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."

Comments

Bracing for GPL V. X fight?

[Ojuice]

Hmm, okay? Seems kind of sensationalist to me.

ORLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

'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,'

Yeah, well I think that's actually, frankly, just a flat-out fabrication. Could we have a source for this assertion please?

Re:ORLY?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, RMS for example quibbles over what we call things all the time (open source vs. free software and Linux vs. GNU LInux) and does so with a religious fervor. If you don't think there are GPL zealots just a fanatical you're deluding yourself. I've been personally told before that the "GPL is the only REAL free license" by a fellow developer I once worked with. This sort of attitude is less about giving a company or individual what they want or need and more about making a philosophical/religious point about how you think people should behave and I agree with the article it's stupid and fairly damaging to the reputation and advancement of free/open source software.

Re:ORLY?

[93 Escort Wagon]

What you missed is that there's a difference between "free" and "open source."

What you missed is that there's a difference between your definitions of "free" and "open source" and what that word and that phrase literally mean to the vast majority of people (even the majority of IT people).

I propose that, for clarity's sake, people who use always the word "free" per the GPL hijacking of the word should start using "GNU/Free" instead - and please use the phrase "GNU/open source" as well. That way we can do away with all the semantic silliness that usually comes out of these discussions, and start debating the real issues.

Re:ORLY?

[rtfa-troll]

"fabrication" is a nice word. Lie is better. The Free software foundation, the main proponent of the GPL, actively recommends many other licenses than the GPL and for them and most users there is little difference. It's when you see a lie like this in the headline that you know that someone has an anti FOSS agenda (admittedly, it's in the middle of the Yahoo article, but the person writing it knew which sentence would go at the top in Slashdot). I wonder if yahoo really isn't joining the dark side.

What I've found, however, is that in a commercial environment the GPL is a very important tool. It's the one of the few licenses which can be trusted to build a completely fair sharing system where many companies can come together and produce one set of code without the likelihood of the other companies cheating on them. It's definitely true that commercial entities make more software based on BSD/MIT licenses. However, the fact that you see more contributions to the base software on GPL systems is not an accident. It happens because the commercial entities can be happy that if their contribution is used against them, they will at least have the come back of being able to use changes.

I've seen (and posted about before) many examples where the use of a non copyleft license or a less effective copyleft license has lead to abandoned projects. The most classic being the failure of the ipsilon routing contributions to be pushed back into FreeBSD which died with the operating system. This happens because licenses such as Apache and BSD don't demand contributions, which means that when the lawyers are asked, they often recommend against contributing "for now" and the contributions actually never happen.

For this usage, the AGPLv3 is also a big advance and should IMHO probably be the license of choice for all projects which want to have efficient long term cooperation with commercial software producers going forward. Having said that, the most important thing is to work together with other people who have similar interestes. The F vs OSS debate is all very fine in theory, but in real life everybody has very much to cooperate over. That's seems to be the main reason why Free software foundation generally recommends that people contribute using the projects own license.

Re:ORLY?

[iplayfast]

I've found that RMS often says things that make me step back and reconsider. For example cloud computing. I always get caught up in the buzzwords, but RMS pointed out that it actually gives people less control.

RMS is all about giving control to the user of the software. His whole philosophy is based upon being free to modify/repair/change any software that you are using, whether in a computer or printer or whatever. The fact that you've bought the software, means (in his mind) that you should have the right to change it. If you've bought a printer that has a bug in it's firmware you should be able to change it.

Companies don't like this idea because they will
1. have more expenses when a fix actually breaks something.
2. their propitiatory software is secret.
3. if you knew how simple the code was you would be upset at the price you paid.
4. competitors will use their code/ideas.
5. whatever

Companies are not consumer oriented. They are profit oriented. RMS is consumer oriented. He sounds eccentric when he talks because people have been brainwashed into thinking along the corporate lines.

If you view what he says from a consumer point of view he sounds very sane. Rather like Ralph Nader seemed eccentric when he went after the pinto.

Re:ORLY?

[_Sprocket_]

What you missed is that there's a difference between your definitions of "free" and "open source" and what that word and that phrase literally mean to the vast majority of people (even the majority of IT people).

And what you're doing is willfully ignoring the fact that there ARE semantic issues. Freedom and free-of-charge or not the same thing yet they can both be referred to as "free." This is just as much "hijacking" as the Free Software group.

You clearly understand the situation - semantics and all. Yet you're doing nothing to "start debating the real issues."

Re:ORLY?

[xororand]

Part of the problem is that he insists on taking "ownership" of the GPL, and frequently acts as though he's a spokesperson for the entire open source community.

Stallman distances himself from the open source community as much as possible. Both the free software and the open source communities (according to RMS' definition) have entirely different philosophies, with similar technical goals which allows them to work together most of the time.

He can't turn GNU from an open-source software collective into a pseudo political advocacy group because GNU has always been just that, a movement dealing with a social problem, while "open source" in general only refers to the technical standpoint.

Lost the point

[MukiMuki]

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.

Re:Lost the point

[MightyMartian]

Some folks want to take code they had no part in writing, do a few mods, call it their own, and give nothing back to originating source of the code. Some like to call them "commercial developers", but a more common and accurate name is "greedy leaches".

Re:Lost the point

[countach]

They don't claim copyright, the just want something in return. You use my code, I get to use your code. A simple barter system. You don't like the deal, don't use the code.

misleading

[wizardforce]

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.

Control freak

[synthespian]

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.

Re:Control freak

[The Bungi]

You just know that he would have demanded that Linux be called 'GNU/Linux' and so on. He's known for turning down speaking engagements from people who refuse to do that, too.

I beginning to think Richard Stallman is techdom's Michael Jackson. Once brilliant, his past work is appreciated by all... but he currently exists in a vacuum where he lives off his dwindling reputation and fawning attention of a few creepy adoring fans while everyone else just scratches their heads and wonder what the hell happened to him.

Re:Control freak

[Squiggle]

RMS actually makes a distinction between different types of information and how free it needs to be. At one of his talks he discussed 3 categories:

1) works of practical use (educational materials, software tools, etc):
        - should be free (GPL)

2) works of testimony (what people experienced or believe):
        - republishing with modification is misrepresentation,
        - commercial use covered by existing copyright

3) works of art and entertainment:
        - commercial use requires permission, personal use is fine

His position is nuanced, not stupid. I actually think the distinction is too difficult to make and it is best to error on the side of freedom, but there are certainly some tricky "moral rights" or artistic integrity issues for categories 2 and 3 with GPL-style freedom.

Re:Control freak

[FishWithAHammer]

Well, there's two ways to answer that.

The first, a moral argument that at the moment I don't have the patience to flesh out: Why do you _have_ to live from your job? Why is your probably-not-all-that-useful sort-of-contribution to society rewarded while theirs should not be?

The second, a practical one: many forms of modern art are simply too labor- and time-intensive to be done for free. Do you really think Half-Life 2 will be made "as a hobby in [somebody's] free time"? While some programming works can be done for free to the end user, they aren't free to the people making it. Linux would not exist as is if there weren't millions of dollars being funneled into it, and the methods of recouping that investment exist that don't involve direct sales of a product. Such doesn't exist for a lot of other methods that people find very valuable. Without copyright, we'll be introducing you to our old friend, the tragedy of the commons.

So, yes, I have no problem with criminalizing your fellow copyright infringers to protect my livelihood, and, quite frankly, I doubt even your fellow copyright infringers will have a problem with it when they realize that that's where the stuff they're passing around comes from. Taken to the extreme that you and your ilk think they would like, you would kill the goose laying the golden egg.

RMS disallows free use of his words

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[BadAnalogyGuy]

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.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[amicusNYCL]

Which side you believe is the side you already believe.

Just to be clear, our choices are fascists, people who share Indians, or businesses, right?

It's difficult to say that the GPL fails to be useful to business because ... it was not written with commercialization in mind

That actually sounds like it's directly contradictory to "business", however you want to define that. If you define business as the pursuit of commercializing a product, then the fact that the GPL wasn't written with commercialization in mind certainly seems like it fails to be useful to a business. At least, no business that is actually writing their own code instead of packaging other peoples' code. If your business involves packaging other peoples' code for distribution then, yeah, I'm sure the GPL is very useful to you. I'm not sure how many businesses need to exist that just distribute other peoples' code though.

If you're talking about developing your own product and then choosing a license, from a business standpoint it does make sense that you would release it under a license that doesn't give everyone else free reign with it. At least not in the short term, once your competitive advantage has worn off with time then it makes perfect sense to give it away for free. See id software for an example on that one.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[QuantumG]

It's amazing that after so many years people are *still* confusing commercial with proprietary. 99.9% of the use of Apache is commercial.. and it aint proprietary. However there are proprietary ripoffs of Apache and that is the problem that the GPL tries to defeat.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[BadAnalogyGuy]

For companies that would otherwise create IP based on GPL-licensed software, there is almost no distinction between commercialization and proprietary. They cannot commercialize their IP because to do so would force them to make the IP non-proprietary. For companies that create products, the two typically go hand in hand.

However, you're completely correct in pointing out that GPL-licensed software can be commercialized. Linux itself would not exists as it is today if it weren't for the commercialization of it by companies like RedHat and Suse (and Caldera, et al). Commercialization has a very big positive effect on GPL-licensed software. It actually funds the development of the product so as to be useful for the greatest number of customers.

But the GPL itself was written to protect software freedom, not specifically to enable (or destroy) commercialization of the software. It prevents the software from being made proprietary, and through prickly requirements like opening of all code which comes into linkage with GPL-covered software it ensures that the software remains free.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[Desler]

However there are proprietary ripoffs of Apache and that is the problem that the GPL tries to defeat.

How can you ripoff something that is freely given to all to use as they see fit as long they follow it's simple terms? Ripping off implies that you are taking something without someone's consent which is clearly not the case for proprietary software that is based on Apache/MIT/BSD/etc licensed software.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[the_womble]

The lack of IP protection (nee, the deliberate elimination of IP protection) is not something companies who innovate are likely to embrace.

There is no actual evidence for that - in fact the evidence (academic studies) point the other way. Most of the studies are on patents, not copyright, but it is all the evidence there is.

The GPL protects any actual innovator better than BSD style licenses because it stops free riders. See Zed Shaw's explanation of why he uses the GPL: http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html .

The article gives one actual real life example, and they prefer the Apache license because they prefer the patent clause, not because they want to allow proprietary forks.

BSD style licenses can be better for those who want to accept outside patches and sell a proprietary version (e.g. Django). It is more appealing to the outside contributors than a copyright assignment (like MySQL and ZImbra). In many cases they could also use the LGPL (provided they can cleanly separate the proprietary and open components), and I have no idea why they do not.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[Darinbob]

I'm not sure how many businesses need to exist that just distribute other peoples' code though.

This misses much of the problem though. You can create a full application of original code, then be forbidden to statically link with a tiny GPL library or borrow a couple of routines without making your whole product fall under GPL. This isn't a commercializing GPL code or rebundling it.

And yes, many applications must statically link and are unable to use dynamic libraries or plugins.

The result really is that a GPL license is poison to many companies, not matter how trivial the library or routines are you want to use. Even if you find a way to use GPL code properly a lot of companies still won't touch it just out of its reputation and legal headaches. (What's cheaper, buying a third party commercial library, getting the lawyers involved to figure out if the license really isn't a problem, or just going with BSD?)

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[Mystra_x64]

then be forbidden to statically link with a tiny GPL library or borrow a couple of routines without making your whole product fall under GPL

You have an option to write your own tiny library you know.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[maxwell demon]

This misses much of the problem though. You can create a full application of original code, then be forbidden to statically link with a tiny GPL library or borrow a couple of routines without making your whole product fall under GPL. This isn't a commercializing GPL code or rebundling it.

Guess what: If you intend to make your application proprietary, the GPL developers want you to stay clear from their code. So I'd say the GPL works as intended.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[julesh]

One could only imagine how Linux would have turned out with a BSD or Apache license; we might have ended up with a situation where Windows, OS-X and Linux apps were all compatible or atleast much easier to port.

Or maybe we'd all be running GNU Hurd by now.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[Serious Simon]

How can you ripoff something that is freely given to all to use as they see fit as long they follow it's simple terms?

By refusing to follow those terms?

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[Darinbob]

Which is exactly what most companies do. Which completely eliminates the "let's not reinvent the wheel" aspect of open source.

Writing these tiny libraries is not so simple, and can be a huge waste of time. The experts in the fields necessary for the application or product are not necessarily experts everywhere. They may not know how to write an efficient compression algorithm and have it debugged by the deadline, or have any familiarity with writing string internationalization routines.

Which is why these companies go to software with BSD or other licenses.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[someone1234]

When you say, you are 'going with BSD', do you mean, your whole application is going under BSD, or just you ninja'd a BSD library?

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[smash]

Exactly. There's a clear difference between GPL zealots and BSD zealots (of which, I am one).

• GPL people want code to be publicly available no matter what.
• BSD people just want the code to be used for the good of society; if you make money off it, so what.

If TCP/IP was originally GPLed, the protocol would probably not have taken off. BSD licensing (or public domain) promotes standards propogation. GPL encourages reinvention of the wheel, when someone decides that (heaven forbid) they want to be paid for their work (be it huge code additions, or just packaging up free code in a nicer package, or whatever).

Me? I'd much rather there was freely available BSD code for whatever problems have already been solved. Commercial products would be free to implement this well tested, standards compliant code and provide additional features that others may or may not be interested in. Those not interested in paying could take the base, well tested code and write their own pretty interface (or whatever) for it.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[maxwell demon]

And in what way does the existence of that GPLed code make your work any harder than it would be if the code simply didn't exist? Or if it would exist, but buried deep inside some proprietary application whose source you won't even get to see, much less be allowed to use?

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[Ciggy]

Take a GPL'd piece of code and remove the GPL - what do you have left? All you are left with is plain old Copyright which means you can't use the code (which was GPL'd) at all without the holder's permission; you could contact them for a licence (so that argument of having to re-invent the wheel is bogus), or get your own code written any way. The only reason GPL is viral or poison is the underlying Copyright - GPL takes Copyright and adds rights you would not normally have; without GPL you lose those right and would be in [danger of] copyright infringement if you were to use it commercially.

As a commercial company your aim is to generate profits which means as low as possible with the costs and as high as possible with the income from sales (whether that be sales of goods, services, etc). Which means that if you need a code library you try to get it as cheaply as possible - ie something like BSD licensed code where you don't have to pay the authors a single cent.

However, some authors object to you piggy backing them and making money off their effort with no reward to themselves; so they insist that the payment to them is that you release any modification to their code like they originally released their code so that others can also benefit from the code (ie GPL). Now if a company doesn't like this way of doing things, they are free to contact the original author(s) to license the code under different terms, one where money would more than likely have to change hands from the company to the author(s), thus putting up the costs, especially if a piece of GPL code has had a few modifications in which case EVERY one of those authors would have to be contacted and a licence agreed between each and every one of them (not needing to re-invent the wheel).

Also, how much can you trust closed source software? Can you be sure it isn't infringing someones copyright?

The only conclusion I can come to is that all those who moan about the GPL are those who would rather not pay the author(s) for their work - get something for nothing. Aaaaarrrrrrrrr, Jim Lad...

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[Vanders]

Writing these tiny libraries is not so simple, and can be a huge waste of time.

It sounds like some of those tiny GPL licensed libraries are actually pretty valuable. In which case, you as a software developer will have to pay to use them. The price is compliance with the GPL.

Which is why these companies go to software with BSD or other licenses.

If a non-GPL licensed equivalent exists then your previous argument doesn't apply and the company is welcome to use the non-GPL library at no cost to themselves. That also has no impact on their own choice of license.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[rtfa-troll]

The GPL is obviously preferable to closed-source software in this case, but I'm not sure how it's preferable to the BSD/MIT ilk of licences.

This depends on circumstances. In most cases the majority of the entities working on the software are not competitors, however competitors also can use the software.

When you release BSD software, you get equal support to all the other people who cooperate with you. However, your competitors have a possibility to get a specific advantage. They can take your software, use it as you do, but add their own proprietary changes which they do not share.

This means that companies should not contribute to BSD projects without considerable care. E.g. if a feature is basic and your competitor already has it in their products you can contribute it because your competitor won't benefit. If a feature is advanced and product differentiating then you should never release it to a BSD project.

With a GPL project, there is another option. You contribute to the project. Any competitors which take that feature change their relationship with you. You and your former competitor cooperate in an open and legal way in one particular area (this is legal because it is directly to the benefit of the consumers / public etc.) whilst competing on others (service ; hardware ; other software bundled etc.).

In theory, this means that BSD software is better for short throw away projects where you will never work with anyone else whilst GPL is better for long term stable projects where cooperation will be most valuable. In practice, things which are planned short term very often become long term. This means it's normally better to use and release GPL software

There is one exception to this. If you are releasing a feature that you want everybody to use, including proprietary vendors, then you might find that the GNU All Permissive License is a good option. At least noticing its existence is quite ironic given the summary on this story.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[AlecC]

Which is what the LGPL is invented for. The licence for Apps is the GPL, the license for libraries is the LGPL. If you link with LGPL code, you just have to make the source of the library available - in the for you used it. So if you bugfix or enhance the library, you must offer forward the bugfixes - and it makes sense to submit them back, so the community gains. But the LGPL does not require you make public the whole source of your app.

As someone working in in the commercial environment, the LGPL is fine, and my company has published its own LGPL code. It requires a little care in keeping LGPL code separate from in-house code, but is no problem at link time.

The full GPL, however, is untouchable. I have no problem with that - it is designed to achieve a certain effect, at a certain cost. It achieves what it set out to do, and pays the cost that was know up front.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[ardor]

The price is compliance with the GPL.

This price is often too high, since it demands that the parts you link the library to become GPL, which in turn often encompasses the entire project.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[teh kurisu]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about open, community-driven projects. I'm talking about projects where a company (say, A Plc) commissions another company (say, Dev Ltd) to create custom software for it. A Plc would like to be able to use the software they are paying for without limitation.

Dev Ltd is providing a service as opposed to a product, and ideally A Plc would be assigned the copyright for the code so that they could licence it as they wish with no conditions. This approach is undesirable for the developer, because it reduces their ability to reuse code across projects for different customers.

What I'm suggesting is that Dev Ltd retains copyright over the code, but licenses it to A plc using a BSD-like licence. This gives A Plc the freedom to use the code they have paid for as they see fit, but also gives Dev Ltd the freedom to reuse code.

Remember that the reuse of code does not necessarily mean that commercially sensitive features will be transferred from A Plc to another of Dev Ltd's customers, if the customer is responsible for setting the specification. The only effect is that Dev Ltd is able to deliver more quickly.

I don't see how licensing the code under the GPL is any sort of safety net for Dev Ltd in comparison to the BSD licence, given that it wouldn't prevent a potential competitor who might get hold of the code from offering that code under the exact same terms, but without the cost overhead of actually having to do the development work.

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[jedidiah]

...except this is all one big fantasy.

So the whole issue is a big fat red herring. The vast majority of
all libraries are licenced with the library/lesser version of the
GPL so as to specifically avoid this problem. This is why there
can be a version of Oracle for Linux or some game from EA.

The "problem" doesn't really exist.

People are trying to ignore what's actually happening so that they
can make up some bogus argument.

Once again we have the crux of the anti-GPL whining as such: "why can't I hijack someone else's code".

It invariably happens that some whiner redefines "the freedom to set
the license on their code" as "the freedom to take someone else's work
and treat it as their own exclusive personal private property".

Re:This isn't sensationalist, it's the truth

[teh kurisu]

The GPL does not guarantee that you will get any changes back. The competing developer only needs to share the source with their own customer, and there is no guarantee that that customer will share the code or even take advantage of the offer of the source code at all.

Here is a comparison table for those interested

[bogaboga]

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.

Erroneous article

[pnot]

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.

Let's guess who the poster is...

[True Grit]

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...

Re:Might as well say it first

[Sir Homer]

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.

Re:Yup, beware of fascists... they are over THERE!

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

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.

Moderate Article As Troll -1

[bmo]

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

Re:percentage of GPLd projects is irrelevant

[McSnarf]

Many business types can't get their brain around the concept of cooperation.

...while many hobbyists don't understand business. A lot of the discussion above reminded me of tree-hugging eco zealots. Living in their small, limited world, believing in what they do, even if they studied liberal arts (and try to turn "life sciences" into liberal arts).

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"?

Re:who gives a fuck?

[dword]

Hey, put down that chair!

Re:Yup, beware of fascists... they are over THERE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I don't get the business with the sticks and knives.

Could you repost this using a car analogy?

Thanks!

Re:Yup, beware of fascists... they are over THERE!

[rohan972]

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.

GPL is the kiss of death for commerical software

[djelovic]

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

Analogy Fail

[raehl]

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.