Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Infuriate left and right
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"?
http://www.rajeshgoli.com
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
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.
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!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
"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.
Your post isn't valid HTML because it did not use the SATIRE tag, or even the now-deprecated SARCASM tag.
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
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.
Can't any of you responders recognize satire when you see it?
Of course we can't.
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
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".
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.
Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
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.
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.
jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com