Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bill Gates On the GPL — "We Disagree"

Posted by timothy on from the doesn't-that-mean-disagreeing-with-copyright dept.

Dionysius, God of Wine, writes with a link to an Ars Technica story, quoting Bill Gates: "'There's free software and then there's open source' he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, 'there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.' Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software,' he claimed, bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and business. (Yes, Linux fans, we're aware of how distorted this definition is.) He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."

21 of 778 comments (clear)

  1. Not radical to charge, just greedy. by smellsofbikes · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Nothing wrong with greedy. Just, when you're competing with 'free' you better bring a lot to the table.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
    1. Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy. by ZephyrXero · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Wanting to make a profit is not evil. However, lies still are. Saying that nobody can improve (read innovate) in open source is a flat out lie, and he knows it.

      Also, if he really cared about making a profit he wouldn't still be clinging to his short sided, quick buck mentalities he started the company with decades ago...

      --
      "A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
    2. Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy. by pressman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Improvement and innovation are two different ideas. Innovate implies a radical change from the status quo, whereas improvement is gradual change to the status quo resulting in a better product.

      Photoshop was a huge innovation originally over traditional darkroom techniques. Early non-linear digital video editors were a huge innovation over linear tape-based and traditional film editing techniques, so Avid qualifies as an innovator.

      (I'm a video editor and photographer, hence the analogies)

      Since version 3, nothing in Photoshop has been terribly innovative though the program has seen numerous improvements.

      Direct-to-disk video recording is a huge innovation over tape based recording and it's accompanying tape-based offline workflow. Panasonic, Sony and Red have shown some innovation there, but most everyone else has just improved upon existing technologies and work flows.

      Linux, when it was released was a highly innovative OS and method of distribution. Now, however, most of what goes on in the OSS world (as it applies to Linux) is a matter of improvement rather than innovation.

      The idea of innovation has become so diluted that it's now meaningless and people simply equate it with "getting stuff done", no matter how small the change.

      Innovation isn't so much an active process as it is the result of inspired genius that strikes occasionally. Improvement is an active process of evaluation and execution. Innovation comes in spurts and then the innovations are improved upon and evolve.

      --
      Pooty tweet
    3. Re:Not radical to charge, just greedy. by BasharTeg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're right that his "improve" on OSS argument is empty, because I think what he was trying to say by "nobody can improve on it" is "no business can improve on it." But most importantly, I think OP really dicked up what he was saying. Notice how the word OSS falls outside of the quote. Notice how they were referring to GPL software. Bill Gates is saying he has a problem with the GPL, and the OP's obvious GPL bias translated that into ALL open source software. Bill's point was that businesses can't take GPL software and improve upon it or link proprietary software to it without the viral nature of the GPL taking over. His arguments are against the GPL, not more liberal open source licenses like BSD or MIT.

      The proof is in the pudding, they made use of a BSD based TCP/IP stack and TCP tools for many years before they rewrote them. Obviously they don't have a problem with BSD licensed software, only GPL licensed software. Yet OP feels the need to tag the quoted subject of "OSS" rather than "GPL licensed software" into the tiny micro-quote of Gate's words.

  2. Re:Charge for drugs? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's ok - as long as rich people with lots of money are the ones who decide what is handed out and what isn't. When the hoi polloi start making those kind of decisions, we have a problem.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
  3. Interesting... by AndyCR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software, It's pretty amazing that anything gets done, since what he describes as impossible is almost the only way Open Source software improves.
    --
    If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
  4. Flamebait by CheckeredShirt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sort of "article" is just flame bait. It doesn't provide any new information nor does it push any sort of point with facts or clarity.

  5. Drugs by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,'

    Sure, but he has a problem with some people choosing to not charge for them?

    1. Re:Drugs by AndyCR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think his point was that if you choose Open Source software to modify and base your commercial software on and it is under the GPL, you must also Open Source your commercial software. He is arguing that that prevents proprietary improvements, and that that is wrong. What he can't seem to understand is that it -isn't their work to make proprietary in the first place-, and you can't base a commercial project off of Microsoft's code unless they specifically allow you to either. He's completely missing the fact that it's no different with the software he himself produces.

      You're free to use GPL's tools to write proprietary software (John Carmack used the GNU toolset to write Quake on NEXT, and later donated $20,000 to the FSF as thanks for use of their tools), but you can't take a GPL'ed program, add a few lines of code, and sell it as a proprietary package. Bill Gates sees this as wrong, but somehow doesn't see that not being able to get the source code for Windows, add a few lines, and sell it as a new OS is the same darned thing.

      --
      If there's anyone I hate more than stupid people, it's intellectuals.
  6. Conversely ... by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them

    Conversely, if you basically steal the idea that other people have come up with, and implement them in a proprietary manner, you shouldn't go around claiming you invented it.

    The list of things that MS basically borrowed or copied from Xerox, UNIX, Apple, and general computing research is basically ... everything Microsoft makes. Other than implementation specifics (and, I guess MS Bob) I'm hard pressed to think of a single instance of a technology which they completely invented from scratch.

    Mostly I just remember things like Kerberos being hijacked, made incompatible, and claimed as their own invention. Fuck, they'd pretend to have invented TCP/IP if they'd been successful in forcing everyone else to adopt their version of it.

    Not to Bill Gates: We disagree too.

    Cheers
    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Bring a lot to the table by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are sooo right.

    'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,'

    Because if somebody else invents better drugs to give away for free, you're sunk.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
    1. Re:Bring a lot to the table by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because if somebody else invents better drugs to give away for free, you're sunk.
      Nah, you just give out enough free coffee cups and iPods to the doctors that they prescribe your expensive version anyway - after all, it's not them that's paying for it.
  8. He said it by orclevegam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said And remember, the first one is always free.
    --
    Curiosity was framed, Ignorance killed the cat.
  9. That explains it! by dreamchaser · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software'

    I've been using Linux since pre kernel 1.0 days. This explains why there is still no IDE support and I am stuck with that damn A.OUT executable format. I really wish they'd at least add support for more than VGA graphics. I know it's asking a lot, but I'd also like DVD and USB support.

  10. Nobody can improve the software? by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can I improve Windows? Unlikely. Not without getting a job there and spending several years moving up the ranks to be in a position where I can fix* things.

    Can I improve Linux? Yes*

    Why? Because the source code is there for me to play with and fix the bugs* in the software. I can't do this with Windows. I can file a bug report and perhaps they might fix it in a service pack or just write back and say it's intentional.

    *Granted, what I think is an improvement might be a step back in someone else's opinion, but at least I have the choice. Like Neo did.

    --
    Summation 2
  11. Great Analogy Bill! by brunes69 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: 'I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,' he said, adding with a shrug: 'That may seem radical."

    Sure, so who cares if a few million die as a result. You made your money!

  12. Weird disjoint by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the GP post never mentioned wanting tesco to give away food.

    However, if you have a back garden, you can grow potatoes for ... wait for it ... FREE! So do you think it right that tesco tell you you CAN'T produce food from your own garden and either use it yourself or give it to friends?

    1. Re:Weird disjoint by tonyreadsnews · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gardening isn't really free. It's just grown the way you want it. That's the benifit. If you equated the time it requires to garden, plus seeds/plants, fertilizer and pesticides (if you choose). You'll find that gardening does cost you, even though you don't have to pull out your wallet at harvest time.

    2. Re:Weird disjoint by WebCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Gardening isn't really free. It's just grown the way you want it.

      Free (libre) software isn't really free (gratis). It's just developed the way you want it.

      If you equated the time it requires to garden, plus seeds/plants, fertilizer and pesticides (if you choose). You'll find that gardening does cost you

      If you equate the time it requires to code, plus hardware/backup media, caffeinated beverages and dependencies closed libraries/drivers/dev tools (if you choose), you'll find that Free software does cost.

      I'm not sure if BillG really does misunderstand the concept of free software as much as is suggested by the content of his speech, or if he is deliberately spreading misinformation (such as that you cannot charge money for applications built using GPLed code). He also seems to mix up open source and Free software, which is a specific type of open source. GPL is open source but it is actually a particular form of Free software. conversely, Microsoft has released a lot of open source that is in fact not Free (you may see the code but you may not redistribute derivative works, etc).

      The real whopper lie he tells (knowingly or not) is that open source (inferring the GPL) prevents people from improving software, which is exactly opposite. It is Microsoft who has created open source licenses that made modification illegal. GPL *protects* the right of others to modify, improve and re-distribute.

      The real problem for BillG, I think, is that GPL, and other Free licenses that have similar terms of use, are a "poison pill" that severely hinders one's ability to establish a monopoly.

  13. Error in summary by CSMatt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Proprietary software, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software, There. Fixed it for you.
  14. Yes, and in Bill Gates' world by Phil+Urich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    there would be no evil profit-killing generic drugs. Yay Closed Source!

    No, seriously, Gates chose probably the worst analogy he could possibly make. I mean, comparing closed source software developers to the kinds of companies which gouge people in need as much as they can? The kinds of corporations directly responsible for things such as the lack of proper medications in the poorer countries in the world? (because although there's often enough money to manufacture the drugs they have patents and hence international monopolies, which means even if they give the drugs away for free there's a limited supply since no one else is allowed to make them)

    Basically our esteemed William used the worst possible example of the dirty side of Capitalism to characterize Closed Source software. Oops!

    --
    I remember sigs. Oh, a simpler time!