Stating that the GPL is anti-business (software) across the board
is just as irresponsible as stating that the GPL is pro-business
across the board.
As many have stated, there are a variety of business models that
are based specifically off the distribution of GPL derived
software. However, for argument's sake, let's not even consider
these models.
Let's only consider traditional businesses that either rely on
software as a sole end-user product, or on a software/hardware
co-designed end-user product.
The question isn't if the GPL helps these businesses, although
I will give some examples where such is true. The question is,
does the very existance of the GPL negatively impact these
businesses?
***
Case #1 Embedded Products using Linux
Linux is used in a variety of consumer electronic devices
as an embedded OS (such as this DVD player). Consider if
many of these manufacturer's never altered the GPL'ed
Linux src. In other words, consider if the IP of these
particular companies was contained solely in user-land
apps and/or closed-source binary kernel modules. In
this case, the companies in question are violating the
GPL solely because they do not provide a means for their
customers to aquire the unmodified Linux src. If the
companies provided such, and passed the bandwith/CD-mastering
costs down to the end-user, the company would be complying
with the GPL within the confines of the traditional model.
Benefit to the company: free, relatively mature embedded OS.
Case #2 Inherently unique software products
There are many software products that are inherently unique
and thus resistant to GPL software development. Sure a GPL'ed
office suite might kill a proprietary suite based on favorable
pricing, or embedded Linux might kill a proprietarty OS for
similar reasons.
Consider, however, the gaming industy. If I produced a
cross-platform MMORPG using GPL'ed IDE/gcc/mingw, and
targeted Linux specifically as one of the end-user
platforms, I would have absolutely no restriction placed
on my software due to the GPL. Likewise, a bunch of people
producing a free GPL'ed MMORPG most likely wouldn't impact
my software sales at all, unless that game was better
than mine, even though mine was written by 30+ software
developers with amazingly high salaries.
It's pretty clear that a free GPL'ed hobbyist Fake Fantasy XII
game for the Playstation 2 wouldn't impact the sales of
Square's Final Fantasy XII next year in the least.
Gaming is one example of a software model that is free from
negative GPL influence. Hell, gaming consoles running Linux
and LGPL graphics libraries could (theoretically) increase
the profit margins of proprietary interative entertainment
sales.
The gaming industry is a pretty important industy to consider
as well. Internationally, the number of software developers
employed in the gaming field is becoming one of the largest
in the entire software industry. Likewise, it's already been
several years since the gaming industry was declared more
valuable than the film and music industry combined.
(Google for references if you'd like. They're everwhere).
Case #3 GPL-free alternatives
Your point that many businesses would rather pay a large
fee for software rather than using free software that
destroys their IP is a valid one. There are plenty of
businesses that evaluate the GPL option, decide that
the restrictions of the GPL are incomptabile with their
business model, and subsequently either hire software
engineers to produce an in-house alternative or purchase
a non-GPL'ed alternative from a third-party vendor (ie. you).
This will never change as long as there are segments of
the software industry that will always and forever be
incompatible with the tenants of the GPL. If you are
in a company that is producing a product that can so
easily be undermined by GPL'ed software, perhaps you
should consider your alternatives. This advice is no
different than what I would gi
Slashdot Mirror
Stating that the GPL is anti-business (software) across the board is just as irresponsible as stating that the GPL is pro-business across the board.
As many have stated, there are a variety of business models that are based specifically off the distribution of GPL derived software. However, for argument's sake, let's not even consider these models.
Let's only consider traditional businesses that either rely on software as a sole end-user product, or on a software/hardware co-designed end-user product.
The question isn't if the GPL helps these businesses, although I will give some examples where such is true. The question is, does the very existance of the GPL negatively impact these businesses?
***
Case #1 Embedded Products using Linux
Linux is used in a variety of consumer electronic devices as an embedded OS (such as this DVD player). Consider if many of these manufacturer's never altered the GPL'ed Linux src. In other words, consider if the IP of these particular companies was contained solely in user-land apps and/or closed-source binary kernel modules. In this case, the companies in question are violating the GPL solely because they do not provide a means for their customers to aquire the unmodified Linux src. If the companies provided such, and passed the bandwith/CD-mastering costs down to the end-user, the company would be complying with the GPL within the confines of the traditional model.
Benefit to the company: free, relatively mature embedded OS.
Case #2 Inherently unique software products
There are many software products that are inherently unique and thus resistant to GPL software development. Sure a GPL'ed office suite might kill a proprietary suite based on favorable pricing, or embedded Linux might kill a proprietarty OS for similar reasons.
Consider, however, the gaming industy. If I produced a cross-platform MMORPG using GPL'ed IDE/gcc/mingw, and targeted Linux specifically as one of the end-user platforms, I would have absolutely no restriction placed on my software due to the GPL. Likewise, a bunch of people producing a free GPL'ed MMORPG most likely wouldn't impact my software sales at all, unless that game was better than mine, even though mine was written by 30+ software developers with amazingly high salaries.
It's pretty clear that a free GPL'ed hobbyist Fake Fantasy XII game for the Playstation 2 wouldn't impact the sales of Square's Final Fantasy XII next year in the least.
Gaming is one example of a software model that is free from negative GPL influence. Hell, gaming consoles running Linux and LGPL graphics libraries could (theoretically) increase the profit margins of proprietary interative entertainment sales.
The gaming industry is a pretty important industy to consider as well. Internationally, the number of software developers employed in the gaming field is becoming one of the largest in the entire software industry. Likewise, it's already been several years since the gaming industry was declared more valuable than the film and music industry combined. (Google for references if you'd like. They're everwhere).
Case #3 GPL-free alternatives
Your point that many businesses would rather pay a large fee for software rather than using free software that destroys their IP is a valid one. There are plenty of businesses that evaluate the GPL option, decide that the restrictions of the GPL are incomptabile with their business model, and subsequently either hire software engineers to produce an in-house alternative or purchase a non-GPL'ed alternative from a third-party vendor (ie. you).
This will never change as long as there are segments of the software industry that will always and forever be incompatible with the tenants of the GPL. If you are in a company that is producing a product that can so easily be undermined by GPL'ed software, perhaps you should consider your alternatives. This advice is no different than what I would gi