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."
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.
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?
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
That's absolutely wrong. The GPL allows you to modify and to use GPLed code in any way you please. What the GPL does not give you is the right to give the GPLed code to someone else without giving that person the same rights you got.
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
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.
I think it would be worse. Would IBM or HP put out big chunks of code under BSD, where their competitors could add it to their proprietary products (like Windows or Solaris)? Nope. The GPL allows them to do so without fear it will be used against them.
I know I personally do not develop for anything that isn't GPL (or, occasionally, LGPLed). GPL is a way of using copyright law as a weapon. Company X wants to take the card I wrote, stick it in their proprietary code, then sue me when I make a copy of their program? I don't think so, I'm not playing that game. The GPL levels the playing field- if they want my code, they can have it, they just have to give theirs to me as well. If tyhey don't want to do that, they can rewrite it on their money. Sounds good to me.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
To what end? To allow businesses to re-licence their modifications under proprietary terms? The BSDs already exist to that end. To be sure, they've had some prominent business adoptions. The only problem is that afterwards they're not really BSD anymore, and it's hard to see how OSX for example actually brings any benefit BDS.
What else could appeal to business? Dropping the source code requirement for modifications? That more or less morphs back into the same case as a BSD licence. In addition, it's hard to see how this ameliorates any suspicion over a gift culture.
I really can't see what changes you'd make.
It should also be pointed out that for many of those who write GPL software, corporate adoption is not a high priority.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!