Slashdot Mirror
On Being Pro-GPL
just_another_sean writes: Christopher Allan Webber, recently returned from OSCON, shares his thoughts on the GPL and why he dislikes people pitting one type of software license against another. He says, "I am not only pro-copyleft, I am also pro-permissive licensing. The difference between these is tactics: the first tactic is towards guaranteeing user freedom, the second tactic is toward pushing adoption. I am generally pro-freedom, but sometimes pushing adoption is important, especially if you're pushing standards and the like. But let's step back for a moment. One thing that's true is that over the last many years we've seen an explosion of free and open source software... at the same time that computers have become more locked down than ever before! How can this be?
And notice... the rise of the arguments for permissive/lax licensing have grown simultaneously with this trend. ...The fastest way to develop software which locks down users for maximum monetary extraction is to use free software as a base. And this is where the anti-copyleft argument comes in, because copyleft may effectively force an entity to give back at this stage... and they might not want to. ... Copyleft's strings say, 'you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it.' But the proprietary differentiation strategy's strings say, 'I will use your stuff, and then add terms which forbid you to ever share or modify the things I build on top of it.' Don't be fooled: both attach strings. But which strings are worse?"
And notice... the rise of the arguments for permissive/lax licensing have grown simultaneously with this trend. ...The fastest way to develop software which locks down users for maximum monetary extraction is to use free software as a base. And this is where the anti-copyleft argument comes in, because copyleft may effectively force an entity to give back at this stage... and they might not want to. ... Copyleft's strings say, 'you can use my stuff, as long as you give back what you make from it.' But the proprietary differentiation strategy's strings say, 'I will use your stuff, and then add terms which forbid you to ever share or modify the things I build on top of it.' Don't be fooled: both attach strings. But which strings are worse?"
Over and over this is repeated. It is false. A better statement would be: "you can use my stuff, as long as you pass along your freedoms to anyone you give it to if you modify it"
Let the person writing the code decide how she or he wants to license it. Why all the angst and false drama?
Because the point of open source is having code shared with you by other developers. You own the code, you don't need a license. It's everybody else who has an interest in what license you pick. Those who favor copyleft want more GPL code so it'll snowball while others want to use is in proprietary products. How useful open source is to you is directly proportional to how many developers are using a license aligned with your interests. Why do you think RMS spends all his time promoting the GPL? Why did Apple pick a BSD kernel? It's all about the license, it matters to them what you pick. That's why.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Gift-style licensing like BSD licensing is for when you want everyone to use your code so badly that you don't care what they do with it. If you have an economic reason for that, fine. But it can create harm if you don't have your economics straight. Heartbleed was an economic failure of gift-style licensing. Very wealthy companies used OpenSSL and didn't contribute to its maintenance. There was some astronomical amount of economic damage in result. I think we all would have been better off had OpenSSL been dual-licensed and paid for by some folks, even if it had fewer users that way. And maybe that way its original developers would not have had to go to work for RSA, who prohibited them from ever touching their old code again. That's why we still have Eric Young's old, old license with the attribution clause nobody else uses any longer. He can't touch it.
GPL IMO does work best with dual licensing, because people who just hate the GPL can get what they want, and pay for making more Free Software. But if you don't care about money and don't want to use dual licensing, the growth effect you get from GPL is a lot better than making yourself some very rich company's unpaid employee by giving them all possible rights except for a very limited attribution.
Some people should pay. Some should get stuff for free. They aren't in general the same people, and they self-classify.
Bruce Perens.
I help GPL violators clean up their act, it's my main business.
Every one has had a total lack of due diligence. I will come in and find that they have violated the licenses of 21 proprietary software companies (this is a real customer example) by integrating their code into their main product, just like the GPL code. Some of them only had an "evaluation" license, some not even that, some wildly violated the terms of any license they got.
Most of them are in silicon valley. They seem to have the attitude that they will clean up their legal problems when they're rich, and nothing but getting their product out of the door matters until then.
They don't ask me to feel sorry for them. I bill them a lot, and in the end, they're clean and legal.
Bruce Perens.
And yet Windows 10 on release day will have more users than Linux has gotten in 22 fricking years LOL.
BTW you are simply trading one master for another, as Google is in the process of pulling a EEE on Android, they have also cut off the funding they were giving to AOSP and if you bother to look online their OEM contracts make MSFT contracts of the 90s look like the GPL. And funny that so many talk about how "open" Google is yet I can take any bog standard Windows laptop right off the shelf at Walmart and be dual booting anything from BSD to Haiku in under 10 minutesyet on the exact same hardware thanks to Google DRM a ChromeOS "laptop" can ONLY boot a handful of Linux distros that have been specially modified to run on ChromeOS hardware (even though its made from standard laptop parts) and even then ONLY if you put in a page and a half of CLI bullshit AND completely wipe ChromeOS, no dual booting allowed...yet MSFT is supposed to be the "DRM happy" company and Google "open"...DaFuq?
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Google should give the guy that wrote "don't be evil" a fucking BMWer as so many otherwise logical geeks have bought that bullshit hook, line, and sinker, that it makes Apple's hipster marketing look as amateur as New Coke. "Think Different" ain't got shit on them, no siree bob!
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Don't be evil (r)(TM)(c) [1][2][3]
Terms and conditions apply. May be void worldwide.
[1] Unless there's money to be made
[2] or we coudn't be bothered to think of a better way
[3] or unless it's just too much fun
SJW n. One who posts facts.