In the final part of this series of articles in response to Eric Raymond, an examination of whether a hybrid model is the way forward.
Open source: Supply and demand
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I guess this is more an article about developing open source software rather than using it. From my point of view, this is a personal choice that every developer/software house has to decide for themselves. I personally think there are far too many variables involved to say point-blank if one type of development model is any better than the others. For example, if you’re making simple $10-$15 shareware games, you’re probably not going to rake in a lot of $$ on service. The way I look at it, open source is just one kind of development model, not a religion, as some people might have you believe.
@Darius,
While I agree, there are a lot of powerful people out there that would rather Open Source not exist at all. It sometimes takes a religious level of fervor to muster up the effort to prevent these people from paying governments to make Open Source outright illegal.
This is why I don’t criticise the Free Software and Open Source zealots. If it weren’t for them we probably wouldn’t be allowed to make or use that software at all, at least in the “developed” countries.
While I agree, there are a lot of powerful people out there that would rather Open Source not exist at all. It sometimes takes a religious level of fervor to muster up the effort to prevent these people from paying governments to make Open Source outright illegal.
Is there anybody (besides maybe SCO, who are irrelavent anyway)pushing to make Free Software illegal? Doesn’t Microsoft themelves use Free Software (BSD license) in their own code?
Doesn’t Microsoft themelves use Free Software (BSD license) in their own code?
Microsoft does use BSD code in their product, but they just lifted it straight up and put it in their code – it’s not viral, so it doesn’t affect the rest of their code, so they basically get off scot free by using the “free” BSD code.
Obviously the author misses one of the biggest problems I have seen in for profit software, and I say this with no political intention.
Software like AOL that is massively bloated with features for the push to make users upgrade. This is what he states as what cause innovation and improvement, but I don’t think he understands development at a technical level, or at a user level. Let’s look at improvement on a static application (one that doesn’t do a lot, and won’t need many changes once it’s finished, like a dial-up program):
1.) More efficient
2.) Smaller footprint
3.) Fewer bugs
4.) Better interface
Now those are big ones. Unfortunately to see major changes in the first two things like partial rewrites have to happen, and when money is on the line I doubt many rewrites take place; that’s expensive. Bugs I can see getting fixed, and the interface may improve.
However, a couple of bug fixes and making the menus organized is not going to get $10-$50 out of most people’s pockets, and companies realize this. The solution then is features. And as I pointed out with AOL, this happens. You get a technically weak but feature filled application that does far more than 99% of the userbase really wanted it to do anyway.
Now of course, no one pays for AOL upgrades; but I think AOL upgrades keep AOL users hanging around. They seem to like all the new features and “user friendlyness.” So does anything else get into this feature overload issue?
Sure does, Microsoft Word for example has so many features you could probably spend a semester course learning them. In Word 2004 you can make an address sort of setup, and highlight the name then make it 14pt blue Times New Roman and it changes the style to look neat (I might be a bit off, I saw it a few weeks ago on TechTV). I’m often frustrated with every Word application I’ve ever used, they tend to be buggy or overfilled with features; and all I want is predictable behaviour.
My solution is a bit different from a battle over open and closed, hobby and money. Mine is this:
Applications are either small or large. Small are those little “static” applications you use everyday for a couple minutes, and large are those ones you work in all day (like photoshop maybe?). All small applications should be packaged with the OS, yes ALL. Large applications are for 3rd party software. So provide Microsoft Word as a seperate app, but please include a majorly cut down version (like Wordpad) in the OS.
So they can improve them, because a whole suite of little applications, or an Operating System, is worth $100 for an upgrade every year!
Microsoft does use BSD code in their product, but they just lifted it straight up and put it in their code – it’s not viral, so it doesn’t affect the rest of their code, so they basically get off scot free by using the “free” BSD code.
Why the quotes around the word “free?”
Seems free enough to me, if they can pretty much do with it what they want…
“Seems free enough to me, if they can pretty much do with it what they want…”
that exactly is the problem
Freedom carries responsibilities; anarchy means do whatever the hell you want. In this sense, BSD license is more anarchic than free. Whether this is good or not, it’s up to each person to decide.
However, in social terms, freedom without constrainst leads to one person being able to negate somebody else’s freedom.
An old french adage used to say your freedom ends where mine begins, and mine ends where yours begins. It’s a good way to keep things civilized.
So if there has to be a balance between societal and personal freedom, that means that the well from which I drink has to be replenished so that everyone else gets to drink from it as well. This is what the GPL tries to do, build communities of software freedom.
Not to start a bsd vs gpl flamewar again. but at times a anarchy is good and at times free is good so lets retain sanity here
Microsoft does use BSD code in their product, but they just lifted it straight up and put it in their code – it’s not viral, so it doesn’t affect the rest of their code, so they basically get off scot free by using the “free” BSD code.
Since it’s no mistake that it’s public knowledge, and they accept and acknowledge that BSD code has been incorporated into their system, then where exactly is the freakin’ problem?
Linux/Linux developers leveraged GNU for their entire userland, but hell that’s just not an issue because the Linux kernel is GPL compatible isn’t it.
Dumbass freakin’ groklaw wannabes.
“Since it’s no mistake that it’s public knowledge, and they accept and acknowledge that BSD code has been incorporated into their system, then where exactly is the freakin’ problem?”
not for you. its considered a problem by many.
”
Linux/Linux developers leveraged GNU for their entire userland, but hell that’s just not an issue because the Linux kernel is GPL compatible isn’t it.
”
linux kernel is not just gpl compatible, its gpl itself. a kernel can use userland stuff. not the same as using some other operating system’s code into yours without contributing anything back
Microsoft does use BSD code in their product, but they just lifted it straight up and put it in their code – it’s not viral, so it doesn’t affect the rest of their code, so they basically get off scot free by using the “free” BSD code.
So then what you’re saying is that there’s no company trying to outlaw BSD-style Free Software, but only the ‘viral’ kind? Which leaves the original question, which companies are trying to make Viral Free Software illegal? Wasn’t that the original excuse for all the religious ferver around Free Software?
linux kernel is not just gpl compatible, its gpl itself.
I might not like the GPL, but even I’m not gonna touch this one. If you can’t see how wrong this statement is then you need a reality check.
[/i]
a kernel can use userland stuff. not the same as using some other operating system’s code into yours without contributing anything back[/i]
Explain to me how the Linux kernel has contributed to devlopment of the Bash shell.
.
“Explain to me how the Linux kernel has contributed to devlopment of the Bash shell. ”
bash isnt used by kernel for anything. MS uses the bsd stuff and doesnt give back anything. why dont you come up with better arguments
“I might not like the GPL, but even I’m not gonna touch this one. If you can’t see how wrong this statement is then you need a reality check.
”
you said its gpl compatible. i am telling you its under gpl. linux is licensed under gpl not merely compatible. so nothing wrong at all
bsd license is being used by MS while it calls open source a intellectual property destroyer. how can you explain that to anybody that i will use something from open source to enhance my own products while calling it a destroyer evil and all that?
thats ironic and thats the problem. try explaining that?
MS uses the bsd stuff and doesnt give back anything.
As the BSD license quite deliberately, quite specifically and quite selflessly allows.
bsd license is being used by MS while it calls open source a intellectual property destroyer.
Microsoft’s complaints have always been against the GPL – not open source in general – and perfectly valid. Their concern – quite rightly – is that the GPL makes their primary business model of selling software unworkable.
Those of you out there who, like RMS, think all software should be free and trying to make money selling it is evil, probably won’t be able to understand that point of view.
thats ironic and thats the problem.
The word you were after is “hypocritical”, not “ironic” – and even if what you said was true, it still wouldn’t be.
For any company whose primary revenue derives from selling software, GPLed code is like kryptonite. Microsoft are hardly alone in being the only company in the world who sells software.
“Microsoft’s complaints have always been against the GPL – not open source in general – and perfectly valid. Their concern – quite rightly – is that the GPL makes their primary business model of selling software unworkable.”
The candle makers complaints have always been against electricity, so is perfectly valid. Their concern, and quite rightly, is that electricity makes their primary business model of selling candles unworkable.
“Those of you out there who, like RMS, think all software should be free and trying to make money selling it is evil, probably won’t be able to understand that point of view.”
Those of you out there who, like the electrical companies, think all light should come from electricity, probably won’t be able to understand that point of view.
“For any company whose primary revenue derives from selling software, GPLed code is like kryptonite”
For any company whose primary revenue derives from selling candles, electricity is like kryptonite.
Gee, and all this time, I thought in a free-market economy (pretending for this exercise we actually have a free-market economy) that the world will beat a path to your door if you build a better mousetrap.
bash isnt used by kernel for anything. MS uses the bsd stuff and doesnt give back anything. why dont you come up with better arguments
Fine, see how far you can get running JUST the kernel. Without using the GNU (BSD is another possibility) userland the kernel is effectively worthless. Even though it’s dependant on that userland code the kernel developers have any responsibility to help develop it.
you said its gpl compatible. i am telling you its under gpl. linux is licensed under gpl not merely compatible. so nothing wrong at all
No, it isn’t. Look at your kernel license. It’s GPL with additional statements.
bsd license is being used by MS while it calls open source a intellectual property destroyer.
Open source, specifically GPL, IS a destroyer of IP. In the case of GPL that’s precisely the goal of the license creators. Depending on a person’s individual point of view this is either a good or bad thing.
Even though it’s dependant on that userland code the kernel developers have any responsibility to help develop it.
Should read:
Even though it’s dependant on that userland code the kernel developers don’t have any responsibility to help develop it.
Gotta wait until the caffeine kicks in before posting :>
“Open source, specifically GPL, IS a destroyer of IP.”
How so? Microsoft still retains copyright on their products, as does Oracle. I don’t recall any laws which state Microsoft & Oracle must release under the GPL license. Oracle, a proprietary product, runs on Linux, while retaining the proprietary license under which it was issued. How has the GPL license destroyed Oracle’s IP?
Using GPL is a choice. A developer can choose that license or choose another. A user can choose to use GPL licensed products or proprietary products, or any combination of licensed software to use.
Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me?
If I release code under an open-source license that allows others to freely incorporate my code within their own then I’ve effectively given up my IP, because I no longer control the usage of my code. In fact with GPL you could go one step further and say that I give up my IP as soon as I decide to use GPL code in my project, since as soon as I distribute the project my original code must be released under GPL too.
If you can’t see how that counts as destruction of IP then you’re blind.
Your Oracle example is just stupid. The Linux kernel license doesn’t affect software running on it. However if Oracle were to release their DB software under GPL then they would have effectively given up their IP (And be totally screwed I might add).
“If I release code under an open-source license that allows others to freely incorporate my code within their own then I’ve effectively given up my IP”
No you haven’t. You can dual license your code. Here is an example:
https://order.mysql.com/?sub=pg&pg_no=1&PHPSESSID=bf42c159c8fb0ae92d…
Did you notice the description?
“One commercial non-GPL MySQL license covers one database server with unlimited number of connections.”
“Are you deliberately trying to misunderstand me?”
I am trying to UNDERSTAND your post.
The GPL is a way for the developer not to lose his/her IP.
As a developer, i want to retain my IP using the GPL but if you want to use my code without some sort of recognition the thats the same as stealing. If you need my code then you can contact me and we can arrange a separate non-GPL licence and you can pay me cash for it. Write your own code then you won’t have any worries.
Cor.. some people get really upset when they can’t steal something.
Check out their “Services for Unix” – i seem to remember seeing a GPL notice on it somewhere. So they can’t hate it all that much really.
The GPL is a way for the developer not to lose his/her IP.
Hmm. So a quick sed to change your name to my name, maintain the GPL license, but distribute it as my own code with no mention of you. Yup, your IP has been totally protected..not. The GPL protects the continued application of the GPL, not your IP.
“Hmm. So a quick sed to change your name to my name, maintain the GPL license, but distribute it as my own code with no mention of you. Yup, your IP has been totally protected..not. The GPL protects the continued application of the GPL, not your IP.”
What kind of silly argument is this? No copyright license exists which protects theft of IP.
“The GPL protects the continued application of the GPL, not your IP”
The GPL doesn’t override copyright law, which is why GPL projects can be dual licensed. The author of the code retains copyright on his IP. Try again.
What kind of silly argument is this? No copyright license exists which protects theft of IP.
My point is that under the GPL license I would be entitled to just change the names and redistribute it as my own work. Aside from the condition forcing continued use of the GPL he has given up all rights over the usage of his code. Despite being the author of the code he now has only the same rights as everybody else, no more, no less (Although I believe some countries’ copyright law allows for a change in license within some time period). IMO his IP has been thrown away, for the bargain price of keeping the code under the GPL forever.
That’s fine, it’s his code, his IP and his decision to place it under GPL.
However it was the decision of the BSD guys to release their code under the BSD license, with full knowledge of the consequences. Trying to paint MS as being morally wrong because they followed the license the BSD guys used for the code is just ludicrous.
“he has given up all rights over the usage of his code.”
Wrong! Why do you keep repeating this FUD? Look At MySQL.
“Aside from the condition forcing continued use of the GPL”
Don’t release code under that license if you don’t like the terms of that license. But to choose the GPL as a developer and then claim the condition is forced, is flat out wrong. As in your earlier argument that if Oracle released their database under the GPL they would be screwed. Oracle is not going to do that. They chose a license whose terms they liked (or most likely wrote their own.)
“Despite being the author of the code he now has only the same rights as everybody else, no more, no less.”
Wrong! Proprietary MySQL has some code in common with GPL MySQL. So the authors have one set of rights with proprietray MySQL and a different set of rights with GPL MYSQL, on some of the exact same code.
“IMO”
Finally you get honest! It is your opinion, “If I release code under an open-source license that allows others to freely incorporate my code within their own then I’ve effectively given up my IP.” But your opinion totally ignores the FACT that code can be dual licensed.
“Trying to paint MS as being morally wrong because they followed the license the BSD guys used for the code is just ludicrous.”
No argument there.
But your opinion totally ignores the FACT that code can be dual licensed.
And yours totally ignores the FACT that I could release a GPL OhMySQL (Trademark people would kill me I think, but you get the idea) tomorrow with an unsurprisingly identical feature set to MySQL. The MySQL developers could do nothing to prevent it. Hell, I could even offer a ‘support’ license for OhMySQL and try to make some money from it.
If I wanted to copy Fedora (First distribution that sprang to mind), re-release as Funky Chicken Linux, and start charging for boxed CDs then I can. 0 work involved aside from finding a packager. How many distros are Debian based?
The ability to dual license is a consequence of copyright law, it’s got nothing to do with the GPL. The GPL itself offers ZERO protection for your IP aside from guaranteeing the that your code will continue to be GPLed. Same with BSD (The one without the credits) and some others.
“And yours totally ignores the FACT that I could release a GPL OhMySQL (Trademark people would kill me I think, but you get the idea) tomorrow with an unsurprisingly identical feature set to MySQL.”
Like WhiteBox Linux did with Redhat Enterprise? Yet, Redhat still retains copyright on their IP and their brand name keeps them in top place for Redhat products. People would STILL rather pay out the *ss for Official Redhat, than get Whitebox Linux for free.
“If wanted to copy Fedora (First distribution that sprang to mind), re-release as Funky Chicken Linux, and start charging for boxed CDs then I can. 0 work involved aside from finding a packager.”
And how many people are going to want Funky Chicken Linux? How many are going to want ‘official’ Fedora, coded by the very same who code Redhat? I suppose with plenty of marketing you could take Redhat’s marketshare, especially if you made a better Redhat than Redhat did.
“How many distros are Debian based?”
You can’t seriously believe Debian users are abandoning the distribution wholesale for the likes of Linspire or Xandros?
“The GPL itself offers ZERO protection for your IP aside from guaranteeing the that your code will continue to be GPLed.”
Zero protection? The GPL offers the additional protection that the playing field will be fair and equal. Code your Funky Chicken Linux, then get out in the market place and COMPETE. Make it better and win. And what happens if your Funky Chicken Linux starts taking Redhat marketshare? Then Redhat has to COMPETE and answer the threat your Funky Chicken Linux causes and make Redhat BETTER. Who wins? The users, the customers, the marketplace.
The GPL doesn’t just breed capitalism, it ENSURES it, plain and simple.
“My point is that under the GPL license I would be entitled to just change the names and redistribute it as my own work.”
Where does it say your are “entitled” to do that? Only a low life does things like that.
Those of you out there who, like the electrical companies, think all light should come from electricity, probably won’t be able to understand that point of view.
A *very* different position to the one I stated. RMS doesn’t want to shift the ability to sell software from one company to another, he wants to eliminate it altogether.
A more accurate usage of your analogy would be:
“Those of you out there who, like RMS, think the ability to generate light should be free and trying to make money selling it is evil, probably won’t be able to understand that point of view.”
By the way, it’s traditional to do this specious little analogy with cars and buggy-whip makers.
Gee, and all this time, I thought in a free-market economy (pretending for this exercise we actually have a free-market economy) that the world will beat a path to your door if you build a better mousetrap.
There appears to be a far more beaten path to Microsoft’s door – not to mention a mriad other companies selling non-OSS software – than to anyone selling GPL software.
Microsoft criticise the aspects of the GPL that (basically) make it impossible to sell software. There is no law against this. Given that GPLed software and open source processes have yet to demonstrate they are capable of producing an objectively superior end result, there is also no moral reason why they should not criticise it.
There are some pretty fundamental issues with trying to make all software GPLed.
Microsoft’s criticisms of the GPL – and any subsequent market activity that may stimulate – *are* the free market in action, so why do you (appear to) have a problem with it ?
“RMS doesn’t want to shift the ability to sell software from one company to another, he wants to eliminate it altogether.”
You can’t seriously believe IBM, Novell, et al, are into GPL because of what RMS wants?
“Those of you out there who, like RMS, think the ability to generate light should be free and trying to make money selling it is evil, probably won’t be able to understand that point of view.”
Oh, I get it, everyone who likes the GPL license, wishes to see all proprietary software extinguished. I can’t speak for others, but for myself, I don’t think that will ever happen. Very few organizations, particularly businesses, support 100% the views of RMS. RMS is an idealist, whereas, reality tends to support pragmatism, not idealism. Microsoft knows this too.
The point of the analogy is software as commodity is here. When VCRs became commoditized, you did not hear such non-sense as, “oh now that the prices of vcrs are becoming cheaper, the whole market is going to die!” Talk about chicken little. By the way if I could generate my own light for free, I would be a fool to pay the power company don’t you think? But in that situation, I certainly wouldn’t call the power company evil, for packaging up light in an easy to use manner, thus adding value, then selling it back to the public.
“There appears to be a far more beaten path to Microsoft’s door – not to mention a mriad other companies selling non-OSS software – than to anyone selling GPL software.”
You are so correct. That which is true today will also be true 100 years from now, 500 years from now, etc.
“Microsoft criticise the aspects of the GPL that(basically) make it impossible to sell software.”
GPL does not make it impossible to sell software, yet Microsoft keeps repeating this, along with other FUD, such as GPL is cancer. GPL can be dual licensed. Go tell the writers of MySQL that GPLling there code made it impossible to sell their software. By the way, you can purchase the commercial non-GPL version from their website for $495.
Besides, Microsoft can release their IP under any license they choose. If they don’t like the GPL then they should not release their IP under that license. There is no need to bitch on about it incessantly, other than to spread FUD.
“There is no law against this.”
There are laws against using a monopoly market position to stifle competition however. Then there is the unwritten law regarding crying wolf and spreading FUD, whereby when a company does it long enough, consumers will no longer take them seriously.
Given that GPLed software and open source processes have yet to demonstrate they are capable of producing an objectively superior end result,
Tell it to IBM’s Linux customers. Tell it to Redhat’s customers. Tell it to Ernie Ball. Tell it to Autozone. Tell it to Daimler Chysler. I am sure they would love to hear your theories.
“there is also no moral reason why they should not criticise it.”
Criticism!=Completely Inaccurate FUD.
“There are some pretty fundamental issues with trying to make all software GPLed.”
Yoohoo! Earth to Anonymous! All who use GPL code do not support 100% of what RMS believes, nor think it is even possible for it to come to pass. But continue on with your FUD. We know logic and reason won’t stop you.
“Microsoft’s criticisms of the GPL – and any subsequent market activity that may stimulate – *are* the free market in action,”
So finding investors for the SCO lawsuits is market activity? Funding Samizdat is market activity? I agree with you though, the free market all around the world are making their choices now and some are finding alternatives.
“so why do you (appear to) have a problem with it ?”
Because I can distinguish FUD from criticism, I understand that code can be dual-licensed and I have never heard such non-sense spouted as gospel truth when any other product has been commoditized. What’s your excuse?
You can’t seriously believe IBM, Novell, et al, are into GPL because of what RMS wants?
For starters, they’re not selling software, they’re selling *services*.
Secondly, GPLed software the IBM, Novell, et al is just another resource to be used up. I certainly hope you don’t think there’s even a shadow of idealism in their usage of GPL software.
Oh, I get it, everyone who likes the GPL license, wishes to see all proprietary software extinguished.
No, you don’t, because that’s not what I said.
*RMS* wants all software to be free. People who think like him, funnily enough, also do.
I can’t speak for others, but for myself, I don’t think that will ever happen.
I don’t think it will either, but what we think will happen isn’t the issue, the reasoning and philosophy behind the GPL is.
Very few organizations, particularly businesses, support 100% the views of RMS. RMS is an idealist, whereas, reality tends to support pragmatism, not idealism. Microsoft knows this too.
Very few business support the views of OSS, either, they just use it.
You are so correct. That which is true today will also be true 100 years from now, 500 years from now, etc.
My understanding of this discussion is that it is in the present context, not a possible future context.
GPL does not make it impossible to sell software, yet Microsoft keeps repeating this, along with other FUD, such as GPL is cancer.
Selling GPLed code is rather difficult given that the first customer can give away the product to the whole world for free.
And the GPL *is* “cancer”, because it “infects” other source code that uses GPLed code. You may not like the terminology, but the resoning behind it is sound.
GPL can be dual licensed.
In which case the code under the other license isn’t GPLed, is it ?
Go tell the writers of MySQL that GPLling there code made it impossible to sell their software. By the way, you can purchase the commercial non-GPL version from their website for $495.
Dual licensing only works when a single entity owns the copyright for all the relevant code – not something encouraged by the OSS philosophy – it’s also pretty much limited to generating revenuw from developers, not end users. It’s hard to see how the model could work for something like games, for example.
Added to that, it’s not really GPLed code once it’s dual licensed.
Besides, Microsoft can release their IP under any license they choose. If they don’t like the GPL then they should not release their IP under that license.
I’m not quite sure why you even bring this up. I don’t see how it is relevant to ths discussion. Incidentally, if Microsoft wanted to used some GPLed code in a product they sold, they *wouldn’t* be able to release their IP under any license they chose, it would *have* to be GPLed.
There is no need to bitch on about it incessantly, other than to spread FUD.
It’s a developer issue. Since developers are the lifeblood of a platform, it is in the platform owners’ best interests to “encourage” developers to develop for them.
In other words, it’s more capitalism and free market in action. Indeed, in the US I believe Microsoft are legally required, as a publically traded company, to do everything they can to secure and grow their revenue sources.
There are laws against using a monopoly market position to stifle competition however. Then there is the unwritten law regarding crying wolf and spreading FUD, whereby when a company does it long enough, consumers will no longer take them seriously.
“Crying wolf” requires there to be no truth behind the comments.
Tell it to IBM’s Linux customers. Tell it to Redhat’s customers. Tell it to Ernie Ball. Tell it to Autozone. Tell it to Daimler Chysler. I am sure they would love to hear your theories.
I *am* a Redhat customer. I think RHEL – ie: Linux – is good at some things and not so better at others. It is *not* better at everything.
Similarly, there are some things I think benefit greatly from OSS development strategies and others that I think do not.
Criticism!=Completely Inaccurate FUD.
Your idea of FUD !->FUD.
All who use GPL code do not support 100% of what RMS believes, nor think it is even possible for it to come to pass. But continue on with your FUD. We know logic and reason won’t stop you.
I never said they did. The fact remains, however, that the purpose and philosophy behind the GPL is to make all software GPLed.
Because I can distinguish FUD from criticism, I understand that code can be dual-licensed and I have never heard such non-sense spouted as gospel truth when any other product has been commoditized.
Just because you call it FUD doesn’t make it so.
What’s your excuse?
For what ? Having a different opinion ? I don’t need an excuse.
“Secondly, GPLed software the IBM, Novell, et al is just another resource to be used up. I certainly hope you don’t think there’s even a shadow of idealism in their usage of GPL software.”
Profit, profit, profit, that’s the name of that game.
“And the GPL *is* “cancer”, because it “infects” other source code that uses GPLed code. You may not like the terminology, but the resoning behind it is sound.”
And this statement is where our entire exchange has hinged. Everytime you speak of GPL you speak as if these are the consequences, and no other consequences exist, as if developers have no choice but to release under the GPL. There is no law that says ALL code must be released under GPL. A developer must CHOOSE to release under that license. Any developer that doesn’t like the terms, needs to find a different license. You have an agenda, which is why you make these statements regarding the GPL as you do. Your agenda paints the GPL in a light that isn’t completely factual.
“In other words, it’s more capitalism and free market in action.”
Exactly and in a free market, a developer gets to CHOOSE the license under which any code is released & companies who need IT infrastructure get to CHOOSE the license of the code that runs on that infrastructure.
“Crying wolf” requires there to be no truth behind the comments.”
Claiming the GPL destroys IP, while denying possiblities of multiply licensed code and denying the fact that developers can CHOOSE to use the GPL or not, IS crying wolf.
I” *am* a Redhat customer. I think RHEL – ie: Linux – is good at some things and not so better at others. It is *not* better at everything.”
It doesn’t matter whether you or I think it is better at everything. Companies such as AutoZone, Daimler Chrysler, IBM’s customers, Redhat’s customers & governments around the world have found GPL code BETTER at some things, which is why they use it. They have taken advantage of the product lines offered in a free market and made their choices.
So in these cases, the free market has spoken and refuted YOUR claim that ” GPLed software and open source processes have yet to demonstrate they are capable of producing an objectively superior end result.”
“Your idea of FUD !->FUD.”
Yeah? Well let’s look at yours:
“that the purpose and philosophy behind the GPL is to make all software GPLed.”
And you conveniently don’t mention the fact that the GPL has no way at all to force Microsoft, Oracle, Opera, or any other company to GPL their code. The GPL is only available to those individual companies & developers who CHOOSE to use that license in a free market economy, for the benefits they find in it.
“I’m not quite sure why you even bring this up. I don’t see how it is relevant to ths discussion. Incidentally, if Microsoft wanted to used some GPLed code in a product they sold, they *wouldn’t* be able to release their IP under any license they chose, it would *have* to be GPLed.”
And if they can’t deal with the terms of the GPL license then they best pick another license, which is the whole crux of the issue. CHOOSE your license in a free market economy that suits your goals best.
But look at the sillines of your point here:
Poor Microsoft doesn’t have the right to take GPL code, make it proprietary and make a mint off of it.
The GPL doesn’t exist to increase the profits of Microsoft shareholders, UNLESS they find a way to increase profits, using the GPL, and abiding by the terms of the license.
It’s very simple. The presumption that all code, no matter how it is licensed, should be available to Microsoft, according to terms Microsoft chooses, is patently ludicrous. Yet, this is your argument.
Microsoft expects the public to respect the license they place on Microsoft code. So Microsoft must also respect the license placed on other code. But they don’t respect it. They call it cancer and leprosy and use various other unfactual and ad hominem attacks, which speaks volumes.
“that the purpose and philosophy behind the GPL is to make all software GPLed.”
Please show the link where guns have been pointed at the heads of developers and forced them to use the GPL and deny their rights to dual license.
I tell you what though, idealist though he may be, I have to give props to RMS. One man, single handedly, has these huge behemoth corporations and people such as yourself, quaking in their boots and pi**ing all over themselves in fear of what RMS did, by turning copyright license on its head.
And this statement is where our entire exchange has hinged. Everytime you speak of GPL you speak as if these are the consequences, and no other consequences exist, as if developers have no choice but to release under the GPL.
No, I speak of the consequences under the assumption that they *do* use the GPL, because a discussion on the consequences of using the GPL is pretty pointless otherwise.
Of course developers don’t *have* to use the GPL – but it’s a bit pointless talking about what the consequences would be in that case, isn’t it ?
A developer must CHOOSE to release under that license.
Indeed. And, if they do, then the things being discussed apply.
You have an agenda, which is why you make these statements regarding the GPL as you do. Your agenda paints the GPL in a light that isn’t completely factual.
My agenda is a discussion on what happens when code is GPLed. The fact that code doesn’t have to be GPLed is completely irrelevant to a discussion about what happens when code *is* GPLed.
Claiming the GPL destroys IP, while denying possiblities of multiply licensed code and denying the fact that developers can CHOOSE to use the GPL or not, IS crying wolf.
No-one is denying the possiblity of multiply-licenses code, they’re just pointing out what happens if the developer CHOOSES the GPL.
It doesn’t matter whether you or I think it is better at everything. Companies such as AutoZone, Daimler Chrysler, IBM’s customers, Redhat’s customers & governments around the world have found GPL code BETTER at some things, which is why they use it. They have taken advantage of the product lines offered in a free market and made their choices.
And…what ? What point are you trying to make ? I’ve suggested any of this isn’t true.
So in these cases, the free market has spoken and refuted YOUR claim that ” GPLed software and open source processes have yet to demonstrate they are capable of producing an objectively superior end result.”
Perhaps objectively was the wrong word to use. I was trying to say that GPLed software and open source processes have yet to demonstrate they will always produce a better result than closed-source and traditional processes.
And you conveniently don’t mention the fact that the GPL has no way at all to force Microsoft, Oracle, Opera, or any other company to GPL their code.
Nor do I need to – it’s irrelevant (not to mention obvious).
The GPL is only available to those individual companies & developers who CHOOSE to use that license in a free market economy, for the benefits they find in it.
The issue is developers who may not completely understand the consequences of using GPLed code. After all, it’s sold by the OSS community of being capable of curing just about everything except the common cold.
It’s very simple. The presumption that all code, no matter how it is licensed, should be available to Microsoft, according to terms Microsoft chooses, is patently ludicrous. Yet, this is your argument.
No, it isn’t. My *point* was that should Microsoft want to use GPLed code (and sell the product) then they have to also GPL just about any code that interacts with it. From Microsoft’s perspective, this is bad. Indeed, from the perspective of just about anyone trying to sell software, it’s bad. That’s the aspect of the GPL they criticise, and why they criticise it.
Microsoft expects the public to respect the license they place on Microsoft code.
Microsoft expects the public to abide by the law with regards to their license. People are free to call it whatever they want.
So Microsoft must also respect the license placed on other code. But they don’t respect it.
Microsoft must also follow the law with regards to Open Source code. And they do.
They call it cancer and leprosy and use various other unfactual and ad hominem attacks, which speaks volumes.
Firstly, that’s perfectly legal.
Secondly, there’s no shortage of people calling proprietry licensing bad names.
Thirdly, what, precisely, have they said that is *factually* incorrect (note: Not emotionally worded. Not in disagreance with *your* philosophy. *Factually* incorrect.) ?
Please show the link where guns have been pointed at the heads of developers and forced them to use the GPL and deny their rights to dual license.
Please quote the relevant text where I said they were.
I tell you what though, idealist though he may be, I have to give props to RMS. One man, single handedly, has these huge behemoth corporations and people such as yourself, quaking in their boots and pi**ing all over themselves in fear of what RMS did, by turning copyright license on its head.
Quaking in my boots ? Hardly – I don’t even write software as a profession, let alone try to sell it – and my *personal* viewpoint on copyright is that it should be almost completely abolished.
All I’m doing is trying to have discussion on the GPL and its effects in the context of the present day. *You* are the one getting emotional and partisan.
“No-one is denying the possiblity of multiply-licenses code, they’re just pointing out what happens if the developer CHOOSES the GPL.”
Good, then we agree that choosing to issue code under a GPL license does not mean one must give up their IP, since Redhat & MySQL are both dual-licensed and the authors RETAIN their IP rights in spite of issuing code under the GPL.
“I was trying to say that GPLed software and open source processes have yet to demonstrate they will always produce a better result than closed-source and traditional processes.”
You have yet to demonstrate that closed source and traditional software development procees produce better results, whether it be in all cases, most cases or few cases, or only in certain categories of applications. I hope your example in this instance is not Internet Explorer.
“The issue is developers who may not completely understand the consequences of using GPLed code.”
And Redhat & MySQL are two examples of the consequences of releasing under the GPL without giving up associated IP rights and retaining copyrights in the process.
“After all, it’s sold by the OSS community of being capable of curing just about everything except the common cold.”
Irrelevant generalization.
“My *point* was that should Microsoft want to use GPLed code (and sell the product) then they have to also GPL just about any code that interacts with it. From Microsoft’s perspective, this is bad.
It is only bad for Microsoft in that they have no clue how to compete on a level playing field in a free market, given that they never have competed on a level playing field in a free market. This is why they have twice been dragged into court in this country for abusing their monopoly position.
Redhat can and does compete under these conditions, as does MySQL. If Redhat and MySQL can compete with these conditions, then Microsoft can as well. But being able to compete on a level playing field and wanting to compete on a playing field, are two entirely separate issues. One wonders why they are so afraid to compete on a level playing field.
“Indeed, from the perspective of just about anyone trying to sell software, it’s bad.”
It is bad for them, because now they have to continually address the competition in the market and improve their products, as is standard in captitalist free market systems.
“Firstly, that’s perfectly legal.”
It’s not about legality. Whose reputation suffers when they make such claims? It is not the reputation of the GPL. Companies and governments around the world have completely ignored such emotional appeals, which do not speak the entire truth about the GPL, and chosen available alternatives in the market place. Others see benefit in issuing code under a GPL license, regardless of what Microsoft may say about it.
“Secondly, there’s no shortage of people calling proprietry licensing bad names.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
“Thirdly, what, precisely, have they said that is *factually* incorrect”
It is what Microsoft DOESN’T say about the GPL that makes it factually incorrect.The GPL ensures that all who come to market to compete, must compete on a level playing field. To claim it requires loss of IP is a lie, since any code can be dual licensed.
Had Internet Explorer been released as GPL, Microsoft would have lost market share these past few years as features such as tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking were introduced into the browser market. It would have forced MS to answer the competition by adding such features, rather than allowing the browser to lay fallow and unimproved. Having chosen not to answer the competition, IE market share would have been dropping. This is what happens in a free market economy on a level-playing field.
Further, the GPL is commodotizing software, as has happened with many other products in the past. But when DVD players, VHS tape players, & HDTVs became commoditized, these types of arguments were never put forth. The public, all around the world, is not buying into the chicken little stance which Microsoft puts forth.
Microsoft has never had to compete on a level-playing field and doesn’t wish to now. THAT is why they don’t like the GPL.
“All I’m doing is trying to have discussion on the GPL and its effects in the context of the present day.”
Then note that there are both advantages and disadvantages to everything and don’t make claims that are not true, such as the GPL requires one to give up their IP.
“*You* are the one getting emotional and partisan”
Oh I have not gotten emotional throughout this exchange. I am way too interested in how these types of arguments are put forth to allow emotions to get in the way.
Good, then we agree that choosing to issue code under a GPL license does not mean one must give up their IP, since Redhat & MySQL are both dual-licensed and the authors RETAIN their IP rights in spite of issuing code under the GPL.
No, we don’t, because your reply and my comment are talking about completely different things.
I don’t think Redhat is dual licensed either. AFAIK it’s all GPL, except for a few tools that have been completely developed within Redhat.
Using the GPL doesn’t mean you lose your “IP rights” in that you must give up copyright on the code. It *does* mean that you effectively “lose” your IP because it must also then be GPLed and reusable by anyone you distribute your binaries to.
You have yet to demonstrate that closed source and traditional software development procees produce better results, whether it be in all cases, most cases or few cases, or only in certain categories of applications. I hope your example in this instance is not Internet Explorer.
Windows. Exchange. MacOS X. Final Cut Pro. Office. Solaris.
These are all products that are, in one way or another, superior to Open Source alternatives, as decided by the good old free market (and could easily be argued from a purely objective technical position as well). And that’s just a half dozen examples out of hundreds.
About the only superiorities IE has these days is its component architecture and its ubiquity – and the latter is hardly a technical issue. I wouldn’t try to argue it is the better browser in general.
And Redhat & MySQL are two examples of the consequences of releasing under the GPL without giving up associated IP rights and retaining copyrights in the process.
But they *have* “suffered” the consequences of releasing code under the GPL – it’s just that _their_ businesses models don’t overly suffer from those consequences because _their_ business models aren’t almost completely based around *selling software*.
Neither Redhat’s nor MySQL’s business revolves around selling software. Consequently, the negative impact the GPL has on the ability to sell software doesn’t really affect them.
[After all, it’s sold by the OSS community of being capable of curing just about everything except the common cold.]
Irrelevant generalization.
It’s a generalisation. It’s not irrelevant.
It is only bad for Microsoft in that they have no clue how to compete on a level playing field in a free market, given that they never have competed on a level playing field in a free market.
Bollocks. The only market that anyone could rationally argue Microsoft had handed to them on a silver platter was the desktop OS market. Everywhere else, they’ve gained their marketshare through better products.
It’s “bad for Microsoft” for the same reason it’s bad for anyone else who sells software – it’s basically impossible to sell GPLed software without tying it to some external service or using some other trickery to basically circumvent the primary purpose of the GPL.
This is why they have twice been dragged into court in this country for abusing their monopoly position.
You mean the farce with the ridiculously narrow market definition and wilful ignorance of perfectly good alternative products ?
Redhat can and does compete under these conditions, as does MySQL. If Redhat and MySQL can compete with these conditions, then Microsoft can as well.
They’re completely different business models.
* Microsoft sells *software* to anyone and everyone.
* Redhat sells *services* to *subscribers*.
* MySQL sells *licensing rights* to *developers*.
But being able to compete on a level playing field and wanting to compete on a playing field, are two entirely separate issues. One wonders why they are so afraid to compete on a level playing field.
The same reason any business is afraid to compete on a level playing field and does its best to avoid doing so – it’s much harder to make money.
It is bad for them, because now they have to continually address the competition in the market and improve their products, as is standard in captitalist free market systems.
It’s bad for them because it allows people to freely acquire their software – ie: their primary product.
It’s not about legality. Whose reputation suffers when they make such claims? It is not the reputation of the GPL. Companies and governments around the world have completely ignored such emotional appeals, which do not speak the entire truth about the GPL, and chosen available alternatives in the market place. Others see benefit in issuing code under a GPL license, regardless of what Microsoft may say about it.
And the bulk of them, thus far, have stuck with Microsoft and used the GPL (and Linux) as little more than a bargaining chip to get better prices.
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
I never said they did. But I notice you aren’t railing against OSS advocates balthering FUD against Microsoft.
“Thirdly, what, precisely, have they said that is *factually* incorrect”
It is what Microsoft DOESN’T say about the GPL that makes it factually incorrect.
It’s not Microsoft’s responsibility – legally, morally or otherwise – to do so.
The GPL ensures that all who come to market to compete, must compete on a level playing field. To claim it requires loss of IP is a lie, since any code can be dual licensed.
No, any code *cannot* be dual licensed. Dual licensing requires the individual or company doing so to own *all* of the code in question. For example, Redhat can’t dual license RHEL in its entirety because they don’t own the copyright to all the code in it.
The GPL doesn’t require *loss* of IP (although RMS and FSF strongly encourage developers to effectively give it away by signing their copyright over to the FSF), it just requires the loss of *control* of IP. Once a project has GPL code in it – even if that code makes up only a tiny percentage of the entire project – any other code in the project that links with, derives from or in just about any way uses, that GPLed code, must also be GPLed. So if the resulting project is then distributed, all the “IP” in it is effectively out of the developer’s control, since the receivers of the code can redistribute it freely and utilise it in their own products at will (as long as those products also abide by the GPL).
Had Internet Explorer been released as GPL, Microsoft would have lost market share these past few years as features such as tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking were introduced into the browser market. It would have forced MS to answer the competition by adding such features, rather than allowing the browser to lay fallow and unimproved.
On the contrary. IE’s market share would be even bigger, as developers would have implemented those features – and others, ported it to more platforms and fixed bugs.
This is what happens in a free market economy on a level-playing field.
IE’s market share *is* dropping. In the last year or so, for the first time since ~1997, the alternative product is superior in nearly all ways to the incumbent.
Further, the GPL is commodotizing software, as has happened with many other products in the past. But when DVD players, VHS tape players, & HDTVs became commoditized, these types of arguments were never put forth.
Probably because it was still possible to make money selling them
You cannot reasonably compare physical property to “intellectual property”. They are fundamentally different. They only reason they appear even remotely similar is because of the broken principles behind Copyright Law.
The public, all around the world, is not buying into the chicken little stance which Microsoft puts forth.
I have yet to see professional software development houses making any significant moves towards GPLing their products (or, more importantly, the *valuable* parts of their products).
Microsoft has never had to compete on a level-playing field and doesn’t wish to now. THAT is why they don’t like the GPL.
The GPL doesn’t level the playing field, it changes the entire game. You can’t compare it to simplistic product *transitions* like going from candles to lightbulbs, or horse+cart to cars. It’s not just moving the profitability from one type of product to another, it’s fundamentally altering how the products are defined.
Then note that there are both advantages and disadvantages to everything […]
Personally, I think there are very few, if any advantages to the GPL, so there’s not really much for me to say on the topic. I don’t like it, the philosophy behind it and the mentality of most of the people promoting it.
[…] and don’t make claims that are not true, such as the GPL requires one to give up their IP.
I never made that claim. I did say that using the GPL effectively means you lose control of your IP, but that is perfectly true.
“No, we don’t, because your reply and my comment are talking about completely different things.”
BillyG develops app.foo and wishes to retain his IP license.
BillyG release two versions of app.foo:
app.fooP = Proprietary
app.fooG = GPL
On the day app.foo is released under two licenses, both app.foo have the EXACT SAME CODE BASE. So BillyG retains both IP rights and copyrights on his code.
“I don’t think Redhat is dual licensed either. AFAIK it’s all GPL, except for a few tools that have been completely developed within Redhat.”
You are correct on this. It is not dual-licensed. My mistake. I apologize. When I was preparing this response, I went back through about 5 of our posts, comparing answers and responses. I got my arguments crossed up, because the posts here are not threaded, so it is difficult to compare claims and responses across several posts.
And it doesn’t look like ‘a few tools…within Redhat” is accurate either. From this link:
http://www.redhat.com/software/rhel/faq/
‘Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL(or a similar license, such as the LGPL).’
check section 2. Intellectual Property Rights, from:
http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_us_3.html?country=United+States…
If Customer makes a commercial redistribution of the Software, unless a separate agreement with Red Hat is executed or other permission granted, then Customer must modify any files identified as “REDHAT-LOGOS” and “anaconda-images” to remove all images containing the “Red Hat” trademark or the “Shadowman” logo.
It looks like the only difference then, between WhiteBox & Redhat Enterprise, is the absence of trademarked logos.
“Using the GPL doesn’t mean you lose your “IP rights” in that you must give up copyright on the code. It *does* mean that you effectively “lose” your IP because it must also then be GPLed and reusable by anyone you distribute your binaries to.”
Then Apple must be pretty stupid. They used the GPL khtml libraries for the internal engine of the Safari web browser. I guess that means Apple only lost something, according to your theory, right? They gave back those changes to the KDE project, so now my browser is much faster than it used to be. They used the GPL, so could only have possibly lost something. It could not possibly be they GAINED something by not having to write the engine for the Safari browser, correct?
But wait, the source code for the UI of Safari, has not been released under the GPL! How is that possible according to your theory? GPL is viral. Everything GPL code touches will also become GPL. So how could Apple possibly retain the IP on the Safari UI?
Remember when I said, to claim releasing code under the GPL causes you to lose your IP is not completely factual? Remember when I said to claim the GPL is viral is not completely factual? This is exactly what I was referring to. These statements only show one side of a transaction, like going into a store, leaving money on the counter, yet receiving nothing in return.
Apple TRADED changes in the khtml libraries, for the cost savings of not having to code a browser engine. Now we have TWO sides of a single transaction, not one side of a loss. Apple did not lose their IP. They know exactly where it is and why it is where it is. The GAVE IP, in order to receive something in return. Now our picture of the GPL is complete, telling the whole story. A trade, a barter, in a free market economy, is what has occurred.
The changelog is here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=7356&offset=30&rows=40
IF the GPL is viral, then Safari Browser UI code would ALSO be GPL, but it is not. So, the GPL is not viral.
“Bollocks. The only market that anyone could rationally argue Microsoft had handed to them on a silver platter was the desktop OS market. Everywhere else, they’ve gained their marketshare through better products.”
Oh please! Now I know you are an astrotufing troll. Tell that one to Beos, ok? Tell it to the EU too while you are at it. For years Microsoft have extracted monopoly rents on Windows OS & Office. Those monopoly rents have been used to fund failure after failure, not better products.
And “better products’ is subjective. Presently, KDE is a subjectively better desktop for me than that Windows XP desktop thing, even if I turn off those loud colors. Your statement is mere opinion.
“* Microsoft sells *software* to anyone and everyone.”
Ok, I will pretend that Microsoft doesn’t want to turn software into a SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE, a la Redhat:
http://www.entmag.com/news/article.asp?EditorialsID=6272
“The same reason any business is afraid to compete on a level playing field and does its best to avoid doing so – it’s much harder to make money.”
Yes, you must work much harder to maintain customer loyalty when you compete fairly.
“It’s bad for them because it allows people to freely acquire their software – ie: their primary product.”
Tell it to Apple and ask them who owns the Safari browser.
“And the bulk of them, thus far, have stuck with Microsoft and used the GPL (and Linux) as little more than a bargaining chip to get better prices.
Yes, competition improves the market no doubt. Even those who use Windows benefit from the existence of competition.
“But I notice you aren’t railing against OSS advocates balthering FUD against Microsoft.”
I have yet to know one who claimed Microsoft products were viral|cancer|leprosy|herpes|disease-du-jour. And honestly, it cracks me up to hear anyone complain about the GPL, especially the MS supporters. Have they ever bothered to read the MS EULA? But it also cracks me up to here other anti-whatever go on. Is “if you don’t like it don’t use it,” so hard to understand?
“It’s not Microsoft’s responsibility – legally, morally or otherwise – to do so.”
So now we pretend there are no consequences of misrepresentation & no one in the world will ever see the deception! Imagine if Toyota said Hondas were cancer. It’s just as silly and just as incorrect.
“No, any code *cannot* be dual licensed.”
I was referring to any code an author himself wrote.
“RMS and FSF strongly encourage developers to effectively give it away by signing their copyright over to the FSF”
I would sign it over code in a heartbeat. The reason being, if a company ripped off my code and made it proprietary, I would rather the FSF handle the litigation. They are 1000 times more knowledge in how to handle such things than I am.
“Once a project has GPL code in it – even if that code makes up only a tiny percentage of the entire project – any other code in the project that links with, derives from or in just about any way uses, that GPLed code, must also be GPLed.”
Safari browser engine is GPL. Safari UI code is not GPL. So your ‘GPL’ is viral theory falls flat on its face.
“I have yet to see professional software development houses making any significant moves towards GPLing their products (or, more importantly, the *valuable* parts of their products).”
A critical mass of GPL software users, will have to first occur, before you see this. And it is only recently that the user interfaces have hit a certain stride.
“The GPL doesn’t level the playing field,”
It did for Apple.
“it changes the entire game.”
And smart companies like Apple know how to leverage it.
“it’s fundamentally altering how the products are defined.”
It’s the free market. Adapt or die.
“Personally, I think there are very few, if any advantages to the GPL, so there’s not really much for me to say on the topic. I don’t like it, the philosophy behind it and the mentality of most of the people promoting it.”
Other companies, developers and users do like it. In a free market, companies such as Apple, can choose to leverage GPL products into their browsers, yet still retain the IP rights on that browser, while saving R & D costs, by not having to code a browser engine. It’s smart business. They give and receive in turn, like any economic transaction in a free market. GPL is not solely about loss, no matter how much your or MS try to paint it so.
“I did say that using the GPL effectively means you lose control of your IP, but that is perfectly true.”
Then explain how Apple still retains the IP rights to the Safari browser UI, even though the browser engine is GPL.
And explain exactly what Apple lost by throwing the bone of a few lines of code to khtml.
Your entire theory is laughable. Khtml wasn’t Apple’s IP. Apple GAVE some lines of code to IP THAT NEVER WAS THEIRS IN THE FIRST PLACE. So you claim, Apple have lost their IP due to GPL! Apple didn’t lose a thing! Apple GAINED a free browsing engine in exchange for a few lines of code. Really, the sky is not falling. It’s a helluva deal for Apple. They took it too. Apple is not stupid.
On the day app.foo is released under two licenses, both app.foo have the EXACT SAME CODE BASE. So BillyG retains both IP rights and copyrights on his code.
Yes. He also effectively loses control of his IP, since anyone can take the GPLed code and reuse it for any purpose – with or without his consent – as long as they follow the GPL.
‘Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL(or a similar license, such as the LGPL).’
This is probably right. I seem to recall that some of the stuff they shipped in the top end version of RHEL for things like clustering were not GPLed, but obviously my memory is faulty.
It looks like the only difference then, between WhiteBox & Redhat Enterprise, is the absence of trademarked logos.
And a support contract. And the inability to get past tha first question that is asked by people like Oracle when you ring up for support – “what OS are you running”.
WBL also uses yum for update as, obviously, it can’t use Redhat’s up2date servers.
Then Apple must be pretty stupid.
Depends on who you ask.
They used the GPL khtml libraries for the internal engine of the Safari web browser. I guess that means Apple only lost something, according to your theory, right?
No. Not to mention khtml is LPGL, not GPL.
They gave back those changes to the KDE project, so now my browser is much faster than it used to be. They used the GPL, so could only have possibly lost something.
I never said using the GPL had no gains.
It could not possibly be they GAINED something by not having to write the engine for the Safari browser, correct? But wait, the source code for the UI of Safari, has not been released under the GPL! How is that possible according to your theory?
Because khtml is LGPLed, not GPLed.
GPL is viral. Everything GPL code touches will also become GPL. So how could Apple possibly retain the IP on the Safari UI?
Because they haven’t “touched” any GPLed code.
Remember when I said, to claim releasing code under the GPL causes you to lose your IP is not completely factual?
Rememember how, on numerous occasions, I pointed out THAT’S NOT WHAT I SAID ?
Remember when I said to claim the GPL is viral is not completely factual? This is exactly what I was referring to. These statements only show one side of a transaction, like going into a store, leaving money on the counter, yet receiving nothing in return.
I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you weren’t aware khtml was LGPL and not GPL. However, your error has largely made your entire line of reasoning here flawed.
Oh please! Now I know you are an astrotufing troll. Tell that one to Beos, ok?
Firstly, BeOS was, while technically very good, even at its height no more than a poorly supported *beta product* that never had a hope of being more than a bit player in anything less than a decade
Secondly, BeOS was competing against Windows, the one product that I specifically said could be reasonably argued to have had somewhat of an unfair advantage over competitors.
Tell it to the EU too while you are at it. For years Microsoft have extracted monopoly rents on Windows OS & Office. Those monopoly rents have been used to fund failure after failure, not better products.
Actually they’ve funded several failures *and* better products. But that’s hardly uncommon – or are you going to try and say Microsoft are the only software company in the world who have made mistakes. Do I need to list off some other products that have been held up by the crutch of effective “monopoly rent”, or are you going to try and figure them out yourself ?
And “better products’ is subjective. Presently, KDE is a subjectively better desktop for me than that Windows XP desktop thing, even if I turn off those loud colors. Your statement is mere opinion.
Perhaps. But it is an opinion shared by significant chunks of the market. Not to mention there are many superiorities in the products I listed that are *objective*, not *subjective*.
Ok, I will pretend that Microsoft doesn’t want to turn software into a SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE, a la Redhat:
No need to pretend. Everyone knows they *want* to. That doesn’t mean the market will let them get away with it.
Of course, the difference is Redhat sell a subscription to guaranteed product lifecycles, product fixes and platform certification – things Microsoft already offer for free. You’ll also notice that the market for Redhat’s products outside a very small subset of the business market is, for all intents and purposes, nonexistant. You’ll also notice Redhat aren’t exactly rolling in cash. You’ll also notice that while Redhat contributes some development towards Linux, they’re not even *close* to being responsible for developing and supporting *all aspects of the OS*, like Microsoft are with Windows.
The value for Microsoft’s products is almost completely contained within the software itself. The value for Redhat’s products is in the services that are tied to the software. Services that are only really of interest to a tiny subset of the market.
I have yet to know one who claimed Microsoft products were viral|cancer|leprosy|herpes|disease-du-jour.
“You must be new here”.
It should take you about 5 minutes of browsing OSNews and/or Slashdot to find more than enough negative comments about all aspects of Microsoft, its software, its licensing schemes and its business practices to prove my point.
And honestly, it cracks me up to hear anyone complain about the GPL, especially the MS supporters. Have they ever bothered to read the MS EULA? But it also cracks me up to here other anti-whatever go on. Is “if you don’t like it don’t use it,” so hard to understand?
Not at all, but its completely irrelevant to this discussion, which is about “if you do use it, this is what happens”.
So now we pretend there are no consequences of misrepresentation & no one in the world will ever see the deception! Imagine if Toyota said Hondas were cancer. It’s just as silly and just as incorrect.
No, we acknowledge that a business has no obligation to sell a competitor’s product(s).
I would sign it over code in a heartbeat. The reason being, if a company ripped off my code and made it proprietary, I would rather the FSF handle the litigation. They are 1000 times more knowledge in how to handle such things than I am.
So where does your “retain your IP” argument fit into that ?
Safari browser engine is GPL. Safari UI code is not GPL. So your ‘GPL’ is viral theory falls flat on its face.
Safari’s engine is LGPL, not GPL, so your rebuttal falls flat on its face.
[“The GPL doesn’t level the playing field,”]
It did for Apple.
No, it didn’t. Apple’s playing field was already level.
[“it changes the entire game.”]
And smart companies like Apple know how to leverage it.
It’s not a matter of “smart”, it’s a matter of “able”.
Firstly, the value in Apple’s software (ie: why their customers buy it) isn’t the Open Source parts, it’s in the closed source parts. Certainly, they’ve *used* OSS code – even GPLed code – but they could have just as easily used the guts of BeOS or Windows NT to make OS X. The value in OS X isn’t in the guts of the OS, it’s in the interfaces. That’s why Apple are happy to give away Darwin – because without the rest of OS X to go along with it, it simply isn’t valuable (or even particularly interesting). Note that this would *not* be the case if Apple’s OSS code usage was all GPL, because then the valuable parts of their software products would be free for anyone to take.
Secondly, hardly any of Apple’s OSS code is GPLed. In particular, almost none of the code that resides in their primary products is GPLed.
Thirdly, Apple don’t sell software like Microsoft do, they sell software that requires the purchase of an Apple hardware dongle to work, and that’s where they make all their money. Apple don’t want to sell your “OS X” or “Final Cut Pro”. They want to sell you a PowerMac, an iPod and an Airport base station.
If Apple were to GPL all of OS X, their bottom line wouldn’t be *significantly* impacted – initially – since the value of their product is in the *combination* of software and hardware, not in the software. Howeve,r over time it would be, as different “versions” of OS X started popping up, devaluing the product. Eventually there would be a port to generic x86 hardware and Apple’s cash cow – it’s hardware sales – would evaporate.
Microsoft don’t have this. Their product is software. If they can’t make money from their software, they have nothing to make money from. Their cash cow would disappear practically overnight.
[“it’s fundamentally altering how the products are defined.”]
It’s the free market. Adapt or die.
That’s what they’re doing.
[I don’t like the GPL […] ]
Other companies, developers and users do like it. In a free market, companies such as Apple, can choose to leverage GPL products into their browsers, yet still retain the IP rights on that browser, while saving R & D costs, by not having to code a browser engine. It’s smart business.
As noted previously, your premise is flawed.
Incidentally, I agree Apple using khtml *was* smart business. It was smart business because it *wasn’t* GPLed code.
They give and receive in turn, like any economic transaction in a free market. GPL is not solely about loss, no matter how much your or MS try to paint it so.
I never said the GPL was solely about loss, I said it was incompatible with selling software for profit.
And explain exactly what Apple lost by throwing the bone of a few lines of code to khtml.
Nothing – but that’s the advantage of the LGPL over the GPL. The problem with the *GPL* is that it’s not just “a few lines of code”, it can easily (and perhaps inadvertently) become “every line of code in the project”.