Slashdot Mirror
MS-Funded Study Attacks GPL3 Draft Process
QCMBR writes "A new Microsoft-funded study by a Harvard Business School professor concludes that developers don't want extensive patent licensing requirements in the GPL3. There are significant problems with the study, however, especially given the very small sample size. 'Although 332 emails were sent to various developers, only 34 agreed to participate in the survey — an 11 percent response rate. Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.' Ars points out that the GPL3 draft editing and review process is highly transparent and inclusive 'to an extent that makes MacCormack's claims of under-representation seem difficult to accept given the small sample size of the study and the number of respondents who contribute to non-GPL projects.'"
Does anyone really expect that Microsoft would fund a completely selfless and accurate poll no matter what the subject?
...Steve
Oh, no! Not an "atack"!
A FSF-funded survey concludes that MS sucks!
Anyone can create a biased survey that self-serves their own interests.
A MS-funded study says the GPL3 is a badly done job? Then Stallman must be going in the right direction after all!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The piece also leaves a bit to be desired. While it states "Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.", it neglects to mention how many. Of course, I can't be fucked actually reading the study (it is in PDF after all...). But other then that, it looks OK.
On to the study it self, I agree with the authors point that far more then 34 people have participated in the drafting of the GPL v3. Not only GNU folks, but major corporations.
If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open. The Free Software Foundation could easily have hidden with some lawyers for a couple of months and then simply presented the new GPL. Obviously all the FSF stuff would go over, as would quite a lot of other stuff that has the V2 or later clause. Most developers aren't lawyers, and I'm sure that they would accept the new GPL, even if they didn't have a say in drafting it (compare version two), so long as it looks alright.
Conclusion, the study is stupid and a waste of time. While I don't use the GPL for my own projects (preferring something simpler), they are quite simple projects. For anything major, the GPL does the job, and will no doubt continue to do the job well into the future.
I wank in the shower.
Must be good, send it to print!
Got Code?
you would think that if microsoft really did think the GPL hindered opensource they'd do well to keep quiet about it to hinder the competition it would have brought- instead they make empty threats and use a flawed study to support their assertion
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
This prevents them from having a valid opinion of the GPLv3? Maybe they have good reasons for not using the GPL that should be taken into account?
I mean honestly, if you survey 2000 GPL fan boys, what do you suppose they will say about the GPLv3?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
would this not indicate a high degree of apathy which tends to bear out the main point?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The best part is that Microsoft has now become the single best reason *to* embrace the GPL3. And to think I ever had doubted.
Quack, quack.
In the past Microsoft sniffed and derided the GPL and anything vaguely open source as communist or just plain non-capitalist and generally plain ignored it. Now they're actually funding studies to tell us how about it is, and not only that, they have an agenda of what parts they don't like about it - namely patent reform.
Considering the rather silly deal Microsoft struck with Novell, and the silly deals they'd like to strike with other Linux vendors to get the message across to the corporate sector that if you use open source software you pay Microsoft for IP, this looks a touch suspicious. Maybe the FSF have touched a bit of a nerve somewhere.
It's incredibly funny and rather unbelievably naive that Microsoft would think that anything like this would sway anyone's opinions, certainly in the same manner as one of their 'Get the Facts' studies or one of those 'Windows Server beats everyone' studies. They really haven't learned a whole lot over the years. For them to claim the open source developers, the people who they've derided and don't have much time for Microsoft either, are under represented just seems like quite an above average desperate move.
I haven't made up my mind concerning GPL3, but Microsoft's war against it is nearly enough to sway me towards GPL3. Microsoft is using cross licensing agreements, and attempting to herd Free Software into a commercial vendor only arena (Novell). Once there, they can compete with and or kill it using the usual dirty tricks. So if the question is "Where do you want to go today"? The answer is somewhere free of Microsoft.
MC
Yes its a new form of terrorism where the terrorists puts a large map or diagram on the wall and then place a thumb tack in each spot where they plan to strike (a tack). Then then break for lunch and the afternoon session breaks down into an argument about whether they it might be better to use blu tack to identify the targets because it does not damage the wall behind. Should the maniacs proposing this strategy win out then we will face the even graver danger of Btacks (well Blutacks would just sound silly wouldn't it).
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
in this day and age, and on slashdot in particular, isn't "MS funded" synonymous with "/ignore"?
sarcasm:
-noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
34 out of 332? That's an *abysmal* response rate and pretty much means that the study is entirely worthless, no matter what the conclusions are or who actually answered.
butter the donkey
The new GPL - which will undermine all of M$'s FUD claims over patents because of Novell's vouchers not having dates on them - is thought to be bad by some who was paid by... M$! I'm shocked.
I'm also more shocked, genuinely that Harvard allows people who conduct "studies" like this to be professors... It's just shocking incompetence. I'd be amazed if you could pass an MBA doing shit like this
*''I can't believe it's not a hyperlink.''
The funniest thing is that the paper is titled ""A Developers Bill of Rights: What Open Source Developers Want in a Software License."
Yes, Microsoft is proposing a Bill of Rights, for open source developers! Can you believe that?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
OK, I know that fake studies are a part of Microsoft's standard operating procedure for affecting the standards and codes proposed by governing bodies, but where's the rest? Shouldn't Microsoft be giving zero-interest "loans" to RMS, sending Eben Moglen to play golf in Scotland (a fact-finding tour), and buying a powerboat for Linus?
Seriously, though, who gives a crap what a Harvard professor, funded or unfunded, with or without a good sample size, claims the average developer wants? The GPL is not supposed to be populist, it's supposed to achieve a purpose. A purpose that most of the world - heck, even much if not most of Slashdot's readership - has never fully grasped. A purpose that is diametrically opposed to software patents.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Judging by his faculty biography, Alan D. MacCormack is much like the virgin who writes about sex. He writes a lot about software development, but there is no evidence that he has actually done any.
I take it you didn't bother to read the actual study. If you had, you'd have to agree that what they're saying does make sense.
A lot of it revolves around the decades-old debate between the BSD- or MIT-styled licenses, and the GPL-styled licenses. Essentially, what we find is that those who scream the loudest about giving freedom often are actually the biggest proponents of limiting it. That's what we have with the GPLv2, for instance. It puts some pretty serious restrictions on what can be done with modified code, for instance. It actually takes away a lot of freedom, when we think of freedom as measured for the entire community, and not just the developers/users of the GPL'ed software.
Meanwhile, those who use licenses like the BSD license or the MIT license tend to be more focused on technical excellency. But by not focusing as much on the freedom-related issues, they actually tend to offer far greater liberties when it comes to using, modifying, redistributing and profiting from their work. Their attitude tends to be one of "do whatever you want, just keep our license and disclaimer notices intact". So in the end, everyone in the community has a far greater degree of freedom as to how they want to use, modify, redistribute, etc., the software. Freedom is maximized, as much as is practically so.
I think it is quite clear that most people who release there source under GPL does so to ensure that they can always have access to it, even after other people have made changes to it.
If a company then can go and make changes to your code, and add patented technology which you are not allowed to used, then you are pretty fucked, right?
Why should anybody not want to be protected against this?
Here's a summary of the developer data used in the study, see pp 21-22.
Demographic Group
Pragmatists 19
Intellectuals 8
Philosophers 7
GPLv2 / LGPL / GPLv2+Commercial: 20
included: Linux, MySQL, XenSource, Snort, Amanda, JBoss, GCC Toolchain
Non-GPL: 14
Includes:Apache, PHP, Apache Geronimo, Perl, PostgreSQL, Eclipse
Raw Data:
Amanda 2
Apache 4
Apache Geronimo 3
Eclipse 1
GCC Toolchain 4
Jboss 3
Linux Kernel 7
MySQL 1
Perl 2
PHP 2
PostgreSQL 2
Snort 2
XenSource 1
If developers don't like the licensing changes in the GPLv3, they are always free to use GPLv2, BSD, or any other OSI-approved license. Its not like RMS is going to go around and force people to use a particular license.
If developers are upset that GNU projects will go under a license they don't agree with, well, that's just tough. Either use the BSD equivalents, fork the GPLv2 versions, or write your own. The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
At least the title wasn't "MS-Funded Study Attacks Gee pee El lets set so killer delete select all"
mod me funny
I completely agree. However, the use of a $ in MS, is so original, thoughtful and funny and always leads to insightful posts. I think to battle this insightful jargon we should start saying things such as Goog£e, £inux, Appl(Euro sign here), Ci$co or ¥ahoo. We'll use currency diversity, that'll show em!
The GPL allows people to use excellent software, without cost, with the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute that software. However, there are some strings attached. Is there and element of greed to that? Yes, there is. I agree that the GPL is as much a constitution as a software silence, and that's how I like it. Even those under the banner of freedom need laws and regulations. The existence of laws may seem contrary to the concept of freedom, but that is not true. Just as a kite cannot truly fly without a string, FOSS cannot flourish unless there is a code of conduct. I am not donating to free software projects so they can become one-way code farms for proprietary software companies.
You mean other than Linus (who, by the way, is now "pretty pleased" about the newest draft because his concerns were addressed)? Cite sources like I just did.
That's better. Actually mentioning "MySQL" was enough to lead me to this, which does back up your claim. You should note, however, that according to that article MySQL doesn't actually have any particular philosophical disagreement with the GPLv3 itself.
Which companies?
No, you failed to back up your claim, which is the hallmark of a troll (along with insulting your audience, which you also did -- and which you failed to acknowledge now). That's why you got put on my "foes" list, and that's why I told you to "shut the fuck up" -- it seemed very unlikely that you had anything constructive to say, because you presented yourself so poorly.
What argument am I trying to support? If you re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I never actually disputed the truthfulness of your claim; the only argument I'm trying to make is that your failure to provide any basis for it (not to mention your confrontational attitude) isn't useful.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz