I found Dan Gilmore's discussion on Jim Allchin's comments most insidious. Lost in all this discussion, it seems, is the fact that the software is publicly funded. He somewhat flippantly regard the funding issue as irrelevant:
"I have no problem with Allchin's call for public projects to use code that's not subject to the GPL's restrictions and to adopt licenses they view as less threatening to innovation. That's up to developers."
The developers are being paid. It is not their project. It is the taxpayers' project (as intermediated by Congress.) In private industry, where I work as a developer, is it my choice to choose the licensing model for the software I build? I think not.
In the public world, only restrictive use of public works prevents the taxpayers from being co-opted by private industry. Too often, the taxpayers get co-opted; and, to that end, GPL is a solution here. No other licensing would be restrictive enough to prevent companies like Microsoft from manipulating Congress to do their bidding. GPL makes it very difficult to profit EXCLUSIVELY from the results of public works.
It may be politically correct in technical circles to assume that the choice of licensing model for public software is a "developer's choice"; but, it is sloppy thinking. The taxpayers should be protected from those who would use taxpayer money for individual gain. GPL is most likely the only way to do it...
This is the same kind of sloppy thinking that was rewarded by slashdot editors in their endorsement of Dan Gilmore's article.
Fact: The government funds public works.
Fact: Private industry induces (lobbies) elected officials to spend taxpayer money on their behalf.
These to facts make it very possible for private industry to abuse the public trust in the name of public works. Without restrictions on the products of these public works, these public works becomes the most economical way for a sufficiently powerful company to develop products. GPL is the only license model that is sufficiently restrictive to guarantee that public works are not purely for the direct benefit of lobbyist. Symmetry is not the issue. Protection of taxpayer's rights is the issue.
All you dweebs railing against GPL are missing the point: we are talking about software that is funded by tax dollars. THis means somebody got Congress to allocate moneys... Y'all are quibbling about some narrow, pedantic meaning of freedom: if publicly funded software is not GPL'd, what prevents Microsoft from using tax dollars from both building the firmament for its next round of product,and, getting free marketing to boot?
Let's assume that Congress has allocated money for some sort of software development. Let's also assume (and this seems likely, considering the way public funds are marshalled) that some private party lobbied for this expenditure. Then, if the software is released under a BSD (or similar) license, then this private party stands to gain significantly from taxpayer funded software development.
The private party (aka Microsoft) could use this as a preferred form of software investment (god knows it has worked in other industries): spend cash lobbying for publicly funded r&d rather than DIY R&D. Not only would this strategy reduce R&D cost - it would reduce R&D risk: The private party also gets the added benefit that this public works project carries the government's imprimatur, which effectively insures both liquidity and lockin.
GPL (as applied to public works) prevents Congress from being overtly manipulated by cash rich giants like Microsoft. Any other license would encourage Microsoft to sponsor lobbyists to control public funds. This is simply the way big government and industry work together - when the risk of investment gets too high, they push it onto taxpayers.
Consider the odd case that a corporate lobbyist didn't instigate the public works project. Without GPL, the fruits of this project benefit the parties with the best sales channels... There is no level playing field here. And once the public works project is started, then the benefactors would lobby to keep the benefit, further marginalizing the benefit to taxpayers...
Slashdot Mirror
"I have no problem with Allchin's call for public projects to use code that's not subject to the GPL's restrictions and to adopt licenses they view as less threatening to innovation. That's up to developers."
The developers are being paid. It is not their project. It is the taxpayers' project (as intermediated by Congress.) In private industry, where I work as a developer, is it my choice to choose the licensing model for the software I build? I think not.
In the public world, only restrictive use of public works prevents the taxpayers from being co-opted by private industry. Too often, the taxpayers get co-opted; and, to that end, GPL is a solution here. No other licensing would be restrictive enough to prevent companies like Microsoft from manipulating Congress to do their bidding. GPL makes it very difficult to profit EXCLUSIVELY from the results of public works.
It may be politically correct in technical circles to assume that the choice of licensing model for public software is a "developer's choice"; but, it is sloppy thinking. The taxpayers should be protected from those who would use taxpayer money for individual gain. GPL is most likely the only way to do it...
Fact: The government funds public works.
Fact: Private industry induces (lobbies) elected officials to spend taxpayer money on their behalf.
These to facts make it very possible for private industry to abuse the public trust in the name of public works. Without restrictions on the products of these public works, these public works becomes the most economical way for a sufficiently powerful company to develop products. GPL is the only license model that is sufficiently restrictive to guarantee that public works are not purely for the direct benefit of lobbyist. Symmetry is not the issue. Protection of taxpayer's rights is the issue.
All you dweebs railing against GPL are missing the point: we are talking about software that is funded by tax dollars. THis means somebody got Congress to allocate moneys... Y'all are quibbling about some narrow, pedantic meaning of freedom: if publicly funded software is not GPL'd, what prevents Microsoft from using tax dollars from both building the firmament for its next round of product,and, getting free marketing to boot?
The private party (aka Microsoft) could use this as a preferred form of software investment (god knows it has worked in other industries): spend cash lobbying for publicly funded r&d rather than DIY R&D. Not only would this strategy reduce R&D cost - it would reduce R&D risk: The private party also gets the added benefit that this public works project carries the government's imprimatur, which effectively insures both liquidity and lockin.
GPL (as applied to public works) prevents Congress from being overtly manipulated by cash rich giants like Microsoft. Any other license would encourage Microsoft to sponsor lobbyists to control public funds. This is simply the way big government and industry work together - when the risk of investment gets too high, they push it onto taxpayers.
Consider the odd case that a corporate lobbyist didn't instigate the public works project. Without GPL, the fruits of this project benefit the parties with the best sales channels... There is no level playing field here. And once the public works project is started, then the benefactors would lobby to keep the benefit, further marginalizing the benefit to taxpayers...