker]

I suppose if it read "Anym joeore" that would be pretty, uh, interesting. One might wonder what sort of medication Linus was on. I swear, my new keyboard is possessed (it is a microsoft keyboard after all)

Re:Misread the title

[Dwonis]

we need more Bruce Perens and less Eric Raymonds doing the talking.

Yes, but people like Bruce Perens have enough brains to know when to stop talking.

ouch!

[Erris]

It's the attack against GPL via FUD and software patents that make people nervous.

That FUD would also include talk about how scary the GPL and Freedom are. The OSS people have been using this line for a long time in their attempts to "sell" free software. Understanding your audience is good but the underlying principle here is condescending and ultimately harmful. The enemies of free software have been happy to use the same rhetoric.

The GPL and software freedom were never incompatible with the corporate mindset. While it's true that a Navy man, for example, might be put off by a talk about the four software freedoms, the things gained are very impressive to him. Configuration control, ownership, reliability and peer review are things any corporate man can understand and appreciate. Only a small segment of the business world, which relies on an obsolete development model for their only product should really afraid of software freedom. The GPL represents freedom from vendors and better control for everyone else.

The GPL is a very successful means of providing the four software freedoms and all the good things that flow from them. All other licenses can be compared to the GPL through the lens of the four freedoms to decide if they are useful or not. It's teeth, by design, come from the strength copy right itself has. All software licenses depend on this same strength. The GPL has indeed been tested, and so far has been so strong no one has dared go to court. Every case has been settled out of court on very favorable terms. That's a good track record and it speaks for itself.

Re:ouch!

[jbolden]

Why would guys in the navy be opposed to software freedom? I can see business but the navy is pretty much a command socialist economy.

(yawn) oh really?

[piotru]

So show me the next equally successful, non-GPL project... That demonstration would validate the discussion (still not proving the point). .(yawn).
Next one please?

Microsoft: OSF, DCE, GPL and other 3 letter combin

[screwthemoderators]

You misunderstand. MS will not incorporate open standards without first trying to promote their own standards. Google how M$ hijacked the Open Software Foundation's DCE (Distributed Computing Environment.) MS cannot do the same to GPLed code and any associated open standards

GPL is the only protection against piracy!

[Theovon]

Yes, that's right, piracy. Mind you, people steal GPL code all the time, but the GPL is a primary motivator for people who want to be able to share software but protect it from blood suckers who want to profit from their hard work without giving anything back.

Yes, there are times when you WANT to make things easy for companies to adopt, like when you're trying to push a new standard. MIT and BSD licenses exist for such purposes.

But in the war against monopolies and over-priced, lousy commercial software, the GPL is our only competitive advantage. I'm not saying there isn't a place for proprietary software. I believe in freedom and choice, and if someone chooses to produce proprietary software, that's up to them. The market will bear out whether their offering is better or worse than the alternatives and if it's worth the money. But we'd be idiots to give them an unfair advantage by allowing them to embrace and extend OUR software just because we choose to share the source code.

Re:GPL is the only protection against piracy!

[synthespian]

the GPL is a primary motivator for people who want to be able to share software but protect it from blood suckers who want to profit from their hard work without giving anything back.

Wrong. Please think. How is IBM not exploiting Linux developers? IBM makes money from hardware. Linux software is just a complement to IBM products. Same goes with HP and others, including Sun and OpenSolaris.

IBM and other corporations have, IMHO, more exploited than contributed. Millions in research to retrofit Linux in new Big Iron, that's all. Important? Yes. More to IBM than anyone else. And what you get? Linux on Big Iron. It's funny how what goes aroung comes around, isn't it?

Do you really think substantial research, the kind that DARPA did, or the kind Xerox Parc was doing in the 80s was done in IBM, HP, etc?

To quote: Once again: demand for a product increases when the price of its complements decreases. In general, a company's strategic interest is going to be to get the price of their complements as low as possible. Please read Joel Spolsky's famous Strategy Letter V http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/StrategyLet terV.html)

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[Todd Knarr]

First off, your code belongs to you even under the GPL. What you're running into is exactly that, but not involving you: the other person's code belongs to them, not you. When you use someone else's code, you're taking their work for your benefit. As long as you just use it yourself (or for your company/employer), they don't ask anything of you. All they ask is that, when you start distributing it to others, you allow others to use your work the same way you used theirs. To me that sounds eminently reasonable. What you're asking is to be able to take someone else's work, use it for your benefit and profit and not have to pay them anything. That doesn't sound reasonable.

You always, of course, have the option of contacting the owner of the code you want to use and negotiating another license. I'm pretty sure they'll be amenable to letting you use their code any way you want if you're willing to pay them in cash for the privilege. Of course, I'm minded that if you were willing to pay for the use of code like that you'd be doing it and not complaining here.

Take a tip from the IETF

[Medievalist]

There is a difference between adopting an open standard and replicating a code base.

Software monoculture leads to catastrophic failures in a connected world. Look how Ultrix, which had a (somewhat) independent code base, was immune to the Cornell worm when most of the Unices dropped off the Internet nearly simultaneously. Would it have been better to have every box on the Internet die? Or was it better for the VMS, MVS, and Ultrix machines to stay on-line?

Re-inventing the wheel is not always a bad thing. Your wheel can have cleats and sipes the old one didn't have, and still be bolt-on compatible.

Re:Take a tip from the IETF

[ntufar]

MVS is IBM Mainframe perating system. It got a TCP/PI stack only by the end of '90-ies

Re:GPL is fine. BSD is fine too. But LGPL is bad..

[aCapitalist]

You raise some interesting points about the LGPL that many people don't understand, and I wasn't even quite sure about until recently. It can especially bite you when you start takling about C/C++ code.

People always talk about the benefits of Gnome/Gtk+, but even with it being LGPL you've got to be somewhat careful

Eric, just say no to drugs.

[wethion]

Umm, I think living in the Main Line ( an 'leet area of SE Pa )is starting to get to him. The corporate beasts he is surrounded with are undermining his ideals and moving him to the Empire and away from the light. Eric, please don't do this to us. RMS apparently always been right, it's all about the license, not the software.

Taking for granted what remains to be proven

[groomed]

if we really believe that open source is a superior system of production, and therefore that it will drive out closed source in a free market, then why do we think we need infectious licensing?

What a crock. It's highly debatable whether "we" hold any such beliefs. But since Eric has a lot invested in that belief, he posits as a given what remains to be proven. Classic fallacy, and classic ESR.

Instead of falling into Eric's little rhetorical trap, let's examine the premises first, by asking whether open source does indeed lead to better products.

I keep forgetting

[SimianOverlord]

Is ESR the fat one with the beard, or the moustachied one with the flute? I wish submitters would remind us in write up - I'm thinking brackets after the name "ESR (moustache / flute)" would help remind us each time. To many TLAs in Open Sauce.

Re:I keep forgetting

[-brazil-]

ESR is the mustache guy, I think. Unfortunately your criteria aren't all that helpful either, since there is more than one very bearded poster child of the open source movement.

Re:I keep forgetting

[2names]

I'm thinking brackets after the name

Better get everyone to agree on that standard before you publish it. Otherwise you'll have MS people putting curly braces, Linux people putting brackets, and Mac people using Floating Hearts or something...

*ducks*

Re:I keep forgetting

[Reverend528]

I think you're confusing him with RMS, who plays a recorder (not flute).

Re:I keep forgetting

[peterpi]

And as such should really be referred to as GUN/ESR, not just ESR.

Re:I keep forgetting

[drsquare]

Don't forget that bald 'Abiword' man. Can't find an link, but I saw a picture of him on the Internet and he looks like he hasn't seen a bath or a barber's in at least 5 years.

Re:I keep forgetting

[gr84b8]

or everybody's favorite monocled madman, Ken Coar

DCE/RPC - GPL means never again

[screwthemoderators]

Microsoft, at some point, contacted The Open Group, wishing to license DCE/RPC. The Open Group's charter mandated at the time that they charge USD $20 per seat. Clearly, Microsoft considered this, in light of their expected market impact, and decided to reimplement DCE/RPC themselves, as MSRPC. It is no coincidence that one of the key founders of Apollo [Paul Leach] is still working for Microsoft. http://www.samba-tng.org/docs/tng-arch/tng-arch05. html

Re:Something like the Creative Commons, but for co

[arose]

If you think that the CC licenses aere simple you should read the actual text, not just the summary. As a non-lawyer I find the GPL much clearer. Also there is choice: GPL, LGPL and the BSD/MIT licenses cover most aspects without much incompabilities.

Re:Just how much of the document has teeth, anyway

[slavemowgli]

Groklaw has some more on that story, as well as occasional updates.

That being said, the fact that noone so far has actually challenged the GPL in court does not mean that the GPL is weak; quite the opposite. It means that nobody so far has seen even so much as a remote chance to actually succeed in challenging it.

Not just "improvements".

[khasim]

Microsoft's favorite tactics are "embrace, extend, extinguish".

This is far more difficult if you have have release the code for that "extend" under the same license that you got the original code.

If everyone can implement those same extensions, under the same license, then "extinguish" becomes far more difficult.

Trying to please and comfort the industry.

[muuh-gnu]

Hes obviously concentrating on the benefits for the closed source industry, not for the community.

In fact, ESR's bullshit doesn't differ at all from Microsoft's "BSD good, GPL bad" rants.

If the community is the only one producing the code, how could the switch to BSD make it actually produce the same code faster? Proprietary companies wouldnt give anything back, unless they're legally forced to. Thats how proprietary companies do business, they try to sell stuff, not to give it away for free.

Just think what Apple for example would gave back to the KHTML project, if the engine were under the BSD.

human nature unchecked

[burnin1965]

The answer to whether or not we still need the gpl:

http://gpl-violations.org/http://gpl-violations.or g/

Nothing more should need saying, but I've got a couple more minutes. ;)

I'm sure at some point the use of open source software will be so ubiquitous as to make the result of hording, thieving, and conspiring by individuals and corporations ineffectual.

However, I still believe that we have not reached that cross roads yet. There are still a number of people and corporations who have the desire and the ability to plunder the hard work of those who produce the code and then conspire to both denegrate the open source offerings while profiting from that same well.

I like to call these entities the Robber Barons of the Information Age. They are filled with childish and immature emotions and characteristics. They see themselves as icons of a vast empire they built and they are justfied in their actions. Of course the truth is that no one man or even the entire clique of Robber Barons created the information age. In fact it has been the nameless and faceless masses of electronic/software engineers in the background producing all the fantastic hardware and software which makes the information age possible. These men who are supposed to be leaders instead have become filled with themselves. And it all comes down to human nature and the corruption of power.

The way I see it the GPL and the idea behind it is a tool that can be used to take back what has been stolen by the Robber Barons. Many of these same nameless masses who made the Barons are also producing open source code under the GPL and the GPL is poison to the thieving Barons, that is why they despise it to no end.

The GPL is a tool to help keep the Robber Barons human nature in check. I think the end result is that instead of having icons in the open source development circles there are leaders.

Anyhow, thats enough ranting for now.

burnin

p.s. Just a note on the mention of engineering. Not having a degree in engineering does not mean you are not an engineer and conversely having a degree in engineering does not make you an engineer. If you really want to know what an engineer is and determin if you are an engineer just look up the definition of engineer and engineering.

Re:human nature unchecked

[eluusive]

Click here to learn about Paul Bunyon CEO of Fortune 500 Company......

Am I the only person who finds that Marketplace link hilarious? ( I couldn't find the exact guy's name, but I see it once in awhile on the marketplace links on slashdot.) I wonder why he's advertising his biography on slashdot?

Re:human nature unchecked

[MrCopilot]

>The way I see it the GPL and the idea behind it is a tool that can be used to take back what has been stolen by the Robber Barons. Many of these same nameless masses who made the Barons are also producing open source code under the GPL and the GPL is poison to the thieving Barons, that is why they despise it to no end.

Damn it man, never speak "the plan" in a public forum. Geek Cruise only.

I.e., "I just wanna make money!

[edinho]

So if you could get that little inconvenience outta the way, that would be just handsome!"

Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Eric should know better, is he in need of attention again?

If he honestly doesn't believe that the GPL has helped get Linux and all of the tools it needs to where it's at, he's a fool. We're still regularly finding people that aren't following it.

The reality is that we're entering the post-secret code world. The license doesn't matter so much, people want source code from Sun, IBM, even Microsoft because it makes their investment more secure. It's only the fringes that really care about the licenses that much. There are some opponenets to the movement who will bitch about the GPL (Sun, MS..) but it's simply reaching a point where that doesn't matter too much, nobody who is honest about business really cares to steal someone else's code. Nobody who is really serious thinks that they can get away with it. It's really about being able to maintain your investment and possibly customize.

Eric, you should spend your energy debunking the GPL detractors rather than spreading their FUD. It's really pretty simple, if you want to keep your code secret, then write it yourself and do that. If you want to play with others then be willing to share with others. If you're making a project that is primarily GPLed code, then maybe you should think about it before you try to call it your own stuff and keep the code secret, you really don't have much of a competitive edge in the first place.

Re:So what?

[drnlm]

I hardly see the need for a lawyer - finding the license for a library is usually as trivial as less /usr/share/doc//copyright (on debian) or COPYING on most other systems. Then the rules are simple - BSD or LGPL, can link, GPL, can't. In fact, if finding the library license is not trivial, then there's a serious error in the packaging and installation of the library. Furthermore, the only major library on my system which is GPL is Qt, and that's GPL'd for well-known public reasons. The other GPL'd libraries are small, specific ones that I can't see anyone linking to without looking at the documentation, and then not knowing that they're GPL'd is hardly an acceptable excuse. Which libraries did you link to to cause the problem?

Cue RMS head 'splode

[ajlitt]

...in 5...4...3...2...1

Here's what I want in a license

[suitepotato]

From the point of view of using open code:
The ability to use open code in a non open product with no more than three provisions: first that I only have to republish the open code used whether or not I changed it and if so with the changes notes, second that any code strictly written by me remain mine to do with as I please and be under no compulsion to open it or relinquish my rights to it in any way, and third to pay such royalties as are required to whoever is assigned their receipt should I charge for the resulting product.

From the point of view of creating open code:
A license model with various clauses that allows me to either open my code completely or partially, and grant certain rights to users to either use it for free or be able to charge for derivative works and require or not as I see fit disclosure of the code used and any changes made.

The whole cliche IANAL thing holds great meaning here in that I am NOT a lawyer but a techie. I don't want to become a lawyer or even a paralegal and the licenses out there damn near require me to start becoming one. Given that, I might as well retain a lawyer to write licenses based on my desires on demand. Since I live in a court town with more laywers per square mile than manhole covers and potholes, it's not that difficult to find them.

Industry needs to be able to charge for the fruits of their labors and would likely have not a lot of problem paying royalties to open source organizations. Such monies would undoubtedly go far in attracting full time core developers and keepers in a way that PayPal donations just can't touch.

Imagine if Microsoft was embraced instead by the open source world, if the open source world worked WITH Microsoft, instead of constantly against them. With more flexible and sane license structures and an end to eschewing commerce and capitalism on the open source side, more of the outside world's work might then find its way into Microsoft products where they could then say, "we're responsible for that" and "we changed that structure and made it more secure". And a lot of Microsoft's work might under the right license terms make it back to the open source world for inclusion into other OSes and so forth.

Just a little dream I have that someday people will grow up and learn you cannot change the course of a stampede by standing before it and yelling epithets and waving slogans, but must join the stampede, run the race to the fore, and lead it from within. Windows' entrenchment is that stampede and open source is the idiot sitting before it on the ground thinking he can wave off the charging cattle.

Re:Here's what I want in a license

[hymie]

But why should anyone give you what you want? Who owes you anything? Apparently to you "grow up" means "give me goodies for free with no obligation on my part". Perhaps you should ask Microsoft to grow up as well?

Proponents of Free Software care nothing for you as a developer. Free Software does not exist to benefit developers. Free Software exists so that users can run, examine, modify, and redistribute programs. They cannot do this if parts of the program are not Free.

Not really.

[khasim]

Now if that is the case, there really is no need for the GPL, as companies who don't participate in this superior system (that is, take open source code and turn it into closed source) are in fact punishing themselves.

Open Source may be the best developmental model for technically superior code ...

But just having technically superior code doesn't mean anything in the marketplace.

Check out the history of Gem OS or OS/2. Check out the marketshare of the various *BSD versions. Sure, their TCP/IP stack is getting heavy usage, but that's only because Microsoft is distributing it.

Is Microsoft hurting itself by NOT openly providing any improvements/enhancements for that TCP/IP stack? I don't see how.

And any non-Microsoft improvements that are released under that license can, quickly, be absorbed by Microsoft to improve Microsoft's products.

It all comes down to money and marketing. Microsoft has the money, they can afford the marketing.

Anyone want to bet that a survey of CxO's would show 100% recognize the "Microsoft" brand name but less than 10% would recognize "NetBSD" or "OpenBSD" and so forth?

Marketshare is important in getting to the point where enough DEVELOPERS (shades of Ballmer!) recognize the project and understand the license and still want to contribute.

A consultant's perspective

[gwalcharian]

I've worked with clients ranging in size from Mom and Pop businesses to fortune 500s as a developer and system integrator. The bigger the client usually means the more recognition of the value of Intellectual Capital, and the pressure to protect that capital.

For large clients Open Source can be a tough sell, though it is getting easier, thanks in large part to Apache Server and Firefox projects (Guys and Gals, you rock!). GPL Open Source is a no go with every mid to large size client I've worked for in most cases. In many cases LGPL was also no go.

The secondary reason? The viral nature of the GPL.

What? The secondary reason!? Yep. The primary reason is the rabid fanaticism with which the GPL is worshipped/defended by many (NOTE: NOT all, there are many bright and reasonable folk in the GPL camp).

Case in point: I know a project that was using a vanilla MySQL instantiation and connecting to it via MySQL's Java drivers. They were unable to use a GPL license, but thought they didn't have to as they were just using the JDBC drivers. They were quickly and I am told emphatically informed that their entire project was GPL if they distributed it. The project was rewritten to use Oracle, and a no Open Source policy was instituted.

The moral: Open Source got killed in that project, and many others, because of the fanaticism of the GPL crowd and because of the all-encompassing nature of the GPL.

Fanatics of any stripe are bad. Rabid fanatics are worse.

IMHO the perfect model for an money-making Open Source licensing scheme would be similar to Saxon's: Make a functional product, release it under a BSD style license (no idea what Michael's license is, but I believe not GPL), and then create another tier of product available for sale with features that are very desirable (Namespace support). Supplement that with consulting and you have a decent business model, if your products and skills are good.

As a song said, "Free your mind, and the rest will follow..."

Re:A consultant's perspective

[heck]

Case in point: I know a project that was using a vanilla MySQL instantiation and connecting to it via MySQL's Java drivers. They were unable to use a GPL license, but thought they didn't have to as they were just using the JDBC drivers. They were quickly and I am told emphatically informed that their entire project was GPL if they distributed it.

I want to first emphatically state (for those who are clueless) that whoever told this company that they had to GPL their entire project was a fuckwit.

You are allowed to use a GPL'd Java driver in your proprietary software as long as:

• if you make any changes to the driver, you release those changes back, per GPL requirements
• you do not sell the driver to the end user (including a blurb that you are using this GPLd driver blah blah would be recommended)

And now I wander into the tangent of "what the hell were the programmers doing?". The idea I try to live by is that I don't give a flying fucking shit what the database and drivers are. I create a table structure and an automated way to create those tables in a SQL database; I create code that goes against a JNDI data source; and I test against SQL Server, Oracle and MySQL. Maybe DB2. Unless it is required that you do a lot of things SQL side (such as triggers on the database side), the idea is you abstract out the database dependencies and let the customer choose what database they want to support (and so what drivers they need to use). But that's just another consultant's perspective.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[StormReaver]

[MySQL to Oracle bullshit snipped]

This is pure bullshit. To think that an application that uses even .001% of Oracle's power was even tested on, much less conditionally finalized for production with, MySQL is 100% crap. It's just not possible in the universe we inhabit. Anything for which Oracle is even a remote possibility precludes even the assessment of MySQL for the same job.

Moreso, in any case where MySQL is suitable for the job, but the GPL precludes its use, PostgreSQL is the logical choice. Hell, PostgreSQL is the logical choice in ANY case that MySQL is a consideration.

Your story is either a complete fabrication, or your "third or fourth hand info" (yes, I read your prior post where you mentioned this before) is fabricated. The only thing that lends it any credibility at all is the fact that the MySQL guys have a very fuzzy understanding of the GPL, so them claiming to the company's management that connecting an application to MySQL requires the application to be GPLd wouldn't be that far-fetched if the whole MySQL-to-Oracle nonsense wasn't so laughable.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[khallow]

Case in point: I know a project that was using a vanilla MySQL instantiation and connecting to it via MySQL's Java drivers. They were unable to use a GPL license, but thought they didn't have to as they were just using the JDBC drivers. They were quickly and I am told emphatically informed that their entire project was GPL if they distributed it. The project was rewritten to use Oracle, and a no Open Source policy was instituted.

I'm missing important information about the situation above, but here's my take. What's neglected here is that the JDBC drivers in question are issued under a dual license (commercial/GPL). So this sounds like a straight-forward decision not to purchase the commercial license. They could have connected to the MySQL database using say, Sun's JDBC stuff without having to GPL their code. The "No Open Source" policy is just stupid, but it's not my company.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[adtifyj]

So, instead of talking to the nice folks at mysql.com (the business), they hit the mailing lists looking for legal consultation on licensing issues with the expected results, and in the end decided to talk to the nice folks at Oracle and rewrite the project?

My guess is they wanted to go with Oracle anyway, otherwise they would have invested the legal and project management time required to keep using the existing project codebase.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

Case in point: I know a project that was using a vanilla MySQL instantiation and connecting to it via MySQL's Java drivers. They were unable to use a GPL license, but thought they didn't have to as they were just using the JDBC drivers. They were quickly and I am told emphatically informed that their entire project was GPL if they distributed it. The project was rewritten to use Oracle, and a no Open Source policy was instituted.

The moral: Open Source got killed in that project, and many others, because of the fanaticism of the GPL crowd and because of the all-encompassing nature of the GPL.

I Call BS. The official MySQL JDBC drivers are GPL, but you can purchase them under a different licence for commercial use. Plus, there are 3 LGPL licenced JDBC drivers for MySQL that I know of, that you would not have to pay for OR release your code as GPL to use.

There is no way a company looked at the cost of licensing the MySQL JDBC drivers, and then decided on cost alone to go with Oracle! Oracle costs lots of money (and is arguably worth it) and MySQL licensing is peanuts next to that cost.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[Teancum]

I even think the whole GPL'd driver business that MySQL is demanding is BS as well. I was in a similar situation as the grandparent post, trying to come up with a reasonable database backend to a product I was developing.

I tried to convince the money people that it was better to simply support MySQL and try to stay on the safe side of legal, and besides, try to gain some good karma by helping out the folks at MySQL AB, even if I felt their driver copyright was on shaky ground.

Frankly, I think the MySQL commercial license is incredibly reasonable considering what you get, and a MySQL database can have infinite (well... within reason and bandwidth, but not arbitrary limits) connections and is a reasonably tough, reliable system. Certainly on par with the MS-SQL Server.

As for switching from MySQL to Oracle? That is incredibly stupid unless Oracle provided a bunch of prostitutes for the company sales party, or something else along those lines. Or some mega Oracle fan in upper management. It looks like somebody was trying to find something to justify why Oracle should be used at the very least and thought they found it.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[Teancum]

I don't know where you get the idea you can't sell the driver to the end user. The GPL always allows you to sell any GPL'd software for whatever you can get for it. The difference is that you can't restrict others from also selling it, and it must have source code to tweak it as well.

That is the GPL, and the difference between the GPL and CC-by-NC (or non-commercial use only licenses in general). Most people who don't understand the GPL usually don't get that point. BSD-style licenses are basically attribution only licenses... you can use it as long as you give credit somewhere that it came from whoever wrote it in the first place.

The problem with MySQL AB is that they insist that their drivers, by being GPL'd, also make anything linking to them forced to be GPL'd as well unless you purchase the commercial license.

I think they are full of it, although the GPL is not exactly clear if that is the case either. The legal question comes from the idea of if something running in another process, can you access data from that process running a GPL'd program if your application is propritary? Can you sell that propritary program and keep it propritary? I suggest the answer is yes, but MySQL AB wants you to think the answer is no. That is the argument.

BTW, earlier version of MySQL solved this problem by having the drivers written as LGPL libraries. There is also little that can be done to stop a "clean room" environment that rewrites the current drivers and merely uses the communications protocols to talk to the MySQL server. So in effect, all MySQL is trying to say is that you must also rewrite the drivers if you want a propritary product. If the cost savings is worth it, any decent programmer ought to be able to accomplish that task if you want to stay on the safe side of legal as well. I'm just not volunteering.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[Balazs]

They are idiots.

They could have been using PostgreSQL which is more full-featured than MySQL and its libraries (and the whole server) are BSD-licensed. Instead, they choose to issue a "No Open Source" policy and to buy the most expensive (to buy and to admin) database from one of the most proprietary vendors.

Very bright.

Re:A consultant's perspective

[gwalcharian]

Yeah, third or fourth hand:

1. I got from lead project engineer, a friend of mine
2. He got it from their lawyer, and a MySQL person

As several other posters have mentioned MySQL seems to believe sw falls into option a) Commercial, requiring a fee, or option B) GPL.

As for MySQL vs Oracle...
The original choice for MySQL was because that was the functionality needed, and because it was Open Source, so sites would not require a site license for Oracle, like we currently have. Obviously, after the fiasco with MySQL and the new requirement that nothing be Open Source and SINCE WE HAVE SITE LICENSE, Oracle was the obvious choice.

AS for what the programmers were doing, I can't speak to that, wasn't on the project. I know much of the problem was changing all the documentation, test plans, db scripts, etc.

Before you call people liars you might want to...

• get a little more experience as a consultant,
• get therapy,
• or switch to decaf

Thinking about it, do all of the above .

Re:A consultant's perspective

[gwalcharian]

Well, the argument to management was made for Postgres, but the manager decided no based on two things (1) No one on the team had Postgres experience, even though they could ramp up quickly, and (2) they already had a site license for Oracle. I also suggested Berkeley database, as that would really be all they need, but again no for same reasons.

Reality check...

[error406]

ESR could be right IF we lived in the Libertarian Utopia he dreams of.

Alas, the last time I checked, our so-called free market was still ruled by megacorporations like Microsoft, kept firmly in power by corrupt and misguided governments and books full of laws and regulations protecting their interest. They really don't give a flying fuck about the benefits of open source software development model, as long as they can conquer markets with inferior products using other means.

As long as there for instance is still is a huge worldwide hunt going on for teenage kids that "illegally" copy music, and the fight to keep any kind of knowledge or human creativity in the public domain is still full on, we live in a world where having a "better" way to do things means fuck-all.

In this reality, we still need heavy handed, cumbersome methods like the GPL to protect our freedom. If that means Linux ea having a marginal marketshare instead of small marketshare (before being assimilated), tough. Let's discuss abolishing the GPL when we have a real free market.

hint: marketing helps popularity

[overbom]

Well, one of the reasons is the AT&T lawsuit back in the early 90s. Linux took off while people were unsure of whether it was legal to use the BSD codebase.

The other is probably marketing. The BSDs didn't lag much behind linux in terms of popularity until IBM put a bunch of marketing dollars behind Linux. Then Linux really took off.

If you read the article, you'll see ESR say that most of the gearheads at work on the kernel *aren't* linux zealots.

Not another GPL/BSD flamefest

[IGnatius T Foobar]

This is stupid. Both the GPL and BSD licenses are open source. They're both valid approaches. One prevents proprietary forks from coming into existence, the other doesn't. Which license you choose depends solely on whether you, as a developer or software publisher, are ok with that. That's all. Nothing else.

Re:Anyone who'se tried to understand mysql's licen

[Zelatrix]

You can't "inadvertently" GPL your code. You might inadvertently commit a copyright infringement, but that's not the same thing at all.

Do companies have the same worries about inadvertently incorporating some of Microsoft's "Shared Source" into their own products? If not, why not?

Re:Just how much of the document has teeth, anyway

[oxygene2k2]

actually, the GPL is far from unique in that regard. basically, every OSI approved license works that way: it gives you rights you wouldn't have with only copyright law in effect.

in exchange it has a certain amount of obligations related to redistribution (GPL: share again, BSD: keep copyright notices, CDDL: tech you patented and used in this code is implicitely covered with a license to the recipient, ...)

Ugh... no

[mcc]

Okay... to clear up...

KHTML is NOT GPLed. It is under the LGPL. The names sound similar but this is a really, really serious distinction. The LGPL is much more loose and is a lot closer to BSD than GPL-- it basically says "you have to release changes you make to these files in this project, but you can take these files and dump it into something larger and you don't have to do anything to the rest of your project, so long as these files when taken as an independent unit still work". This means that changes and fixes to the LGPLed work must be contributed back, but additions, well, contributing those back are pretty much optional.

If KHTML had been GPLed, the entire Safari situation would have been different. For one thing, it very possibly wouldn't have happened. The GPL probably asks enough that Apple wouldn't have found it acceptable-- they're apparently OK with releasing source to WebCore or WebKit or whichever it is, but they probably wouldn't have been happy with having to open source Safari, or having to force any OS X developers linking against WebCore[Kit?], a system service, to open source. If KHTML had been GPLed Apple would have just gone and used their other option for a plug-in rendering engine, the mozilla/firefox project, which is available under the MPL (and soon the LGPL as well)-- which is even less restrictive than the LGPL from Apple's perspective.

But, let's hypothetically say KHTML had been GPLed and Apple had accepted this. What then? Well, then the situation vondo describes couldn't have occurred. Apple could have forked and written better code than the open source community, but that would be okay-- because they would have no control over their fork. I or you or anyone else in the world could have just downloaded safari.tar.gz, forked apple's fork, made one tiny improvement, and released it on the internet. Tada! The open source community has outdone Apple!

But that isn't an option here in real life. In real life, Apple's released WebKit/KHTML, but that's not a full product. It's a rendering engine. It can't really do anything by itself.

And what this means is that even though Apple's released their source, the Open Source community can't keep up with them. You could technically take WebKit and stuff it into Konqueror (and it would be interesting to try, I'm suprised no one has yet). But this would require some integration work, plus it still wouldn't at all stand up to Safari due to the value added by the parts of Safari which remain proprietary.

So while the LGPL, a less-"pure" license than the GPL, lead to a commercial use of an LGPLed library which is beneficial to the commercial user, beneficial to the open source project, and beneficial to others-- this is the exact thing ESR is trying to encourage!-- use of the LGPL in this case has still created an effective barrier to the open source product being as useful or successful as the commercial project which is using its code. RMS, were he here and someone had let him off his leash, would probably point out that this is one of the reasons you want to be using the GPL instead of the LGPL or BSD or MPL licenses in the first place!

Re:Ugh... no

[EastCoastSurfer]

I agree. I've always thought that the LGPL was a better license because it encourages improvements in the actual code that was LGPLed, but got rid of the viral nature which scares so many companies away.

Just because someone pulls a GPLed library into their otherwise original program shouldn't mean they have to open source the whole thing.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

it still wouldn't at all stand up to Safari due to the value added by the parts of Safari which remain proprietary.

What parts are those, precisely? I don't know of any parts of Safari which remain proprietary that are any kind of barrier to competition, or that are technically difficult to implement. Safari is a very thin shell around Webkit, and there are at least two open-source replacement shells (Sunrise Browser and Shiira).

use of the LGPL in this case has still created an effective barrier to the open source product being as useful or successful as the commercial project which is using its code.

I'm completely unable to understand how you would come to this conclusion. Safari itself only uses standard Mac OS X APIs, so Apple could have open-sourced all of Safari (and Dashboard, but that came later) without open-sourcing any other part of OS X, no matter what open-source license KHTML or Webkit was released under.

About all that placing KHTML (and thus Webkit itself) under the GPL instead of the LGPL might have done would be to keep Apple from using Webkit in Mail in Tiger, and make some third party products on OS X use one of the other HTML rendering packages instead. The only program I can think of that I use, that uses Webkit, is Adium. And that's already GPLed.

So, Apple has in fact released all the code that is needed for a third party (be that the KHTML team or Nokia) to duplicate "the commercial project which is using its code", just as they would as if KHTML had been released under the GPL. Apple could have created the kind of barrier that you're talking about, but they chose not to.

Unless there's some magic Safari goodness that programs like Shiira are missing (and I doubt that, Shiira already does more than Safari) I'm completely at a loss to understand what you're getting at here.

Re:Ugh... no

[mcc]

What parts are those, precisely?

"Everything else".

A web browser is not a rendering engine. I can open up InterfaceBuilder, drop a WebCore object in a window, and hit "build and run", but this is not much of a web browser. And a rendering engine library is not terribly useful unto itself. It's a library. You need an application to use it.

The idea is that you can't just take what Apple's done and fork it. You have to take what Apple's done and write a new application around it. This is not a bad thing in any way; this is the exact situation that the LGPL was designed for in the first place to encourage. But it's still a very different dynamic than the GPL offers. There are people who prefer the GPL for a reason.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

What parts are those, precisely?

"Everything else".

And what parts are those, precisely? How much code is involved? Do you know? I don't, but I do know that there's at least three separate projects that have replaced "everything else" without a heroic effort: Nokia, and the two open-source efforts.

The idea is that you can't just take what Apple's done and fork it. You have to take what Apple's done and write a new application around it.

You mean, like Apple took KHTML and wrote a new application around it? KHTML is itself a library, not a complete application.

But it's still a very different dynamic than the GPL offers.

It's a matter of degree, not kind. I've taken GPLed code and had to expend a huge effort to port it to a new platform, particularly when we started using the Alpha and Tru64 and there wasn't much code ported to it. Some of that work was at least as much effort as writing a decent Cocoa "shell" around a library.

At this point, in any case, we are in the EXACT situation that we'd be in if Safari and not just Webkit was open-sourced. You can take Webkit, tweak it, take Shiira, tweak it, and you're doing the same thing as if it were Safari that was being tweaked. We got to this place by a different route, but the situation is exactly what it would have been... so the difference between the GPL and the LGPL has turned out irrelevant.

Re:Ugh... no

[mcc]

You mean, like Apple took KHTML and wrote a new application around it?

Yes, an application which they would have had to open source had the GPL been used instead of the LGPL.

You can take Webkit, tweak it, take Shiira, tweak it, and you're doing the same thing as if it were Safari that was being tweaked.

Um... you might personally feel that Shiira is as good as Safari, but they are not the same application.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

you might personally feel that Shiira is as good as Safari, but they are not the same application

I personally feel that you're splitting hairs. For Safari to be "a competing application" it would have to be rewritten anyway... to run under X11. To take the code they released and run it under Safari? They provide instructions for doing that! Should they have ported Konqueror to OS X so they had a KDE shell there? The functional difference between what you can do in the current situation and what you'd be able to do if KHTML was GPLed instead of LGPLed is just too subtle for me to figure out.

Re:Ugh... no

[mcc]

For Safari to be "a competing application" it would have to be rewritten anyway... to run under X11.

If this is the way you want to look at it then http://www.gnustep.org/

This all aside, many of the most important advantages of WebCore over KHTML are things which Apple really was under no obligation to put into the open source portion of their libraries. Apple could have easily moved the vast bulk of their improvements into closed-source libraries which wrapped KHTML and still fully fulfilled their LGPL obligations under both the letter and spirit of the license. The relative ease with which Safari can be reimplemented given WebCore is a byproduct of Apple's goodwill, not the KHTML licensing.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

The relative ease with which Safari can be reimplemented given WebCore is a byproduct of Apple's goodwill, not the KHTML licensing.

Well, I'm glad you agree with me, but if you agree with me what the hell are you arguing about?

Re:Ugh... no

[mewphobia]

Duh, he/she is saying that not all companies have Apple's goodwill, hence the need for the GPL.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

And all I'm saying is that the value of the GPL, where goodwill doesn't exist, is far less than people seem to think... because the GPL can not compel companies to cooperate, all it can do is punish them for not cooperating.

If goodwill exists, it has some value in encouraging cooperation in some cases... but it also reduces the likelihood of cooperation in others.

It can be used with a dual-license strategy to allow a developer to release software under the GPL as well as to sell it commercially under a more restrictive license... but this is hardly in accordance with the goals of the FSF.

But if a company does not want to cooperate, if there is no goodwill, they will respond to the threat of punishment by looking for an exit strategy. Any gains to the free software world in that case are short term, until the company can figure out a way to defang the GPL or to replace the GPLed software with their own or with software under another license.

Re:Ugh... no

[mewphobia]

That was a well explained post. Thanks.

I tend to see companies behavior like the behavior of children. The misbehaved ones just need a structure/framework to press up against. Once they have it, the vast majority of them come good.

The GPL does this. It acts like a good parent. A good parent just tries to make it fair on all the children.

As far as getting a threat of punishment - there is no need as long as they go somewhere else. To be threatened by the GPL, you need to actively circumvent it - either by mistake or by malice. As the GPL gets stronger, malicious people will go elsewhere. People who make a mistake will correct their mistake or go elsewhere.

I also can't see why we would want companies unwilling to cooporate participating in open source? I personally don't want someone without good will helping me make a product. I see getting QUANTITY of particpants up is of no or little value unless they are QUALITY participants.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

To be threatened by the GPL, you need to actively circumvent it - either by mistake or by malice.

Or you simply don't want to be constrained by the GPL. Not wanting to put all your software under an open source license is not malicious. It's not incompatible with good will. Companies or individuals may even be enthusiastically cooperative and still keep some of their code proprietary.

The GPL can make it hard to do that. The LGPL doesn't. The BSDL doesn't. The MPSL and APSL don't.

Re:Ugh... no

[mewphobia]

To be threatened by the GPL, you need to actively circumvent it - either by mistake or by malice.

Or you simply don't want to be constrained by the GPL. Not wanting to put all your software under an open source license is not malicious. It's not incompatible with good will.

But in that case it's not a threat. You just avoid using code that's under that license. How does that threaten you? It just doesn't explicitly help you.

The GPL is just providing a framework/groundrules to encourage cooporation. In a playground context, it's like saying that there are some playground rules that you have to abide by to be in the playground. Sure, the penalty is to play by the rules, but the advantage is a playground free from bullies.

In the BSDL world, you're playing in a playground with no rules, where any bully can take your lunch. In fact, you're willing to give it to them in hope that they'll give you some of theirs in return.

We need rules. I believe in socialism and sticking up for the little guy.

But at the same time, i love the LGPL and the BSDL and most of those style licenses. They have their time and place.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

You just avoid using code that's under that license.

OK, I assume then when you said "you need to actively circumvent it [...] by mistake" you included "you need to accidentally use GPLed code".

I think the phrase "actively circumvent" contains a lot of connotations that don't apply.

In the BSDL world [...] any bully can take your lunch.

No, they can't. It's not possible for a bully to take my lunch. They can take a copy of my lunch, but I still have my lunch. There's nothing they can do with that copy of my lunch that will keep me from having my lunch. It's like the miracle of the loaves and the fishes, except anyone can do it, you don't have to be Jesus Christ to give away more than you get without giving away anything at all.

And given that, I have a choice. I can give my stuff away to anyone who wants it, knowing that some of them aren't going to do the same thing, or I can give it away only to people who are prepared ahead of time to give it away.

Either way, a lot of the people who get it are going to give it back. This has nothing to do with "hope". Hope's something you have inside of you, it doesn't do anything in the real world. This has to do with what really happens in the real world. I don't "hope" someone's going to give it back, I know they are, because I've been giving copies of my lunch away since the '70s, and I've got some really amazing stuff back.

This has nothing to do with socialism, either. Socialism is an economic system. Economic systems are about control of limited resources. Copies of software aren't a limited resource, making copies doesn't take anything away from the giver. The only reason to limit who can use your software are economic ones: you want money for it, or you want to promote some economic system. If that's what you want, fine, but that's got nothing to do with keeping the bullies from taking your lunch.

If all you want is for people to give back, it doesn't make any sense to try and keep it from the bullies, because the outcome is the same whether you do or not.

Re:Ugh... no

[mewphobia]

Ok, yes my analogy was flawed if you see the lunch as software. But I was thinking more along the lines of it being the money you make from the software.

And besides being poor (but free to get income from elsewhere) you are spending your time doing things that can possibly help vendors (bullies) from locking you into using their products. Sure, a lot have good will but some don't.

If you're donating money, I'd prefer to see it go to a charity than to a multinational. You're saying "why not give it to both? I'm not loosing anything" and i think that's a valid point of view. But I'd prefer to only give it to the charity, because money is a finite resource and I'd like to level the playing field. The thing about having a lot of money, is that it's easy to make more. I don't want to see the gap between the poor and the rich getting greater.

As for it being 'nothing to do with socialism' cause it's not an economic system, you are missing a key point in economics. Time is money.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

I was thinking more along the lines of it being the money you make from the software.

Unless you're doing something like using the GPL as part of a dual license strategy, whatever you get from your GPL software is indirect at best... it's not like you're putting time into a "time market" and you get a better rate of return from the GPL and from the BSDL. As far as money's concerned, OSS is advertising and education. It's like a degree... you've got a Bachelor's of Linux, I've got an Associates degree in BSDology.

Re:Ugh... no

[mewphobia]

Unless you're doing something like using the GPL as part of a dual license strategy, whatever you get from your GPL software is indirect at best

Or maybe you're supporting GPL software? OR maybe paid to add features to GPL software? What about being paid to train people to use GPL software? There are a lot of possible revenue streams..

Yes, some of the mapping between financial returns and GPL software is indirect BUT that doesn't mean that those aspects are illegitimate and shouldn't be considered.

Maybe your time is worth nothing, but i know i value mine.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

Or maybe you're supporting GPL software? OR maybe paid to add features to GPL software? What about being paid to train people to use GPL software? There are a lot of possible revenue streams..

Yeh, but the GPL doesn't work any better than any other license for them. If anything, getting a sugar-daddy company to pick up your software and pay you to support it is easier if they can build a conventional application on top of your free software.

Maybe your time is worth nothing, but i know i value mine.

I never said my time was worth nothing. To the contrary, I invest it where I know it will pay me back.

Re:Ugh... no

[mewphobia]

Yeh, but the GPL doesn't work any better than any other license for them.

Yes it does. Under the GPL, trainers are ensured that they can support any derivitive works in the future. If a BSDL dervived work gets closed and the closed version becomes more popular the trainers can be left up the creek without a paddle. Same goes with support.

The company who is dominating the market with their version might employ you to add features, but if the code was still GPLd you'd have a lot more potential clients.

If anything, getting a sugar-daddy company to pick up your software and pay you to support it is easier if they can build a conventional application on top of your free software.

If this is the route you want to take then maybe it would be a more efficient use of your time if you just worked for a company from the start and got paid to develop all of it.

Even if you are paid to support their application and you get fired, under BSDL you've got less of a chance of getting picked up by another company, because the original company has a developmental advantage.

Yes there are lots of companies that don't get the GPL right now. It's changing. If you don't think longterm then you end up killing your grandchildren to feed your children.

Re:Ugh... no

[argent]

Under the GPL, trainers are ensured that they can support any derivitive works in the future.

No more so than with commercial or BSDL products. Forwards and backwards compatibility and the long-term usefulness of training can be blown to bits just as easily in open-source projects. Consider the differences between successive releases of Red Hat, or the whole Linux libc mess. BSD itself has far more long-term stability than Linux, and more consistency between versions... I've found it a LOT easier to move between SunOS, Tru64, FreeBSD, and Mac OS X than between Red Hat and Debian, or even between Red Hat 2 and Red Hat 4 and Red Hat 6 and RHEL 3. I've even used code from the FreeBSD source tree to debug and fix problems in Tru64.

Theoretically, I can see where you're coming from. My experience over the past quarter of a century is radically different. I've been in open source since long before it had that name, since before the GPL existed, and not even Microsoft has been able to twist the open source software they've used so badly that I haven't been able to apply the lessons learned.

If this is the route you want to take then maybe it would be a more efficient use of your time if you just worked for a company from the start and got paid to develop all of it.

You're making it out as an "either-or" situation. It's not. Why isn't it? Because open source works better for the company as well. Even if they build a proprietary system on top of the open-source software (whether that's LGPL, BSDL, or whatever kind of license that's compatible with a mixed environment) they still benefit from having the open source core open.

And if they fork their core and keep their fork closed... they STILL can't take the open-source code off the net. So, either their product takes off and other people use it... and they're my next employer, or their product doesn't and the open source version is still out there to go back to. Having the company take a fork of the project and fail? That's no different from any other fork, and that happens all over the place.

And if the open source project fails because I'm working for Sugar Daddy Inc and not working on it any more, then it wasn't really much of an open source project in the first place. Open source that depends on one person to keep it usable and useful, that can't be taken forward by anyone else? What's the point?

Yes there are lots of companies that don't get the GPL right now. It's changing.

Read that as "there are lots of companies that don't get open source right now", and you'll see where I'm coming from. "Getting" open source is why they're "getting" the GPL. And since open source is a win for them, it's no less a win just because there isn't the GPL forcing them to take everything in the product open source. Because they can't do that, always, no matter how much they want to. Because, for a lot of programs, a proprietary model works better: there still isn't a real open-source-derived word processor, for example... open office was tossed over the wall into the open source world when the original company gave up trying to compete with Microsoft.

Look: back when the GPL came out my first reaction was "where's the good open source spreadsheet going to come from?" and now it's 20 years later adn the answer is "it's not going to come from the open source world". So, we're going to have a mixed software ecosystem for the long term, probably forever. I see no reason for that to change.

But for the kinds of things open source works well for, where the end-users include enough developers to keep it moving forward, it's brilliant. I've believed in open source and open systems since before the GPL was written, back when only one of those two terms had even been coined. Open source was already taking off before the GPL, and would have taken off with or without it, because it's not the ideological purity of the GNU manifesto that's really driving it... but the fact that it works better for a huge variety of software.

Without that, it wouldn't be anything but a footnote.

Come on, ESR is a bullshit artist

[melted]

and a clown to boot. Now if Stallman said something I'd listen. But Stallman won't air such bullshit. GPL is the sole reason why Linux exists and progresses. It doesn't allow lage companies to create and extend their own closed flavors of linux, kinda like it happened with UNIX two decades ago. More precisely, they can create and extend their own flavors (like Google does), they just can't redistribute them without giving away the new IP.

Re:Stallman

[wheelbarrow]

This is an interesting vision for the world. At what point will you want to cross over from the idea that consuming commercial software is 'morally wrong' to making it 'legally wrong'.

I'm assuming that voluntary compliance will only take you so far and that, some day, you'll need the law to enforce your vision. When is that day?

And not just "improvements"

[team99parody]

There's a fine line between "improving" and "embracing and extending" an open standard with proprietary extentions.

That's what the practical difference between the GPL and BSD licenses represent.

Internal use is not viral.

[McFly777]

"...recently evaluated SugarCRM for use with an internal system we are building."

Since you are building an internal system, you are not required to do anything by the GPL anyway. As long as you don't distribute it externally, you can keep whatever secrets you want.

He may have a point

[Minwee]

What we need now isn't restrictive software licensing, it's a team of geeks with scraggly beards and handguns.

That will make our society more polite.

about ESR

[alewar]

What does this guy do, apart from making dubious predictions about the future of linux and working in fetchmail? I think he gained popularity doing almost nothing (except for the netscape thing)... I'm surprised the people actually listen to him...

We Don't Need the ESR Anymore

[HawkingMattress]

Oh wait, we never needed him, only him thought so.
This guy has 0% credibility from my point of vue, just like any stoopid politician who tries to push his agenda while telling you he's defending your freedom or whatever...
Get a job, and stop annoying us.

Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[team99parody]

Parent wrote: "That's a ridiculous argument."

This whole thread is rediculous.

The OSI (open source initiative - a california nonprofit org, funded largely by industry) & members including ESR
has always been at odds with
the FSF (Free Software Foundation - a massachusetts nonprofit organization, funded & staffed largely by academia) & members including RMS regarding free/open software. Each compete for donations, developers, mindshare, etc just like any other two organizations.

Please take anything the OSI says about the GPL, and anything the FSF says about the CDDL with a large grain of salt rubbed in the wound.

(opinionated rant: To ESR and the rest of the OSI - I don't give a damn how much Sun paid you from their Microsoft settlement to get the pattent-encumbered CDDL approved, please stop bashing the FSF and trying to divide and conquor the F/OSS community)

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[Usquebaugh]

Easier to sum up :-

OSI = West Coast
FSF = East Coast

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[Anonymous Coward]

ridiculous, dammit! Deserving of ridicule. What the fuck is "redicule"? You had just fucking quoted it from the GP! How the fuck do you get it wrong?!?

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[Anonymous Coward]

> I don't give a damn how much Sun paid you from
> their Microsoft settlement to get the
> pattent-encumbered CDDL approved

The FSF has it on thier list of free software licenses too.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLI ncompatibleLicenses

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[abc5]

Usquebaugh! Water of Life, 3 scotch. Makes it easier to tolerate all the nubs in these forums.

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[ciroknight]

I think it's sad that even the developers of Open Source / Free Software can't make up their damned minds on how things should work, and we magically expect the developers of our Desktop Environments (and the rest of Linux, for that matter; even though Torvalds and crew have a really good handle on things now I believe..) to just sort everything out for us. One's completely free under both the Free Software and Open Source movement, the other's only free under the Free Software movement, and Open Source developers bicker to the ends of time about how it isn't open..

Please for the love of computers, let's stop the political arguments and GET BACK TO WORK. There's a lot of catch up we need to play on a lot of fields, and a lot of innovation that could happen if we'd just let ourselves go that route. Of course, it is your natural right to bitch about everything, and I'm not trying to silence you guys, but come on.. when you bitch to the point that nothing's getting done, you need to re-evaluate your bitching.

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[tolkienfan]

Parent +5 Insightful

ESR has claimed in the past that Open Source differs from Free Software in it's rhetoric.

This is clearly bunk.

The reason ESR is now bitching about the GPL now is obviously that he's noticed the GPL is more than a license. It's RMSs creed.
ESR has observed the recent publicity about the GPL3 and realized that some of the principals the GPL stands for are ones he does not share.

If he thinks Open Source would succeed faster without the GPL, I think RMS would probably happily agree!

The GPL is not there to promote Open Source. It's there to protect Free Software.

If he wants to drive a stake into an already divided community, he's succeeding.
But he needs to wake up and realize that he's hurting the whole industry by doing it.

Just at the point when the GPL has gained traction in some of the biggest corporations in the industry, ESR comes out and slams it; inviting people to create their own licenses.

There are already far too many incompatible Free and Open Source Software licenses.

The last thing we need is someone trashing the license with the biggest share.
What we do need is the ability to mix and match source code from all over. To take ideas a freely mix them with existing code and make something new.
We need fewer licenses.

While I thoroughly respect ESR and some of what he has done, this is a very bad move.

He's sending the message that it just fine to drop the principals of freedom for accelerated growth or wider acceptance.

While it's clear he and some others believe it, he does not speak for us all; and should shut the hell up.

The GPL is the pillar that Free Software has stood upon. It has withstood all attacks from the largest and meanest enemies.
If it's defeated and Free Software goes away, Open Source will shortly thereafter follow.

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[bit01]

This whole thread is rediculous.

Agreed. Both BSD and GPL are vastly superior to the average closed source license. I am comfortable using both though I prefer GPL.

If somebody wants to complain, closed source licenses are what they should be complaining about, particularly the deliberately deceptive and manipulative ones.

---

GNU/Linux, the world's #1 OS by hits. M$ windows #2.
Open Office the world's #1 office suite. M$ office #2.
Apache, the world's #1 web server. M$ IIS #2.
Evolution, the world's #1 email client, M$ outlook #2.
Unfortunately mozilla family browsers are still #2, M$ internet explorer is #1, but watch firefox (#3) grow.

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[(1 -sqrt(5))*(2**-1)]

I am comfortable using both though I prefer GPL.

There's a third, but seldom mentioned, alternative: Artistic License 2.0, which should ship with Perl6 alongside GPL.

I've already taken to using it; AL2.0 is beta, but charming and unobtrusive nevertheless.

Re:Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud

[FuckTheModerators]

So to hyperextend this analogy:

ESR = Tupac
RMS = The Notorious B.I.G.

stuff

[POds]

You have to give the GPL A lot of credit. Linux succeeded where BSD have not. Or rather, Linux seems to be more successful then the BSD despite being much younger. The requirement for people to add modify code and keep it open is the reason for linux's success. It is my opinion this allowed it to grow more quickly, not allowing people who may be greedy to take advantage of it.

The statement that we or it doesnt need the GPL any more is interesting. I dont know if this has any relation to the article, because i'm not going to read it. But if Linux was to adopt the BSD or MIT licence, it would be damn interesting to find out where linux makes it in the future. If there was a BSD/MIT version of linux, i think there would be a community behind it, just is now, only, there will be a lot more companies considering it for their products. This could only be good.

For example. TCP => BSD. TCP is a standard these days. If linux was to go BSD/MIT, could all operating systems of the future use the Linux kernel at a standard?

Because...

[Per Abrahamsen]

Basically because Linus Torvals was way better to build a community than Bill Jolitz, so BSD split into multiple competing projects without a single unifying charismatic figure(head).

The BSD'ers tend to blame the AT&T lawsuit, but if that had any effect, it would have been on commercial support, and in the early years both Linux and and the BSD's were mostly driven by enthusiasts.

And the Linux community was, back then way more open, inviting and fun based than the BSD communities. The fraction of enthusiasts who actually care about all the legal and political stuff is insignificant. A few paraphrase whatever opinions happens to be "politically correct" for the software they work on, but most ignore it completely.

The GPL *does* help, mostly on the embedded market interestingly enough. The embedded companies are those who complain most about it, because the culture of secrecy is very strong there. But the GPL makes it much easier for engineers to get permission to participate in the community (since the work can't be secret legally anyway), and thus make ports to embedded platforms easier by promoting sharing.

Re:Mods, please...

[RALE007]

Not to nit pick but:

As open source is a superior production system, companies and individuals that don't participate in it (that is, take open source code and make it closed source) are hurting themselves as they are shutting themselves of from the superior system that is open source.

Circular logic (eg begging the question).

That's why the GPL isn't neede(sic) and why the GPL would only make sense if open source were in fact an inferior system.

The first assertation wasn't proven by the circular reasoning. It is completely plausible that 'open source' (in the context you're using) is a superiour production system because of the GPL.

Now I don't say that you have to agree with him on that, but it's at least an interesting and well thought out argument.

No it's not.

(Linux-GPL) == BSD

[redelm]

I must strongly disagree with ESR. Even with the AT&T lawsuit, BSD had an enormous headstart on Linux in the early 1990s. A massive codebase, and plenty of diverse projects one of which could easily have adopted Linus social model had it been workable (enough developers).

The problem was the Linus attracted developers and *BSD did not. I can only infer that the developers liked the GPL and were more willing to contribute when their code wasn't going to be taken commercial/private by the likes of Microsoft & Apple. There may also be some subtle fork-healing property of the GPL. But it was essential.

BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

Actually BSD is the project I use to show exactly the opposite. While it's true there have been many individuals who have contributed to BSD, many major corporations have taken very significant code out of it and given back ... nothing.

Consider Sun Microsystems, whose SunOS operating system was based on BSD. What did they give back? Other than a few bug fixes early on, nothing.

Ultrix, from Digital Equipment, was BSD-based. Little to nothing came back to BSD from DEC.

Remember OSF/1, which was based on Mach/BSD? How much of their work went back? Next to nothing.

Microsoft used the BSD TCP stack as the basis of their TCP stack. What did they give back? Nothing.

FTP software based their whole product suite on the BSD codebase. How much came back? Nothing.

I don't know of any major corporation which has made significant donations back to the BSD core. There may be the rare exception, but the bulk of corporate back-donations has been some bug fixes. That has left the development almost entirely to individual developers or very small groups, and thereby limited how much could be done.

Lots of people think of the GPL as a "communist" license, but in fact it is BSD that is the free-for-all. The BSD license attaches no value to what it is licensing, and as a result you a software "tragedy of the commons" where everyone is happy to use it but almost nobody ever gives anything back. I know that there are going to be people who vehemently disagree with what I'm going to say, but: It has been my observation that the BSD source base has been relatively stagnant over more than a decade. If you look at what a modern BSD provides and compare it to what BSD 4.3 provided you'll find little that is new. A similar comparison with any major commercial UNIX will yield a great many such features (like working SMP support, journalled filesystems, NUMA support, logical volume management, realtime support, etc).

The GPL, on the other hand, leverages the fact that the source base is valuable. It is not a "give away" as so many people claim but rather an intellectual property trade very much like the patent sharing agreements so common in the proprietary world. While businesses would rather get something for nothing, if what they're getting in trade is valuable enough it is an incentive to give up some of their own rights.

If you think of the GPL as an intellectual property collective agreement you have the right idea. The thing about that kind of agreement is that the more IP that is covered by it the more valuable the collective becomes -- and therefore the more likely others are to join it.

In Linux' case the source base is exceptionally valuable at this point, worth literally billions of dollars, and for the better part of a decade has been receiving significant code donations from corporations. Remember the list of features modern UNIXen have that BSD doesn't? Did you notice how many of them Linux does support? All of them. For something like a decade corporations have been making major code donations back to the Linux codebase and it has advanced tremendously as a result. While Linux certainly has its rough edges it has seriously outgrown its tinkerer beginnings.

So Raymond could not be more wrong about this point. Oh, I agree that the development structure that Torvalds set up was a principal contributor to its success. To be sure, one of the major limitations in the BSD codebase has been the reluctance of the BSD principals to accept code they didn't write. But BSD has branched enough times that it has also seen conditions similar to what Linux enjoyed and it still never turned the corner.

What made Linux win was simply that large corporations had to give to get, and the more times that happens the more likely it becomes.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[nurb432]

There are always examples on both sides.

However I, and many others, belive that overall the BSD license is a good thing. Preferable to the more restrictive GPL.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[demachina]

Great post. Exactly right.

You ditch the GPL and Linux will fragment just like UNIX did. Companies like HP, IBM, Novell and the now Wall Street obsessed Red Hat would start doing all their work on proprietary branches in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage and "differentiate" their product which is exactly what all the proprietary Unix flavors did. "Differentiation" was the death knell for proprietary UNIX. They are all dead and dieing due to the fragmentation of resources and applications, while Linux is going strong.

Maybe we don't need ESR any more. Some of his lunatic rants make people nervous about using open source.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confusing the goals of GPL and BSD software, the goal of GPL software is to make one application/os that everyone uses and contributes to, "World domination". The goal of BSD software is to bring computing forward, to make a foundation for EVERY ONE to stand on.
This is the reason lots of research and projects use BSD license to make something that gains the widest possible penetration, something that both open source and proprietary software developers can use. Where would we be today if the internet was not developed on BSD and the TCP/IP stack was not released under a license everyone could use?
Would we all be using Microsoft network now, or some other proprietary standard with half working support from the opensource operating systems.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Billly Gates]

Sun has donated alot to Free software.

We have Pango, NFS, Samba and Kerbos contributions, as well as contributions to many other open source projects.

It not all be under a BSD or GPL license but they do donate alot.

BSD has had many corporate contributors over the years but many today seem focused on Linux not because its GPLed but because its what everyone else is using.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[greggman]

First of all your flat out wrong, lots of companies have contributed to FreeBSD.

Secondly that's only one example. There are plenty of other succesful BSDed open source projects

Apache
Python
PHP
Boost
Subversion
Lua
XFr ee
libpng
libtiff
libjpeg

the point is that BSD works just fine. you don't need to try to force people to contribute. In fact, the whole point of ESR argument is that most companies don't like the viral nature of GPL so they'd perfer not to contribute at all but given a BSDed project they can contribute directly to that project and not worry about having to give up everything else they use it with. Everybody wins.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[n_are_q]

Ok so Sun created SunOS using BSD code and gave nothing back to the BSD project.

If BSD was licensed under GPL-like terms there wouldn't be a SunOS in the first place!

Sure some companies like linksys are fine with using linux, but i'm sure there are many products that could have been made that did not get made because of how the GPL code is licensed.

If you TRULY want your code in the public domain, you would not use the GPL. If you side with the GPL you are not really interested in contributing your code to the society at all. You are contributing it to a subset of society, where it also happens to be impossible to use it commercially. If that's what you want to do, fine, but at least be strait about what you're doing and don't bitch about Sun and others who have used BSD code for doing EXACTLY what the makers of the BSD wanted them to do.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[bogie]

Very well said and a good "in a nutshell" analysis of the topic of GPL vs BSD over the decade. Things like who's in charge, how well they do with dealing with outsider contributors, and the quality of the code are all important factors to the success of a project. But overall it was and continues to be the GPL license which software strength and value. The "take what you want and never have to give back" BSD license is the one that hurts more than helps.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

the whole point of ESR argument is that most companies don't like the viral nature of GPL so they'd perfer not to contribute at all but given a BSDed project they can contribute directly to that project and not worry about having to give up everything else they use it with. Everybody wins.

I'm well aware of his point, it has been made ad-infinitum over the last two decades. I've been in the middle of commercial products that had to deal with both licenses and, for sure, it's easier to deal with BSD than the twisty legalisms of the GPL.

I don't think anyone argues that the BSD license isn't preferable to businesses over GPL. And why would it not be? They literally get something for nothing. Everyone likes to get something for nothing!

The thing is, at some point the value of the codebase is greater than the cost of giving up some of your rights in order to use it. When that happens then the GPL has a major, major advantage in that it creates a feedback loop. The more code gets donated the more incentive there is to use it and as a result donate more code and make the code base more valuable.

Back ten years ago you could have argued that that loop wouldn't happen because of the unwillingness of people to give up their rights, and it would not have been possible to point to counterexamples. But Linux proves that there is a point at which the value overcomes the resistance.

No BSD-licensed product has ever had that happen, nor does it seem likely that it ever will happen -- there is no incentive whatsoever to feed code back, and plenty of counter-incentive.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

Sun has donated alot to Free software.

You missed the really big one, OpenOffice, although we all know that they did that solely to put a kink in Microsoft's cash cow. By and large if Sun has "open sourced" a significant body of code (like NFS) it was not under a BSD-style license, and certainly they never gave much in the way of code back to the BSD UNIX project despite obtaining very significant value from BSD UNIX code.

I don't mean to pick on Sun, simply to use them as an example of what naturally happens with a very loose license like BSD uses. If you don't have to give anything back, you most likely won't.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[MoneyT]

1) In order to have a tradgedy of the commons situation you must have a limited and excludeable resource. Code is excludeable, but it is not a limited resource.

2) Consider for a moment what the world would be like if Microsoft had not used the BDS TCP/IP. Do you really want a world where the internet is defined by a microsoft standard?

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Ded Bob]

Actually BSD is the project I use to show exactly the opposite. While it's true there have been many individuals who have contributed to BSD, many major corporations have taken very significant code out of it and given back ... nothing.

Yahoo!, Apple, and Pair Networks (in money) would probably argue against that.

The companies you mentioned probably use little if anything of the BSD code any longer.

I don't know of any major corporation which has made significant donations back to the BSD core. There may be the rare exception, but the bulk of corporate back-donations has been some bug fixes. That has left the development almost entirely to individual developers or very small groups, and thereby limited how much could be done.

Most companies hire contractors to contribute to the BSD's. You do not see many companies make big shows about it.

It has been my observation that the BSD source base has been relatively stagnant over more than a decade. If you look at what a modern BSD provides and compare it to what BSD 4.3 provided you'll find little that is new. A similar comparison with any major commercial UNIX will yield a great many such features (like working SMP support, journalled filesystems, NUMA support, logical volume management, realtime support, etc).

• FreeBSD has working SMP support. A few things are still under the GIANT lock, but most are esoteric devices.
  
• Journaling is currently being added.
  
• USB support existed in the BSD's--I believe NetBSD had it first--about two years before Linux.
  
• Jails have existed in FreeBSD for quite some time.
  

Remember the list of features modern UNIXen have that BSD doesn't? Did you notice how many of them Linux does support?

When will Linux support Soft Updates? When will Linux use sysctl() instead of /proc? How about virtual channels on a sound card? I do not need to run a software multiplexer to run multiple applications on my sound card with FreeBSD.

To be sure, one of the major limitations in the BSD codebase has been the reluctance of the BSD principals to accept code they didn't write.

Huh? That does not match to what happens within the BSD communities. Maybe, you are thinking about the Linux community? ;)

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[spauldo]

Do you really want a world where the internet is defined by a microsoft standard?

I agree that it's a good thing that microsoft used the BSD TCP/IP stack. However, I don't agree with the reasoning that we'd be using a proprietary standard in place of TCP/IP on the internet.

When microsoft finally jumped on the internet bandwagon, the protocols were in place, the routers were there and working, the servers were running, and microsoft was playing catch-up. Remember using trumpet winsock to connect to the 'net on windows 3.1? 3rd party providers were already supporting the standard protocols while microsoft was trying to promote its proprietary MSN network (which failed miserably - it has nothing in common with MSN today). If they couldn't have used the BSD code, they would have written their own.

AOL and Compuserve had to face the same - hell, I think AOL still uses its proprietary protocols internally, but if they didn't support TCP/IP, they'd be out of business now.

Granted, TCP/IP might not have taken off so well if the BSD implementation was not available. There were protocols in existance before TCP/IP that were in place and working on the internet, and the sockets code being freely available was a definite help. But that's really what the BSD license is best at - reference implementations are the ideal target for it.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[greggman]

>No BSD-licensed product has ever had that happen, nor does it seem likely that it ever will happen -- there is no incentive whatsoever to feed code back, and plenty of counter-incentive.

I don't see how that statement holds up given the list of successful BSD style projects I listed

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Brandybuck]

many major corporations have taken very significant code out of it...

Out of it? Don't you mean "from it" instead? "Stealing" BSD code is metaphysical impossibility, but you GPL advocates keep acting like the RIAA in your instance that it can be. Using Linux in a closed router no more harms the Linux codebase than downloading a Britney Spears song harms Britney's income.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[ink]

many today seem focused on Linux not because its GPLed but because its what everyone else is using.

Have you ever wondered why "everyone else" is focussed on it?

You conject that it is not because of the GPL, but I don't see any reasoning. I love the BSD license as well (most all of my software is licensed thusly); but you can't really argue against the success of GNU licensed products.

Well, you can... but you don't seem to make a compelling argument...

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[dkgasaway]

While it's true there have been many individuals who have contributed to BSD, many major corporations have taken very significant code out of it and given back ... nothing.

You seem to make the assumption that these same evil corporations that forked BSD would also fork and contribute to the same software if GPL-licensed. Suppose BSD was released under a copyleft license. Would they have used BSD and released changes back to the community? Or would they have simply not used BSD at all and instead created their own OS or licensed one from elsewhere? Before you answer that question, carefully consider the software climate at the time, where free and open software was a new idea. Contrast that with the climate today, where the these ideas are established, and Linux is a top player in the field. Perhaps *that* is why Linux receives so much corporate support today, not necessarily because of the GPL license.

Ask yourself this question as well: if it were not for the proliferation of UNIX softwares (as a result of the BSD forks), would Mr. Torvalds have created Linux?

You list a number of corporations that distributed BSD-forked software without contribution. I would love to do the same for GPL software, but unfortunately, that is a difficult proposition. In the copyleft world, the equivalent scenario would be a corporation that - given the choice of contributing to a software or avoiding the software completely - chose to avoid the software completely. I don't have the luxury of a list publicly produced products to point to. Certainly, though, there are many corporations that did not contribute to copyleft software *because* it was copyleft software.

-dkgasaway

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Brandybuck]

So why aren't HP, IBM, Novell and Wall Street now making proprietary branches of FreeBSD instead? The only reason they haven't is because they prefer the luster and glamour of the name "Linux" instead. But if they fork off Linux and make their own branch incompatible, they've just lost that luster.

They are all dead and dieing due to the fragmentation of resources and applications

Actually they're all dead or dying because computers have gotten too cheap. Why buy a horribly expensive Sun or SGI box when you can run Linux or BSD on a commodity PC server? Remember how Sun started out, they were hugely popular because they were CHEAPER than everyone else. But now they're more expensive, other than their enterprise servers, are a waste of your IT dollars.

The buggy whip manufacturers didn't die out because they fragmented, they died out because they become obsolete. The UNIX vendors are now in the same situation, as the technology is passing them by faster than they can keep up. There's no need to attribute magical and mystical powers to the GPL to explain this.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Brandybuck]

If all the companies are rushing in to use Linux because of the GPL, then why are so many of them found violating it?

The people in companies making the decision to go to Linux or not, are *NOT* technically literate. They are upper level managers. They see a buzzword and a free-as-in-beer price. That is all.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[The Master Control P]

A similar comparison with any major commercial UNIX will yield a great many such features (like working SMP support, journalled filesystems, NUMA support, logical volume management, realtime support, etc).

Numa support? Does that mean it plays the Numa Numa Dance every time it starts or something? Sounds like a neat feature :)

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

Ask yourself this question as well: if it were not for the proliferation of UNIX softwares (as a result of the BSD forks), would Mr. Torvalds have created Linux?

Well, that is a rather complicated question, although I recall Torvalds saying he wrote UNIX because he couldn't get an affordable version for the PC. It is exceptionally likely that had BSD managed to be disassociated from AT&T a few years earlier Linux would never have happened. (And, in that world, it seems very likely that Microsoft would have won outright.)

But as for your intimation that UNIX was successful as a result of BSD forks, I would argue otherwise. In fact, only one BSD variant ever had significant commercial success (SunOS) and its success was short-lived (less than 10 years on the market). SysV was, however, astoundingly successful.

The reason why UNIX succeeded was entirely economic: You could buy it very cheaply relative to building your own. In the competitive workstation market (remember, UNIX never had more than a tiny niche on minis) that was clearly visible in the price of the machine. And as I am fond of saying, the cheapest thing that gets the job done wins.

You list a number of corporations that distributed BSD-forked software without contribution. I would love to do the same for GPL software, but unfortunately, that is a difficult proposition.

Whether or not they exist (I'm sure some do) is really not the point. The fact that there is a plethora of examples of corporations that did donate back to Linux, via the GPL, is proof that the feedback system works. Moreover, the GPL has been used, repeatedly, to enforce the feedback (eg in the case of Linksys).

Some of those donations have been very substantial, like the NUMA and logical volume support IBM donated. When was the last time someone donated code of that nature to BSD? I am pretty sure the answer to that is "never."

You seem to make the assumption that these same evil corporations that forked BSD would also fork and contribute to the same software if GPL-licensed.

I make no such assumption, as I believe the GPL does in fact scare corporations away. However it is clear by observation that it is the case that some corporations who did not donate code back to BSD-licensed codebases did do so for GPL-licensed codebases.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[synthespian]

I don't know of any major corporation which has made significant donations back to the BSD core.

When you wrote your diatribe, did you leave out Apple because of ignorance or on purpose?
You can read about Apple code filtering back to FreeBSD here.

but: It has been my observation that the BSD source base has been relatively stagnant over more than a decade.

OK, now we know for a fact that you're a troll.

Would you care to rephrase it as "It has been my observation that the design of Unix has not changed in any fundamental way (etc.)"? It would make you look smarter...

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[wirelessbuzzers]

Remember the list of features modern UNIXen have that BSD doesn't? Did you notice how many of them Linux does support? All of them.

Well, here are some features Linux doesn't have yet. BSD has some of them, but not all.
1) Dtrace, a la Solaris.
2) Soft updates (and useful filesystem snapshots, and background fsck).
3) Jails.
4) Pooled storage, a la Solaris.
5) Project Evil (Windows network card ABI emulation).
6) Working systrace. ... just about anything new in Solaris 10.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[demachina]

"So why aren't HP, IBM, Novell and Wall Street now making proprietary branches of FreeBSD instead?"

If you know how execs and marketeers think, if the opportunity exists to develop proprietary features for Linux that would "differentiate" their product and help them justify selling their flavor for more, and drive sales of their product over their competitors, they will. On Linux all the engineers and lawyers just say, sorry dude you can't make it proprietary becuase its GPL .... THWACK .... the marketing guy is cut off at the knees before he can spawn fragmentation and proprietariness.

You would hope companies like HP and IBM learned from their mistakes fragmenting UNIX. While they were busy differentiating, Windows was busy unifying their market and burying UNIX.

The GPL is an important insurance policy to keep companies honest and from backsliding to their old proprietary ways.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Mornelithe]

When will Linux use sysctl() instead of /proc?

Doesn't it already? "A sysctl call has been present in Linux since version 1.3.57." However, Linux also lets you use the /proc/sys filesystem to do the same thing, so that I can write 'echo 0 > /proc/sys/foo' rather than writing a program. Is that a big problem for you?

How about virtual channels on a sound card?

ALSA has a method for doing that (the dmix plugin). However, it's not enabled by default, because for cards that actually have multiple channels, it's better to use the real ones.

Maybe, you are thinking about the Linux community?

No, I don't think he was. Seems like you both are mildly ignorant of the other camp (or were you purposely asking about thing that are actually in Linux? In that case, I apologize for being thick).

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Santana]

Bill Joy Sun Microsystems.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[synthespian]

The thing is, at some point the value of the codebase is greater than the cost of giving up some of your rights in order to use it. When that happens then the GPL has a major, major advantage in that it creates a feedback loop.

This is laughable, but of course, it's been moderated up by /. knee-jerk meme replicators.

I don't think your "feedback loop" has any slight evidence of existing. In a recent economics paper here) "Harvard Business School professors Pankaj Ghemawat and Ramon Casadesus-Masanell (...) chose to explore the fundamental competitive dynamics question: Will OSS ever displace traditional software from its market leadership position? (...) Our main result is that in the absence of cost asymmetries and as long as Windows has a first-mover advantage (a larger installed base at time zero), Linux never displaces Windows of its leadership position."

Of course, you can say what you want, and if it pleases the Linux fanboys, you get modded up and your Karma explodes! Yay!

Also, read up on the commoditization of Linux and how it relates to IBM, HP, etc ("Smart companies try to commoditize their products' complements.") here

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Santana]

*co-founded

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[synthespian]

Actually they're all dead or dying because computers have gotten too cheap. Why buy a horribly expensive Sun or SGI box when you can run Linux or BSD on a commodity PC server?

Exactly. The Linux crowd is hopelessly brain washed by Big Iron PR departments.
We will all have to live with PCs, won't we? I hope not...

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[nxtw]

FreeBSD has working SMP support. A few things are still under the GIANT lock, but most are esoteric devices.

Working, but not great. And the threading support is weak.

Journaling is currently being added.

Which makes it irrelevant right now. Until it's been released and proven to be stable and reliable, I don't see any widespread usage of it. (Plus, with FreeBSD 5's less the spectacular record of working well, I wouldn't consider a new FreeBSD filesystem for quite some time.)

USB support existed in the BSD's--I believe NetBSD had it first--about two years before Linux.

This feature isn't too useful outside of desktop/workstation usage, so most corporations won't be too terribly interested. Furthermore, USB support does exist in both operating systems now.

Jails have existed in FreeBSD for quite some time.

This is something that is missing in Linux. However, its usefulness is limited; When will Linux support Soft Updates?

Linux as a whole never will. Soft updates are a feature of individual file systems, of which Linux supports many. Soft updates and journaling file systems are mutually exclusive, and given the success of journaling file systems, I don't see them coming to Linux any time soon.

When will Linux use sysctl() instead of /proc?

Many years ago?
But even better: when will this make a huge difference in how either operating system works or in functionality?

How about virtual channels on a sound card?

Only a major concern for desktop users. Just about every sound card nowadays has hardware mixing; why not use that instead of your kernel-level (still software, not hardware!) mixer?

Many of the features you have listed are of no interest to many corporations, unless they are in the business of proving desktop operating system solutions.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[nxtw]

2) Soft updates (and useful filesystem snapshots, and background fsck).

Linux does have numerous journaled filesystems, which are mutually exclusive to soft updates and don't need fsck.

5) Project Evil (Windows network card ABI emulation).

Uh? This concept originated in Linux as a commercial product, and has been cloned by open-source ndiswrapper.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

Ha-ha, I suppose it depends on what you consider "traditional". Sure, there's little likelihood of Linux displacing Windows on desktops, but it's doing just fine at replacing "traditional" UNIXen. Moreover, it's doing rather well in embedded systems.

As for whether or not the feedback loop exists, all you have to do is look to see how much code is being contributed by commercial concerns. Quite a lot, at this point.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

Actually it's not a troll, and I didn't leave Apple out for any particular reason other than I don't believe their contributions back have been that substantial, although perhaps our definitions of "substantial" are simply at odds.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Brandybuck]

...if the opportunity exists to develop proprietary features for Linux that would "differentiate" their product and help them justify selling their flavor for more, and drive sales of their product over their competitors, they will.

You need to read the parent article. That's exactly what ESR was talking about. For twenty years the GPL was promoted because that was the great fears. But it turned out that those fears were unfounded. Sure, a company could do that, but the difficulty of maintaining a fork and losing interoperability would put it at a disadvantage.

Freedom isn't about a big stick you use to make sure people make the correct choices you want them to make. Freedom is about THROWING AWAY that stick! So what if someone misbehaves? If it's not affecting you, a free society says that it's none of your business!

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

FreeBSD has working SMP support.

That, my friend, is not what I would call it. My guess is that you never actually tried to use it under stress.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[demachina]

Uh, no the fears are TOTALLY founded and the GPL is the thing thats stopped it so far. The danger doesn't really go back 20 years. Nobody corprate cared about Linux until like 5 or 10 years ago. Now they do. As soon as you put a BSD license on Linux some company will fork it and "differentiate" it. If someone big does it like HP, IBM, Novell or Red Hat there will be doom in the air.

BSD is failing because its been massively differentiated, its so fragmented it has no critical mass. Why it fragmented is hard to say but the license is a leading candidate. Linux doesn't really need to risk following in their footsteps if the license lead to its niche status.

The Linux desktop is failing because its been fragmented especially between GTK and Qt, Gnome and KDE, and in audio API's. Most users don't want a differentiated OS. They want lots of apps that do what they want and they can count on to work. Differentiation in apps good, in OS bad.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[sl3xd]

How about virtual channels on a sound card? I do not need to run a software multiplexer to run multiple applications on my sound card with FreeBSD.

Think about this carefully; Either the sound card handles multiple sources in hardware, or you must be using a software multiplexer to handle multiple applications.

Just because you haven't been exposed to it doesn't mean that it's not there.

Personally, I choose to spend a few pennies more for hardware that doesn't require software multiplexing; and after I've done that, it doesn't matter what OS I'm running.

On a side note, I recall that the sound systems in FreeBSD and Linux are of a common origin: The 'old' Open Sound System was the standard for Linux audio, and as I recall, the same was true of FreeBSD.

And one company did the development for many of those first drivers: 4front technologies.

So go ahead and gloat about FreeBSD's audio; its roots are the same as that in Linux.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[sl3xd]

You forgot to mention that the 'Soft Updates' vs. 'Journaling' argument ends in a draw most of the time anyway; both have strengths and weaknesses, and there's a tremendous amount of overlap in the end result. The difference isn't exactly earth-shattering. It's almost like the AltiVec vs. SSE vs. 3DNow! arguments; each has strengths and weaknesses.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[jimfrost]

Sun paid next to nothing for that license. It was SysV rights (think "Solaris") that were expensive.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Brandybuck]

BSD is failing because its been massively differentiated

So you're saying BSD is failing because it isn't using the GPL...

The Linux desktop is failing because its been fragmented ...but why doesn't the same apply to Linux?

Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[smallpaul]

i>I don't know of any major corporation which has made significant donations back to the BSD core.

What about all of the companies that have contributed to Apache, which is licensed almost the same way that BSD is?

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[mewphobia]

Your argument would work in a perfect world, where companies has the same or less rights than individuals and where those companies participating in anti-competitive tactics such as Microsoft were squashed straight away (or at least had a just punishment applied).

The problem with BSD style licences in an environment with commericial competition is you're pitting those who are funded with those who are not, and there is nothing to level the playing field. The ones who are funded aren't contributing, and the ones that aren't are getting their work used, without making a scrap for themselves.

Anyway, this whole debate is a non-issue. It's just like religions - some are viral, they require you to have faith in their religion for people of that religion to play with you. If that negates you from joining in, then find something you like, that allows for you beliefs and lets you join in.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[greggman]

I just listed several major projects that are BSDed where those who are funded ARE contributing.

And this is a valid debate. The debate is, which license is more effective at getting people to contribute. ESR (and myself) believe BSD style is more effective at getting people to contribute than GPL. It's especially effective with funded people because they can contribute directly to that project without having to decide if they want every other thing they are working on to be GPLed as well.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[mewphobia]

And this is a valid debate. The debate is, which license is more effective at getting people to contribute.

Those projects you listed (which are funded) are getting people to contribute due to financial incentive. So now it's a debate about BSD style commercial software being more effective at getting people to contribute than closed commercial software. That's a no brainer! Of course more people will contribute when they have the source then when they don't.

But what if you're not funded. How does your software compete with software that is funded? With a bsd style license there is no way you can get ahead - your competition can use all your code. The GPL is leveling the playing field.

Furthermore, even IF bsd style licensing was more effective at getting people to contribute, you have to ask the cost. The cost is, allowing a commercial entity to take what you have worked on, improve upon it, and sell it without giving you anything in return. The cost is potentially having microsoft embrace and extend your code, with little effort of their own, to lock you into their standards.

It's especially effective with funded people because they can contribute directly to that project without having to decide if they want every other thing they are working on to be GPLed as well.

When i read this, i finally understood the reason for your dislike of the GPL. You don't understand it. Why would anyone have to decide if they want every other thing they are working on to be GPLed as well? They can decide to do this, but they don't have to.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[dkgasaway]

It's probably a little late to argue the point now, but I'll make a small continuation just the same. :)

It's a fact that some have taken BSD code without contributing back. It's a fact that some have contributed to Linux because of the GPL license. However, you're comparing recent successes of Linux/GPL to considerably older failures of BSD/BSDL. This is not a fair comparison considering changes is the software landscape and the current hot-item status of Linux.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions, you see. How you choose to support those conclusions is another matter. Trotting out a list of examples - let alone incongruous ones - is hardly a fair treatment of the subject.

Personally, I use both copyleft and academic style licenses, depending upon my goals for a particular project. Both approaches *work*, only in different ways. :)

-dkgasaway

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[greggman]

If I'm working on an a million line application and I find some library on the net that solves a problem for something I want to put in my app, if it's BSDed I'll put it in. If during the course of that I find a bug I'll fix the bug and contribute the fix. I didn't have to choose to give the other million lines of code up just to use and contribute to one minor part.

It's funny to me that you cling to this fear that MS in particular will embrace and extend your code. Since Apache is the #1 webserver and since it is offered under a BSD style license why has no one, especially MS, done exactly what you claim would happen?

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[greggman]

Apache and PHP run probably 80% of the net. Hardly "Poland".

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Donny Smith]

>Consider Sun Microsystems, whose SunOS operating system was based on BSD. What did they give back? Other than a few bug fixes early on, nothing.
>Ultrix, from Digital Equipment, was BSD-based. Little to nothing came back to BSD from DEC.
>Remember OSF/1, which was based on Mach/BSD? How much of their work went back? Next to nothing.
>Microsoft used the BSD TCP stack as the basis of their TCP stack. What did they give back? Nothing.
>FTP software based their whole product suite on the BSD codebase. How much came back? Nothing.

All together, they
a) paid billions of dollars in taxes
b) made tens of millions of individuals well off
c) created lots of business opportunities for their suppliers (and even customers)

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[demachina]

"Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways."

If you recall the key reason behind the main desktop fork it was because of licensing. If Trolltech had put Qt under GPL in the beginning it would have drained most of the impetus from Gnome and the world would be a vastly better place. I dearly wish HP or IBM would by Trolltech and put Qt under pure GPL and GTK and Gnome would die a quick death. Linux might have a chance on the desktop if it defragmented. As it is now its just a mess, its a pure headache for users and application developers alike.

Whether the GPL is a hindrance to Linux or not is kind of moot point anyway. The chances Stallman or GNU would change the license on the many importan pieces they control are zero, the chances of Linus changing his are slim, the chances you can get all the other thousands of developers to change theirs, also zero.

So ESR is just stirring shit to no good end. I guess he has to do something to maintain his fame.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[mewphobia]

I didn't have to choose to give the other million lines of code up just to use and contribute to one minor part.

You will never have this choice. The only choice you have is if you want to use GPL code or use something else. After that, any choices you make only decide if what you are doing is illegal or not.

If the code is under any other license, you have to conform to the terms of that license too. As for libraries like you specifically mentioned, they really should be under LGPL, which wouldn't ask you to give up any code outside of the library, while still letting you use it in your commerical application.

Furthermore, why don't you want to give up your code? The GPL simply helps distribute the wealth in a software project amongst users and developers. If you can work out a better system for protecting against foul play i'd love to hear it.

Since Apache is the #1 webserver and since it is offered under a BSD style license why has no one, especially MS, done exactly what you claim would happen?

Because it would be one of the stupidest moves they could make at the present time? Why would they want to acknowledge their competitor as being a viable alternative? Not only would they have to do that, but they would also have to beat apaches engineers at their own software, which was designed for a unix style operating system.

Look at p2p. All the successful p2p software products have a system to prevent leeching. Lets look at sports.. They all have referees.. These wouldn't be needed if people were honest.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[greggman]

Furthermore, why don't you want to give up your code?

That may not be my choice which is ESR's point. An an employee I can use and contribute to BSDed projects with no worries from my employer. With a GPLed project 15 levels of bureaucracy need to be cleared before that's going to happen.

As for libraries like you specifically mentioned, they really should be under LGPL, which wouldn't ask you to give up any code outside of the library, while still letting you use it in your commercial application.

If you actually knew what the GPL stood for you'd know that the LGPL is extremely frowned on. In other words the people that created and promote the GPL do not want you to use the LGPL so clearly you, as a GPL supporter, should not be supporting the LGPL.

If you can work out a better system for protecting against foul play i'd love to hear it

If you have interesting definition of foul play. Why is it okay to you that a million people can download your software and use it for free for any nefarious purpose without contributing a thing but as soon as one programmer decides to use it you're freaking out? What makes programmers have a special exception that you hate them so much?

As for your Apache example, ESR's point is that ALL BSDed projects have the same issues. It's never in anyone's best interest to re-close the source therefore they have all the benefits of sharing without all the redtape.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[mewphobia]

That may not be my choice which is ESR's point.

What's the point of choice if you don't have a reason behind it? Choice is only useful if it puts you in an advantageous position

With a GPLed project 15 levels of bureaucracy need to be cleared before that's going to happen.

So your argument is that with public domain software you can do what you want with the code? So it's better? The reason for the GPL is so that everyone plays fair. It's the same reason we have rules (although in a socialist system we have rules to stop you or others from getting hurt physically too). Do you think Microsoft should be allowed to use anti-competitive practises? What do you think of anti-monopoly laws?

The GPL does not cause them this trouble.. Yes dealing with it can be an extra burden. But this is more than outweighed by the net effect of good that it creates. If the burden is too much, then you can pick to use someone elses code. No skin off anyone's teeth. If your company can't deal with something as simple as the GPL, they shouldn't be in business.

In other words the people that created and promote the GPL do not want you to use the LGPL so clearly you, as a GPL supporter, should not be supporting the LGPL.

I'm arguing for which is a better system overall, and what will work in real life. I don't know what people you are referring to, but if the LGPL was created, then they obviously could be realistic about the state of the world too. Ideally, I would like to see all code GPLd, but ideally we wouldn't need a GPL so the point is moot.

Why is it okay to you that a million people can download your software and use it for free for any nefarious purpose without contributing a thing but as soon as one programmer decides to use it you're freaking out?

Programmers can use GPLd code all they want. There is no bias against them. They can even modify the code and keep using it. The only problem is when they redistribute the works of others - the GPL requires that their additions are given up to the public good too. And it asks the same from future users too.

As for your Apache example, ESR's point is that ALL BSDed projects have the same issues.

Then ESR is wrong. Every single project has different issues. Even when the same issues are shared by more than one project, they nearly always pop up at different times. ESR needs to live in the real world.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Ded Bob]

"A sysctl call has been present in Linux since version 1.3.57."

I thought it did not handle everything available within /proc.

ALSA has a method for doing that (the dmix plugin). However, it's not enabled by default, because for cards that actually have multiple channels, it's better to use the real ones.

I will look into dmix.

No, I don't think he was. Seems like you both are mildly ignorant of the other camp (or were you purposely asking about thing that are actually in Linux? In that case, I apologize for being thick).

I was trying to point out things that Linux lacked or was at least behind BSD's. My last comment was sarcasm toward his blind attack.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Ded Bob]

Working, but not great. And the threading support is weak.

Actually, the SMP works quite well. Define "weak"?

Which makes it irrelevant right now. Until it's been released and proven to be stable and reliable, I don't see any widespread usage of it.

Soft Updates is quite fast. Journaling will help fsck times on unclean file systems which is the deficiency at the moment. For desktop systems, the background fsck gives fast startup times.

This is something that is missing in Linux. However, its usefulness is limited.

Jail are useful for development as well as service segregation for security.

But even better: when will this make a huge difference in how either operating system works or in functionality?

I would not consider Linux's version of sysctl() as working. Read the BUGS section in the man page of sysctl() to know what is wrong with it. The data format produced from /proc entries has a tendency to change a lot. This can make it harder for applications to be written for Linux than BSD.

Soft updates and journaling file systems are mutually exclusive, and given the success of journaling file systems, I don't see them coming to Linux any time soon.

BTW, the implementation being worked upon may consider Soft Updates plus journaling together.

Only a major concern for desktop users. Just about every sound card nowadays has hardware mixing; why not use that instead of your kernel-level (still software, not hardware!) mixer?

Why does Fedora still use a user-land mixer?

Many of the features you have listed are of no interest to many corporations, unless they are in the business of proving desktop operating system solutions.

I would consider USB, jails and sysctl() to be very relevent to corporations. For example, jails can be useful for ASP's.

Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work

[Ded Bob]

That, my friend, is not what I would call it. My guess is that you never actually tried to use it under stress.

You mean the same stress I have used to lock up a Linux SMP machine?

Re:Mods, please...

[hymie]

As ever, ESR willfully confuses Open Source with Free Software. It may be as he says that Open Source is a better development system and companies not using it will be hurt. But that's completey irrelevant to people who value the concept of Free Software. That is, even if Open Source were a much worse development model than closed source, advocates of Free Software would nevertheless want it, because they value the freedom of the software user above anything else. It's amazing how so many people do not understand the difference, even after having it explained so many times. The purpose of Free Software is to enable the users to read, modify, and redistribute the programs they use. It is not to make better software, or to make software development better or easier.

We will need the GPL option ..

[scharkalvin]

until the day Microsoft is out of business and Bill and Steve are cold in their graves.

"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[jbn-o]

And it's our responsibility to be good to corporations, even to the point of allowing them to take works out of the commons, because why? The corporations that complain the most about the GNU GPL (Apple and Microsoft, among others) are those that treat their users horribly by distributing programs the users aren't allowed to inspect, share, or modify. The progress the free software movement made before the open source movement existed (which was over a decade of work) happened largely without the direct input of proprietors like what ESR is talking about. The GPL was never anti-business. And yet even after the open source movement continues to try to reframe the debate away from software freedom, the GNU GPL is the most popular free software license in existance.

I think ESR doesn't like the GPL because it works against the open source movement's goal to work for business by introducing them to programmers who are willing to work without payment (cheap labor has been a rallying cry of business, and a source of genuine social discontent amongst workers, for a very long time). The open source movement was founded and continues to do what they can to dismiss software freedom. Software freedom gives people the idea that they don't need the beneficiaries of "open source" as much as they need communities of partners, both individual and organizational. But open source advocates don't see this. They want to pretend that the free software movement and open source movement share a common philosophy despite that never having been the case.

ESR is showing off his ahistorical silliness again. But more importantly, he is trying to reframe the issues away from software freedom as a value unto itself and toward "openness" and innovation. From the very first lines of the article, and his speech, he wants his organization (the Open Source Initiative and, to a larger degree, the open source movement) to get credit for work he had nothing to do with writing -- the GNU GPL. The GPL predates anything to do with "open source" and therefore existed independant of it. Neither the OSI nor ESR have yet to write a single license which can compare to the licenses the Free Software Foundation have written. When it comes to advice about the GPL, consult with experts: Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, and Brad Kuhn, FSF members all. Leave those who want to either "steal thunder" (as the saying goes) aside.

Re:"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[MoneyT]

How do the corporations take code and works out of the commons? The original code is still open is it not? Thus any person can still access the code. Perhaps what you are refering to is the derivative work as being taken out of the commons. But said work was never in the commons to begin with.

Re:"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[synthespian]

But open source advocates don't see this. They want to pretend that the free software movement and open source movement share a common philosophy despite that never having been the case.

Is that a fact? It doesn't seem that way from what we know of the Unix history. It seems to me there was a free software Unix before the "Free Software Movement." Everybody that read about it or lived it says so? Why don't you?

You take everything out of context. Please understand Stallman's context when he "invented" Free Software (working in the AI lab, the Symbolics ibroglio, etc).

You're just a Linux fanboy TROLL.

Re:"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[jbn-o]

When software was shared and modified without any restrictions (such as during the time Stallman was at MIT in the AI lab), there was no need for a free software movement because that sharing and modifying behavior was the norm. RMS says as much in his speeches and his essays.

But when proprietary software came on the scene, there was a need for organized political opposition, a real social movement, to disallowing users from sharing and modifying the software they used. That organized social movement did not exist and Stallman saw the need for it, so he began the GNU Project. Other people did not do that work.

The Open Source Initiative did not appear until over a decade after the GNU Project began. The open source movement it has a different philosophy which pushes aside software freedom talk so they can more effectively speak to their primary audience--businesses.

Re:"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[jbn-o]

Software patents can stifle one's ability to write software that implements covered ideas. Most software patents are held by corporations. Merely accessing (seeing) source code is insufficient. Users need all of the freedoms free software grants them.

I don't refer to programs being "open" because that term frames the debate along the lines of the open source movement which I am not a member of. One reason I'm not a member of the open source movement is because the definition of "open source" does not require software licenses to allow users to make private (non-distributed) derivatives and use them at any time without telling others that these derivatives even exist. By contrast, this is a part of the definition of free software.

The important question has nothing to do with whether a proprietary derivative of a non-copylefted free software program was part of the commons to begin with, but why it was not a part of the commons and what the social and ethical ramifications of that decision are. For those who believe software freedom is worth having, you'll often find that these same people believe it is worth protecting which means that derivatives should be free as well.

Re:"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[MoneyT]

However, those who find that freedoms are worth having do not actively try to take those freedoms from those who do not subscribe to the same ideals.

Software patents prevent me from deriving from covered code, and so does the GPL if I don't want to follow their rules. The GPL is no better than a software patent. The difference is, instead of money, the price is my labor.

Re:"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[jbn-o]

The GPL is a copyright license and is typically used such that everyone who can get a copy is given permission to share and modify the code with few restrictions (the restrictions therein are to preserve the freedom to share and modify). Few patented ideas are licensed similarly. The vast majority of patented ideas will require considerable sums of money or access to other patents in order to acquire a patent license. There is no reasonable way to conclude that "the GPL is no better than a software patent".

Re:"Open Source" is not for software freedom.

[MoneyT]

It doesn't matter. You are resticting the people who are allowed to use your code to a select group of people who subscribe to your ideas and pay the price you ask. So yes, I can conclude it's no better than a patent. To me as a developer, GPL software is as unopen as patented software, because I am unwilling to meet either price for the code.

Yes, read the article.

[Per Abrahamsen]

I don't agree with his basic premise (that non-copyleft license creates a fair competitive situation between free and proprietary development), but apart from that he does an excellent job dispeling a lot of myths and FUDs about both the GPL and free software development in general.

The whole interview reads almost like a "myth/fact" listing.

You can't stop infringement, only seek redress.

[jbn-o]

No license can prevent infringement, no matter what it says. No license's worthiness should be judged on that basis.

But you're right in that the community we get from the GPL is far better than allowing non-free derivatives where the community of those who share can't benefit from the improvements made to the work.

adoption vs. survival

[a137035]

The purpose of the GPL is not to help with the adoption of a piece of software, it is to ensure its long-term survival as an open source project.

The GPL gives people the additional push they need to turn good intentions ("we're going to start using this piece of open source software") into actual actions ("we are going to release our improvements to it"). It also provides crucially important protections against patent abuses.

Anybody who thinks the GPL doesn't have teeth is welcome to try to test it. So far, just about every company who has faced the issue has backed down.

Licensing naivete fails to convince.

[jbn-o]

The improvements to the new BSD-based program are unavailable if the improvements are only distributed under a non-free license. The improvements should be a part of the commons as well, we should not seek new ways to treat a business like a charity.

Also, the new BSD license says absolutely nothing about software patents, another means of making work unavailable to the commons and the users of patent-encumbered programs. Despite the lack of thorough language in the GPL to cover software patents, the GPLv3 is expected to fully address them. I know of no such improved version of the new BSD license to cover software patents.

Re:Licensing naivete fails to convince.

[falconwolf]

The improvements to the new BSD-based program are unavailable if the improvements are only distributed under a non-free license. The improvements should be a part of the commons as well, we should not seek new ways to treat a business like a charity.

Contradictory isn't it? If you require improvements to be put in the commons, you are treating the business as a charity. As far as software patents are concerned, software should never be patented, copyrights are what protect a programmers right to benefit from software they write. Along the same lines business processes shouldn't patented either.

Falcon

Re:Licensing naivete fails to convince.

[jbn-o]

No, there's no contradiction because licensees choose what software they want to build upon. They could have chosen another program licensed more to their liking or they could have written the software themselves. A strong copylefted free software license's requirement to distribute source code when distributing the work (or a derivative of the work) is not imposed on anyone or any organization. This requirement is knowable well in advance.

Say what you will about how software ideas should not be patentable, but they are. And this continues to be one way to deny the free software community access to these ideas.

Re:Licensing naivete fails to convince.

[falconwolf]

,p>No, there's no contradiction because licensees choose what software they want to build upon. They could have chosen another program licensed more to their liking or they could have written the software themselves. A strong copylefted free software license's requirement to distribute source code when distributing the work (or a derivative of the work) is not imposed on anyone or any organization. This requirement is knowable well in advance.

My misreading. There wouldn't be a contradiction if the original program was released under an open source model or other model that required said release, sorry.

Falcon

My conclusion:

[labradore]

The GPL helped Linux get started in big ways. It was almost as important as Linus' "leadership." Now that the community is established, we don't need ESR anymore. Er, did we ever?

Re:My conclusion:

[toadlife]

Oh sure, it was the GPL.

It had nothing to do with exposure (usenet/the internet), the ability to run on cheap hardware (accesibility), or advocacy (read: marketing).

In the begining linux was a toy with very limited use..defeinitely unworthy of any serious business use. The license of a product only matters when the product becomes usefull enough to be adopted by the masses.

Re:People Giving Back

[Seanasy]

No, you are wrong. Plenty of people WOULD give back.

Except more people give back with the GPL.

Just look at the BSD project, and the thousands of apps licensed under the BSD license.

Linux is far more widespread than all the BSDs combined and has an order of maginitude more apps.

From SourceForge

• GNU General Public License (GPL) (44,794 projects)
• BSD License (4,683 projects)

It seems that people who write code prefer the GPL.

Image library?

[Grendel Drago]

ImageMagick is under its own license, but I don't think you're going to run into any trouble using the ImageMagick library in your application. The 'image library' issue is a red herring.

--grendel drago

Re:Image library?

[saider]

The image library thing was just a simple example that illustrated that GPL code used for one minor purpose could cause a company to open up its software that does something completely different and unrelated.

For the most part, for each bit of GPL code that you need, you can find another implementation with a more suitable license. Most companies can use open source to their satisfaction. They just need someone to dig around a bit.

Tradeoff

[MightyByte]

It seems to me that the core issue here is that of the tradeoff between spreading the ubiquity of open source and preventing a few people from benefitting from something they didn't write. Nobody likes to see some big corporation make money off something they freely donated to the OSS community. But I think ESR's point is that while this does happen, it's only a small part of a much bigger picture. If the most important goal is to spread open source (and topple Microsoft in the irresistable tide of GNU/Linux), then maybe a few people making money off code they didn't write is an acceptable tradeoff.

Commercial for-profit businesses are in some way involved in a huge portion of the total software world. ESR is saying that if we make ourselves more desireable to the commercial sector, we'll make more progress than we would have otherwise.

But if the thought of someone making money off your code keeps you up at night, then the GPL is definitely for you.

...and with the 'creation' of the new...

[cnelzie]

MS Shell for upcoming versions of Windows, they may very well be bringing a Unix-like OS to the market...

Re:...and with the 'creation' of the new...

[spauldo]

The new shell isn't UNIX-like, in the sense of being similar to the bourne or C shells. It's object based, for one, which the older UNIX shells most certainly are not. I haven't seen the syntax, but I'm sure it'll be quite different.

A "UNIX-like" OS would be much, much more than just a shell anyway. After all, they didn't get into trouble for the POSIX subsystem in NT, and one could argue that POSIX is UNIX as much as anything else.

NT was based on ideas taken from VMS and early versions of OS/2 (which microsoft was in on), but you couldn't really call it overly similar to either. There are some ideas that originated in UNIX that appear in pretty much every operating system. It does take more than just an interface to make something UNIX-like though - Linux is UNIX-like, OS X is UNIX in all but branding, but Windows will never bear more than a passing resemblance.

List of cool people

[mshiltonj]

• RMS
  
• ESR^H^H^H
  

Bummer.

Where is it?

[zogger]

This quote "My current belief is that the free market will do quite a good job of punishing defectors on its own; thus, increasing virality is a bad move."

Where is this mythical "free market"? Really, I would like Eric to point to this geographical area so I can move there. The only example I am aware of that is a "free market" is the so called "black market" which is that market which is not under any governmental regulations, and as such is usually quite illegal everywhere. Outside of that, the "market" is highly regulated, and as such there will be laws, licenses, regulations, etc. Ther "market" in most places is also usually the playground for the already rich and powerful who are able to bribe their way into continuuing their monopolies. usually those folks are the ones who continually use that phrase to justify either their parasitism or lack of skills.

The so called "free market" is a term widely used and argued about, yet it does *not* exist. It is a weak academic theory only.

Misquote?

[jago25_98]

I reckon he's been misquoted.

Who wants RMS biting at your neck for the rest of your life?

Exactly.

[jd]

WindRiver is about the only reasonably mainstream corporation to invest in BSD and put stuff back - most other investors who have done so have been in academia.

However, it is notable that WindRiver dropped BSD in favour of Linux, which may be because other companies have to be on a level playing field in that realm.

I don't believe one license is necessarily better than the other - OpenBSD probably couldn't have the level of assurance it does under the GPL, as it would be too mutable. On the other hand, I cannot believe Linux could be as feature-complete if it were under the BSD license.

Where mutable code is beneficial, I believe the GPL and LGPL are absolutely ideal, as they promote very rapid growth and evolution. The BSD license is better when growth and change are much slower, where exchanges of code are much more controlled and formal.

Don't use chainsaws on nails, don't use hammers to cut logs.

The Wall

[milimetric]

We don't need no GPL
Linus leave those distros alone

We don't need no soft control
LINUS! Leave those distros alone

Heh, ok, so do you realize that the GPL is the only thing that protects Linux? Your arguments are nice, but people are greedy and I'm willing to bet that the best way to make money off of Linux is not to keep it in fluffy happy sharing with everyone free as in everything mode. I love Linux so leave that GPL alone.

Re:Mods, please...

[doubledoh]

I don't think the poseters point was to make an argument proving open source's superiority. He was paraphrasing the article. But if you really want to be technical about it, the premises are that open source is superior, closed source is not, GPL makes open source less "open", therefore eliminating the GPL will make open source even more superior to closed source. It is NOT a flawed argument so long as you agree with the premises.

Qt would have to go even if it wasn't GPL

[argent]

They had to fork it and, essentially, remove the dependency on Qt.

They'd have to do that anyway, because using Qt wouldn't have given them an application with a native Aqua interface.

You don't have to be able to program to benefit

[The Monster]

I see this point brought up a lot and its just wrong. 99.9% of users can't read source code and can't modify programs in any meaningful way, and they gain nothing from having a program be open source.

I think you might be exaggerating just a teeny bit with that '99.9%' figure, so I'll change that a bit for this analogy...

The overwhelming majority of drivers can't change their oil, can't do tuneups or diagnose mechanical problems, and they gain nothing from having a car with open specs for oil, spark plugs, or diagnostic codes. They should just take the car to the dealer for service.

This completely ignores the value to the driver of opening things up so that Jiffy-Lube can do his oil change, or Precision Tune his tuneup. The competition from other companies keeps Mr. Goodwrench honest.

Furthermore, a large part of the value of open source isn't even the ability to modify the code - it's the ability to see how it works so as to understand why it doesn't always do what you intend. Pehaps the reason I think that way is because I do tech support for a living, and being able to see what the program is trying to do helps me to figure out why it broke. When I don't have source code, I often have to refer to the devs and hope they can figure it out.

Hahaha, MS improved the BSD TCP stack?

[Some Random Username]

Make sure you tell MS that, I don't think they know.

GPL 3==Death of GPL

[Fujisawa Sensei]

GPL 3 will probably be the death of the GPL.

With the restrictions that GPL-3 is going to impose there will be less money spend on RMS's free software. Companies use GLP software because they know thei're "Trade Secrets" will remain intact. Does RMS and the FSF really think that corporations like Google and Yahoo are going to give up their code base?

The FSF is just getting greedy because they see Free Software being used as services, and not distributed, so they want their "cut".

GPL 3 needs to die before its born and kills the Free Software movement.

Or maybe the FSF is on the Micro$oft payroll now.

Re:GPL 3==Death of GPL

[RLiegh]

I haven't looked that closely at it; but doesn't the GPL v2 give you the option of using it or any future version? So, any projects currently using version 2 could continue using it after v3 comes out.

It may become a problem with regards to GCC; however, almost everything else put out by the FSF has a bsd-licensed counter-part. So if v3 is completely evil, their will always be {open,free,net}bsd to fall back on.

Re:GPL 3==Death of GPL

[chromatic]

I haven't looked that closely at it; but doesn't the GPL v2 give you the option of using it or any future version?

Which you do you mean? Some authors use the clause that allows redistributors of the software to redistribute it under the GPL v2 or any later version of their choice. Some authors do not. The FSF recommends using that clause, but it's not an automatic part of the GPL.

Re:GPL 3==Death of GPL

[RLiegh]

That is the point I was confused on; I thought that clause was part of v2.

That probably narrows the options somewhat, but again; it should only be a major problem when it comes to using GCC.

Zero, get a clue.

[Some Random Username]

How many people have done that with the dozens of big name BSD-like licensed projects out there? There's 4 BSDs, apache, X, bind, etc, etc. None of them have been "taken away" or claimed by someone else. Because you cannot do that. The license requires you to keep the copyright notice intact, you can't claim its your own, and you can't magically take it away from anyone. You can just use it freely, as if it were free or something. Keep your FUD to yourself.

Re:Just how much of the document has teeth, anyway

[ckaminski]

No. GPLd code used in a project causes the viral aspect of the GPL to kick in on DISTRIBUTION only.

The LGPL is much less restrictive, and indeed can be used in non-GPLd and even closed source applications. There doesn't seem to be a distinction between static and dynamic linking, but there is a clause in section 6 of the LGPL that your program must offer the user the ability to replace the LGPLd component of your program dynamically.

So in practice, this would exclude static linking in general. If you wanted to present a full static executable for execution that didn't rely on external .sos, then you would have to provide some internal mechanism to convert the calls from static ones to dynamic if say lib_libname.so was present. Not worth the hassle. And this is only my opinion wrt static/dynamic linking.

But it's pretty clear that the LGPL allows this, or no commercial software could be built on Linux with glibc or gcc.

Linux popularity isn't from the GPL.

[Some Random Username]

Linux got a headstart in marketshare because of the AT&T lawsuit. The BSDs always had fewer people because of that. Linux hit a critical mass sooner, and became a buzzword for marketing dorks. The money spent marketing linux just made this gap bigger. There's no reason IBM wouldn't have done the same thing to FreeBSD they did with linux, had FreeBSD been the buzzword du jour. IBM was smart and decided to ride the hype, and help push it more. They will do it again for the next buzzword, regardless of license.

Kind of moot, isn't it?

[DunbarTheInept]

Leaving aside the question of whether or not the GPL is good, isn't this a pointless moot thing anyway given that extricating Linux out of GPL and putting it into something else isn't possible anymore?

Firstly there's the problem with all the little itty bitty utility programs that are GPLed that while technically not part of linux since linux is just the kernel, are still rather necessary for a distro of Linux to behave like a Unix - things like "grep" and "cat" and "bash" and so on. To un-GPL a distro of linux would require finding replacements from the ground-up for all of those tools. Secondly, the kernel itself is GPL'ed anyway, with masses of developers adding their own code into it under the understanding that it is GPL. To legally produce a new version of the the kernel at this point under a different license would require either the express consent of ALL THOSE DEVELOPERS WHO EVER ADDED A LINE OF CODE to the kernel, or a way to cut out just those bits contributed by the developers who refuse to put their code under a different license, and then replace them with something that isn't just an exact copy of the same code. There's just no way that is going to be practical. That's just not going to happen. And even then you'd be leaving behind the GPL version of the kernel that I'm sure would grow on its own and become its own fork of the kernel.

So in other words, the whole debate is moot. Like it or not, Linux is GPL to stay.

Re:People Giving Back

[jbolden]

Lets look at the history of the BSD license. The most impressive piece of software which was licensed under BSDish terms in the 1980s was X. Every single X implementation was proprietary, to the extent that the freely available X's were worthless. The software community had to start from scratch to re-implement X and this took many years (XFree project). This probably set the Unix desktop (as well as free desktops) back 8 years or so.

Lets pick another example. The BSD kernel itself. Companies have proven completely unwilling to make substantial improvements in the way they have with the Linux kernel.

Lets pick another example TeX. During the early 1990s lots of companies made huge improvements to TeX and LaTeX. A good example being scientific word for windows (later workplace) this is BTW still available but it hasn't improved much in the last 10 years. Adobe and TeX came out about the same time and could very well have partnered with TeX if TeX had been under a GPL license (i.e. similar to what MySQL is doing). Instead they both went their own ways and WYSIWYG/Bitstream/PCL ended up winning which was worse than either solution.

There is a long history of BSD and GPL licenses now and the evidence of which one supports a free software community better is pretty clear.

Human Nature, GPL and Bit Torrent.

[guidryp]

And make that corporate behavior as well.

Linux is successful because of GPL. GPL is an incentive to share, you know that your sharing will result in more sharing. You know that when you contribute to GPL, you are encouraging more people to do the same. In the end you benefit as well.

There is a strong analogy with Bit Torrent. Same human nature factors. Bit Torrent works so well because of enforced sharing.

The alternative is what? The "honor system". Well that really doesn't work if you understand human nature.

The "honor system" completely opposite to the way corporations "MUST" act. Must in that if they can take it for free and give nothing back, then then must to maximize profits as they are obligated to do. GPL frees corporations of the necessity to not give anything back. There now is a case for sharing that is compatible with corporate governance.

GPL is a necessity.

If a company installs an internal modification...

[KMSelf]

No..

Totally wrong

[drwho]

ESR is way off base on this one. I think that the GPL is the inherent reason why Linux has received a lot of work, even while BSD existed and was for several years more 'mature' code. The Linux kernel, and the other programs that work with it, present a 'deal' to many for-profit entities in that while they may prefer to keep the changes they write to Linux closed, they want to use the changes that others have made, so they are forced to release the changes they make. This has a really amazing value in total.

For instance, look at what happens in embedded systems: There's not a lot of action in the BSD embedded systems because there is the ability to keep changes proprietary. The wheel is constantly re-invented, and therefore the development costs of BSD based embedded systems is higher. While vendors may grumble and moan and sometimes break the GPL by not releasing code, the fact that much of the work IS available because it is forced to be so, is relevant.

This sounds like I am anti-BSD, but I am not. They are both reasonable solutions to the problem of free software. Both have resulted in quality systems. But to say that Linux doesn't need the GPL is absurd.

ESR hate page

[selfdiscipline]

I took a look at your ESR hate page, and was slightly amused. There were some rather disturbing bits about ESR, which if true, would tend to tarnish his image, but it was largely a collection of ways to say how much he sucks without saying why he sucks.
Anyway, most notables in the open source community are given to ranting and rambling about things that make little sense. You should not discount everything they say after the first thing they say that you don't agree with. Seriously, everything he's written or said since the cathedral and bazaar is crap? I tend to ignore statements with such ridiculous absolutes.

I want, I want, I want.

[jotaeleemeese]

That is the problem with you lot.

You are always me, me, me.

The we never enters your vocabulary, and goodness forbid, they, when it comes to the benefits of sharing code.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

The GPL is equally me me me me me.

The GPL is designed so that when you stupidly (from one perspective) give up your code, you get to freely benefit of others taking advantage of your stupidity.

Just because you were dumb enough to release your work doesn't mean you have any right to benefit from my labor.

"But," you say, "You are already benefiting from my labor."

to which the answer is of course, that was your choice.

The only justification to use the GPL is because I want to be able to use what other people do with MY code. IOW, I want something for nothing. ME ME ME ME ME.

Where BSD serves the selfish desires of the down stream developers, GPL serves the selfish desires of the up stream developers.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[despisethesun]

"But," you say, "You are already benefiting from my labor."

to which the answer is of course, that was your choice.

And it was your choice to base your labour on code with a license that required you to give back. You have no claim to the moral high ground.

Where BSD serves the selfish desires of the down stream developers, GPL serves the selfish desires of the up stream developers.

You're entirely right. Just as the upstream developers of BSD-licensed software have no right to bitch when people take their code and use it in proprietary apps, the downstream developers of GPLed software have no right to bitch about the conditions of the GPL. You don't like it, use something else. It's that simple.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

And they are using something else. Which is ESRs point. The GPL is hurting OSS because people are going somewhere else, and many times in the cases of corporations, they're going to internal designs. In sort, the GPL is actively encouraging people to fragment and reinvent the wheel.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[despisethesun]

Then let them. If they don't want to play by the rules, then there's no reason why they should get a free ride by taking advantage of another person's work, unless that person says it's ok.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

You don't get it do you? The rules you're setting are marginalizing yourself. That's what ESR is saying. Open source is the inherrently superior model, and the use of the GPL to force additional rules down people's throats maginalizes GPL software and thus a large segment of Open Source software. What good are your rules if no one is playing? Think about it. By the nature of opensource, any company who uses an open source implimentation and doesn't keep an open dialouge with developers is marginalizing themselves. But with the GPL you're pushing them away from ever using it in the first place.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[despisethesun]

I probably get it better than you do. What good is open source if everyone takes what they can and doesn't contribute back? What good is it without freedom? Without freedom, it's just the ability to look at other people's code. If these companies don't want to respect that freedom or respect the wishes of the copyright holder/creator, then they can do it themselves and waste their effort on duplicating what's been done already. The GPL doesn't force anything down anyone's throat. It grants the user rights on the condition that anyone else who receives the software gets those rights as well. If companies have a problem with that, then they can feel free to take from BSDL projects or make it themselves. OSS is not a free ride for them, and if that marginalizes GPL software, then so be it.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

"it grants rights"

IOW, it's not free.

Freedom is freedom. Unconditional, unrestricted. Consequences? Yes. Restrictions? No. And there is a difference

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[Mornelithe]

The GPL is more concerned with the freedom of everyone on the whole than it is with maximizing individual freedoms. It ensures that new code that's developed based on the existing code will be freely available for everyone, which probably benefits more people on average.

You know, sort of how the U.S. Constitution (theoretically) tries to maximize everyone's freedoms on the whole, because you can't maximize one person's freedoms without taking away those of others.

I believe a translation of your argument to that scenario could be something like: "Oh, I'm not allowed to go around killing whomever I want? I must not be free." No, I guess you aren't, but there's more freedom on the whole by restricting your "right" to kill everyone than there is to take away everyone else's right to life.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

The difference is with killing someone I take away their freedom.

With code, if I release a closed source version of a program, I take no one's freedom because no one has the freedom to access my ideas if I chose to keep them a secret. And yet at the same time, the old code which they were free to look at, they are still free to look at.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[Mornelithe]

Yes, but there's more freedom and benefit in general if they can see and build off of your improvements, than if you kept your code to yourself. So the analogy stands.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

No the analogy doesn't stand. The reason we forbid killing is that killing expressly removes someone's pre-existing freedoms and rights. By not releasing the source of my own code, I have not done either, unless you are arguing that people inherrently have a right to my code, in which case the GPL is moot because I have a right to your code regardless of your terms.

A much better analogy than yours would be if you own a soap box, and from your soapbox you espouse the ideas of freedom of speech on private soap boxes, but you deny anyone in the KKK access to your soapbox because they don't believe in freedom of speech on private soapboxes. The end result (and truth) is that you don't believe in freedom of speech for all on private soapboxes, you believe in it for those that subscribe to your world view. Even then the analogy is flawed, but it's a better analogy none the less.

And to tell the truth, the end result is neither more nor less freedom because while my code is now availible, it is now restricted by the GPL and thus unfree. The end result is neith positive nor negative. It's static.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[Mornelithe]

I'm sorry, I thought I said, "The GPL is more concerned with the freedom of everyone on the whole than it is with maximizing individual freedoms." The analogy was an illustration that the GPL is not the only document that does so (and, of course, a side effect that more unintelligent readers would say to themselves, "he's pro-murder!").

All analogies are flawed. That's why extrapolating from them alone is a logical fallacy. Your analogy is one where you expect "freedom" to be "freedom to do whatever you want" (on the code side, not the KKK side). That is not the freedom that the GPL protects.

The GPL protects the freedom of people to see the code for the software they're running. In fact, I'm relatively sure that RMS does, in fact, believe this is a pre-existing right that people have, so you're wrong on that account. The GPL is designed to chip away at proprietary software and eventually take back and protect this right of the people. Its intentions are very much like that of the constitution.

Now, in the last paragraph, you're dangerously close to collapsing the whole "more freedom" line of reasoning. In fact, the constitution doesn't ensure that people have "more" freedom. If we took away everyone's right to life, and replaced it with a right to murder, there would, clearly, be the same amount of freedom. However, you have to prioritize things, of course, and the right to life is more important than the right to kill.

RMS believes the right of people to see the code is more important than the right of a company to use the code however they want. People who follow the BSD believe the opposite. Of course, we don't have John Locke telling us what to think in this case, so it's a judgment call that each person has to make. However, your argument that "the BSD license is more free than the GPL" is flawed for this reason. Neither one is more free than the other; they're both free with different emphasis.

As far as benefit is concerned, I believe that it's (basically) always beneficial for people to have access to the source code for what they're running. You may, of course, disagree on this point, and it may be why you prefer the BSD license, but don't let that fool you into thinking that the BSD license is somehow "more free" than the GPL. That is not the case.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

Yes, the BSD one is more free. There is NOTHING that the GPL permits that the BSD license does not permit. However, there is something the BSD license permits that the GPL does not permit.

The GPL requires a trade of freedoms to use GPL software as a developer. You trade your freedom to release a program in a manner you see fit in order to gain the freedom to use the code.

The BSD license requires no trades of freedom to gain the freedom to use the code.

In short, the BSD license provides people the freedom to look at code, and then the freedom to do as they would like with the code and the freedom to choose whether one will extend those same freedoms to the code one writes.

As I said elsewhere, the GPL is just another form of patents and copyrights, the same thing that the GPL camp routinely decries.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[Mornelithe]

The BSD license allows you more freedom of action.

The GPL protects more freedoms than the BSD license does.

By exercising the additional freedom that the BSD allows (that the GPL prevents), you take away the freedom of many other people.

The freedom of a company to co-opt a piece of software, make changes, and sell it as proprietary software is not necessarily more important than the right of people to see the code that they are using. The choice between those two things is what distinguishes the two licenses.

If there were no copyright, the GPL would be unnecessary, because there would be no incentive to keep the source secret. The GPL uses the copyright system to try and ensure as much code as possible is able to be seen by people.

So, as I said repeatedly, the GPL restricts one freedom to ensure another. Conversely, the BSD fails to protect one freedom in exchange for allowing another, the result of which probably has less net freedom for everybody (because more people can exercise the right to view the source than can differentiate the source and make money by selling it, based solely on factors other than licensing).

I don't know how I can present this any more clearly. While preventing an action that denies people freedom can itself be seen as a form of denying freedom, one has to look at which end is more important. As I said earlier, I could make your exact same argument about murder, the major difference is that most people see that as a black and white issue, rather than the shades of gray that is software licensing. The meta-argument is not compelling in itself; you need to look at what's actually going on underneath.

As an addendum: you said earlier that there is no inherent right of people to see the source they run. If that's true, then there is also no inherent right for people to take my open code without opening up their code. Nobody has any right to any code they don't write, except as the author chooses. So, the BSD isn't protecting any natural rights that the GPL isn't, if you take copyright law as your basis.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[MoneyT]

If you assume that everyone has a right to any code, the GPL is irellevant, and thus unecessary. If you assume they don't have a right to any code that isn't theirs or provided to them then the GPL is still worse than the BSD because you aren't having code provided to you, you're having it forced out. Either way, the GPL is a failure in it's ultimate goal which is to have free code unemcumbered by copyrights and patents.

Like I said, if you want to use the GPL, I don't really give a damn. I think it's worthless and more harmful than good, and I know that it works entirely against it's own goals by placing code under the very system it tries to defeat and eliminate.

If you want to use it fine, but don't tell me it's because you're promoting "free" code because your code isn't free. You're still guarding it with your copyrights the same way a proprietary developer does. The difference is, your price is code, theirs is measurable in dollar amounts.

Re:I want, I want, I want.

[Mornelithe]

No, it's not irrelevant, because other people don't believe that everyone has a right to see the code, thus the GPL is necessary to protect that right of the people.

Personally, I like the GPL because it, as you say, forces companies to pay for your code with code. However, it also has a side effect of requiring more and more code to be licensed under the GPL. In that case, that code is also freely viewable and modifiable by everyone (as are the subsequent modifications), which is exactly what its intent is: to gain back/protect that freedom of the people with respect to all code, not just the code produced by the people who initially GPL their code. The BSD license most definitely fails to ensure this.

I'm sure if RMS could, he would dissolve copyright. The GPL simulates that as long as we still have copyright. The BSD doesn't. Is it your opinion that there would be more freedom with or without copyright?

so...

[rainmayun]

Suppose for the sake of argument that the GPL is declared invalid. What's to say a judge wouldn't decide that since a piece of software had been released with an invalid license, that it's not equivalent to releasing it with no license at all, and thereby declaring the content to be in the public domain?

Not that I think this is what will happen, but I have to admit it is a possibility.

Re:so...

[HermanAB]

Yes, the Judge can say that the license is invalid - in which case Copyright Law will apply, which will then mean that you cannot use the software at all, since how are you going to get copyright grants from all the contributors?

It will take immense amounts of legal effort to get permission from everyone and if one person refuses, then you can't continue.

The GPL grants you rights - complain about it and you lose those rights - which would is kinda schtoopidttt...

You can't win against the GPL - you can only lose. That is why it is such a good license and why no-one in his right mind goes to court about it.

SCO of course, is run by a total fruitcake.

Re:so...

[mrchaotica]

That's a possibility only if the judge rules contrary and diametrically opposite to the entire body of existing copyright law.

don't need it?

[bigbadwlf]

The GPL is the reason I have http://www.hyperwrt.org/ on my router.

Thank you, GPL.

Life doesn't work like that.

[khasim]

Now ask yourself what the world would look like today if microsoft avoided the BSD TCP/IP for their own implimentation because of GPL concerns?

Okay .....

#1. Microsoft spends some time, money and programmer time doing a clean room implementation of the BSD stack. The only difference is Microsoft has a little bit less money and some programmers who REALLY understand TCP/IP.

#2. Microsoft doesn't do any work on their TCP/IP stack and they have security issues and performance issues with it.

#3. any combination of the above.

What was your point?

Re:Life doesn't work like that.

[MoneyT]

My point is microsoft gets to set defacto standards because of their size (see browser compatibility) and if you think for a moment that microsoft using the BSD stack didn't smooth things over for the net considerably you're deluding yourself.

Re:Life doesn't work like that.

[darkonc]

The BSD stack allowed Microsoft to get to market faster with a proprietary version of TCP/IP. The 'Net was already massive by the time Microsoft got into the market, Novell was pretty much on top of local business networks and (as someone else pointed out) Trumpet Winsock already provided a TCP-compatible stack. Hopping onto the TCP/IP compatability bandwagon probably helped MS wrest Business intranet market from novell.

If Microsoft had been the mega-monopoly that is now, and had been 'on top of' the Net explosion before it exploded, they would have done a Kerberos and crapped all over the protocol from day one. (back in 1985-1990).

Re:Life doesn't work like that.

[cratermoon]

There was a little company called FTP Software (later bought by Chameleon) that made a much better TCP/IP stack, originally for DOS, then as a VxD for Windows 3.1 to 95. It was faster, more compliant, and smaller, and it worked with more drivers (remember crynwyr?).

When MS started shipping their own TCP/IP stack, which was a crappy port of BSD's code that had all kinds of issues, my employer and I gather most other customers dropped FTP Software's product practically overnight. The built-in MS stack was "free" as in beer, so the need to pay for TCP/IP, regardless of technical quality, couldn't easily be justified.

It seems that by adopting existing code they didn't need to pay for (although I guess they did) and didn't need to share, MS was able to make Windows workable on TCP/IP without the need to share or work with anyone else. The fact that it resulted in competing products disappearing from the world was probably just a bonus.

Re:GPL Teeth? insightful???

[TekGoNos]

If it is worth $30,000 it is not just some small irrelevant or trivial part....

Who voted this insightful?

$30,000 is a trivial part. $30,000 is at most 4 man-month[1], so it is a part that a team of 8 programmers can write in 2 weeks. Even an medium-sized software project will have tens of man-years and be at least a hundred times more expensive than that.

Of course, $30,000 is a lot for a shrink-wrap, sold to thousands or millions of customers, but the grand-parent spoke of a specialized developpement, done for one customer, meaning that $30,000 are the total developpement cost.
And $30,000 as total developpement cost are small.

[1] $90,000 per year for a developper isn't much. Even if the developper gains much less than that, the cost includes not only salary, but room rent, hardware+software costs, cost for the administration, medical & retirement benefits, etc. As a rule of thumb, the cost of an employee is at least double his salary.

One more thing...

[tryfan]

> When all is said and done, there is only one
> key difference between Linux and BSD, the
> license.

You're forgetting the penguin. The average user is not thinking "GPL", s/he's thinking "Tux" :-)

MVS IP stack

[Medievalist]

Yes, I know. In fact I've installed it on a 9672 and a 4381. It's a port of the VM code, complete with the same bugs.

But before IBM came out with their officially blessed TCP/IP stack there were already mainframes on the Internet (at least for email and file transfer purposes, anyway). There were bitnet gateways at Penn State and I think Berkeley (through some ungodly UUCP-cabled nightmare, I seem to recall?) in the middle of the 1980s if not earlier. And I think somebody - Joiner Associates? - had a third-party MVS TCP/IP subsystem on the market before IBM finished building the VM one.

On the other claw, MVS didn't really get a fully functional TCP/IP stack until MVS-TCPv3r1 reached about 1500 patches... so your post is pretty appropriate...

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[MoneyT]

But it doesn't belong to me because they are now dictating what I can and can't do with my code. Just because I use your code doesn't mean that what I've written isn't my code. Why should I have to open up my code when I distribute a package with both of our codes in it? Your code is already open so I'm not locking anyone out of anything except my own code.

Please explain further....

[TampaDeveloper]

Thanks Jim. Your response made alot of sense to me. I am currently wrestling with licensing models for software I plan to release. Why would someone choose to release their code as open source at all? My own answer to this question is that an open source framework might bring traffic and a user-base to my technology, which I would leverage by building a commercial application on top of. But outside of this scenario, is there a compelling advantage to releasing my code?

Next question is; if I GPLed my framework, would I, Mr. Original Author Jr., be legally bound to GPL everything I built on top of it, or could I silently exempt myself from my own licensing without legal reprocussions?

I see how the GPL model can be used to force companies to give away their software. This is beneficial to the user. But how is a developer able to receive money for the work he has already done if he gives away his work? Please don't say "Through support services he offers for his work." The reason I ask you not to say that is because I hold the stronge conviction that software SHOULD be able to support itself. I know this is an ideal that has not been reached and is unrealistic for inherently complex applications. But I do belief that software is generally improving. I'm certain that software continues to get easier to use, more capable of self-configuring and self-correcting, and more thoroughly documented. Likewise, user expectations of software continue to rise in all of those respective areas. In my own experience I have chosen to ignore an otherwise appealing application, simply because its installation required me to perform a non-trival amount of prerequisite configuration which I found to be of the routine nature ideally suited for computer automation...

I appologize if this seems repetative, but I seem to be a fundamental inability for me to integrate the open source concept into my own paradigm of how one could reasonably expect to succeed. I understand that there are some companies (and/or individual developers) whom have been wildly successful. But I perceive that this is not the norm. And it comes back to the same question of how to make money off work that you give away.

Your articulate response has given me hope that you can help me to understand this concept. So please; lets be explicit and create a hypothetical;

I have spent the last year of my life writing THE end-all application. My goal is to provide a useful product, of exceptional quality and useability, in exchange for a salary which would provide a standard of living comparable to an average person in my country. I have worked hard to ensure that my product is intuitive and well documented. I anticipate that support will be unnecessary for the majority of my customers and most certainly too trivial for customers to justify paying for. For this example, please assume I have created a viable product that is likely to achieve a userbase the size of products such as AbiWord, or else RealBasic. Here I do not have any actual numbers, so forgive me if they are drastically different. I suppose you could also just categorize my product as being successful but not wildly-so. Assuming I have chosen to make my product open source, what business model(s) will provide an independent software developer (sole proprietor) with approximately the same income as corporate-employed peers (salary of $75,000 - $100,000 per year plus benefits)? If the answer depends on which licensing model is chosen (for brevity, just compare BSD and GPL), please explain how the Business model differs and the reasoning behind those differences.

Thank you for your time and thoughts.

Re:Please explain further....

[chromatic]

Next question is; if I GPLed my framework, would I, Mr. Original Author Jr., be legally bound to GPL everything I built on top of it, or could I silently exempt myself from my own licensing without legal reprocussions?

If you hold the copyright on a piece of work, the license does not apply to you.

This may have implications on receiving code contributions from other people, however. Consider the ability of MySQL AB to offer a commercial license of MySQL as well as a GPLd version because of requiring copyright assignment versus the practical impossibility of Linus ever changing the license of the Linux kernel.

Re:Please explain further....

[jimfrost]

if I GPLed my framework, would I, Mr. Original Author Jr., be legally bound to GPL everything I built on top of it, or could I silently exempt myself from my own licensing without legal reprocussions?

You own the code. If you like, you can license it any of a dozen different ways, all at the same time. You are only bound by the GPL when you are reusing someone else's GPLed code along with your own.

I see how the GPL model can be used to force companies to give away their software.

This is not really the case. When you are contributing to a GPLed project you are not really "giving away" your software, you are trading it for the right to use another (probably larger) body of software. As I mentioned before in this way the GPL is really an IP sharing agreement.

But how is a developer able to receive money for the work he has already done if he gives away his work?

That is the million-dollar question, isn't it? We've seen GPLed software monetized a number of different ways, from packaging (Red Hat), to support (Cygnus). It's difficult to make much money doing these things even if you have a broad market. In a narrow (vertical) market I would say that there's precious little hope of that working. If it were my livelihood on the line I don't think I would GPL the software, nor offer it under any other open source license, until such time as I felt that the software itself had little intrinsic value.

Re:Please explain further....

[falconwolf]

This may have implications on receiving code contributions from other people, however. Consider the ability of MySQL AB to offer a commercial license of MySQL as well as a GPLd version because of requiring copyright assignment versus the practical impossibility of Linus ever changing the license of the Linux kernel.

I hope I got what you are driving at right, but it's my understanding the reason MySQL AB is able to give away MySQL under the GPL and sale it commercially at the same tyme is because a paid license for MySQL entitles the purchaser to tech support. However the grandparent specifically states "I anticipate that support will be unnecessary for the majority of my customers and most certainly too trivial for customers to justify paying for" so support shouldn't be a factor.

Falcon

Re:Please explain further....

[chromatic]

I'm not sure I follow your line of thought. Do you mean that MySQL AB has its business model from a legal point of view or a pragmatic one?

From a legal point of view, nothing in the GPL prevents any company from distributing GPLd software and charging for it, as long as the company follows the terms of the GPL, holds the copyright to the software, or has another agreement with the copyright holder. Because MySQL AB holds the copyright and requires all contributors to assign copyright over their contributions to MySQL AB, the company can distribute MySQL under any arrangement that it likes.

From a practical point of view, I agree in part. That's not the only source of potential revenue, though. If your company wants to use MySQL in a product (creating a derivative work, in copyright terms) but doesn't want to do so under the GPL, MySQL AB can license the code to you for a fee.

Re:Please explain further....

[falconwolf]

I'm not sure I follow your line of thought. Do you mean that MySQL AB has its business model from a legal point of view or a pragmatic one?

My line of thought was that it wasn't explained to the grandparent who wanted to know how he could make money if he open sourced his program. Being open source he couldn't make much money from selling it and he anticipated that there wouldn't be need for much tech support with which he could sale.

Falcon

Re:Please explain further....

[TampaDeveloper]

Thanks Jim. I appreciate your time and thought. I realize that I was thinking of the GPL in the wrong way. I understand how GPL is useful in ensuring user's rights. I see that have to balance the ideals of the GPL with my own interest. For me that means making sure I never trap customer data. I can open source certain bits and pieces to increase willingness to use my software. I may even create a license that promises to open source the code withing a certain timeframe by invalidating the license by NOT releasing it... Hey, fun with licensing 101!!!

Anyhow, thanks again.

But

[einhverfr]

In general, I agree with your statement, but primarily because Windows is just too different...

OTOH....

Would IBM be as keen in contributing to OpenSolaris as they are to Linux? Or to BSD if the code was likely to end up in competing flavors of UNIX?

The GPL cuts both ways. It encourages use and it discourages use.

But it is no substitute for community building.

FOSS

[falconwolf]

Who in their right mind would purchase a piece of software that they can get completely free?

Someone who wants tech support. Many Linux distro make money by offering support for paid users. This is also how AB MySQL does it, they offer MySQL as FOSS anyone can use but also sales MySQL licenses for those who want access to support. IBM is going in this direction as well, offering free software then selling services and support. I think Sun is heading in that direction as well.

Falcon

Re:FOSS

[Pentavirate]

Agreed, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument parent is making against the BSD license. If someone takes BSD software, makes a tiny change, and then sells it as closed source, the business would ultimately fail because there would be a completely free version available. Someone would have to make extensive changes and add significant value to a piece of software to warrant the sale of it.

Re:FOSS

[falconwolf]

Agreed, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the argument parent is making against the BSD license.

Just as with this post, I included the part I was responding to in my previous post. The parent asked Who in their right mind would purchase a piece of software that they can get completely free? And I answered why.

Falcon

GPL fosters lack of progress?

[falconwolf]

I'm dubious whether the BSD ever fosters a lack of progress; I know the GPL does.

So Linux isn't progressing? GPL prevents it from advancing?

Falcon

Re:GPL fosters lack of progress?

[2short]

I don't mean to suggest that the GPL prevents progress in all cases. I do beleive it slows progress in some cases by preventing many developers (like me) from contributing.

Most open source projects are not Linux. Linus could turn away 90% of the developers who want to help with his project, and still have all the help he wants. (From what I can tell, this is essentially the case.)

Most project maintainers would be thrilled if I called them up and told them I wanted to know how they liked changes submitted, because my boss had asked me to put a couple months of development time into making certain improvements to their project. That's not going to happen for a GPL project. I have made that call to a BSD maintainer.

Re:GPL fosters lack of progress?

[falconwolf]

I don't mean to suggest that the GPL prevents progress in all cases. I do beleive it slows progress in some cases by preventing many developers (like me) from contributing.

K. Others can say similar things about other models of development as well. As for myself I've been thinking of joining some project, GNU as well as BSD, so I can get experience. However I have serious concerns about my abilities. I recently finished my second semester in Java and I'm afraid I don't recall most of it, about a year ago I finished PERL and don't recall it, and it's been several years since I did anything with C/C++. Because of an injury if I don't use something I quickly loose it, my memory is bad. It was a struggle to retain what I learned in Java 1 in between semesters.

Falcon

JDBC in a nutcase

[metamatic]

I think you misunderstand the sheer awfulness of JDBC.

JDBC only standardizes the interface between the driver and the Java application; the interface between the driver and the SQL database is usually proprietary, via an undocumented database-specific TCP/IP protocol. This means you can't take one vendor's JDBC driver and use it to access another vendor's SQL database.

In fact, it's worse than that--you generally can't take a point release of a vendor's JDBC driver and use it with a different point release of the same vendor's database. For instance, ever time you upgrade your DB2 SQL database, you need to check if you need to install a new DB2 JDBC driver on every single client system.

Except that doesn't express the full horror of it either. Type 1 and 2 JDBC drivers aren't even pure Java--they rely on platform-specific binary code, and can lock you to a single OS even though you're using Java. Often they require a full database client install on the machine that's going to use JDBC, even if you have no use for the client. Type 3 drivers, meanwhile, are pure Java--but they work by talking to an extra process which runs on the SQL server, and then re-issues the request via the secret proprietary protocol.

Basically, the only kind of JDBC drivers that aren't a horrific kludge are Type 4. And even those aren't standardized on the database side, so you can't just use the Sun JDBC implementation to access MySQL, even if MySQL offers a Type 4 driver interface.

So yes, you can't connect to MySQL from a closed-source Java application using JDBC unless you pay money. I don't think that's the biggest thing wrong with MySQL, though...

Re:JDBC in a nutcase

[gwalcharian]

OMG, thank you. That's a very good explanation of the JDBC situation and why I truly hope that something better comes along. Some candidates I've been looking at that I'd love to get opinions on are:

1. Service Data Objects
2. XQuery (so far winner for vendor support)
3. xpath2 (sadly, not seeing much support for this
4. Java Connector Archtitecture (A more abstract JDBC?)
5. XMLDb

What I'd really like to see, and if it's out there let me know, is a web service standard with support from OASIS or W3C for using XQuery. I don't love XQuery, but it seems an improvement, and with a standard web service API you would not be tied like with JDBC. Of course you'll need to do a lot of optimization to scale and still have decent performance (Fast-Infoset, Sarvega or Datapower hardware).

Re:JDBC in a nutcase

[metamatic]

Unfortunately, XPath is strongly focused on solving the wrong problem. We don't need an XML-based query language; there's a reason why programming languages don't use XML as their syntax. No, what we need is for SQL standardization to get a move on, and for the language to be modernized. There's nothing inherently wrong with SQL, it's just that the subset that's cross-platform is really crap.

We also don't really need another "better" piece of database glue that still keeps the query code separate from the query object code. Having your data object build an XML query on the fly isn't going to be any more maintainable than having it build a SQL query on the fly.

What is really needed is an expressive way to access databases using Java to build the queries. I'm thinking of something where you create some kind of query object, then use methods on it to add constraints, select output columns, define sorting, and so on. Something like:

JQuery jq = new JQuery(database);
jq.AddOutputColumn('PartNum');
jq.AddOutputColumn('Description');
jq.SetSortOrd er('PartNum');

and so on. You'd have methods for each of the various capability-giving chunks of SQL syntax. The system could then generate XML, SQL or whatever the hell it wanted on the back end, and I wouldn't have to care...

"the net" existed before Win95.

[khasim]

... if you think for a moment that microsoft using the BSD stack didn't smooth things over for the net considerably you're deluding yourself.

Trumpet WinSock, baby.

You see, "the net" existed long before Microsoft took the BSD TCP/IP stack.

Windows machines on "the net" existed before Microsoft took the BSD TCP/IP stack.

At one time, I had THREE different, commercial IP stacks for Win3.1 on a machine.

My point is microsoft gets to set defacto standards because of their size ...

So, your point could otherwise be stated as "water is wet" or "fire is hot". Great. But "defacto standards" aren't the topic here. Bye now.

Re:"the net" existed before Win95.

[MoneyT]

You're right, windows machines did exist on the net before windows 95. So did personal computers. So too did web browsers. Now consider that before 95 or so, personal computers still weren't all that big in the main stream. Today, 90% of the computers online are windows computers. 80% of the broswers are MS IE. If microsoft couldn't take BSD, ask yourself, would 99% of the computers use the BSD TCP/IP implimentation or a variation thereof?

Defacto standards are entirely the topic. GPL is pushing people away from certain open source projects, which means those projects don't get used, which means they have less chance of becoming the standard. Which means a higher chance for a random proprietary project to become standard.

In short, the GPL works against it's stated goals.

Re:"the net" existed before Win95.

[sydb]

That's a broad brush. Try a smaller one for the detailed work.

My favorite sentence from TFA:

[The_Wilschon]

ESR: I can't read the minds of blunderers and cheaters, and would not want to immerse myself in their thinking if I could.

Je ne parle pas francais.

[falconwolf]

Why Software Should Not Have Owners
./ Interview with Bradley Kuhn, VP of FSF

Merci

Je suis ne parle pas francais. Je oblege mio francais.

Falcon

socialism

[falconwolf]

Beyond that, the comparison of GPL code to socialism (a comparison designed to equate the GPL with an idea many consider to be evil)

Important note: the above is valid only in USA, where there is tremendous propaganda against socialism. The rest of the world thinks otherwise.

Is it propaganda that Germany along with other countries wish they had as low an unemployment as the US has? Within the last few years my sister along with some friends started their own accounting business. About the same tyme I was told by someone in Germany that if they had tried to do that in Germany that they would of been required to have a lawyer actually start the business. Personally I want to be able to reap the benefits of my own work by perhaps starting my own business and not have someone else take my property away from me. Then if I am successful I may be in a position to hire others thereby increasing employment and benefiting them. Socialism like communism is failing.

Falcon

Re:socialism

[falconwolf]

Government structure (e.g. socialism) can certainly have an effect on employment rates, but there are numerous other factors such as rates of inward investment, types of industry, global economic factors, economic cycling, and so on such that you can pick counterexamples to any particular point all day.

If the government owns the means of production then what is there for someone to invest in?

Falcon

Re:socialism

[master_p]

Is it propaganda

It is.

Germany along with other countries wish they had as low an unemployment as the US has?

Statistics can be interpreted in any way one likes. If you subtract from the US employment rates people that have part-time jobs, people on contracts, people that are partially employed, you will see that the true employment rates (i.e. a steady jobs) are few in-between.

About the same tyme I was told by someone in Germany that if they had tried to do that in Germany that they would of been required to have a lawyer actually start the business.

That's bearaucracy and it is totally unrelated to the political system.

I want to be able to reap the benefits of my own work by perhaps starting my own business and not have someone else take my property away from me.

And who says that in socialism your property is taken away? that's a lie spread by propaganda. Check out Europe, where no government takes away people's properties.

Then if I am successful I may be in a position to hire others thereby increasing employment and benefiting them.

The above can also happen in Europe though. The difference is that, under a socialistic government, you would not be allowed to throw me to the streets if your did not like me.

Socialism like communism is failing.

Yeah, and capitalism works. That's why your jobs go to India.

You will see in a few years that we are back in the 1800s: 16 hours working day, no rights whatsoever etc etc.

Re:socialism

[tobar mersa]

If the government owns the means of production then what is there for someone to invest in?

True, a government which owns the means of production almost always forbids investment through the private market. But Norway does not have a fully socialist economy (neither does Germany for that matter). Rather, Norway has a Mixed Economy (as does Germany), whereby certain companies are owned by the government, while numerous (usually the majority) of companies are in private hands.

The German Economic System is a mixed economy, comprised of numerous companies which are in private ownership, as well as a number of state owned companies. The method of corporate governance between the United States and Germany differs greatly, but the corporations remain in mostly non-state hands.

Simply because a nation has a number of state owned companies does not make a nation socialist. There must also be an elimination of private ownership as well.

Re:socialism

[master_p]

What rights are being abolished?

The 40 hours of work per week, the 8 hours work day, the compensation money when you are laid off, the right to give birth to a child and maintain your job, the rights of privacy at workplace, a decent paycheck.

More specifically, they want us to work for an amount of time defined by our employer, at the command of our employer. For example, one day you may work 9 to 5, the other 5 to 9, etc. They want to turn the 9-to-5 to 9-to-9, without being paid for the extra workhours. They want us to work on Saturdays, again without changing our paychecks. They want the freedom to lay us off without paying any reconciliation money. They want to stop paying for insurance, and they want us to pay for our insurance, without increasing our paycheck.

At the same time, profits have risen from 50% to 500% the last year for most corporations and banks.

And what are "basic rights"?

Basic rights? a decent job, a decent meal, a health care system, decent education, and a good paycheck to live a confortable life.

I consider property rights to be "basic" myself.

Of course, it goes without saying. There is no more basic right that property owning.

But there is no place in Europe anymore that property owning is not a basic right.

As for work hours, in a free market economy the amount of hours worked can be negotiated either individually or through collective bargaining.

Indeed. But when you are hired, you are told that you are going to work for X hours. But after the first week, you realize that you really work for X+N hours, with N being from 1 to 8 hours more, per day, and without being paid the extra money. If you complain, you are laid off (in the worst case) or isolated and you eventually resign. If you go to the union, you need so much money for the lawyers that you basically must sell your belongs for paying them. And if you suceed in getting your former employer to pay damages, your case will be heard in the media and then noone will hire you any more. Basically, you are at the mercy of the employer.

The situation is barable now, with employers fearing the law. Now that are laws are about to change, they will be let free in the wild, resulting in working conditions similar to those in the 19th century.

As for what you see "taking over in Europe", it's not capitalism, it's a corporate aristocracy. Unfortuately they've already taken over the US.

But corporate aristocracy is the result of Capitalism. You Americans say that Socialism and Communism will never work, because of one very important human attribute: greed. But how come greed can be overcomed in a Capitalistic system? the law of supply and demand does not work, because greedy corporate pigs fix prices under the table. Politicians are sponsored by corporations, so politicians can't do anything. See Enron, Microsoft and many more cases.

The sad fact is that when greedy people are in power, it does not matter what the system is called: either in Communism, Socialism or Capitalism, people with power will find ways to exploit others and earn money they don't deserve. I agree things are better under Capitalism than in Communism, but for how long? things are changing fast, and the problem with Capitalism is that people are not poor enough to fight back: they have one or two bones to lick, whereas in Communism they had to share the bone provided by the government. But that bone is gonna go away soon, and we are just about to start searching in the garbage for the next meal (does the word 'Argentina' tell anything to you?)...

Re:socialism

[falconwolf]

The 40 hours of work per week, the 8 hours work day, the compensation money when you are laid off, the right to give birth to a child and maintain your job, the rights of privacy at workplace, a decent paycheck.

As I see it these aren't rights, they may be privileges but they aren't rights, and as previously said they are up for negotiation.

More specifically, they want us to work for an amount of time defined by our employer, at the command of our employer. For example, one day you may work 9 to 5, the other 5 to 9, etc. They want to turn the 9-to-5 to 9-to-9, without being paid for the extra workhours. They want us to work on Saturdays, again without changing our paychecks. They want the freedom to lay us off without paying any reconciliation money. They want to stop paying for insurance, and they want us to pay for our insurance, without increasing our paycheck.

Nobody is forcing you to work under those conditions, if you and your coworkers don't like the conditions then negotiate via collective bargaining. If that doesn't work then work somewhere else, freeleance, or start your own business. Nobody's holding a gun to your head saying you have to work there.

Basic rights? a decent job, a decent meal, a health care system, decent education, and a good paycheck to live a confortable life.

Again I don't consider those being rights. Freedom of speech, religion (and from religion), and assembly are. Freedom from government harazzment, trial by jury, and freedom of private property are also rights. As is equal opportunity, not outcome mind you but opportunity. This is where I have a disagreement with some libertarians, whereas many believe education should be privatized, I believe it's a proper roll for government. If more people homeschool thier children, which I don't believe government should stop or regulate too much, then maybe this will force public education to reform. Yes, I strongly believe it needs to be reformed, though I don't have any children myself I've thought long about homeschooling my children if I ever have any.

when you are hired, you are told that you are going to work for X hours. But after the first week, you realize that you really work for X+N hours, with N being from 1 to 8 hours more, per day, and without being paid the extra money.

If you let them get away with this then it's your fault for not standing up for the conditions you were hired under.

And if you suceed in getting your former employer to pay damages, your case will be heard in the media and then noone will hire you any more.

Or they'll have more respect for you, and if enough people do it then you position is more secure, that's collective bargaining.

But corporate aristocracy is the result of Capitalism.

Corporate aristocracy isn't the result of capitalism, it's what results when people don't fight corporations and let them get away with whatever they want. To learn what capitalism really is read Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations . One url on that page led me to this:

When Corporations Rule the World

It is ironic that corporate libertarians regularly pay homage to Adam Smith as their intellectual patron saint, since it is obvious to even the most casual reader of his epic work The Wealth of Nations that Smith would have vigorously opposed most of their claims and policy positions. For example, corporate libertarians fervently oppose any restraint on corporate size or power. Smith, on the other hand, opposed any form of economic concentration on the ground that it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital; to produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers; and to optimally allocate society's resources.

Through tr

Re:socialism

[master_p]

As I see it these aren't rights, they may be privileges but they aren't rights, and as previously said they are up for negotiation.

You are completely wrong. I have the right to live a decent life, and not spending my entire day working is just one of them. There are also other things in life: family, friends, wife, children, personal development. How am I supposed to do all that if I work 12 to 16 hours per day?

Nobody is forcing you to work under those conditions, if you and your coworkers don't like the conditions then negotiate via collective bargaining.

You haven't understood what I was saying (or I was not clear enough). The current situation IS an agreement between the union of workers and corporations. But every corporation is doing extra unpaid work, and the union knows it, but they are sold to them and do nothing about it.

If that doesn't work then work somewhere else, freeleance, or start your own business. Nobody's holding a gun to your head saying you have to work there.

I can't do anything. Everywhere, the situation is like that. Starting my own business is out of the question, because I don't have the economic power to produce anything worthwhile, especially since anything can be produced in China for the 1/10 of the price.

Again I don't consider those being rights. Freedom of speech, religion (and from religion), and assembly are.

The right to work is the ultimate right. What good is freedom and property owning, If one is without a job? without a job, people are forced to move to the gutter. How am I supposed to buy goods if I don't have money? Have you ever talked to an unemployed person? the feeling of not being wanted for anything, the feeling of beeing useless is a very serious condition that can led to many ill behaviours.

If you let them get away with this then it's your fault for not standing up for the conditions you were hired under.

I would love to fight for my and other rights, but I would be out of food. My children would starve and die. I am depentent on those that are owners of the means of production.

Or they'll have more respect for you, and if enough people do it then you position is more secure, that's collective bargaining.

The people that will have more respect for me will not be employers, board members and stock holders. These people will condemn me, because I will be the obstacle to their profiting more and more.

Corporate aristocracy isn't the result of capitalism, it's what results when people don't fight corporations and let them get away with whatever they want.

What I meant was that corporate aristocracy is the result of Capitalism as it is currently applied throughout the world. Which essentially means that human greed also is in effect here, just like in "Communism" (as it was applied in USSR).

Smith, on the other hand, opposed any form of economic concentration on the ground that it distorts the market's natural ability to establish a price that provides a fair return on land, labor, and capital; to produce a satisfactory outcome for both buyers and sellers; and to optimally allocate society's resources.

Adam Smith is a moron. His ideas will work in an ideal society, were people are fair and are willing to lower prices as demand falls. But we all know that, in reality, it's a totally different ball game: prices are fixed either directly by agreement or indirectly. The law of supply and demand, which is supposed to bring society and economy to an equilibrium does not work in environments that people with power fix prices.

Don't you see what's happening with oil right now? although supply is great, its price does not fall? why? because all corporations have agreed not to decrease its price and not to produce any more.

Simply a free market capitalism IS NOT Corporate Aristocracy! Nor does the one lead to the other as long as people are wary of and guard

Re:socialism

[falconwolf]

You are completely wrong. I have the right to live a decent life, and not spending my entire day working is just one of them. There are also other things in life: family, friends, wife, children, personal development. How am I supposed to do all that if I work 12 to 16 hours per day?

I don't where you live, but I totally disagree. As far as these are concerned I don't consider rights, in no way ahpe or form do I consider an equal outcome to be a right, equal opportunity but not outcome. Actually as I see it, a person has the right to fail. It's within everyone's right to try and if they're not successful then they fail. But they don't have the right to deny another the same chances.

You haven't understood what I was saying (or I was not clear enough). The current situation IS an agreement between the union of workers and corporations. But every corporation is doing extra unpaid work, and the union knows it, but they are sold to them and do nothing about it.

If the "leaders" of the unions aren't doing their jobs then the members of the union aren't doing their responsibility in having their leaders do thier jobs. The unions need to make sure employers are fulfilling thier obligations, if not then leaders need to be replaced with people who will.

The right to work is the ultimate right. What good is freedom and property owning, If one is without a job?

Just because you have the right to something doesn't mean you have the right to have it handed to you on a silver platter. Instead you have the right to try to earn the money to buy it.

I would love to fight for my and other rights, but I would be out of food. My children would starve and die. I am depentent on those that are owners of the means of production.

You say you have children? As far as I'm concerned, not trying to be heartless but, it was your responsibility to wait until you can afford to have children before having them. When I was a fulltime student a few of my friends told us they were getting married. I as well as a few others told them they should wait until they had their degrees before thye got married as more than likely they wouldn't finish the degree if they were married. I was especially admonitory about this when my sister said she was getting married. As it happens those of us who said they should wait were right, of all of them who did get married my sister was the only one who finished her degree. Of course not right away, a few months after getting married they moved away and she dropped out. About a year later they moved back when she was pregnant as she was homesick as well as suffering morning sickness. To shorten this I'll just say that she went back to school while raising her son and working fulltime. Once she had her BA she continued with her Masters Degree and became a Certified Public Accountant, CPA. Now, along with friends she owns and runs her own accounting company, and her and her husband now own some rental property, including the one I live in. As I'm currently on disability and can only attend school parttime it may take a few more year but my plan is to do the same as my sister.

Adam Smith is a moron. His ideas will work in an ideal society, were people are fair and are willing to lower prices as demand falls. But we all know that, in reality, it's a totally different ball game: prices are fixed either directly by agreement or indirectly. The law of supply and demand, which is supposed to bring society and economy to an equilibrium does not work in environments that people with power fix prices.

Communism and socialism are more moronic than is Adam Smith's capaitalism. The state owns everything the state owns you. As for price fixing, yes it does happen, but this could be either a hinderance to other businesses and/or to people. If the price is fixed too high then people can't buy. Usually lower prices increase revenue becaus emore people buy. Now I admit lixing price low, to drive other b

Re:socialism

[master_p]

As far as these are concerned I don't consider rights

The right to have a decent work conditions is established for more than 100 now. It is also present in all declarations of human rights, both in UN and in national level. So why you don't recognize it as a human right?

But they don't have the right to deny another the same chances.

I agree, but that does not mean people must be exploited by those who hold the means of production.

if not then leaders need to be replaced with people who will.

The leaders of the worker's union in my country have been replaced numerous times. The previous ones all have got jobs in private corporations or as government officials.

thus driving oil prices down

Theorizing is easy...but in reality, oil was 30$ last year, now it is 60$, without demand increasing by 100%. That's a case where the law of supply and demand bringing balance failed.

There were a number of lawsuits taken against MS

But the legal framework is maintained by the government.

First, there wouldn't be any corporations as the State would own everything, you're just a slave of the state.

We are doing circles here. I told you earlier that I don't speak about applied communism of USSR, but about social-democracy as applied in Europe.

There is no true socialist system. What Europe has is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.

I am talking about social-democracy!!! how many times do I have to say it???

If it only required a strong system the Soviet Union would of successed, as would of Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Franco's Spain.

How come strong systems are only dictatorships for you? When I speak of a 'strong system', I mean about a system where the state does not own anything but it has all the means to effectively check if unlawful actions take place.

I despise dictatorships, so please don't mention that again.

Maybe what I should of used instead instead of "greed" was "desire", when I used "greed" I didn't mean "without caring about the consequences". I most always consider consequences

Yes, desire is the word to use there, but where does it all end? for example, the British corporation Rover was recently put out of business. More than 15000 people lost their jobs. You know why? because BMW stock holders 'desired' more profits, so BMW, the owners of Rover, had to shut it down. Do you know the profiles of BMW stock holders? a very respectable percentage of stocks is owned by a German Baroness who is so rich that she does not know what she has. She lives in a castle that has inherited it from her ancestors somewhere in Germany. It was that woman that demanded BMW to increase their profits, otherwise she threatened to sell her stocks.So because one person demanded more profits, 15000 people had to loose their jobs, causing problems in 60000 people that are family members of the families of those that lost their jobs (supposing 4 person families), and many economic problems in the local societies that these 60000 people spent their money on...

Re:socialism

[falconwolf]

We're just going around in circles so I'll just say that I agree that we disagree.

Falcon

Re:socialism

[master_p]

yeap...congrats though for discussing this.

Re:If open source is about freedom

[hymie]

Open Source isn't about anything except a development model. That movement explicitly eschewed the word "freedom" because it was scary. Free Software is about freedom, but not for the developer, only for the user. The GPL is perfectly suitable to grant a user the right to run, study, modify, and redistribute a program. The freedom for a developer to choose a different license includes the ability to choose a license which denies the user of that developer's work the four freedoms, so proponents of Free Software will not allow their Free Software to be incorporated into such a program.

Thanks

[poofyhairguy82]

I just want to say that you presented the best case for the GPL I have seen. If I copy and paste (I will), I'll credit you.

BS

[poofyhairguy82]

I see this point brought up a lot and its just wrong. 99.9% of users can't read source code and can't modify programs in any meaningful way, and they gain nothing from having a program be open source.

Straight up bullshit. Most users have a lot to gain from OSS, even if they can't develop. Because of OSS, the software is availible at low cost (someone in the know can compile it and set it up and you can use it for free. Look to the 100+ free Linux distros as an example of that). Also because of OSS, a regular user-if they need to- can pay someone in that 1% to modify the code and tailor it to their need. Try asking ole MS for some of their Internet Explorer code so you can pay someone to modify it how you want. They will laugh at you.

I can't program a lick of anything. But I get a lot out of GPL code. Because its free and I can use it accourding to the license. The only way the BSD license is better it that it gives developers as much free use as the users get under the GPL. So at worst the GPL could be bad for SOME programers. Cry me a river.

The GPL is a lot like militant islam; it is always seeking to force others to take its viewpoint, and seeks to eliminate all other faiths.

Good comparison. You are correct- GPL fanatics have killed thousands of people. Good call you jerk. The GPL is an OPTIONAL thing. You can take it or leave it. You choose to leave it. Fine. But don't pretend you are forced to take it.

Apache project is successful with BSDesque license

[dr_davel]

Doesn't seem to get much argument compared to the BSD-GPL argument, but there is a heckuva lot of great Apache Project software under a use-anyway-you-please license. I work on a few open source projects and they are all under Apache-like licenses, using mostly Apache/Jakarta software as their base. It's our first choice, and we avoid introducing any GPL software into the mix, because it would contaminate our license pool. From where I sit, the GPL is just more restrictive, and I'd rather release my software under a totally free license.

Re:So what your telling me...

[hymie]

Yes, you have to GPL the whole thing, and yes, that could lead to considerably smaller profits for you. The proponents of the GPL are not concerned with the ability of programmers to produce software faster, or to make money. They are concerned that users of programs have the right to run, study, modify, and redistribute those (entire) programs. Since you wish to deny your users these freedoms, the proponents of the GPL will deny you the right to use their software.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[Todd Knarr]

No, they're dictating what you can do with their code, that is that you aren't allowed to redistribute their code unless you give other people access to your code on the same terms you got access to their code. You're free to do whatever you want with your code, so long as it's 100% your code with no traces of their code involved. What you want is to distribute products containing both your code and their code, but conveniently ignore the license terms that go along with code that doesn't belong to you and isn't yours to set license terms on.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[MoneyT]

But the terms don't make sense. Consider. If I take a GPL project, and without doing ANYTHING to it, start shipping it to people, I'm fine as long as I give them access to your code. However, the moment I add even one line of my code to this project, I'm now in violation of the GPL for doing this. Note that nothing has changed. Your code is still open, it's still free and I'm still providing access to it. I'm just closing MY code. But somehow you claim that because I use code that's freely availible, you now have a right to dictate how I distribute MY code. I'm still distributing YOUR code exactly as you want. But now you're dictating the use of MY code.

Enable good behavior instead of punishing bad

[whitis]

One of the fundamental flaws in GPL is that it focuses on punishing bad behavior rather than enabling good behavior. Yes, the GPL prevents some companies from using open source software and not giving anything back. But it also interferes with more altruistic companies that would like to give something back.

To make money, you typically have to strike a balance between giving things away and holding something back. Free samples, trial downloads, corporate philanthropy, and free consultations, are a few examples of how giving something away is present in almost every line of business. But very few businesses can survive without holding something back. A mexican restaurant may give free chips and salsa, but they can't give away all the meals. With software, there is more potential to give stuff away because the marginal cost is zero, unlike food, but somehow one still needs to pay for the initial cost of development. If you can lower the initial cost incorporating free software, then it becomes economical to charge less for the software or give more away. A lot of businesses do err on the side of holding too much back and it ultimately hurts consumers and often the companies themselves. I would like to see them do better but using GPL to force that causes too much collateral damage. It actually helps the big greedy corporations by hurting the small inovative ones.

GPL holds something back too. Something that can make incorporating free software too expensive - the right to earn a living. And don't think we can survive without businesses, either. Open source will hopefully replace commercial software for a lot of the more common stuff but there is a lot of more specialized software that someone will still need to pay for.

GPL advocates focus on trying to coerce big greedy corporations but hurts small socially conscious businesses. The large corporations can afford to rewrite everything they need and let their cusomters foot the bill. Yes, some of them may make some token efforts at giving away open source code where it does not hurt their business models. In most cases, this is because they are selling hardware and can afford to give away some software. A few companies can make money packaging distributions (and, oddly, they donate surprisingly little in the way of useful code back to the community).

More effort should be put into making consumers socially conscious. If consumers make ethical buying decisions, the companies have to follow. Besides educating consumers, they have to be given real choices. Hurting honest companies does not help in that regard.

I am also much more concerned about whether companies provide source code to their products than whether they give them away for free.

Consider GPS mapping software. There is an open source package out there (roadmap) that has essentially stagnated. And it needs a lot of work. If it was BSD licensed, I would have been tempted to do a lot of work on it and get companies like taxi cab companies, utility companies, pizza delivery, and the trucking industry to put food on my table while I worked on it. But I certainly can't afford to do the months of work the program needs without some way to produce income. All the new features and bugfixes that weren't related to dispatching commercial vehicles could be given back to the community immediately and the commercial features more gradually. Everyone would have benefitted. Users would not have had to wait five minutes while the program tries to draw a street level map of the entire country. Users would be able to enter an address and actually have it match (currently, most matches fail because the map database has the subdivision names instead of city names). Ham radio operators would be able to use it for APRS. And there would be features that are required for support vehicles for events like the MS150 bike tour. Maybe there wouldn't have been as much benefit as if someone who could afford to do so put extensive work into

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[Todd Knarr]

You aren't in violation of the GPL when you add that one line of code. You're in violation when you start shipping code licensed to you under the GPL to other people without complying with the terms of the GPL.

Now, what you've done when you've taken someone else's code, made modifications to it and started to distribute it as your product, is to take someone else's code for your benefit. You've gained the ability to market that product without bearing the costs of writing all of the original code yourself. That's a considerable benefit you've derived. All that the person who gave you all that code you're benefitting from is asking is fair play: you've gained benefit from using their code, you let others gain the same benefit from using your code in the same way. As I said, that sounds eminently fair to me. And of course there's the flip side: if you want to keep your code closed and not let anyone else benefit from basing their products on it, then the author of the GPL code is going to do the same and not allow you to benefit from their code. Again, this sounds eminently fair: the GPL code's author is simply making you play by the same rules regarding his code as you want everyone else to play by regarding your code.

The best analogy for your position I've come up with is a spoiled 2-year-old in a sandbox wanting to play with everybody else's toys but not wanting to let anybody else play with theirs. They don't see what's wrong with that logic either.

Re:People Giving Back

[nurb432]

Only those that write code that wish to lose control of.

I dont buy those numbers either BTW. That would be just items that are hosted on SF. On top of that 2/3 of what is hosted on SF are 1/2 finished non-applications.. Not that im faulting SF or anything, just that a LOT of people in general never finish their projects..

Not that i have the answer of how to accurately measure this, only that using SF hosted projects isnt it..

Read harder.

[Some Random Username]

Yes, he lawsuit was settled before linux was a buzzword. The lawsuit gave linux a bigger marketshare in the early 90s, thus making it get big enough to become the buzzword it did in the late 90s. If a BSD had more uesers in early 90s, it would have been the buzzword in the late 90s, and would have been latched onto by IBM et al. License had nothing to do with it, simply being a free unix to replace AIX with, and having hype is all it takes.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[MoneyT]

Except they aren't keeping their code closed. They made it open.

Furthermore, your analogy is flawed because if I play with X persons toy, but don't let anyone play with mine, there are less toys overall. With code, if I use your code, that doesn't make your code less free.

Why the GPL is important

[jmorris42]

> If your intent is to share, why purposely step on the toes of someone
> who may want to take you up on the offer?

If you want the poster child for the importance of the GPL, I nominate Cisco Systems/Linksys. Every time ESR says teh GPL isn't important somebody in the audience needs to hold up a WRT54G and wave it around. Linksys only released the source because of the GPL, and to be honest, the first release was half hearted. But now a whole community exists around modifying the firmware, which just has to be driving sales in a visible way. So now we get a tarball with EVERYTHING, including the mips toolchain, ready to go. The only part still missing is the network drivers and those belong to Broadcom.

GPL

[falconwolf]

Without value entropy, the GPL acts as a value sink. It eliminates all inherent value of software. We are not yet to the point of taking the Linux kernel and other GPL software for granted, but we are getting close. When we reach the point that the general public takes software for granted, we are all doomed. I do not kid when I say that if the GPL is all that remains in the software license land, a certain type of slavery will appear. It might be in the form of IBM requiring X amount of hours each employee must work on a GPL product per week, etc. In any case, the price IBM pays would be little compared to the extreme value extracted from your efforts. Or, more realistically, it could look like the sweatshop software houses we are seeing today in Pakistan and elsewhere...

Entropy itself can be seen as a "value sink" being it's the disintegration or disorganization of the universe to chaos, in the parlance of economics it is a "value sink".

if the GPL is all that remains in the software license land, a certain type of slavery will appear. It might be in the form of IBM requiring X amount of hours each employee must work on a GPL product per week, etc.

First IBM can't require employees to donate their tyme to open source without paying them, unless perhaps they require it in a contract for employment. But if then programmer that don't agree will go where their tyme is valued more, this could be programming for another organization or starting their own business, or they will go into another career. Each for these will create a shortage in programmers willing to work for IBM, and if others do the same then a shortage industry wide. If this happens then these organizations will have to change their hiring practices, reduce the requirements and/or increase the compensation. That's capitalism and free trade.

Falcon

Re:GPL

[falconwolf]

If the GPL is so bad then why do so many programmers contribute? Why do companies like Redhat make a profit? Why does IBM, Sun, MySQL AB, and others release their code? They do it because they benefit in some way, whether it being they fell good about doing something, or they make a profit, or for another reason.

Falcon

Re:GPL

[falconwolf]

There is benefit and then there is capitalistic value. I'm not sure why you are confusing feely-good stuff like emotions with what I am saying. I'm having trouble determining if you are simply trolling or do not know better.

As I recently read in "Reason magazine I believe, darn where's that tissue, that's a problem Randians have in understanding (not that you are one but she and they have the same attitude) that "feely-good stuff" can be a benefit. The article went on about how it can be very beneficial though.

As far as adding value, as long as it's needed, the less something cost a business given the same capabilities the more valuable it is. Now does the economy run around computers and the software they run other is it the other way? If the economy depends on computer systems to run smoother then the lower the costs more valuable they are, eg the higher the ROI is. However if the economy depends on the spending and revenue of hardware and software venders then I'd say there's a problem with the system. Actually I suspect the truth is somewhere in between the two positions and hopefully closer to the first.

Falcon

His Basic Premise is WRONG.

[mewphobia]

"We don't need the GPL anymore. It's based on the belief that open source software is weak and needs to be protected. Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it."

This is just plain wrong. Not all open source is GPL at _PRESENT_. What open source software is more widely adopted? GPL or BSD? What projects are most active? Why is linux getting all the attention and *BSD isn't?

Even without the GPL, open source would exist. In fact, it would thrive - at first. BUT a whole new group of software companies would crop up, simply taking the open source code and making it user friendly. Noone likes seeing someone else making a living off their work. This would discourage open source development. Programmers/hackers (in general) aren't business people. They wouldn't know the first thing about setting up a company - Otherwise they could have done it before without releasing their code as open source.

Maybe Eric is right that Linus was the first person to have the right social structure for distributed software development. But I'd argue that the support of linux by companies is largely from the GPL.

Re:bad presumption....Talk big, carry a small dick

[Thomas Shaddack]

Adam Smith would disagree with you that giving back is better for the society.

Luckily for us all, nobody asked Smith for his opinion.

In a free market, it is the self-interest of capitalists that ultimately enhance society and sustain the free market.

The mythical Invisible Hand, returning again and again like a bad check. Bullshit, as most of what we can expect of Economists. With unrestrained self-interest we get just greed and fights and limited options because if a $whatever does not make money, it does not have the right to exist.

The GPL, accessible guilt-free wide-spread piracy, and socialism are all related in that they remove the valuation of a product or service.

The product is MORE valuable BECAUSE of removed valuation.

With the GPL, all work and contribution is on equal footing.

A code is a code is a code.

No one would argue Linus' contribution is much greater than someone who wrote an obscure kernel driver. Yet Linus receives equal reward (i.e. the Linux kernel code base) as the person who wrote a single driver. Take this concept further to worrying with social concerns, as you argue MS should do, and you have socialism.

No, this is communism. Come, take whatever you need, and give whatever you can. And if you don't like it, make (and maintain) your own fork. Pure, unadulterated communism, not that Soviet dictatorship crap.

...As if MS disappeared tomorrow the world would automatically be a better place to live in.

There'd be more choices on the market and even the big bastards like banks and state institutions would be FORCED to follow standards. No more MSIE-only web services. And no more 1800-pound monster gorilla strongarming others to conform to their business plans (just a couple more smaller monkeys, which is more manageable).

Another related fallacy is "evil is everywhere," where members of society point out the "evildoers" and are constantly on the look-out for evil.

In the age of megacorporations, evil *is* everywhere. It's a loss of time trying to find it, when all you need to do is randomly point a finger.

Corporations are not inherently evil, and Bill Gates is certainly not an evil person (compared to other capitalists, some greater and some less than he, Gates is relatively tame).

Corporations are only inherently greedy, as a survival necessity. Their evilness is an effect, not a cause. Wealthy William himself is a ruthless rotter unwilling to keep promises and willing to lie and lawyer and strongarm whenever it can make him more powerful - though again, he is not doing it because of being evil per se, but because of being power-hungry. Take away the power lust, and he could even be a quite agreeable man...

technically superior code

[falconwolf]

But just having technically superior code doesn't mean anything in the marketplace.

Yeap, just because something id technically superior doesn't mean it'll win in the market play. A good example of this was BetaMax. Sony's video recorder had better tech than VHS did yet it lost in the market.

It all comes down to money and marketing.

That pretty much somes it up.

Falcon

Exactly.

[Rick and Roll]

If anyone is worried about what ESR might be doing for open source, they need to take a look around. Just as he argued, open source is not going to die for lack of developer interest. Besides, if people can't see how superior UNIX is to Windows, we don't need 'em anyhow.

If you care, donate to the EFF - legal action is the biggest threat to open source. If not, just quit your bitching.

You're quite confused.

[falconwolf]

I'm not confused at all, at least not about this, though I am be able other things. No, ideally I don't dislike socialism. Ideally I like it, however we live in a real world and socialism is impractical. As for taxes, I'd rather see most taxes abolished. If the federal government were to stay within the limits set upon it by the constitution most of the cost of government could easily be paid for by property and sales tax and user fees. Then with people being able to keep more of the money they earn they could invest more as well as donate more. More investments, and less government, means more employment. More employment means more chances of bettering one's self.

Falcon

Re:bad presumption....Talk big, carry a small dick

[reflective recursion]

You are quite the troll. You can't even get one line written without resorting to ad hominem.

"the net" existed - but without too many people

[sonamchauhan]

I used Trumpet Winsock too, as well as helped a company tune a different commercial Windows TCP stack for their satellite network.

But the parent poster is right when when he says:
"if you think for a moment that microsoft using the BSD stack didn't smooth things over for the net"

It was Microsoft's *bundling* of a high-quality stack in the OS that made it convenient for a lot of people to use TCP/IP, both in internal networks and on the internet.

More liberal licenses *ARE* useful to the public at large, since they stimulate innovation in general. Some of the companies that use it will contribute stuff back, and some won't... that's the nature of the license, and that's perfectly fine. Look at Sun and their use of BSD as another example.

But it mostly doesn't matter

[Sits]

I reckon OpenBSD is a better example than FreeBSD because they have replaced more GPL userland bits and pieces with BSD equivalents. However if you are only concerned with running this software rather than contributing to it then it simply doesn't affect you whether the software is non-GPL OSS or GPL so long as its community is vibrant and it does what you need it to.

You are (currently) hard pressed to get the *complete stack* of possible software in only GPL bits just as you are to unable to get one out of only BSD-like bits. Thankfully everyone but the purists have a choice - to use software adhering to more than one licence.

Re:But it mostly doesn't matter

[TheRaven64]

This is likely to change with GPLv3, however. If the proposed changes are incorporated then developing a web app using GPLv3 components will mean that the code for the web app must also be Free Software, something which is likely to make corporate use of the GPL a lot harder.

Since GPLv3 would be incompatible with GPLv2, it would also make having a mixed stack much harder.

Re:Just how much of the document has teeth, anyway

[PastaLover]

No. GPLd code used in a project causes the viral aspect of the GPL to kick in on DISTRIBUTION only.

If you link to gpl'd code from a propietary program you often do it with the intent of distribution. Of course it is not an issue for in-house stuff, but I thought that would be clear enough. Copyright is mostly about distribution rights anyway.

Re:He's right, of course...

[Thomas Shaddack]

Well, I was in bad mood and I have a rather strong dislike for money-first economists and ESPECIALLY for the Invisible Hand.

As the subject, there's the annoyance of elinks that it remembers some forms. Sorry for that one.

Besides, ACs - and especially -1 trolls - do not require much mercy. As for Greedy Gates, he just reaps what he sow.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[Todd Knarr]

You seen to think "open" == "unrestricted". This isn't the case.

And there may not be fewer toys than there were, but there also aren't more. The point of sharing in the sandbox is that every person who joins in adds more toys for everyone. You want to join in and play but not add more toys. That's not the deal.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[MoneyT]

No. The point of sharing in the sand box is that everyone gets to satisfy their selfish desires to have what someone else has. It has nothing to do with the number of toys except in so far as the number is limited and decreases as one person plays with a toy. It's not the same for code.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[Todd Knarr]

Your math is weak, grasshopper. Suppose there's 5 kids in the sandbox, each with one toy. 5 kids, 5 toys. Now a 6th kid comes along and contributes his toy. 6 kids, 6 toys.

Contrast this with what you want. 5 kids, 5 toys. Then you come along. You want to play in the sandbox with everyone else's toys, but you don't want to let them play with yours. 6 kids, 5 toys. The discrepancy should be clear.

If you wish to do whatever you want with your code without having to worry about anyone else's licenses, you need to do just that: use your code without using anyone else's. But that's not what you're asking for.

Re:Apache project is successful with BSDesque lice

[rdean400]

I think one of the main reasons the Apache license works because of it's "if you change it, you can't call it Apache anymore" clause. Companies that are investing in software need some level of quality assurance, and the name Apache carries with it a reputation for quality.

The GPL works for Linux because Linus holds the trademark on "Linux" so that someone can't just take the kernel, hack it up indiscriminantly and slap a "Dipstick Linux" label on it.

I disagree

[toadlife]

"It's not politically correct to say this, but "it really is the license, stupid"."

Take out the "politically" from that sentence and it would be accurate.

linux overtook BSD because for a few reasons, but none of them had anything to do with the license. In the beginning linux has the ability to run on crappy hardware, and the BSDs only supported high end machines with SCSI.

BSD developers were resistant to supporting non-server hardware, because after all, BSD wasn't for desktop PC's. This was a big mistake.

More people adopted linux simply because they could afford to. The higher adoption rate led to a more rapid pace of development.

Also, linux advocacy (read: MARKETING) is something that BSD had no equivalent of for a long time.

The last thing is exposure. linux was first posted on the internet on Usenet, where TONS of people instantly has access to it, while BSD's exposure was limited to academe circles, and mailing lists.

FreeBSD (and the other flavors) seem to be recovering though. Today, the BSDs support plenty of "crap hardware", which makes trying it out just as affordable as trying out linux. BSD advocacy, while in it's infancy does at least exist today, and it's exposure (ironically probably thanks to linux) is very wide too.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[MoneyT]

But the analogy still fails because I CAN"T TAKE CODE OUT OF THE SYSTEM.

The reason why 6 kids 5 toys is a discrepancy is because 6 kids can't play with 5 toys. But 6 developers CAN play with 5 pieces of code. In fact, 6 developers can play with 1 piece of code without ever talking to each other.

The analogy is better described as 5 kids, 5 different infinite toys becoming 6 kids with 5 different infinite toys.

Your sand box analogy further falls apart when you talk about kids with no toys. Should they be excluded? You still get 6 kids and 5 toys.

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[Todd Knarr]

You don't get it, do you? The deal with the GPL isn't merely that you don't take away. The deal is that you add. If you want to play in the sandbox it's not enough that you not take away from the other kids, it's that you bring another toy to the sandbox for everyone to play with. You want to come and play with everyone else's toys, but you don't want to bring your toy to let everyone else play with in return.

In short, if you don't want to pay for the benefits don't complain when people won't let you have them. The GPL just asks payment in kind rather than cash.

GPL v3 still mostly doesn't matter

[Sits]

First up the GPL v3 doesn't yet exist yet. To that extent this speculation is moot.

Incompatiblity between the GPL v3 and v2 only occurs if the "or later version" was left out of the licence. This tends to only affect developers trying to swallow other GPL projects which is not common. Most linking cases (e.g. GPL libraries) are already taken care of using the runtime exception.

Anyway, there are plenty of open source licences (many belonging to big projects) that are incompatible with the GPL v2 so I don't think having v3 "incompatible" with v2 is not going to be a big problem.

Sure there are going to be those who don't like the "web app" clause (assuming it goes in and doesn't get commonly exempted) but there are those who don't like the "you must release the source if you redistribute the binary etc" clause that is in v2 today. The only way to please the most users is for programs to be public domain which remarkably few developers do.

bearaucracy and politics

[falconwolf]

About the same tyme I was told by someone in Germany that if they had tried to do that in Germany that they would of been required to have a lawyer actually start the business./p>

That's bearaucracy and it is totally unrelated to the political system.

Most political systems breed bureaucracy. And bureaucracies don't want to die, they'll do most anything to justify their existence.

Falcon

Re:bearaucracy and politics

[master_p]

All I am saying is that there can be a socialistic system (i.e. a system that cares about the society, not a system that is a dictatorship) without beaurocracy.

Re:bearaucracy and politics

[falconwolf]

All I am saying is that there can be a socialistic system (i.e. a system that cares about the society, not a system that is a dictatorship) without beaurocracy.

Can you tell me where I might find one? The closest I know that comes to this ldeal, and it is an ideal, are kibbutzim and other intentional communities . However these are neither government owned nor run. I won't say all but many of them are made up of people with a shared interest who join together to buy and own their own land and careful about they allow to join. It takes a lot of hard work for them to work.

Falcon

Re:bearaucracy and politics

[master_p]

Do the names Sweden, Germany etc tell you anything?

Re:GPL == Lifetime indentured servitude

[MoneyT]

Hence my point that the GPL is not about freedom and that it's counter to it's goals. The GPL is as evil as the copry rights and patents it seeks to eliminate.

Freedom

[SgtChaireBourne]

Actually a some of the countries pinged for being "socialist" did an exceptionally good job in most measurable factors while actually following a middle path between capitalism and socialism. There are things that it makes more sense to have run by the government, there are things where it makes more sense to run as a business. There is no need to force a once-size-fits-all ideology where it doesn't belong.

Take a case study of the Scandinavian countries during the period back when they followed a middle path between capitalism and socialism. For a few decades they had the best of everything, including plenty of services (post, day care, pensions, health care, land management), high standards of living, low unemployment, and a budget surplus. Now look at them and compare policies and the fallout from those policies. e.g 1975 vs 2005.

Back to the GPL. If one wants to take a different spin on things. Then all the red, white and blue patriotic stuff like "don't tread on me" , "live free or die", "liberty or death", etc. really overlap with GPL which has at it's core the concept of Freedom. Or has Freedom somehow become 'unamerican' these days?

How about a localized version of the Open CD with the stars and stripes on a color label and slathered in quotes from John Paul Jones, Patrick Henry, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, etc. in the context of the freedoms layed out by the GPL? It could be handed out at state or county fairs this summer. [note to self: shit! is it July already?]

Do the names Sweden, Germany etc tell you anythin

[falconwolf]

I don't really know much about Sweden but I know my sister would of found it hard to do in Germany what her and some friends did in the US. Her and some friends are CPAs and few years ago they started they own accounting firm. At about the same tyme I chatted with someone in Germany and he said that there they would of had to have a lawyer start the business, that they wouldn't of been able to start their own accounting business. Here they were able to hire people thus reducing unemployment but it would of been mush harder for them there. According to this webpage in the US unemployment rate is seen steady at 5.1%. where as this page says German unemployment falls to 11.3pc in June . I know US figures are distorted because they only count those who are actively searching for employment and are collecting unemployment insurance but I'd bet that if all the able bodied, employable, people old enough to work but aren't, are only working parttime, or are making less than they were before the recession and dotcom bust (in the US), Germany would have a higher rate than the US.

Falcon

Re: Do the names Sweden, Germany etc tell you anyt

[master_p]

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but don't just hang on one example. A lawyer is needed in many cases in Europe just to make sure you are not a criminal or something. I am sure there are similar precautions in US, because an accounting firm has liability to the state. My sister works as an accountant, so I know (although not German), and its firm hires new people quite often. But I talked about Germany as an example of a country that has very little buraucracy and quite a good system of social welfare. So is Sweden, with income per capita similar to US.

But then again that's not the point! Numbers can be manipulated, as you said. If you measure unemployment, you should also measure homeless people and partially employed ones, which are a huge percentage in USA.

My point is simple, really: under what system is it better to live? and is socialism evil, as it is portraited in USA? is socialistic democracy bad, as it has been applied to Europe the last century? if we take examples like Northern European countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland), Germany, even France or Italy, (with the monster buraucracy that they have!), we can see that it's not that bad. It is better to loose social welfare when unemployed (as in US) or not (as in EU)?

And why buraucracy has to be linked with socialism? buraucracy is just the wrong way chosen to do things. Simplifying laws is a matter of decision and political will. There can be a system that has little or no buraucracy, and at the same time maintain a social welfare system to protect the less strong ones.

Of course I am saying this as I see capitalism taking over in Europe and basic rights being abolished. They want us to drop the 8-hour workday and work from sun-up to sun-down without being paid the extra hours. They want to have the right to lay us off without paying damages. They want us to work partially and only when we are needed. In other words, they want to destabilize society to increase their profits. And companies' profits have risen more than 80% the last year throughout EU. Banks' profits have risen 500%!!!

socialism

[falconwolf]

Of course I am saying this as I see capitalism taking over in Europe and basic rights being abolished. They want us to drop the 8-hour workday and work from sun-up to sun-down without being paid the extra hours.

What rights are being abolished? And what are "basic rights"? I consider property rights to be "basic" myself., for if you don't have the right to own property then you are at the mercy of whomever. As for work hours, in a free market economy the amount of hours worked can be negotiated either individually or through collective bargaining. If people don't want to spend X amount of tyme working then they can get together, say create a union, and bargain from a point of strength. As for what you see "taking over in Europe", it's not capitalism, it's a corporate aristocracy. Unfortuately they've already taken over the US.

Falcon

He who possesses much silver, may be happy;
He who posseses much barley, may be happy;
But who has nothing at all, can sleep!
Arab proverb

Re:Mods, please...

[Tom]

It boils down to:

The fact that without the GPL, there is still considerable incentive to take a GPL software, make a few trivial modifications and sell it closed-source.

Do you think all the companies that gpl-violations.org is hitting are stupid and don't know what they're doing? Or that they simply haven't seen the light yet? Probably true for some, but I am certain quite a few have taken a good look and decided that the advantages of having a proprietary product outweigh those of an open development.

And you know what? They're right. If I repackage iptables and call it "Tom's Tables", I doubt I'd sell more than a dozen if I prominently said that it's the same as iptables, except for the banner text. But if I add a few marketing pages saying how much effort I put into developing a revolutionary and excellent software...