The GPL is a wonderful license for community works, for the basic reason that it starts out with the premise that the point is the source code. The program, someone is trying to make. Not the programmer, not the programmer’s company, or the programmer’s pay check. What it basically says is that there is no way for one to act as a stop-gap to the flow of code development and the organic way that code tends to build upon itself.Editorial Notice: All opinions are those of the author and not necessarily those of osnews.com
This in theory has the useful effect of making all code licensed this way open for people to see and use – provided they do the same with their code if it includes or links to GPL’d code. The easiest way for me to think about this usually is to relate GPL’d code to a public park. It’s there for everyone to use. One can volunteer his or her time and help keep the part clean. If they want they can get permission to add new trees to the park or just donate money to help pay for new side ways for the grass to be cut. Its a place that everyone can enjoy, but that you can’t take with you. You never see people taking a piece of sod or a tree home with them from the park. Thats not allowed and in most cases considered stealing since it technically doesn’t belong to anyone person as an individual.
Trying to make a software business around GPL’d software then is about as difficult as it is to make a public park in to a profitable business. Now, for a private say corporate park its much easier – they can rent it out for public events, because its a park the corporation owns. The company could raise money by selling some of the trees in their park, because again they own the trees. For the public park this isn’t the case, one can’t inherently make money off the park itself. An individual can’t rent it out – its not that person’s park to lease. Someone can’t sell the trees, they aren’t that person’s to sell. Instead an individual ends up making money indirectly from the park. One could sell birdseed to people so they can feed the birds. One can sell drinks or food to people walking thru the park. One could even be a park performer, but all of these are “services” they are things you do to add value to the experience of the park – but they are not part of the park. Or, you could sell ‘first aid’ support if a kid hurts its knee while playing in the park.
Take this back to software and this is exactly how most companies are working. They make their real money off of services or things that add value to the GPL’d software. Red Hat sells support. Ximian, Lycoris, Lindows, all try to sell their ease of use. IBM tries to sell its hardware as way to maximize your GPL experience. None of them specifically target making money off of the GPL software itself. Its always here’s the GPL’d software itself + our service to you which they are charging you for. When one pays for Ximian, Lycoris, or Lindows they have a tendency to think they payed for GPL’d software. Thats not really the case – the software is out there for free, you can find it all over the place. What you really paid for is their specific way of bundling the software. The ease of use they add to it, the prettiness of it, the cute box they wrapped it in with the huge instruction manual they made.
From what I’ve seen so far, the GPL makes it very difficult to make money off of the software itself. Rather it makes the software a kind of charity donation. Leaving you to find an indirect method to squeeze cash from the sap of the code you just donated to the park. This is merely speculation by me, but what I see is this shift where programmers put all this effort in and create code and then donate it – which pretty much eliminates them from directly making any money off the work they have already put in. Instead they can only make money on new work – the services they add like tech support. This GPL programmer situation reminds me another situation. In the book Animal Farm, the animals are working harder than they used to before and are getting less in return because they believe they are doing something for a greater good – while others are taking advantage of them. This seems to be what is starting to happen here. The programmers put in all this work which they can’t directly make money off of while other service providers can take advantage of it free of charge. Like IBM – they get to sell hardware, they don’t have to be liable for the softwares defects nor do the GLP programmers don’t get a dime of the millions they make off of the programmers work.
About the Author:
“Vincent is currently a mac user, so most people won’t/don’t listen to him. But he has spent time using most of the popular versions of linux for various server tasks, or to see if they are good desktop operating systems. However for most of his simple servers he uses windows since growing up with it; he knows its quirks better.”
http://www.trolltech.com/licenses/qpl.html
QPL is a lot like GPL but it leaves a little room for programmers to try to make money. (That’s the stuff most of us programmers trade for food/housing)…
It is important to mention that free software only gives you for free what already has been created. New code, improvements and bugfixes are not free. They are done by contributors who are payed or employed by the users, or by the users themselves. So there is no one losing.
In the end it doesnt count who pays for it as long as the work is being done. And the result is code witb a license that cant be beat in terms of convenience for users, and in price.
I found something on the net once about a movie about Linux (I think that is where I found it). And it had a portion where Bill G. Made a post to a post to a BBS system (or something) about OSS and how he believed greater progress could be made with closed source software and the programmers could be properly awarded for their efforts. Bills comment was read aloud by Eric Raymond or one of the other “fathers” of OSS. I don’t remember all the specifics as I found this a long time ago on the net and scanned past it, but does anyone know where I can find this again?
There are a number of points that don’t all get mentioned when people debate the GPL.
– GPL makes companies a lot of money — free tools save and create
– Money can be made from them — look at Sleepycat’s Berkeley DB.
– Would people pay for the Linux kernel if it were closed-source? I mean, seriously!
Points like this are why I just wrote off that last article against the GPL. It’s boring to hear the same points.
The only linux movie that I know is Revolution OS. You can buy it at thinkgeek.com… (havent seen it yet, so i cant comment on this scene)
No GPL is like Public broadcast system (PBS) producing high quality programs for the general public which commerical stations do not offer.
Revenues are generated by donation and sponsors not by commercial interruption every 15 min. Those at PBS get paid like the commercial counterparts too.
I assume you are a programmer, so you understand that most of the development takes place in-house and very few companies produce COTS software so GPL license are not a big deal.
Any coportation can use GPLed program without making the source code available because they are not going to distribute it.
There is something wrong when software cost more than hardware. Both undergo expensive development process but unlike hardware mass producing software is done at most pennies compare to hardware which always has a raw material cost.
We all know that after-service and maintance make up most of the profit for any software; last I check after-service and maintance is part of the service process. 90% of our company revenue is generated by service, the software is just there to get you into the customers door.
too much FUD, good job corporations you really done a great job spreading FUD.
“Money can be made from them — look at Sleepycat’s Berkeley
DB.”
I am pretty certain that Berkeley DB is based on something similar to QLP… Which is different than GPL… It works like this:
1. You can use Berkeley DB for free if you keep the program open that you are building with it.
2. OR you can Pay Berkeley DB money to license the rights to make a closed source program using their database.
Enough people follow #1 and contribute to the project to make it a much better project (main strength of GPL). Then some companies license the product and Sleepycat can make money to finance the DB and make it even better…
I think that Sleepycat also sells support contracts so you pay them to get support for the database…
The only linux movie that I know is Revolution OS. You can buy it at thinkgeek.com… (havent seen it yet, so i cant comment on this scene)
AntiTrust is a movie and it uses Linux as well. It’s a not bad movie. 🙂
http://www.mgm.com/title_title.do?title_star=ANTITRUS
I’m wondering if it is possible to create for GPL/BSD/freesoft development infrastructure of institutions similar to already existing science (support) institutions.
With grants, funds, direct agreements with corporate sector, public/government support.
That’s if we’re talking about kind of software which may be considered as public domain.
I know, that some such elements exist or happen, but rather as occasion than system.
pi, look at this interview with Sleepycat CEO:
http://www.winterspeak.com/columns/102901.html
He talks about how to money with the GPL. (Probably not for the faint of heart.)
why don’t people just pick the software license that fits with their beliefs and goals
there is no “perfect” software license, just perfect ones for particular tasks
personally, based on my beliefs i like the BSD license, but there are situations where GPL would be better, and i would use that instead
but really, i don’t see a point in arguing over licenses, just pick one that suits you, and start writing your code
-bytes256
Thank you Tim. The comment is Bill Gates’ “Open Letter to Hobbyists”
http://www.blinkenlights.com/classiccmp/gateswhine.html
Bill sent out this letter before MS was MS(tm).
I hate reading white text on a black backround. Same paper, easier to read.
http://www.sit.wisc.edu/~spkraus1/catalyst/computers/gates.shtml
Who makes money in the software business?
Yes, I know… MS, for instance.
But picture a PC running Windows:
a) the PC maker made money.
b) MS made money on Windows and, probably, on Office.
c) Some software companies made money on a few programs (e.g., Intuit’s Quicken).
d) Retailers made money selling to the end-user.
e) Training pros made money explaining the user how to use the PC.
f) Support people made money in contracts of software and/or hardware support.
g) Programmers may *eventually* make money if the end-user hires them.
etc.
Of all these guys, the only one that loses money is b)MS. For the others, unless I’m wrong, it’ s business as usual.
One could argue that the c)”Software makers” would lose money, too. I beg to disagree: have you tried to sell an alternative to MS Office? It’s as tough as trying to beat free programs.
So, things are not different for them, too.
The question is then, does MS needs more money?
but really, i don’t see a point in arguing over licenses, just pick one that suits you, and start writing your code
I agree, close licenses don’t even bother me too. It’s just up to the programmers’ perfers, what they want to do with their own code as freeware? open? close? who cares… It’s why I ain’t going to argue over the license, unless they break the license.
Jim,
I don’t know if you were agreeing with Bill gates or not. Either way bill gates was right. Especially in 1976. If he had felt the oppisitte MS would not be here today. And without it most everything else you see wouldn’t. Maybe we would all have macs, but then if this was an issue of if all software was Opensource (or GPL anyways) apple probably wouldn’t exsist either. No company would have ever formed since there would have been no insentive. with that hardware wouldn’t have evolved. Computers would still be basic things only used for things they are needed for. Opensource has it’s place but technology would not grow if there wasn’t monitary Incentive to drive it. You need close source.
Sorry Mr. Mortellaro, but you really ought to be a little better versed in the real-world effects of the GPL. I love working with free software for my hobby programming, and I really, really enjoy the fruits of open source software, but I also work for a company which, to pay my paycheck, writes closed-source software to sell to government agencies. Now, I would absolutely LOVE to use some of the open-sopurce software out there to aid my development and get a superior product out the door, but Stallman’s babyish insistence that all software using GPL software should under the GPL is pig-headed and defeats progress. Instead of using someone else’s software, I have to write my own and the quality of that piece of the software suffers because I don’t have the time to re-invent the wheel all the time.
Now, the analogy for the GPL is really more of the failed promise of utopian existence in, say, an Israeli kibbutz or a 1960s U.S. commune. These experiments fail simply because they actively deny the basic desires of human beings, those being: improvement in social status, the accruement of money/wealth/general worth, and individuality. In other words, someone simply wasn’t thinking when they came up with these schemes. They try to improve the world by making it extremely hard to live in. That’s utterly stupid.
Consider this instead. Like your park analogy, people go into it, they enjoy it, some people lead paid tours through it (Central Park, anyone?), others take pictures and sell postcards of it, others roll around a vending cart and sell hot dogs. THIS is what software ought to be like, and it’s nothing like the GPL. No, the fact that the park is free for all is only one part of the puzzle. People need to exploit it for their own gains as long as by doing so they don’t wreck the park. The mere fact that everyone then uses the park is enough to keep it in good repair, not some arbitrary and heavy-handed decree that EVERYONE donate all their time to beautifying it.
The Linux kernel is probably the only suitable piece of software in existence for the GPL. It’s self-contained and so there’s no need to tear pieces of it off in order to build something new, better, or different. For every other piece of GPL’d software, the authors are effectively ruining any chance that their software will change the world, better the quality of code world-wide, or in any way help the average programmer. And frankly, I have enough of feelling sorry for them for not knowing better. Right now, I regard them as assholes, because they preach freedom with righteous indignation but don’t actually want to offer freedom to anyone. They want the totalitarianism of every programmer in the world working FOR THEM.
If you don’t like GPL’d code then don’t use it ! You don’t want to be contaminated by GPL code ? WEll DON’T FREAKING USE IT ! Sweet jesus is there anyone pointing a gun to your head telling you to include said GPL code into your work ? NO ! So whats the big freaking deal here ?
I personally find the greatest irony in the fact that in protecting the free-ness of the code, the GPL places almost as harsh restrictions on its use as some commercial licenses. I mean, can’t even be dynamically-linked with non-GPL code??
Anyways, I feel that it all comes down to the author’s agenda. Personally, I don’t find the GPL a particularly useful license. If you’re trying to give something back to the community, you’re doing it in the most restricted way possible. The only reason I see to use it is to make a philosophical point by guaranteeing that your code will always be free, no matter what.
More open licenses like the BSD license are the way to go if you really want to give back. Sure, they’re not ironclad against abuse by corporations, but they also make your code open and available to many more people who will not abuse it.
There are many other approaches as well. I prefer the Artistic License, but that’s purely personal taste. I’d encourage any would-be OpenSource programmer to read up on different licenses before jumping on the GPL bandwagon.
Many opinions posted here and elsewhere are uninformed — I’m just going to be upfront about it.
Oh, and it’s a long post, too.
Owen Andersen said:
“Consider this instead. Like your park analogy, people go into it, they enjoy it, some people lead paid tours through it (Central Park, anyone?), others take pictures and sell postcards of it, others roll around a vending cart and sell hot dogs. THIS is what software ought to be like, and it’s nothing like the GPL. No, the fact that the park is free for all is only one part of the puzzle. People need to exploit it for their own gains as long as by doing so they don’t wreck the park. The mere fact that everyone then uses the park is enough to keep it in good repair, not some arbitrary and heavy-handed decree that EVERYONE donate all their time to beautifying it.”
You’re absolutely right, Owen, and I appreciate you using this analogy, because I had been trying to formulate one with little success (it is late at night) and yours summed up my initial response completely.
Even better, after reading it, I finally achieved clarity regarding my own personal position on the GPL: I think it is fabulous, and I am grateful for the fact that it exists.
We all know why we love open source. To use the park analogy, open source development allows guided tours (paid support), postcards (boxed distros) and hot dogs (4front’s Open Sound System driver set). GPL’d software does not interrupt this process.
So what does the GPL add to this scenario? As far as I can tell, simply this: nobody can waltz in, grab the contributions of thousands of other people, and exploit it WITHOUT GIVING SOMETHING BACK. That is why I have decided I love the GPL. Exploit it all you want, but you’ll have to give something back for the privilege. That’s how you pay the piper.
This is a positive thing, in my opinion. In a perfect world, everyone would be ethical and the park would be self-policing — nobody would build their hot dog cart by chopping down a tree somebody else planted. Nobody would take pictures for postcards, then burn down the trees to prevent others from taking the same picture. In the world we live in, however, people exploit other people, and the GPL is one of the few methods (if not the only one) by which an ethical person can contribute to the commons of the park without being taken advantage of.
So, to sum up my long-winded and uninformed opinion: the GPL seems designed to ensure that every interaction is a quid-pro-quo. If that makes the use of GPL software too expensive for you, visit a different park.
Now I’m going to sleep. I hope I don’t regret this rant in the morning.
Sorry, I should have credited Brendan Younger for the quote. I told you it was late.
If you’re trying to give something back to the community, you’re doing it in the most restricted way possible.
See, you do understand the GPL after all!
The only reason I see to use it is to make a philosophical point by guaranteeing that your code will always be free, no matter what.
Personally this is exactly the reason why I like and use the GPL. As far as RMS is concerned, this is exactly the reason for the GPL. Absolutly, positivly, correct. Your code is always Free.
It seems that the only part you’re having trouble with is the idea that someone would want their code to always be free? I’m not sure how that is a difficult proposition, but then maybe I’m just comfortable and happy with the GPL and take the idea for granted.
Yes, even if a software is GPL’d, one can come, grab the code, change it a bit, and never release the source. How can you claim it’s your code, if
1. He doesn’t release it.
2. He changed it so much that isn’t easily recognizable.
It’s just a matter of ethic.
Yes, someone can take your GPL’d code, ignore the licence and use it as they want. There are a whole load of cases where this happens; just ask the FSF (Or search Google for “gpl violation”)
Just because some people do this, does not mean you should not use the GPL. The ones who ignore the GPL are the ones in the wrong, both morally and legally. Remember, if you do not agree to the terms of the GPL, you have no rights under law to redistribute that code. This is otherwise known as IP Theft, and I believe that this is illegal in almost every country in the world. Any company that does this is on just as shaky ground legally as a company that tried to redistribute Windows 2000 under their own name.
Just changing around a few variable names, or obsfucating the function names is not enough to hide the use of someone elses code. There are many ways you can find a section of code within someone elses, and the technique has been used in previous GPL violations to good effect.
“Someone might steal it!” is the poorest argumnent against the GPL you can imagine. Someone might steal your closed source application and post it to alt.binaries.warez.0day too, but would that stop you from releasing it?
Someone might steal your closed source application and post it to alt.binaries.warez.0day too, but would that stop you from releasing it?
That’s just stealing the food – using the GPL is giving away the recipe for the secret sauce.
Firstly, I want to say that the choice of license should be the developer’s, a choice which of course includes the GPL.
Secondly I’m not interested in getting into an argument about how all code should be “Free”, I don’t believe in it, and barring a major trauma to my cranial region I never will, so don’t waste your time.
But whenever there are debates about the strengths or weaknesses of the GPL I see so many posts which imply it’s some kind of protection against big corporations, protecting the little guy, when as far as I can see, nothing could be further from the truth.
IBM can make money from GPL software, because they’re not selling Linux, they’re not even selling the support, they’re selling great big expensive chunks of hardware to run it on, and great big expensive applications that run on it.
I was going to say that Red Hat can make money from Linux, but looking at their financial report for 2002 it seems that they weren’t then, even with a number of large corporate clients with service contracts.
Software developers working in house for large corporations may be able to make money modifying GPL software, and the corporation makes money off that. I keep seeing the claim that 90% of developers jobs are of that type… I wonder where this figure comes from, it’s not 90% of the jobs I see advertised, that’s for sure.
But the individual or small team of independent developers has great difficulty making money from GPL software, in fact if anything it hurts them, because it lowers consumer appreciation of the value of developers’ work.
Linux may be an exception to the rule here, GCC would be another exception, they are self contained and complete within themselves, by their very nature they can be used as part of a greater whole without forcing the GPL on the other components.
But let’s say you develop a video player, it produces nice video, but it’s a bit buggy and the interface is clunky, but that’s ok for you. You’re in a generous mood, so you decide to release it to the world, very nice of you… then you choose the GPL.
Now Microsoft don’t give a damn, they’ve got several thousand developers on the go, plus they can afford to buy in technology, so your video decoder is unlikely to worry them.
But an independent, innovative developer could take it, fix the bugs (which he could put back into the pool), and then add his own innovative features and well designed user interface and then shrink-wrap it and make a little money for HIS work, brains and innovation…. ahhh, except that it’s under the GPL, so he can’t, well he could, but then the first person he sold it to could distribute the whole thing for free so that’s not really a smart business move, and it’s not really worth him developing his own decoder because that would take too long, the cost to him would go up, the cost of the final product would have to go up accordingly, and then consumers would find it too expensive, especially compared to that slightly buggy, slightly clunky, but kind of okish most of the time GPL video player.
So who’s gained? You haven’t, because the developer doesn’t fix any of your bugs (some alternative license to the GPL could ensure this without limiting the developer’s marketing of larger works using elements of yours), the consumer hasn’t, because neither your product improves, nor are they given the choice of the new expanded slick interface commercial product, and the independent developer trying to make a living hasn’t.
But hey, you can feel a nice warm glow convinced that the software’s “Free” and your fighting the good fight against Corporate Giant dominance of software.
This is one of the points that I feel isn’t entirely clear. I know there are clear violations but there seems to me to be an area I’m unclear about. For example, I have learnt a lot about programming for Linux by looking at other peoples GPL code. If I was then to write a program using what I have learnt that was closed source what would be the situation?
Obviously a lot of GPL’d code is not actually new code – it has just found its way into GPL code, but by looking at GPL code and using it to find out how to do certain things (not directly copying) have I become ‘tainted’ by the GPL. I mean there are only so many ways that someone can write an MP3 player or a window manager, for example.
I think this is one of the things that a lot of software companies fear and why they prevent employees from even looking at GPL code.
I realize you don’t like the park analogy very much however you changes to the park analogy still fall prey to my general premise. You suggested this:
“Consider this instead. Like your park analogy, people go into it, they enjoy it, some people lead paid tours through it (Central Park, anyone?), others take pictures and sell postcards of it, others roll around a vending cart and sell hot dogs. THIS is what software ought to be like, and it’s nothing like the GPL. No, the fact that the park is free for all is only one part of the puzzle. People need to exploit it for their own gains as long as by doing so they don’t wreck the park. The mere fact that everyone then uses the park is enough to keep it in good repair, not some arbitrary and heavy-handed decree that EVERYONE donate all their time to beautifying it.”
If you are a park “programmer” you add things to the park directly, you put up new trees or you mow the grass, or you put fish in the pond. You don’t make money off of that itself. Instead you have to take up a second job and do more work to get paid. Like moon light as a photographer so you can sell postcards, or in addition to “park programming” be a food vendor. In those cases, still you are not inherently adding anything to the park to make money – your exploiting what is already there by your additional service to make money. I was trying and I hope I was at least somewhat lucid in trying to point out that you don’t make money programming GPL’d code. You always end up having to provide some other service to make money off of the programming work you do. Which are the cases you cite in your example.
The real power of the GLP license which you hinted at but didn’t directly mention is that it opens up more ways to use the code to make money (using the code to make money and making money by contributing to the code are very different things). In a closed model, only one company can take snapshot and sell them, with and open source you can have many “photographers.” But again they are making money by selling they services with the code – not strictly off of making code.
IANAL. TINLA.
If I was then to write a program using what I have learnt that was closed source what would be the situation?
If you didn’t copy the code verbatim (or something close), I think you’re fine. But you won’t really know until a court says so.
but by looking at GPL code and using it to find out how to do certain things (not directly copying) have I become ‘tainted’ by the GPL.
I think that’s possible, which is a bit ironic when you consider that the FSF asked people not to look at the UNIX source when reimplementing it for exactly that reason. Of course, tainting people who read GPLed software would help the FSF accomplish its goals.
Incidentally, one of Microsoft’s shared source licenses includes the following:
“You may use any information in intangible form that you remember after accessing the Software. However, this right does not grant you a license to any of Microsoft’s copyrights or patents for anything you might create using such information.”
I’m not sure if the first sentence actually means anything legally, but it sounds like they’re trying to avoid that tainting effect. Or maybe they just want it to sound like they are. Or maybe they’re just stating a legal fact for no reason. Anyway, I think it’s interesting that it’s there.
I mean there are only so many ways that someone can write an MP3 player or a window manager, for example.
I thought that copyright included a limitation for ‘obviousness’ in the same way that patents do (if there’s only one way to write an MP3 player, you can’t copyright it), but I haven’t been able to find it in the law. I am fairly sure that if you’re accused of copyright infringement you can defend yourself by proving that your work was created independently, which would be considerably easier if there were only a limited number of ways to express the work. OTOH, you probably wouldn’t want to admit reading the other guy’s code first 😉
Secondly I’m not interested in getting into an argument about how all code should be “Free”, I don’t believe in it, and barring a major trauma to my cranial region I never will, so don’t waste your time.
Then you’ve just wasted your time writing a rather lengthy post which is largly imaterial. The GPL is all about Free code; if you don’t believe in that philosophy then there is nothing in the GPL for you. Just avoid it and be happy. The rest of us can get along just fine, thanks.
I should also point out that you’re also using the flawed assumption that the first person you give the GPL’d code too will automatically redistribute it. I havn’t seen any evidence to back this up. Aparently its just one of those things that “everyone knows” i.e. a myth.
People seem to think that the GPL is all about bringing down “the man”, yet that’s nothing to do with it. It is about giving people access to the code which runs their computers, and ensuring that they always have access to that code should they ever need it. Somewhere along the line some people got the idea that it was about giving away your stuff for free and trying to bring down “the man” (Depending on which decade you’re looking at that’s IBM, Sun or Microsoft) Nope.
It has been said time and time again; If you don’t like the GPL, don’t use it. If you are using the GPL but you don’t know why you’re using it, go read up on the GNU websiste, read OpenSource.org and try to decide if the GPL is right for you. If you don’t think you can make money from the GPL, then don’t bother trying, use something else.
It’s really quite funny; in this day and age, my government talks about a “digital devide” That is, a class system devided along technological lines with those who have a computer and internet access, and those who do not. They talk about cheap access to the internet, and how important it is to ensure that Britian is broadband enabled. Then they team up with Microsoft to create Internet Explorer only web-portals for your Tax returns and Citizens Advice, effectivly deepening the device indirectly by causing the have nots to pay for Microsoft software to use those Government services. Forget oil or Hydrogen, we’re an information based economy. Yet the vast majority of people have little control over their data, and no garauntees that they’ll keep what little control they have in the future. How is that beneficial to anyone? A digital divide? Its far worse than that I’m afraid, it’s digital serfdom and few people seem to care.
“Then you’ve just wasted your time writing a rather lengthy post which is largly imaterial. The GPL is all about Free code; if you don’t believe in that philosophy then there is nothing in the GPL for you. Just avoid it and be happy. The rest of us can get along just fine, thanks. ”
Perhaps I should clarify, I don’t believe that “Free” software is neccessarily a good thing that benefits individuals, or even humanity.
That is where we differ. In todays world information is king, and if you don’t have control over your own information then you are no better than a serf. Hence the rest of my rant.
Think about how many times today that you will recieve, manipulate and send some little peice of information. Think of how much information and data you have stored on your computer, and how important most of that data is to you. Now imagine that you had no access to that data.
Wether you think that it is unlikely to happen is imaterial; the point is that you do not have full control over your data and you cannot have full control over your data unless you also have access to the code that creates and controls that data. Which oddly enough is exactly what the GPL intends to do. It garuantees as much as possible that when you use a GPL peice of software that any data you create or manipulate will still be available to you in the future should you require it. Even if you have to take the original code and re-write it, you’ll still be able to access your valuable data.
You just cant get the same garuantees with non-Free software. Ask the Dead Media project about it; they have a team of people reverse engineering file formats for software from companies which are long since dead, yet people still need access to the data in these files.
This mini-rant doesn’t even get into the actual divide which is caused by the monatery cost of non-Free software which I touched on in my larger rant. Thats a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
Damn, hit the wrong key and sent that last post unfinished, butterfingers!
“Then you’ve just wasted your time writing a rather lengthy post which is largly imaterial. The GPL is all about Free code; if you don’t believe in that philosophy then there is nothing in the GPL for you. Just avoid it and be happy. The rest of us can get along just fine, thanks. ”
Perhaps I should clarify, I don’t believe that “Free” software is neccessarily a good thing that benefits individuals, or even humanity. Many debates about the pros and cons of the GPL are limited to “Free good, not Free bad”, as opposed to looking at the true effects of that choice. I don’t believe in the FSF’s strict definition of software “Freedom”, and I object to their hijacking the word (Freedom is a very blurred concept, not an absolute, for example complete freedom from worry about crime is incomparible with complete freedom from possible interference by the police). That doesn’t mean I don’t believe that the GPL cannot sometimes be a good choice.
“I should also point out that you’re also using the flawed assumption that the first person you give the GPL’d code too will automatically redistribute it. I havn’t seen any evidence to back this up. Aparently its just one of those things that “everyone knows” i.e. a myth. ”
Wrong, I am using the FACT that the any person I give the GPL code has the RIGHT to redistribute it, therefore I would be a complete idiot to make business plans based on revenue from multiple sales.
“It has been said time and time again; If you don’t like the GPL, don’t use it.”
I agree, but RMS doesn’t. But that’s part of another discussion.
“If you are using the GPL but you don’t know why you’re using it, go read up on the GNU websiste, read OpenSource.org and try to decide if the GPL is right for you”
Once again, I agree, my post was aimed not at those who understand the full ramifications of choosing the GPL, and still choose to use it (I disagree with their choice in many cases, but it’s their choice to make), but rather at those who are choosing the GPL based on a distorted view of the effects of that choice.
“Think about how many times today that you will recieve, manipulate and send some little peice of information. Think of how much information and data you have stored on your computer, and how important most of that data is to you. Now imagine that you had no access to that data. ”
Not possible in my particular case (I’m pretty sure), unless my hard disk dies a horrible death. The worst that could happen is that MS Office or the like were suddenly discontinued tommorrow, and when I wanted to move on to a replacement I’d have to transfer my data in a way that lost formatting information for example… the actual information would still be there.
I do get your point however, but there are other ways to achieve this than the GPL. Only purchase software which can read and write to standard documented formats (these exists in most fields), or purchase software where the source is supplied to you as the customer (whether it is open source or not), for example Fog Creek sowftare do that.
Wrong, I am using the FACT that the any person I give the GPL code has the RIGHT to redistribute it, therefore I would be a complete idiot to make business plans based on revenue from multiple sales.
You misunderstand. The hypothetical argument that yourself and others have used is that if you were to supply some software to a customer, under the GPL, then that customer will instantly redistribute this code to someone else, hence ruining your ability to sell that software. While this is a perfectly valid theory, no one has yet come forward to say that yes, they provided a peice of software to a customer under the GPL who then ruined them by redistributing that source to all and sundry. Until that happens, there is no evidence that I have seen to back up the claim that distributing software to your customers under the GPL is a business killer. While a valid concern, it is still a largly hypothetical one.
Not possible in my particular case (I’m pretty sure)
I prefer to be absolutly sure
The worst case scenario you give is interesting. Remember, Microsoft wish to move Office to a “rental” model. What would happen if you found yourself unable to pay that rental fee? Oh, I know it is unlikely, and I hope you never find yourself in that situation, but but then everyone thinks it will not happen to them. If it did happen though, not only would you no longer have access to your data, you may find that you cannot transfer that data to another computer. Your data, but now you have no legal way to access it!
DRM schemes are another issue; again, what if you find that you are unable to pay the software licence fee one year? Suddenly all of your SuperDVD’s and WMP12 encoded music is unplayable. Again, you cannot transfer this data to another format; the DRM stops you from doing that.
I realise that many of my arguments are hypothetical. That doesn’t mean that they are not valid concerns though. I would rather that none of the scenarios I describe ever happen, but at the same time I’d rather have my Joker to play in the event that the worst happens. Hence my preference for the GPL.
Perhaps I should clarify, I don’t believe that “Free” software is necessarily a good thing that benefits individuals, or even humanity.
So your saying that giving freely accessible tools such as office suites and other productive software to the less wealthy (e.g. poor), that would otherwise not even be able to afford the computer they run on, let alone be able to afford a 500$ office suite, in this day in age, does not in some way, either in America or the world abroad, constitute being a good thing for humanity?
And towards the park analogy. Why does anyone HAVE to make money? The GPL would assure that anyone could enter the park and that NO ONE Company could then monopolize it and decide who could enter it, or at the very least, someone else could have the needed material (source code) to go make another park for others to enjoy. Figures the author is a ‘Mac head’. Think Different™ indeed.
The hypothetical argument that yourself and others have used is that if you were to supply some software to a customer, under the GPL, then that customer will instantly redistribute this code to someone else, hence ruining your ability to sell that software. While this is a perfectly valid theory, no one has yet come forward to say that yes, they provided a peice of software to a customer under the GPL who then ruined them by redistributing that source to all and sundry. Until that happens, there is no evidence that I have seen to back up the claim that distributing software to your customers under the GPL is a business killer. While a valid concern, it is still a largly hypothetical one.
It may be hypothetical, but the chance is way too high to take. It only takes one person to distribute it before you will begin to have trouble selling your software.
Besides, this is all moot. I believe the GPL requires that you do not sell the software, unless you wrote all of it, for more than the cost of distributing it.
I believe the GPL requires that you do not sell the software, unless you wrote all of it, for more than the cost of distributing it.
Interesting interpretation, but wrong. I’m not sure where you got the idea from, but it would clearly make many companies such as RedHat and SuSE in breach of the licence if it were true anyway.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
What I think many people do not understand (and what I think Vanders’ posts suggest) is that the freedom implied by the GPL is a long-term conception of freedom. Many of the posts I’ve read here denegrate the GPL because it doesn’t allow the freedom to make money from code, and because it restricts one’s ability to immediately use GPL’d code in many ways. People see this as a flaw in the GPL, without recognizing that the motives behind the GPL have nothing to do with making money. The GPL is all about the fact that true freedom comes with responsibility — the responsibility to create a world better than the one we live in now.
The aim of the GPL is a world in which the technologies developed over the past decades (technologies whose impact on the world will only grow over the coming decades) cannot be controlled by any one individual, group, or class. Its aim is to ensure the total transparency of tools that could otherwise be appropriated by powerful interests. It is not written to allow small companies or individual programmers to ‘take down the man’ and then replace him; it is written to ensure that *no one* can have a monopoly on technologies which have the potential to empower individuals. It is ultimately aimed at long-term freedom for the community of *end users* as much as it is aimed at freedom for programmers.
People can criticize this sort of idealism all they like. It can certainly be said that without the profit-motive no progress can be made, and that it is absurd to try to build a world around peoples’ good will and sense of social responsibility as opposed to their greed. Given the limited but growing success of free software projects, that remains to be seen.
IMHO, the GPL is wonderful for what I call “foundation” software. OSes, Web servers, development tools, scripting languages, databases, etc. I’ve used tons of GPL’ed software in these categories, and it’s made my job SO much easier. (If I had to pay per-head fees for PHP, Apache, etc., it’d put me out of business as a freelance Web designer!)
On the other hand, I believe that end-user applications are usually best served by a closed source model. Not only does one development team with coherent, specific goals have control over the usability and feature set of the software, but the company has a clear and proven business model for making money. Fact is, whether you like it or not, the GPL gives people the right to “rob” a company of its revenue by redistributing their software for a lower price/free. Whether this has happened on a wide-ranging basis or not is irrelevant. It can, and will someday, happen.
That being said, I would love it if more end-user applications used an open source license of some kind. I am currently working on software that I would eventually like to release and make money off of, and I’m evaluating open source software licenses that would protect my *freedom* to make money. I’m sure there are some out there, but I do know one thing: the GPL ain’t one of them.
Regards,
Jared
Writing software for sale has never been a good way to make money, very few companies do better than break even selling software. Clearly it requires many skills besides the ability to write great software to make a successful software company. Yet GPL and open source give individuals and groups with a passion for software to share to benefits of their labor and passion.
In many ways the incremental value in being an OSS developer is far greater that being a faceless developer in a large corporation. The greatest benefit to the OSS developer is the publicity that they get for their work that can translate into must higher eraning potential. Yes it is true that companies like IBM are making a large amount of money from OSS, but that is not because of the software per se but the know how that these companies have acquired in support their customers and that is much more that simply creating great software.
I REALLY LIKE the way ID software (makers of DOOM / Quake) handle giving out their source code. Once they’ve released a product and sold x number of copies, they give away ALL of their code and allow ANYONE to modify it ie, for game mods. I think that’s fantastic–ID gets paid big $$$ for their development and users who want to modify the code, can.
Next we take alook at Fox Interactive. WTF did they do? They STOLE a free idea and banned the creators of it from using it. Waaay back in 1995, some DOOM 1 modders created ALIEN DOOM, a total DOOM conversion, where the modders drew their own imitation graphics of the movie ALIENS. The creators also digitized direct sound bites from the movie and added it to the mod. The end result was a little buggy, but was a TOTAL DOOM CONVERSION.
Enter fox interactives lawyers: the ALIEN DOOM project was canned due to copyright violations (this was even before the DMCA.) What did Fox do? The found out how many people REALLY LIKE ALIEN DOOM and decided to program their own version of it, Aliens VS. Predator. The idea came from some free developers. The money went to Fox.
FOX was right in defending its claim to the digitized audio, but I’m not sure about the imitation alien graphics.
ps i hate fox.
pps the movie came out in 1987. The mod, around 1995-6.
Interesting interpretation, but wrong. I’m not sure where you got the idea
from, but it would clearly make many companies such as RedHat and SuSE in
breach of the licence if it were true anyway.
I read section 3.b incorrectly. My mistake.
The first part of my comment still holds.
IMHO, the GPL is wonderful for what I call “foundation” software. OSes, Web
servers, development tools, scripting languages, databases, etc. I’ve used tons
of GPL’ed software in these categories, and it’s made my job SO much easier.
(If I had to pay per-head fees for PHP, Apache, etc., it’d put me out of
business as a freelance Web designer!)
I agree that the licenses on the software you mentioned are wonderful, but they
are not under the GPL.
1) PHP: PHP license (BSD based)
2) Apache: Apache license (BSD based)
Not mentioned:
3) PostgreSQL (my favorite DB): BSD license
I think it’s unfortunate that the author was identified as a “mac user” not only because it greatly discredits anything he has to say about GPL code but also because such commentaries perpetuate the idea that “mac users” are inherently stupid.
Anyone that “grew up” with Windows is what, 14 years old or so?
There are a number of people saying they’d like to use “some” open source license, but one which (unlike the GPL) would stop other people from redistributing for sale their work.
This is really weird; I think you’ll find the open source definition *starts* with redistribution rights.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php
So, please note, free redistribution is not some weird quirk of the doctrinaire GPL which other open source licenses don’t do. BSD et al do that too. If you don’t like that, you don’t like Open Source, period–not just the GPL.
What’s different about the GPL is that the GPL stops that redistributor from closing down the code they took from you and not letting you see whatever they may have added. The GPL makes sure they have to play by the same rules you did. Many people find this a comfort.
Some people really are so generous that they happily write code to a BSD-like license, and don’t mind if others take their code, profit from it while neither giving back nor passing on the privileges they received. I respect such people, although I think they’re a bit naive about long-term implications. Others who prefer BSD licenses and dislike the GPL are on the other side–they wish the authors of GPL software had written it BSD-style so that they could do the taking-advantage, distributing as “theirs” under closed copyright a product largely written by others. I have no respect for that position. You don’t like open source, want to profit from your own work? Fine. Profit from *your own* work, don’t try to promote BSD-like licenses so you can profit from the work of others.
Rufus
According to Microsoft’s website, the first Windows was released in ’85. I’m 23, and though I used Apples and Macs at home throughout most of my childhood, I used Windows in school starting around ’93. I think most of my friends my age, and some older, would say they grew up using Windows.
Hi I’m actually 21 years old. I was born on June 24th, 1981. By the time I had gotten my first computer it was a 486 DX2 running windows 3.0 on ms-dos 5.0. So, my computing experience began with windows and has been primarily that way every since. If you do the math, it is possible to grow up with windows, and not be 14. Unless for some strange reason you don’t think peubescent years count as growing up?
I think you are pretty far off from the intent of the “mac user” label. There were not many programs for Classic OS that were GLP’d and certainly not any that were “widely” used on the Apple platform. Not until the release of OS X was there an avaliablility of a significant amount of GPL’d software. Even now GPL’d software is generally not as widely used on the mac as its “traditional” shareware programs are. So, in general the mac community is used to paying for the kind of programs that the GPL gives them for free. Hence why, to a mac user, the GPL does not seem to help programmers; as we are used to seeing programmers getting paid for their programming.
Nor I don’t think it is dicrediting or perpetuating the idea that mac users are stupid to be labeled a mac user. It just means we inherently look at the GPL from a different perspective than say a linux user would. There is nothing stupid about our perspective. Sure, people may say of he’s an apple user and blow off everything I say – but saying it gives the open minded reader a little more information as to my motives for writing about this particular effect of the GPL.
Now why don’t you make the effort to at least post multiple one-line posts on the article itself. Instead of trying to attack me by saying I’m a 14 year old, or that I make the mac community look retarded.
The number of Developers that work for actual software companies is a small percentage. I myself fall into the other catagory that programs for the “company”.
For people in my position, GPL doesn’t hurt anything. My boss wants to pay a programmer do write his programs, if I can get programs for free and modify them for my boss, then he’d be all for that. The key is getting the boss to understand that the ocassional bug fix, patch, faq help, etc..that I could submit is the real “fee” for using the software! Redistribution isn’t a problem, because the boss isn’t giving it away; I keep my job too!
Giving away my code in this case is not adventageous to the boss! I’m his “Secret Weapon” over the competition! Getting “my” code back to GPL is the harder thing. Getting someone else to replace me is probable, but unlikely if I do a good job. My boss has done work with his press supplier for 25 years. Every time he tries to be “cheap” by using someone else he just gets burned. He’s young, so he keeps repeating, but he’ll learn that the people he works with take care of him–even if they cost a bit more than the lowest bidder! Software can be the same way. Actually, most software is written by very small COs they are trying to all be Billy G “1 trick pony” instead of focusing on supporting several people very well!
What scares MegaCorp is that GPL develops a “craftsman” approach to programming rather than a “mass-media, top-40” approach. Like a blacksmith of old times, sure someone could copy your clever latch, but they would need all the tool and experience to do it! That is what’s valuable …experience! Meeting the business needs of the guy in front of you with the $$$ is going to be the new model! Figure one programmer with GPL software could support 5-10 small companies easily. The companies would spend less for software, and the programmer would make more money in his pocket! It would be better quality too![support is out of your dinner money!] You want to give back to GPL to get help too! If MS has taught businesses anything it’s that paying for a person is always worth the money over a bunch of boxes with phone numbers!
It will take some time for GPL to grow on companies. The small businesses that would love OS are still too caught up with following the MegaCorps of the world, but they’re waking up to the huge unfairness of the current system. American business in general is about to have a drastic change. The backstabing capitalism is about to give way in small businesses–the megacorps have screwed them too many times! They are beginning to see the need for real business relationships again as they get burned. Give it 5 years, and most business will wonder why they were ever pushed around like MS is about to do.
“Now why don’t you make the effort to at least post multiple one-line posts on the article itself. Instead of trying to attack me by saying I’m a 14 year old, or that I make the mac community look retarded.”
Okay, the article was retarded. Writing it was more wasted effort than commenting it.
Your analogies are basically similar to saying that authors can not expect to make money from writing because libraries don’t charge for the use of the books.
Obviously, programmers who write software and grant a GPL license do not necessarily expect to make a direct profit from the software. Did you think your article was going to be a rude awakening for them or something?
Ever hear of a free printer if you agree to buy a certain amount of ink?
How about selling a gaming console below cost to make money on the games?
Maybe selling a razor blade handle to make money on the blades?
It has been demonstrated that the GPL license can be an excellent marketing tactic. One that has certain companies using other tactics very concerned.
Where do you think the Macintosh platform would be now if a lot of GPL’d software had been around for the last ten years?
Oh, running Windows 3.0 released in 1990 on DOS 5.0 released in 1991 on a CPU introduced in 1992? Would that be a retarded thing to do?
“Your analogies are basically similar to saying that authors can not expect to make money from writing because libraries don’t charge for the use of the books. ”
Your assuming a few things there, first that libraries don’t buy books which would generate money for the author, or that other people would not go out and buy the book rather than just borrowing it from the library. Thats assuming you want me to ignore the slightly large detail that your book can be in the public library without you giving up your IP rights on it.
“Oh, running Windows 3.0 released in 1990 on DOS 5.0 released in 1991 on a CPU introduced in 1992? Would that be a retarded thing to do?”
It was 1993 actually when I got it. The 486 was cheaper because the pentiums had just come out. Windows for Workgroups had also come out at that time. As a 12 year old I couldn’t exactly go out and get a job to get the latest and greatest hardware. If you had money to spend like that at 12, good for you. Whats more retarded? Running older software on an outdated computer for 1993 or thinking a 12 year old has thousands of dollars to spend?
“Obviously, programmers who write software and grant a GPL license do not necessarily expect to make a direct profit from the software. Did you think your article was going to be a rude awakening for them or something?”
Well no, but no one seems to think that if they don’t generate money they might not have a job. If programmers don’t make you money why hire them? If I wanted to make a linux distro I could, and I wouldn’t need any programmers to do it – I could just use the work of other programers. I have nothing to contribute if I don’t change any code, and I have no problems giving the source away since it was already out there. If I wanted to sell linux services again I could, still not hiring any programmers, but I can still make money off of the product they are producing.
“Ever hear of a free printer if you agree to buy a certain amount of ink? How about selling a gaming console below cost to make money on the games? Maybe selling a razor blade handle to make money on the blades?”
Ever hear of just selling the ink, games, or razor blades? You don’t lose money initially – and if your ink, games and razor blades are good enough or just cheap enough you’ll still gain marketshare without dumping money on to developing things that won’t make you profit. Again why hire programers if you can get their programming work for free? Or if you can just sell the services to what they have already done – you don’t have to pay them a thing for their code because its GPL’d.
Others who prefer BSD licenses and dislike the GPL are on the other side–they wish the authors of GPL software had written it BSD-style so that they could do the taking-advantage, distributing as “theirs” under closed copyright a product largely written by others.
That is a generalization. I like the BSD licenses and dislike the GPL. I put all of my code that I write outside of work under a BSD license. Some code at work that I write, get donated to a project with a BSD-based license.
I can generalize too: others who prefer the GPL and dislike the BSD licenses cannot stand that people have closed source out there. They are upset that they cannot “share” this code with everybody else even though they did not write it. They would give almost anything to be able to take chunks of that code and distribute it within their own projects. Why can they not just write their own and stop whining about other people’s code.
You don’t like open source, want to profit from your own work? Fine. Profit from *your own* work, don’t try to promote BSD-like licenses so you can profit from the work of others.
Please! No more FUD using generalizations.
Go back and read it again.
You write code and put it under BSD licenses–great!
That puts you in the first category I mentioned–people sufficiently generous that they don’t mind the possibility that someone else will put proprietary extensions on their code and profit from it. That’s cool. I respect the ideals involved here, both in terms of generosity and in terms of devotion to all-out, unlimited individual freedom.
But my second category does exist. There has been more than one post to this article alone upset about the GPL because it doesn’t let them write proprietary bits taking advantage of the GPLed code. I did not claim that such people represent *all* BSD supporters; ergo, I was not making an unwarranted generalization. I said “others”; my generalization is true if at least two BSD license supporters are of that sort. Since it seems to be Microsoft’s semi-official line, I’d say that makes at least two people.
Finally, I’d like to point out that your counter-generalization (while it may be true in that doubtless some have that opinion) clearly contradicts my stance. What I said pretty clearly was that if someone wants to profit off proprietary code, fine–but they should be profiting from their own proprietary code, not getting a free ride from open source. I’m really not interested in acquiring rights to any closed code, and if they can compete with the free software world, then they can. In reality, it’s likely to play out by niches; games, f’rinstance, will stay closed although game engines may not. Most of the software space will, I think, be taken over by the free software world–except just possibly if the closed, proprietary types get to sponge off BSD-licensed code written by idealistic, well-intentioned patsies. Luckily, most of the significant BSD-styled projects have big enough mind-share that it’s hard for proprietary variants to displace them, so I’m not that worried as long as the GPL remains a major part of the free software ecosystem.
test
Sorry everyone, I’m the ‘test’ guy from above. I’m new to OSNews
Anyways…
People who are opposing the GPL in this thread seem of 2 ilk: Either they think that the GPL will put people out of work, or they think the GPL provides no motivation for people to create or improve because it precludes the possibility of profit (which, as we all know, is the only motivation that has ever existed in the history of humankind). There are many valid reasons that the GPL isn’t perfect for everyone, but the above aren’t among them.
1) As has been pointed out previously, COTS software producers make up a very small portion of the body of programmers in the workforce. Yes, the GPL can jeopardise certain specific business models; so did the automobile. But the GPL won’t cause an earthquake-inducing robot to haul ass to the centre of the Earth and eradicate all the cute chicks. Relax. On the off chance that you find your livelihood directly threatened by GPL software: Adapt or die. A more capitalistic credo I’ve yet to see.
2) I’d say that the Catalan team on OOo is more motivated than the Catalan team of MS Office, wouldn’t you? More examples abound.
These stem from the fact that the terms “cash”, “money” and “profit” appear NOWHERE in the text of the GPL. The GPL has SFA to do with ‘business’ — it regulates the management and use of source code, and nothing else. There are business ramifications of the GPL, just as there are ramifications of a broken toe on my shoe size. That doesn’t mean there’s a significant causal link. If you think the GPL tells people to chop up cockroaches and sprinkle them on your sister’s spaghetti, that’s fantastic — just know that you’re diametrically wrong.
In conclusion, if you don’t like the GPL, don’t use it. If you think the GPL does more harm than good, prove it (hint: you have your work cut out for you).