Slashdot Mirror
Leaving the GPL Behind
olddotter points out a story up at Yahoo Tech on companies' decisions to distance themselves from the GPL. "Before deciding to pull away from GPL, Haynie says Appcelerator surveyed some two dozen software vendors working within the same general market space. To his surprise, Haynie saw that only one was using a GPL variant. 'Everybody else, hands down, was MIT, Apache, or New BSD,' he says. 'The proponents of GPL like to tell people that the world only needs one open source license, and I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out dumb position,' says Mike Milinkovich, executive director of the Eclipse Foundation, one of the many organizations now offering an open source license with more generous commercial terms than GPL."
Hmm, okay? Seems kind of sensationalist to me.
Yeah, well I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out fabrication. Could we have a source for this assertion please?
Keep in mind, the basis behind GPL isn't it just have code that's open, it's to have code that STAYS open.
It's essentially self-perpetuating open source. I don't get all the people who discuss GPL work-arounds. It's really simple. If the GPL isn't for you, look for something with an MIT license, or even something in the public domain, or fucking code your own. The GPL borders on being an ecosystem, and if you wanna plunder it and move on, go somewhere else.
Every GNU zealout shouts this out at the top of their lungs, it should be pretty easy to understand by now: If you don't like the GPL license, don't fucking link to a GPL'd library. End of discussion.
The GPL makes the user a distributor and if your business model depends on restricting what the user can do it is no surprise that you wouldn't base your creations on the license, GPL is a license that protects those who use and modify the software from their predecessors, BSD is open code with the ability to conceal the source. The two among others are for different purposes and saying that there is one license to do the work of all is just as absurd as saying the GPL is dead. Until we see alternative OSes based on alternative licenses take a bigger spot than LInux, the GPL is in no danger. Furthermore, the goal of FOSS is more than just the GPL, it is the expansion of freedom to share and modify code and as long as FOSS as a whole is growing GPL or not it's a good thing.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Editor's note: InfoWorld tried to interview Richard Stallman, who runs the Free Software Foundation that created and manages the GPL, on this issue, but he demanded control of what we published, so we declined.
I LOLed.
Main difference between the BSD license and the GPL license: one is from California and the other is from Massachusetts
InfoWorld tried to interview Richard Stallman, who runs the Free Software Foundation that created and manages the GPL, on this issue, but he demanded control of what we published, so we declined.
Pity RMS couldn't have released his source words under some kind of open license so others could use it.
There is a small but vocal group of Free Software zealots who make life miserable for anyone who thinks that the GPL isn't the end-all and be-all of Open Source licenses. They frequently point out problems they perceive with other licenses like BSD without conceding that their perspective may not be applicable/correct/logical/reasonable. These are what I call the Free Software Fascists. They claim to work for the greater good of the OSS movement, but their actions are only self-serving.
This is not to say that everyone who chooses the GPL is one of these. There are many reasons to use the GPL, the greatest among them is how the GPL guarantees software freedom for all users, not just the developers. This is a respectable choice, though it does tend towards indian-giving.
It's difficult to say that the GPL fails to be useful to business because 1) there are businesses which quite efficiently use GPL software and tools and 2) it was not written with commercialization in mind (in fact, commercialization of GPL software is completely tangential to the GPL). But in its own way, the GPL makes itself hostile to developers basing their products on the base GPL libraries/software. In a very real sense, by demanding software freedom, the GPL makes any software it covers poison to a software product company.
So the article is right. There are many software/hardware product companies who are shunning Linux and the GPL. The lack of IP protection (nee, the deliberate elimination of IP protection) is not something companies who innovate are likely to embrace. On the other hand, the article is wrong in that GPL software usage has never been higher. The existence of GPL software helps many companies be able to compete due to lower implementation and licensing costs.
Which side you believe is the side you already believe.
Folks at KDE have a comparison table for various software licenses. The table might throw some light on the reason why the GPL is where it is today.
From TFA:
To force the free distribution of source code, the GPL requires publishers to place the source code on the disk they distribute their applications on
False; they simply have to make it available.
Under GPL, "you've got to give it away for free, and you've got to give the source code away for free as well," says analyst Kiewe.
False; RMS himself used to charge $150 for tapes of the GNU system. The GPL FAQ specifically states that you may charge for software under the terms of the GPL. Here's a current example of GPL software being sold for money.
So in short: either they didn't do their homework, or they're deliberately spreading FUD.
It's true. The only thing I love more than sharing code is sharing my ass.
Lesse, midnight on a boring middle-of-the-week Wednesday, just got through watching an old rerun of Clint Eastwood in A Fistful Of Dollars on the WGN Late-Nite-At-The-Westerns, but there's nothing good on now, and nothing else to watch on DVD, so what is kdawson's answer to this dilemma?
"Eureka! A flame-fest between the BSD Zealots and the GPL Fanatics, that ought to keep me entertained for the next 4 or 5 hours!"
[rummages through the inbox looking for good dry kindling, a match, some dynamite, and ...]
Come on, Guys and Gals, this is a setup piece for a flame-war, if I've *ever* seen one, you've *all* been had...
A big business is more liable then a small business, they have more assets to lose, assuming they lose a copyright infringement case. Lawyers like to sue people with money.
Big business historically have been the target of GPL lawsuits.
So I don't buy your theory.
GPL is a probably the best open source license for distributing software you actually want to make money from. What you do is charge a fee for people who don't agree to the GPL terms. With BSD, it's not quite as easy to do this. Notice some of the most profitable open source products (eg: SugarCRM, and MySQL) are GPL.
I fail to see how being offered the option of using GPL code, subject to certain conditions, impinges on your freedom(much less represents "fascism"). If you don't like the conditions, use something else. Nobody is going to put you in the GNU/Death Camps.
Unless you start from the position that other people owe you use of their work, without conditions, being offered that use, with conditions, can only benefit you. If you don't like the option, don't use it, if you do, do. Easy.
Fer crissakes.
This is a big whiny piece about how poor poor kleptocrats can't use GPLed code without giving back. Well, don't use it. Duh. There's no shortage of proprietary code.
And then it ends the article with the old fragmentation canard.
I expected to see Dan "Lyin'" Lyons in the byline.
Yellow journalism, anyone?
"Fair and Balanced"
--
BMO
Just about the only thing I can immediately think of that should be GPL is standard libraries for a programming language (C++ STL for example).
I doubt you understand the consequences of your preposition. The C++ standard library is based on templates, so you can't link dynamically to it. Translation units need the whole template definition and declaration in order to successfully instantiate an object or function based on a templated type. If this was the case, all code which used your C++ standard library implementation would have to be released under GPL. Not even LGPL would work here. This is why even GNU does an exception for their implementations of libc and C++ libraries.
People talk about "code freedom". It seems ridiculous (to me) for code to have freedom. What about my freedom? If I make something awesome with a library that is GPL and I'm feeling altruistic, I can't let people sell it without distributing source? That's ridiculous.
You don't have an inherent right to use GPL code without abiding to the license conditions any more than you have the right to breach copyright on other works. No one forces GPL down your throat. You can choose not to use it. If you feel so altruistic, code your own implementation of whatever library you find licensed under GPL and release your code under MIT or BSD.
Many business types can't get their brain around the concept of cooperation.
Let me give you an example: A great platform for working with microcontrollers is the Arduino. Google it, if necessary. It is open, you expect open source software with any shields (hardware addons) you can buy and developing applications interacting with the real world is a lot of fun. People built model plane USVs with GPS control and 3D printers with Arduino. Even some non-free spinoffs exist, but noone is really upset about them.
Great fun, useful, brilliant environment built on free soft- and hardware.
Now let's have a look at Mr. Liu. He runs a very small company (jyetech) that produces a very, very cheap, very simple oscilloscope. I own one - and for the things I do with it, it is more than adequate.
You could download the documentation and schematics from his website and build yourself that scope with a little thinking. (To find that it is actually cheaper to buy a kit or a completed device.)
But what about the software? Should be free, shoudn't it?
Someone actually wrote his own software for the scope from scratch. Mr. Liu didn't mind - but HIS software is HIS property. In a forum post somewhere, he explains the reasoning, which I cannot literally quote, but it goes like this:
"In China, a lot of stuff is copied. And bigger companies can build the scope cheaper and sell it more easily. I would be out of business. The competitors can build the hardware, but cannot write the software, and so far, my logo in the boot loader has kept the scope from being stolen."
It sounds a little like security by obscurity - but Mr. Liu seems to know his local competition. Now who would want to force feed the GPL to Mr. Liu because "all software must be free"?
Mr. Liu can do whatever he wants with his software. It's his. My point is that if Liu wants to build a cooperative community around his software, then GPL is a good way to do it. As it is, Liu's software has been duplicated. Well and good. If Liu wants to ignore the competing software he is free to. Then again, an alternative is to enlist and merge resources and work towards a single more powerful software base. Liu runs the risk of having the competing software go open source, attracting programming resources and himself being unable to keep up. His decision. No one is saying Liu must go GPL. I would say that he should keep it in the back of his mind though, if only to avoid loss of his current advantage.
GPL isn't just a hobbyist thing. Businesses find it quite useful, a a tool to keep each other honest when dealing with a shared resource.
If you invent the knife and then tell me I can only use it if I don't draw blood, why give it to me? I can decide if I am fighting off a wild beast to save my children or carving art with it.
Perhaps I think it is the wild beast's right to eat your children. Would you still rather carve your art with a splintered rock? The point at hand, however, is not what you may or may not use the knife for; it's how you can modify it, and if you need to show other people how to do that if they think your modifications are useful.
If I come up with an easier way for making knives, and show you how - I'm sharing my idea with you, for whatever reason; but let's just say that in whatever society or tribe this is, we live better if more people can have knives. What would piss me off, in this situation, is if you came up with a way of strapping my knives to a stick to fight with less danger to yourself; but wouldn't show me how.
If you then start selling your 'my-knife on a stick' (okay, let's call it a spear) because you can make knives easily using my process; but hide how the knife is reliably attached, you've created a competitive advantage for yourself based on my work.
Lets say that a third person comes up with a stronger, lighter stick. He wants to put a knife on it, to make Spear 2.0, and I show him how to make the knives; but he doesn't know how to attach them. I don't know how, either. In fact nobody does; but you.
Now, we have the opportunity to make a better weapon for everyone, but nobody wants to ask you how to bind the knife to the stick, because you're likely to rip off the new stick idea as well, and you probably wouldn't show us the right way, anyhow, because you want to be rewarded for other people's work.
The rest of this really hinges on you. You could share the information, and we'd all live better because we'd be the best armed tribe in the region. There'd still be work making the spears; and since you've been doing this the longest you can probably still make the most money or whatever if you want.
You can derive whatever moral from this you like; but the upshot is that ultimately we're going to rally the tribe to snatch you in your sleep and torture the information out of you with blunt sticks and short knives; err, I mean, get everybody to use a system of interoperating open source software components.
Hey, put down that chair!
I'm sorry, I don't get the business with the sticks and knives.
Could you repost this using a car analogy?
Thanks!
Nobody is going to put you in the GNU/Death Camps.
So you admit they exist then.
You are correct, nobody will put you in them. Indeed, you must assemble the GNU/Death Camp yourself. The chain-link fence, razor wire, etc. are available for you to use under the terms of the GNU/DCL. If you are having trouble with assembly or use of GNU/Death Camps, don't even think about posting questions here unless you've RTFM, googled it and searched the mailing list archives.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
"If there was no concept of copyright in the world, then the GPL would not be needed to cancel this nonexistent concept out."
Incorrect. The GPL requires copyright to keep the source code available. Without the license, one of the ways people could pretend that copyright does not exist is by making modifications, compiling a binary, and not giving out the modified source code.
I personally happen to believe that this is largely unnecessary, since it's in a businesses long term self interest to give source changes back to the public maintainers in order to offload ongoing maintenance; otherwise, they're spending all their time playing integrate-the-changes. I typically pick the BSD license, which is as close to public domain as you can get while still avoiding the tort consequences that would otherwise attach without a hold-harmless. This is mostly because there are no civil protections for people who put things into the public domain directly.
But make no mistake: the GPL is more dependent on copyright law than the BSD license.
-- Terry
GPL is good for anybody not making money directly off software products. I don't buy all the ideology around it, but as Linus says it's a cool license because it enforces tit-for-tat.
However, GPL is the kiss of death for anybody trying to make money selling software products. If you have a software product and publish any of its libraries as GPL, then your product must effectively become GPL'ed. And you put hard work into it and want to charge money for that, but anybody can take that product and sell it cheaper or give it away for free.
You can then play games to work around it (spawn the GPL product from a commercial one and talk to it through a pipe or something) but whatever you do is just a kludge in order to dance around the license.
Personally, I gave away the few small, well-rounded libraries I made under the BSD license. I don't really mind if somebody takes them and uses them to build a product they'll be making money off. The knee-jerk reaction here is that when somebody says "commercial software" people imagine big dominant companies like Apple or Microsoft, but the number of programmers working there is dwarfed by the number of small 1-5 programmer shops trying to make a living.
In fact, I don't even mind if a programmer at Microsoft takes my source code and uses it in a product. I met a few of them and they are mostly nice folks trying to make the best software they can. If Microsoft shareholders profit to an infinitesimal amount from something I gave away for free, I don't really give a fuck.
Dejan
I think he just wanted Infoworld to license their article under the Cc-by-nd license. Even the BBC agreed to grant him his wish.
See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7487060.stm
Your analogy assumes the only options are GPL and Copyright - for sake of analogy, let's call them mushrooms and dirt. If you are hungry, and your options are mushrooms or dirt, mushrooms will look pretty good. But what if your options are mushrooms, dirt, chicken nuggets, BBQ ribs, or steak? Sure, if you're a fascist vegetarian, you might still go for the mushrooms, but no one is going to take you seriously if you just run around screaming about how all anyone should eat are mushrooms, because they're much better than dirt.
If copyright is the least free, then licenses like BSD are *MORE* free than GPL, because they grant an even WIDER license to use the software than the GPL does.
paintball
Yes, there are some companies who use the GPL with varying degrees of success and for a variety of reasons. The article is showing that there are many companies that choose to explicitly avoid the use of the GPL for a variety of reasons including but not limited to the very reasons that those other companies choose the GPL!!! The FORCED distribution of source code to modified GPL projects means just what the article says, it's a serious limitation for the business and loss of revenue potential. That's fine for some but not for most.
It's not about stirring FUD at all. It's about educating people that the GPL isn't right for many.
In my company we have no fear of USING a GPLed program or even of shipping it with our software. What we do not do is commit lots of time and money developing an existing GPL program and giving OUR changes away for free. Sure we'll change a line or twenty if needed to fix a bug or add a simple command line option we need for example, but we'll not put in any effort to develop it further. For serious updates we prefer to maximize our profit potential so we do prefer the other actually free licenses.
When shipping and using a GPLed program in your software make sure that you keep it contained in a GPL Virus Containment Condom so that it can't infect your own software! You do this by keeping it a separate program or by putting it into a separate program if you're linking to a library. Often a command line program is one of the best forms to wrap libraries in so that you can access it without being contaminated by it.
Now you might not like the way that I think or write about the GPL but it's not FUD, it's the reality of how my company and it's people hold the GPL in low regard and as a danger to our financial endeavors.
So choose your software licenses carefully for it can have a real world impact and the GPL can destroy your business if you're not careful.