Slashdot Mirror
The GPL Impedes Linux More Than It Helps?
Anonymous Coward writes "Linux ought to be even more successful than it is. On ZDNet, Paul Murphy ponders the reasons why. For one thing: The GPL impedes Linux more than it helps. Licensing issues, coupled with patent and copyright FUD, have caused developers and VCs to think twice before committing to Linux. Murphy also suspects that desktop Linux is stuck on stupid." From the post: "Basically, legal issues, or the threat of legal issues, caused some key applications developers to back off Linux while the general negativism of Linux marketing caused many of the individuals whose innovations should have been driving Linux adoption to hang fire until MacOS X and Solaris for x86 under the CDDL came along."
Click here or here.
Yes, all FUD asside (and this is mostly FUD) if linux switched NOW to another license it MAY be usable in some situations where it isn't now. But what makes Linux itself is its license. If it had a different license it would simply be another UNIX clone would it not, and most likly it would still be sitting in Linus's FTP server right where he left it many years ago.
The low profile of FreeBSD when it is used in the enterprise (I'm talking servers, not OSX) is evidence that the GPL does nothing to hinder Linux. With a BSD-style license Linux would have no advantage to developers over BSD and wouldn't be in the position it is now.
Well, you know, that's kind of like saying that air impedes an airplane. That's true, but it also flows over the wings and provides lift.
Note that we could also say the same thing about proprietary, commercial software too: that licensing restrictions and costs impede its adoption. But they also create the circumstances in which that software is created.
The goal of the GPL has never been rapid adoption of software, but rather adoption under particular circumstances.
Anyway, has there ever been a time between 1991 and now when Linux and free software in general have not grown in user base?
As for Microsoft FUD - that's simply directed against any competitor. GPL is rallying banner for most of the opensource community, so naturally they're targetting it with their immense advertising budgets.
The Raven
Having ethics is an impediment to success in many fields. If the GPL weren't there to enforce the ethic of keeping the source open, of course it'd be more readily adoptable.
You'd maybe see software technologies developed for linux integrated into proprietary commercial closed-source applications, just as they did with the BSD implementation of TCP/IP in MS Windows, or BSD/Darwin into Mac OS X.
It wouldn't bring about the desired effect of keeping software Free, though. What do we want Linux to be?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Even if the GPL is slowing corporate adoption, an assertion proved by nothing more than the statement "I think" and a fun little example of the post hoc fallacy, that's no reason to ditch the concept. Sure, more corporations might adopt Linux if it were a closed-source program, but why they'd want a relatively unsophisticated OS by some Scandinavian kid instead of the more robust UNIX is beyond me.
Do you see what I mean? You can't separate the success of Linux from its community and core ideal. They rise and fall together. One of the things I respect about ESR is his realization that good code alone won't win adoption for a GPL'd program. This is about ideas as much as code--and philosophers and salesmen are as much combatants against Microsoft and chattel software* as any F/OSS programmer.
*I asked RMS about that phrase. He didn't think it was all that good, but I still kind of like it. What do you think?
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
Yes, Linus is a talented manager. But he also started without the tremendous codebase that BSD has always had.
Personally, I'm getting a little fed up with the anti-GPL griping. I suspect the gripers of wanting to abuse code they didn't write. People married to the commercial commodity model of software so successfully exploited by Bill Gates. I have yet to hear an objection I find balanced. Most are just "I want more".
It seems to me that companies have always had a choice of other operating systems that would allow them more freedom to change the source code and not worry about having to contribute back to the community. Witness the BSD license.
I believe that Linux has been significantly helped because of the GPL. Anybody that is worried about licensing issues with the GPL can just use a BSD derivative and call it a day.
As for the CDDL I have a feeling it will get little attention since it is not compatible with the GPL. It's like creating their own little island community of developers. Yeah, it's nice that they're opening their source code, but there's not much use in everyone dabbling in it because you are unable to take the work elsewhere. I remember IBM trying the same thing with their own incompatible license and it went absolutely nowhere.
From the article:
IBM's endorsement of Linux, the SCO law suit in response, and Red Hat's negative market stance as the Sun killing would be Microsoft of the Linux era combined to destroy the automatic assumption among key innovators in the United States that Linux was "the place to be" -eventually moving many of them to the BSD and Solaris camps where they're now driving the fastest installed base expansions in the history of computing
Murphy talks about an automatic assumption but he's hidden one of his own in this para: that the only key innovators in the US are vendors and venture capitalists. GPLed software lets just about anyone with half a brain and an itch to scratch be an innovator.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
That's a pretty circular argument, almost like saying "everything that's sucessful can't be improved".
It's entirely possible that licensing isn't one area of Linux that is in dire need of improvement, but don't use the argument "this is what got us here" to back it up.
Without the GPL, Linux would not be prevalent now. Indeed, the BSD license provides absolute Freedom, Freedom such that software can then revert to being non-Free at the drop of a hat. Mac OS X is an example of this. Linux, however, by means of the GPL, will always be Free. Because of this, we do not have to be concerned that our software, our operating system, the very way we use our computers, will ever change. Rather than anarchy, the GPL respects and includes many Freedoms while ensuring that future users, and indeed our future selves as well, will continue to benefit from the software forever, rather than saying 'OK, here it is, do what you want with it, we don't care.' With the GPL, we can't be exploited by opportunistic software firms that want to release a product without much work. And we'll still be able to churn out superior software long into the future.
Do you Gentoo?
I don't think takeup would neccesarily be better with a BSD license, either - as evidenced by the fact that BSD takeup lags far behind Linux.
I was reading opinions like Linux is failing because of the GPL and kept thinking "in what particular way? Give me an example where the GPL is failing Linux - a hard real example such as 'technology professional X reviewed Linux and found this failing in the GPL so decided to go with another choice'". Or the opinion that Linux should try to be something other than a WinDOAs look alike - such as what precisely? I mean it's really easy to point out flaws, but just a tad more of an undertaking to provide real answers and solutions.
Reading all this felt a bit like someone saying they think my shoes are ugly without any real information on how they could be better or why particularly they're ugly. I mean he has a right to his opinion of things but ultimately, if he was hoping to actually keep my attention, I would think he would try to at least give me something concise, with real value and of some interest to me. Ultimately I was left with the impression that he can insult Linux, and the point in that exercise is what? Was it just me who was left feeling that way?
"As far as I'm concerned, I prefer silent vice to ostentatious virtue." ~A. Einstein
Linux works great, but you have to recompile for every little change to the system.
Notice how on most OS's you can own a CD of an application and just install it? Because there are STANDARDS! That's what hurts third-party support.
Flexibility is good, but if they would make a usable standard and stick with it, we might not have to worry about recompiling so often.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
So I have to ask. Do you compose each jingle as you write the post, or do you have an archive of them you pull from? I suspect the latter as they don't seem to have any clever reference to the discussion topic in them.
In fact, if not for the GPL, IBM, HP, etc would never have signed on to it. They do not mind sharing source code, but they want to know that a company such as MS can not come in and hijack it.
Right now, MS could support BSD and kill the market from under Apple. That is what happened in Unix, after it was closed. The big players slowly killed off the little guys by adding closed source that was unavailable to them.
Besides, keep in mind that only Windows is a moneymaker (and that is due to the monopoly in Office). No other OS makes a direct profit. Not even Apple, or any of the linux distros.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You said "use completely freely" when you mean "use and redistribute without restriction". Perhaps in your world, bait and switch is a common or acceptable tactic, but some of us prefer to use words according to their meaning. The use of software is entirely separate from its (re-)distribution.
BSD code is, but the *BSD OSes are not. They have much lower market penetration than Linux.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Translation: We can't take the code developed by thousands of programmers over 15 years, make it proprietary, and contribute nothing back.
Response: Yep. that's the whole fucking point!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
The lawsuit was *10 years* ago and pre-dates any signifigant adoption of Linux. If the GPL is the obstacle to Linux pickup, and the BSD license would resolve that issue, then BSD should be more popular. I submit that the nature of the GPL is such that it attracts more people, developers and users, and thus it is in fact a primary driver behind Linux adoption rather than an impedment.
"This is typical ZDNet FUD. "
I think that they discovered that this kind of article provoke outrage in Linux community and they publish them for the money from the ads they serve to the outraged (and curious) public.
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
So what if Linux isn't being adopted as quickly as it should?
What's so great about "quick"?
All of these businessfolk, always wanting things to grow quickly. I'm much more concerned with Linux adoption growing the right way, than as quickly as possible.
I know what some of you are saying, "With that attitude the Linux world will lose a lot of business." Yep. Get over it. ANd don't be so greedy, kiddo.
Please... _please_ stop getting "news" about Linux/OSS from zdnet blogs... they're nothing, and have as yet been nothing, but inflamitory bullshit designed to increase adhits.
Now back to your scheduled flamewar.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Not much more to say than that...he's offering FUD at discount prices. All you can eat. Two for the price of one.
But seriously, there's nothing here. He's jumped on the same old anti-GPL train that has been going around for a while. Let's not give this guy anymore airtime...there's no value in his suppositions.
--rc