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."
The author admits that the headline was inadvertently applied from a post he intends to do tomorrow.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
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.
This is typical ZDNet FUD. Is there any evidence that intelligent, well-informed businesspeople (i.e. those who have clueful lawyers) have a remote concern about licensing when choosing Linux?
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
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?
Put identity in the browser.
Because OSX isn't for everyone. I use it everyday at work, but when I get home I much prefer using kde on my linux box. I can configure it pretty much any way I want it and in my opinion most of the software is better. I prefer Amarok to iTunes, digikam to iPhoto, gaim to adium and so on.
OSX looks pretty and does work well (especially expose), but I have my desktop at home set up exactly how I want it, where as with OSX I'm always conforming to their way of doing things.
I Love Alberta Beef
Most likely quicker than the time it takes pizza to go from roof-of-mouth scalding hot to zero-Kelvin cold...
I see no reason to squabble about it. Everyone knows that Gnome is better. Of course, I am typing this from KDE on Knoppix...
Click here or here.
The GPL claims to protect the user's freedoms, but that's plain wrong. The GPL protects other users freedoms at the expense of any one individual's ability to use a piece of code completely freely. Corporate lawyers have a hard time coming to terms with that, and for good reason. The GPL is as much an ethical statement as a license, and it's not something that a commercial producer of software should take lightly. The modified Artistic license and modified BSD license are much more user friendly, and if Linux and most Linux software used those instead adoption would probably be greater. It's not clear that would be better though.
For a large company looking to create software for Linux, all they need to do is write their own software and not link to any GPL'd code. This is no different than any other software (except that some might use win32 libs for gui, but I'm just guessing -I'm no programmer). There is no legal question in that, and I find it strange that a company would think there is one.
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.
The other thing was stability between versions. Linux is notorious for changing kernel APIs between minor versions. This is fine if all of your hardware has maintained open source drivers, but if not then upgrading becomes a game of Russian Roulette - seeing which devices will stop working (it was USB mass storage devices in our department's Linux lab last year, for about a month, with SuSE Linux). Any unmaintained drivers eventually find themselves using a no-longer-supported API and stop working, while closed drivers are often not updated often enough to notice the kernel change until users have started complaining.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
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.
i dont think linus is to keen about the GPL, he never actively promotes it.
Yes, saying things like "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did." is almost hostile.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
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
While Desktop Linux has been improving, it is stuck because of a lack of interest and motivation to make it a desktop replacement. If you look at this article with Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MarkShuttleworth, it's fairly easy to see that people don't particularly care about the perspective of Linux for anyone except developers and those to whom "source code" even means something. It's generally the same thing with the GPL, where it's written from and for a programmer's perspective. Sure, I as a "user" like the source code and completely understand the "freedom" in that context because I actually appreciate and use the source code.
./configure your way to hell. I want something where there is a standard way to install something.
From a real "user's" perspective, however, source code is useless. Unless they have the technical knowledge to change something, or the resources to hire someone to change/configure something for them, it's a total non-starter. From that perspective, Windows, while bad in many respects, actually offers more "freedom" to an end user in terms of what it allows them to do by themselves without having to go through a steep learning curve and specialize in something that should be a tool.
I have been using Linux for well over thirteen years, and I absolutely *loathe* how hard it is to do simple things. I want a fully integrated GUI. Sure, I can do it the hard way, and I like that the power of the CLI is there when I *choose* to go into it, but for the most part, it completely sucks. Apt-get my !@#$.
If source code is the way, then make a completely GUI-oriented, extremely simple, build tool that will take the source as a package and install it without having to type a single command. I would say that perhaps Gentoo was on to something, but from what I understand the community is even more elitist than most.
I think he's trying to hard. He starts by asking why all of the momentum that Linux built up during the late 90's is hard to see today. I'm just going to take a guess and say that maybe a lot of that enthusiasm went down with the dot com crash. You know, when the big tech bubble burst, and pretty much everyone's hype fell through? When businesses finally realized that just throwing more and more money into their IT departments wouldn't magically increase their productivity by 600% each year, perhaps that something to do with it?
I don't think it's been a problem with Linux as much as a more realistic take on the tech industry. Plowing ahead at the blistering pace of the late 90's was fun, but it resulted in a whole lot of wasted money, and it's recent enough that people are still remembering that. It's just a little bit harder to sell that kind of hype right now, so we don't hear as much of it. Meanwhile, Linux is continuing to do what it's always done, there's plenty of development going on for it, and new people continue to adopt it. It might be a little slower right now, it's definitely quieter at the moment, but progress hasn't hit a brick wall.
I think this guy is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
One time I threw a brick at a duck.
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.
I understand this. I got a powerbook last January or February. At first I was amazed at the eye-candy
Anyway, as the year has worn on, I'm liking OSX less and less. I've played with Tiger on other people's computers, but I don't see any improvement - just gimicks. These annoyances really start to add up -- I suppose it's time to check and see if the trackpad issues have been resolved yet. That's the only thing that's held me back.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
IANAL, but I think the GPL protects Linux rather than hurts it. Without the GPL, there probably would not be the free and open Linux we see today. It would likely be just another struggling proprietary OS destined to disappear once its owner was bought out or went bankrupt or just gave up on it (see OS/2). I really don't care if giant corporations adopt Linux or not, I just want a good tool that helps me get work done and helps me have fun on occasion as well.
The fact that Linux is free and open means, almost by definition, that it cannot have "success" in the usual sense. It cannot be easily sold shrinkwrapped for profit. And it cannot be closed up to thwart competitors either. By the same measure, it also means that it cannot fail either, for there will always be someone for whom it is the right tool at the right time even if MegaCorp Inc. can't make a dime off of it. The GPL makes this possible. Linux isn't going to die anytime soon, but it probably isn't going to be the OS of your grandma either, that is until it's widely used in cell phones, but that's another story!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
ah, the ultimate goal: Desktop Linux. He is right, its stalled. Distros like Ubuntu *almost* reach competitive usability. Almost because there is always some stuff that doesn't work properly. But this is rapidly being cured out.
/etc/fstab editing instructions, this should be possible with a nice graphical app. In fact, NOTHING regarding desktop usage should ever require xterm usage and/or configfiles editing.
Two potential reasons for the stall:
1. Lack of self-explaining software.
Software should not require the user to read the manual for the most basic tasks, the user should be able to find them out easily. KDE apps usually are self-explaining, GNOME apps too, however most other opensource projects aren't.
2. Application installation. This is a nasty one. The immediate answer is usually that the distros all have such a nice package system. Yeah, but what if software XY isn't in the package database? Tough luck, have fun compiling (if its not a binary-only version). This is where Windows is lightyears ahead: setup screens all look the same, behave the same way, and are easy to install. Linux? ahem... The only ones who got it right were Loki, who created their Loki installer. It is dead easy to install UT2004 in Linux. ALL apps should have self-extracting graphical installers, and the installation system should be *DE*centralized.
3. Hardware support. Despite the advances in the last years, hardware support still sucks sometimes. Try to get a TwinkeCam to work with Ubuntu 5.04. Its impossible unless you want to downgrade the KERNEL to a 2.4 one. Compiling the driver is not possible because of broken code that is incompatible with the 2.6 kernel (even with the 2.6 patches to the Makefile).
4. The community. Look, if you want people to choose Linux instead of Windows, you have to change something. "RTFM" is intolerable. Questions like how to mount a network share should not end in some obscure
To sum it up: People like stuff that "Just Works". Linux desktops rarely just work. The moments when they don't are far more frequent than with Windows and OSX desktops.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
It reminds me of when I was helping my daughter learn to ride a bike.
She was peddling along and I was running along by the side holding the back of the seat to keep it steady.
She said "I'm doing it, dad, I'm doing it - dad, get off, I'm doing it."
It was only my holding on that stopped her falling down, but she couldn't see that.
So, the GPL might stop a few VC's from investing in something Linux-y, so what!
If it wasn't for the GPL, then GNU/Linux wouldn't have become what is now starting to tempt VC's.
What do I care for VC's, GNU/Linux suits ME and a lot of people find it that way. I've debugged, contributed source and a few bug fixes, and it's been an absolute bargain for me.
Sam
blog.sam.liddicott.com
...controlling a higher percentage of market share you could be right. I have no way to test this. But for me progress is not about marketshare but about the advancement of ideals that support freedom in many senses. Too often we are seduced by market forces and the power that comes with more sales and higher marketshare. For me I'd rather have less and be free then have more but be restricted.
For me the GPL is the only license I see that succeeds in that, at least in the ways that are meaningful to me. Now, I suppose those freedoms may not be meaningful to you. I can't judge it, only be sure of my personal convictions in the matter. Time will tell who is right, I think.
Peace, or Not?
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.
BSD license aside, look at the licenses for other Unixes or other systems like Windows. You basically rent the stuff. You have to pay big bucks for it.
So, Linux has an excellent license when it comes to being able to use the great code and complete operating system components without paying a dime. If these people are really dying to write closed source applications using open source code, well, I don't know what to say. I think they could *pay* to do that, don't you?
So why didn't BSD get as popular as it is today without the GPL? Probably because corporations have been sucking out the peices they want to use and giving nothing back because they don't have to. The BSD community was never a sharing community. I don't think it is today either, although because of Linux it's become more so. Do you really think the *BSDs would be as popular now if Linux never came along?
Not to mention, most BSD systems use a heavy amount of GPL code these days, and the Linux kernel on GNU toolsets really took the GPL to the public. What would your favorite BSD look like without any of it?
Many programmers, and companies, are willing to contribute to GPL codebases because they're not willing to let the competition or some company to take their work, close source it, and sell it as something new and better to make bundles of cash. If they're going to give to the community, they want others to do the same. The GPL promotes that type of system.
People will complain about it because they want to use the code like it was public domain but it's not. Maybe this is considered "holding it back" but in my opinion we don't want that kind of thing anyways.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
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.
For those late to the licensing meeting:
The GPL is designed to protect software freedom. Business and adoption concerns were secondary, if they were considered at all.
I used to be concerned about how popular GNU/Linux was. I thought it followed that development momentum followed popularity, and GNU/Linux had to be the standard. Now I realize that I just love the amount of freedom and development momentum the platform has already, *right now*, and I care less about world domination.
I'm sure there's quite a bit more "market share" to be had by GNU/Linux, but there's already plenty for me to and the community to thrive on. Apparently, it's also enough for a fairly robust business segment, as well. That's enough.
Business and user adoption is not the most important consideration to how "successful" an OS platform is. Try measuring it using the stick it was intended to be measured with.
When was the last time you used a BSD system? Generally speaking the only GPL programs in the base system are a handfull utilities here and there, and GCC. You better believe that once they can, the BSDs will switch to Tendra and away from GCC. OpenBSD has by far the least number of base-system GNU utils, FreeBSD the most. And still, the majority of the base system in FreeBSD is BSD licensed.
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.
I would make the counter claim that it is only because of the GPL that GNU/linux has succeeded as well as it has. How long has Netcraft confirmed that BSD is dead? The BSD license allows big software companies to reuse code without contributing back to the larger community, and often without even an acknowlegement. The effect has been the use of a virtual army of unpaid programmers.
One large (unnamed) software company has even resorted to paying other companies to attack both GNU/linux and the GPL. That, and funding countless self-aggrandizing TCO studies that, were GNU/linux a corporate entity itself, GNU/linux would already have gone to court with said company with slander charges.
Just more FUD. Stop feeding the trolls.
windows already does the desktop office thing ok; in any area, getting a new system to replace an old system means the new guy has to be a lot better.
So, since linux desktop will never be a lot better then office windows, linux will never win by copying
If you look at the history of software, big changes occur when you get a new app that does something cool.
linux will be on every desktop when it has a new app like visicalc
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
If only more people discovered the alternatives, it would both out-class the current desktop market, and put to death that Linux can do nothing on the desktop but follow Windows around. There is literally something out there for every single taste and kink. Of course, we're *all* stuck supporting Windows-clones just for the people who insist that every computer in the world must look, smell, feel, taste, and sound exactly like Windows or they won't use it...but I digress.
---I have been reading alot about the future of LINUX and mainly the BS about windows vrs. linux. I have been trying to find a OS besides Windows to run and learn.
There's 2 camps of software that will run on X86 systems. Those being MS Windows (VMS derived) and Unix derived systems. The three divisions of Unix on X86 are traditional unixes (BSD and like, SunOS, and others), Linux and GPL'ed bretheren, and BeOS. Considering BeOS is dead, and propeirty unixes are not desktop suitable, that leaves you with Linux (which the most work at this time is done with) and MS Windows as competitors.
Both represent the two types of architechure development (Cathedral and bazaar opposites, and difficulties of each therof).
---It seems that the best thing about linux is the ideas of open source, reality states this is about all there is, IDEAS, It doesn't matter what OS, and I have checked a number of them, can be just downloaded and run.
The last thing you should do with a Free version of Linux is buy it. Some of the best are not for sale, in the traditional sence of going to a software store or buying a book. Gentoo and Debian are two such. Im sure you copuld find them to buy, but the traditional way of the user getting them is to download them.
Still, Open Source lets you see others implementations of ideas, and how you can guide yourself in the very implementations of ideas. Much more powerful than the Microsoft camp allows with a "default install".
---The wireless cards need drivers to work, fine it you know how to do It, and other things seem to keep poping up.
The problems with WiFi drivers is the companies will not release specs on how to drive the cards. We do not ask them to write drivers. We ask that the specs on how to talk to the card be opened. Think of this for a moment... Do you like using your older hardware? Would you still like to use it 5 years from now? If you dont know how the card communicates, it is worthless if you upgrade to a newer machine that has no driver for that hardware.
My hardware that works with open specs for my drivers will work for years and years. I am not tethered to one specific company.
---I have re-installed XP nine (9) times in the last six (6) months of trying to use LINUX.
Hard drives are cheap these days. Even if you have constraints, you could buy a 70$ USB2 enclosure for a 40 GB harddrive. If XP works, dont keep making it unwork.
---I don't know what to really do it seems so I bought a number of books, POINT & CLICK the last one, with CD's and there is still things that just make no sense whatever.
In order to work with Linux effectively, you must understand what you do. Every little action builds upon itself. The very idea of Linux is sort of like Legos, where every part is interchangable, but you do NEED that part. The parts on the top represent the GUI, below that nice pretty pictures lay a powerful command line to do many things at once. You can rip off each layer as it suits your needs. But, as you probably have learnt, the blocks are the same, but sometimes the blocks are TYCO instead of Lego, so they sometimes dont fit too well. That represents the difference between distributions.
---I always return to Window because I load it, it works. I have checked the linux forams of a number of distro's,
The forums wont help you understand why. Go skim parts of Eric Raymonds, Art of Unix programming. I guess I could force-feed you, but if you have no will to learn, and use free-r software, then go use Windows. If it works for you, there is no shame for using it.
---but it doesn't make alot of sense when you really don't understand the questions to ask, even the questions to look for.
Well, what kind of questions do you have? As an aside, please use better grammar and utilize paragraphs. Many a time, "bad ritings will be kritized in teh softwarez" and will be shrugged off with usually a deriding comment. Errors do ha