The suit claims that the “Free Software Foundation has entered into contracts and otherwise conspired and agreed with individual software authors and commercial distributors of commodity software products such as Red Hat Inc. and Novell Inc. to artificially fix the prices charged for computer software programs through the promotion and use of an adhesion contract that was created, used and promoted since at least the year 1991 by the Free Software Foundation” Update: A Groklaw article casts some serious doubt on the validity of the suit and sheds some light on serious inaccuracies in the Linux Business News article linked above.
The GPL does not stipulate that software must be given away.
Just another example of centralized business and its lackeys attempting to thwart the migration to decentralization, open access, open standards.
This case has even less validity than SCO…I would be amazed if they were granted extensive court time.
Haha even more amusing, Wallace is asking for a summary judgement. I think he’s off of his medication.
I suggest checking out Groklaw, as PJ has commented on this as well.
I would also suggest taking articles from linuxbusinessnews/sys-con with an extremely small grain of salt, given the hard anti-linux slant presented by “journalists” such as Maureen O’Gara.
This story has already been covered at Groklaw:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505021223170
Actually I submitted that story here, but a certain person didn’t publish it. However, this fake story came through, though.
Interesting that OSnews likes to spread FUD about the GPL
/dylansmrjones
Groklaw already disected this on monday, please keep up ppl
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505021223170
I would suggest adding an “Update:” to the post to limit the spread of the FUD.
Replying to myself… seems I can’t keep up with the rate at which comments are posted. He
how ANTI-linux that linuxbusinessnews site is.
how can this be ?
I noticed also that the sites parent, sys-con is affiliated with microsoft, hmmmmm, there might be a link ?
but what can this guy hope to get in court ?
a ban on the use of GPL software in the US… think about that one…..
say it goes ahead and GPL software is banned in the US….
the US will turn into a computing 3rd world, getting overtaken by india, brazil, europe, china… in fact they will be overtaken by the software output of the rest of the world.
and US citizens will be stuck having to pay for propietary software from microsoft, apple and their likes.
ah well, if you are stupid enough to support a ban like that, then go for it, its no skin off my arse
Jamen dog. Jeg kan se at svenskere også læser Groklaw. Hvordan står det til østensunds?
Nice to see the community react so fast to this lame and fake FUD-story.
Why was this posted when the article at Groklaw was rejected?
Very interesting… Come on.. we all know OSnews can do better than spreading FUD.
/dylansmrjones
Did you guys actually read this thing? It’s very ammusing (and off the wall too).
This would have been more appropriate for April, 1st, I think.
I am not an opensource/GPL/GNU/OSF fanatic, I enjoy my commercial software, but give me a break! If people want to release their work for free to the world IT IS THEIR RIGHT. It is also their right that they stipulate what the terms and conditions.
I am FOR GPL, I hope they lose
Why does PJ get a “free-ride” from criticism? is it simply because you agree with her position and don’t want to find fault with her logic? Take this comment for instance “He would like the GPL outlawed for price fixing or something like that.” She further goes on to present straw man arguments about Daniel Wallace himself without really attacking the claims he’s alleging in his suit. It seems to me that PJ doesn’t fully understand what the suit is alleging yet everybody wants to believe her because you agree with her position. Every time her name is mentioned it is with some sort of holy reverence. Enough already. PJ is a journalist with a paralegal background, meaning she may understand some of the workings of our legal system but she’s an editorialist which means she has a side to argue for. At best she may provide some insight into a case you geeks may happen to be interested in but most of the time she merely puppets the OSS community party line.
It’s technically true that the GPL fixes the price of software, to zero. Hence it can be argued that it is an anticompetitive measure.
It’s technically true! (sorry)
After all, think of all software developers who can not create a business because of the existence of free (as in costing $0) software….
I vote to let it be.
Why the H**l do they need to file a law suit for everything..
http://bitsofnews.com
It’s technically true that the GPL fixes the price of software, to zero. Hence it can be argued that it is an anticompetitive measure.
Actually, it is not technically true, but rather completely false. The GPL doesn’t prevent anyone from selling the software. All it requires is that the sources be made available, and that the redistributed software still be licensed under the GPL.
As far as software developers who allegedly cannot create a business because of the existence of “gratis” software, well, it’s up to them to make better proprietary software and sell it! You can’t prevent people from choosing to release software under the GPL, that would be unconstitutional.
The GPL does NOT fix the price to zero. I haven’t met a single developer yet who cannot create a business due to GPL.
However – I know many developers who have (succesfully) created a business because of the GPL. But then, I’m living in Denmark – it might be different in USA.
In Europe the GPL is generally viewed very positively – except from Microsofts european branches (and let’s not forget Gates’ poorly devised attempt to blackmail the danish parliament on the subject of FLOSS and software patents).
/dylansmrjones
People respect PJ because she has provided an essential service to the Open-Source community by keeping people informed of the unfolding SCO-IBM trial (and other related legal proceedings). She and her online collaborators have done so by supplying court documents to challenge SCO’s grand theatrics. After all, even after all these months, SCO has been unable to show any of the alleged “millions of lines of code” copied from UNIX into Linux.
Sure, she’s biased. She has acknowledged this many times. However, there’s nothing wrong with being biased when your facts and argumentation are solid…
Why does PJ get a “free-ride” from criticism? is it simply because you agree with her position and don’t want to find fault with her logic? Take this comment for instance “He would like the GPL outlawed for price fixing or something like that.”
I’m sure you had a point here, but I can’t figure out what it is. If you’re going to challenge her logic, pick a logical statement she has made, not just a random comment.
Oh, and AFAIK PJ isn’t a “journalist with a paralegal background”, but rather a paralegal who started up a blog.
”
Why does PJ get a “free-ride” from criticism? is it simply because you agree with her position and don’t want to find fault with her logic? Take this comment for instance “He would like the GPL outlawed for price fixing or something like that.” She further goes on to present straw man arguments about Daniel Wallace himself without really attacking the claims he’s alleging in his suit. It seems to me that PJ doesn’t fully understand what the suit is alleging yet everybody wants to believe her because you agree with her position. Every time her name is mentioned it is with some sort of holy reverence. Enough already. PJ is a journalist with a paralegal background, meaning she may understand some of the workings of our legal system but she’s an editorialist which means she has a side to argue for. At best she may provide some insight into a case you geeks may happen to be interested in but most of the time she merely puppets the OSS community party line.
”
LOL LOL LOL LOL, which claims are he alledging in his suit?
Did you bother reading the complaint? It is here
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Wallace-Complaint.pdf
He explains that the Free Software Foundation Inc. has “conspired” (lol again) with Red Hat and Novell to make it so he cannot compete in the market by fixing the price of software at zero. (LOL, just like everyone here “conspires” with Microsoft everytime you agree to and follow the license agreement of their software!)
He then provides some evidence to the court about what the GPL is…..oh….no, never mind, he doesn’t.
He also ignores the fact that you can charge for GPL’d software. He also “overlooks” the fact that the FSF is a non-profit organization, meaning that of course they don’t charge for software. In other words, going after Red Hat or Novell would have made more sense.
And then, according to his complaint, he is both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
His claim was very poorly written, and he is also representing himself. I don’t know which is going to be funnier, this complaint or watching Eben Moglen (FSF Counsel) eat him for lunch in court.
Oh, and had anyone bothered reading the complaint, all he asks for so far is for the FSF to be banned from the promotion of the GPL and for using it. Meaning everyone else is fine (lol, well, so is FSF cause Wallace is going to lose).
Again, the complaint is here.
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Wallace-Complaint.pdf
Had overlooked the part with him being Plaintiff and Defendant at the same time… that’s quite a trick to do… Impressive
He believes that the GPL has been used to deflate the value of software… He’s right and I believe this is why the GPL is crucial to be promoted. Software before the GPL was being promoted wide scale was INFLATED, and OVER-VALUED. (of course so are the salaries of sports stars, but one battle at a time).
The GPL allows for true free market trade and brings the software down to a value that consumers are actually willing to pay. With the inflated price that consumers ARE NOT willing to pay software gets “pirated” (i.e. legit use on more than one computer owned by the consumer).
A perfect example of this is the overpricing of windows (200 dollars) Photoshop (600 dollars) and autocad (4000 dollars PER computer).
The GPL allows you to pay less and get more. Not only is it better for the consumer IT FORCES the competitor to produce a better product if they want to charge more.
it’s a win-win for everyone. unless of course your the mega-millionaire who feels we need abysmal class division.
The rest of the world has GPL, if the US looses it.
Ok, i am the flame target. I think GPL is probably legal, but something to be avoided. That is not to say that GPL projects are not good. I love GCC and use it all the time, I am glad it is there and I am glad it is free. However I will not include any GPL code in projects I create. LGPL is fine as is MIT/BSD licensing. I am a proponent of free software, that is to say that you are allowed to use it as you see fit as long as you credit those whoose work you use.
I think GPL should be avoided, but it should be legal. If you like the GPL, then by all means use it. However, I encourage the more free licenses, so that you can use the same tools for the projects that you want to have open source as those you want to be proprietary.
Some say this can’t work, but look at Mac OS X. Apple has benifited the open source comunity by releasing back most of the core BSD changes, but keeping the GUI interface proprietary. Everybody wins, Apple keeps their systems unique so they can sell them and the open source community get benifit from Apples contributions to the open source project they (NeXT) chose.
So I say keep GPL legal, just don’t use it.
yeah, and not only sports start, but pop music stars’ salaries are way overblown too. Someone should come up with bots that can play sports and release them under the gpl license to get these sports athletes’ salaries to come down.
It’s technically true that the GPL fixes the price of software, to zero. Hence it can be argued that it is an anticompetitive measure.
Actually, it is not technically true, but rather completely false. The GPL doesn’t prevent anyone from selling the software. All it requires is that the sources be made available, and that the redistributed software still be licensed under the GPL.
Perhaps you should read the GPL a little closer; YES the license does not prevent you from selling the software, BUT it explicitly says that the software must be redistributable to “all third parties” – effectively making it impossible to profit from such sales over time (someone will likely redistribute the software they paid you for for no charge – entirely leagal)
The GPL also states that you cannot “relicense” GPL software under a stricter license – so you’re pretty much screwed trying to profit directly from GPL software sales.
Profiting on outsourcing services using GPL is another story, though
The problem I have with the BSD license is that it relies on the good will of the end user. I mean, MS used the network stack out of BSD and they arent exactly known for giving back to the OSS community. While Apple is better, I still think they have taken more than they have given. They do release some things, but not nearly enough. Especially in the case if Safari/KHTML. I don’t mind giving away code, but I dont want some company coming along and building a business off of it. Let them write their own code for that.
Did anybody else notice that the plaintiff doesn’t even seem to know what state Boston is in?
Beyond that, is this complaint for real? Who is forcing this guy to use the GPL? I mean, the author of a work is free to use whatever license he/she wants. Price fixing? I would say the opposite if anything. A common and valid argument is that the GPL is an antidote to pricefixing because anybody can hack a program and make it better if they feel so inclined, thereby eliminating any threat of dominating monopoly before it can ever form. It encourages cooperation, so if you accept patches for your software, you can actually harvest the world’s largest network of programmers to do your hard work for you! Sounds more than fair to me.
He feels he won’t get a fair shake in the marketplace? Last I checked, software was getting more, not less, expensive.
And why is he filing against Novell and RedHat? Does he plan on programming his own OS with bundled utilities, browsers, IDEs, Office Suites and other extensive packages?
And regarding the requirements of the GPL cited earlier: it only requires the *source* to be freely distributable. That doesn’t mean you give away the executable. If you honestly think Joe and Jane Q Public are going to learn the complex inner workings of the compile chains for large stacks of software so they can get something for free, forget it. Most of the users I potty-train all day ask where the Internet goes when they minimize their browsers
The GPL also states that you cannot “relicense” GPL software under a stricter license – so you’re pretty much screwed trying to profit directly from GPL software sales.
If you’re copyright holder you can do anything you want. That’s why people like Trolltech and the guys that did SharpDevelop are such sticklers for holding on to every bit of copyright on code because they dual-license.
scythekain: He believes that the GPL has been used to deflate the value of software… He’s right and I believe this is why the GPL is crucial to be promoted. Software before the GPL was being promoted wide scale was INFLATED, and OVER-VALUED. (of course so are the salaries of sports stars, but one battle at a time).
The GPL allows for true free market trade and brings the software down to a value that consumers are actually willing to pay. With the inflated price that consumers ARE NOT willing to pay software gets “pirated” (i.e. legit use on more than one computer owned by the consumer).
Piracy does NOT occur because software is inflated in price (generally speaking), software is inflated in price because of piracy.
To see this all you need to do is observe how a lot of pirates (even casual ones) operate.
If they need a program (for example a photo editor) and they go to the store… And they see Adobe Photoshop (high priced), versus a mid-range product (Say Paint Shop Pro, I don’t know how it actually compares since I’ve never used it for photo editing), versus some ridicuously cheap product (can’t remember any names right now, but let’s say it’s $0.25 to $10, and yes you can on occasion find programs for $0.25).
From my experience, what most people will do, is look only at Photoshop because that’s the only one they’ve heard of and so they’ll decide they MUST have Photoshop. They’ll look at the price, see that it’s too expensive, turn their nose up at the whole thought of buying either of the three, go to one of their pirate friends and get them to give them a copy, and this is the funny part… On occasion I’ve seen people spend more getting the pirated copy (in time effort and money) than it would have cost to buy the low-end software.
And then… In the end… All they end up using it for is the most simplistic of operations and only occasionally use it at that. After which they continue to maintain that they NEEDED Photoshop.
Piracy actually helps the larger/expensive companies (by spreading their software more and influencing people) and hurts the smaller/cheaper companies (by having them have to compete against unreasonable requirements).
In fact, you can probably find a “cheap” closed source equivalent to all (or nearly all) expensive closed source programs. Also, a lot of people severely exaggerate how much they actually need (or will even use) for funcationality.
As a result, prices go up because only the expensive products “exist”. (In truth, the cheaper ones are simply being ignored and as result will become harder to find than the more expensive ones, because stores won’t carry them since they don’t sell.)
Does this always hold? I’m sure it doesn’t. But from my experience it generally holds true, though most of the pirates like to deny it.
Apple has released quite a bit. And sure some people are going to abuse the freedom. That is the consequnse of freedom. But I would argue Apple is a great example. They had the resources to write thier own OS (Thay had done it before). When They (NeXT – but with Jobs) they enhanced the nix community as a whole. The are responsible for more new “nix” users and developers than anyone else. I would argue that they put a shot in the arm of Linux (at least on the desktop). I do not know how much of Safari’s improvements have been released back), but they said they were going to make them available and I belive thay will – but even if they don’t they brought attention to KHTML. The very existance of OS X proves the viability of Linux on the desktop … something i had personally doubted before OS X.
But the question of could Apple hafe started with a GPL project is the question. The answer is no. The GPL would have prevented them from building a profitable business model. I know that many in the open source world disagree, but profits (and some level of prorietary effort) drives the platform further and faster than anything else.
Here is my question: Is the open source community stronger or weaker because of Apple’s participation? I think the answer is clear, Apples choice to build a proprietary system from an open source core has helped the open source community. So even if they have not helped it as much as you would like, they have helped it.
Did Microsoft hurt the open source community by not giving any thing back? No – they hurt them self with bad PR from it, perhaps not as much as they benifited from the use, but they did tak a little hit.
The bottom line is this, MS could have developed their own stack, and probably done well (after 5-10 years of buggy versions) without the code. The only real harm was to the feelings of those who contributed to the code that MS used. However what if they had not used the code, but created something a little less compatible. With their unfortunate market domination, they could have harmed the Open Source community by make more of the web unavailable. Before you say it wouldn’t happen, look at how many sites don’t work with anything but explorer.
well got to get back to making profits.
Piracy happens when price of software is inflated. When software price falls piracy falls. Period.
Moonlighting becomes more normal when taxes rises. When taxes falls moonlighting becomes less normal.
That’s the way it works. If you know just the least bit about economy you’ll know that.
The companies would sell a lot more even they lowered the prices.
Besides that – even if everybody paid it wouldn’t do much difference. The revenue comes mostly from companies and not from single individuals.
/dylansmrjones
P.S. I’m not saying piracy is good. I do not support piracy.
dylansmrjones: Piracy happens when price of software is inflated. When software price falls piracy falls. Period.
That’s not true at all.
Locally for example we have ThinkFree Office available for a mere $10. What do you suppose I hear all the time from people, “How does ThinkFree Office compare with Microsoft Office?” Nope. “Can I have a copy of Microsoft Office for free?” Yes.
And the people who are doing it are frequently buying $3,000 computers. I think they have more than enough money to buy a $10 program.
Or is ThinkFree (or the local stores) supposed to reduce the price further? Maybe down to $0.25? Is that low enough?
dylansmrjones: Piracy happens when price of software is inflated. When software price falls piracy falls. Period.
(Accidently hit the Enter key when I was going to press Shift)
dylansmrjones: Piracy happens when price of software is inflated. When software price falls piracy falls. Period.
Or as a more direct example…
Starcraft.
It WAS an expensive game. I know a lot of people who pirated it. Do you suppose when the price dropped to $10, that they all went out and bought copies?
Of course they didn’t.
Maybe the overall numbers throughout the country (or the world) went down. I wouldn’t know about that. But I don’t know anyone who went out and bought it at that point who had pirated it earlier. Even though for some of them it was their favorite game and they were still actively playing it.
The only people I know of who paid for it at that point were people who hadn’t pirated it in the first place. They either felt piracy was wrong and were waiting for the inevitable price drop or they were buying second copies for themselves.
…as CBS news and Dan Rather. Groklaw is well known for having an extremist GPL agenda and is hardly credible. Not to say that this guy’s has any teeth, but the validiity of the GPL will have to be established one day.
The validity of the GPL has already been established both in the US and elsewhere. The federal judge in the MySQL vs NuSphere case considered it valid: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/wlg/1168
It was shown to be valid in Germany multiple times now, but one link is here: http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5198117.html
Another US case where it was tested (though the link is to Groklaw so you may just not believe it anyways): http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050225223848129
The long and short of it is, the GPL is widely recognized as being a completely valid license. It’s really not a debating point anymore.
It’s technically true that the non-GPL fixes the price of software, to as high as it can go. Hence it can be argued that it is an anticompetitive measure.
Who cares!, there are other open source licenses that Linux can use and/or made up for linux to use
Locally for example we have ThinkFree Office available for a mere $10. What do you suppose I hear all the time from people, “How does ThinkFree Office compare with Microsoft Office?” Nope. “Can I have a copy of Microsoft Office for free?” Yes.
That’s a pretty bad example. Nobody wants to pay 10$ for an obscure office suite. Now try selling MS Office for 10$ … That’ll stop piracy of MS Software
And the people who are doing it are frequently buying $3,000 computers. I think they have more than enough money to buy a $10 program.
Yes. I agree. And people would buy MS Office if they can get for 10$ … but an obscure office suite is not something people wants to pay for. I doubt think the mentioned obscure office suite is harmed by piracy. Too few out there to want it
Or is ThinkFree (or the local stores) supposed to reduce the price further? Maybe down to $0.25? Is that low enough?
The price doesn’t matter. Nobody wants it – and it isn’t harmed from piracy software – because nobody wants it.
Sell MS Office for 10$ and it’ll sell a lot.
Your example is equal to:
“We sell a DAD disk for 10$ – but people keep asking for free Beatles-disks…” … well of course… they don’t want DAD.. they want Beatles.
The users don’t want ThinkFree Office – they want MS Office. Therefore it won’t help ThinkFree Office even if it was given away for free.
Or as a more direct example…
Starcraft.
It WAS an expensive game. I know a lot of people who pirated it. Do you suppose when the price dropped to $10, that they all went out and bought copies?
Of course they didn’t.
No.. of course… they already had the game. Why buy a game you already have? But if it had been sold for 10$ when it came out? Then it would have sold a lot more.
Maybe the overall numbers throughout the country (or the world) went down. I wouldn’t know about that. But I don’t know anyone who went out and bought it at that point who had pirated it earlier. Even though for some of them it was their favorite game and they were still actively playing it.
This is another bad example from you. First you take an obscure office suite that nobody wants. And then you expect people to buy something they already have. You’re being silly.
If the price for MS Office at official release was 10$ there would be close to zero piracy copies floating around.
If Starcraft (great game btw.) had been sold for 10$ when officially released more people would have bought it.
The only people I know of who paid for it at that point were people who hadn’t pirated it in the first place. They either felt piracy was wrong and were waiting for the inevitable price drop or they were buying second copies for themselves.
Of course most people didn’t buy StarCraft when it fell in price. They already had the game. Why buy for something you already have?
I don’t mind paying for software (incl. games) if they’re better than a FLOSS-solution. I bought Worms2 for like 10-12$ because I wanted to have the game (with the videos). I bought a legal diablo II as well for something like 15$ and then the extension for 15$ also. At that price there is no real value in piracy software. The disks are too expensive in Denmark.
When Baldurs Gate was released it wasn’t copied illegally in Denmark. Why not? Because it was released on 4 cd’s and the price for 4 illegally copied cd’s was 400 danish crowns – the same price that the game was sold for in the shops. So there was no piracy of that game. Quite simple.
/dylansmrjones
dylansmrjones: This is another bad example from you. First you take an obscure office suite that nobody wants. And then you expect people to buy something they already have. You’re being silly.
Ya right. I’m being silly. Why don’t people act that way when it comes to other products?
For example… When people buy cars, they frequently don’t go out and buy the one “they really want” they settle for something else, because they usually can’t afford the one they “really want”.
They also don’t often buy the house they really want. Sometimes they don’t buy the book they really want. Sometimes they don’t buy the XYZ they really want. But when it comes to computer software, by god they better get the one they really want, even if there’s no real reason for their selection.
ThinkFree Office would do exactly what a number of these people want/need, but instead they have their eyes set on Microsoft Office. And since it’s so easy (generally) to pirate computer software, they do it.
It’s nothing more than that.
Piracy is even lower on console video games. Even though it’s possible to pirate them, for a number of people there are just too many hoops to jump through to get it done. So they go out and buy a $50 console game, when they wouldn’t even consider buying a $50 computer game.
Piracy is caused by how “easy” it is to do. And since it’s so easy, the pirate places expectations on the computer software industry that they would not place on other industries.
<bold>”It’s technically true that the non-GPL fixes the price of software, to as high as it can go. Hence it can be argued that it is an anticompetitive measure.”</bold>
This is not gouging this is called a market equiliberum. The price is not set as high as it can go, it is set at the point of most effiecent use of resources. One of two approaches will be used:
The disney approach: Continue to raise prices till profits drop as a result and set your price at this point. This works best with a specialty product – there is a limited supply so you do not have to worry about compition as much.
The commidity approach: You start with the price high and move down (assuming your price is too high) profits should increase until you pass the equilberium.
This is how a free market works. GPL monkeys with it – providing a zero cost solution that does not need to generate profits, will cause the prices for the “proprietary” solutions to rise as they have to charge more to make the same profits, from the smaller pool of people willing to pay.
This makes it less profitable to be in the software business. and hurts overall innovation. Sure you get a bunch of usable applications but few excel. There are eceptions, but most are not equal to their commercial counterparts.
This is why i support the BSD/MIT model, it allows companies to share where it is practical and not where it is not inorder to maintain the profits and drive the innovation.
Perhaps you should read the GPL a little closer; YES the license does not prevent you from selling the software, BUT it explicitly says that the software must be redistributable to “all third parties” – effectively making it impossible to profit from such sales over time (someone will likely redistribute the software they paid you for for no charge – entirely leagal)
I’m sorry, but whether or not the redistribution clause makes it impossible to make a profit is a matter of conjecture. In any case it is irrelevant to the legality of the GPL.
Anti-dumping laws come into effect when something is sold for less than what it costs in order to drive competitors out of the market. But manufacturing software (i.e. copying it) and distributing it basically costs nothing, so there’s little ground for the price-fixing accusations.
The GPL is an extension of the rights normally granted by copyright laws (including “fair use” rights). To forbid it would take away the freedom of the copyright holder, and as such would probably be unconstitutional.
This makes it less profitable to be in the software business. and hurts overall innovation.
I’m sorry, but you can’t make that equation, simply because profit is not the only motivator for profit. In fact, the case could be made that profit-seeking, which generally is obsessed with short-term gains, is actually detrimental to innovation.
Most of the modern computing innovations (the WIMP interface, the Internet, etc.) were not made for profit, but for research – and, in the case of the Internet, taxpayer-funded research. Some very innovative companies, such as Be, were hardly ever profitable. And though MS has been profitable for years, it has done very little in producing innovative stuff (it prefers to buy off innovative companies instead…)
The sense of personal achievement, both for individualist or altruistic motives, is a much more powerful incentive to innovate than profits, no matter what the free-market ideologues will tell you.
I give Groklaw as much weight as I do a fly. I personally dont believe a word that woman writes because it is a pro-linux propaganda site. Does she expect us to believe she is unbiased? Whatever. As with the SCO case, I will wait for this one to go to court.
I give Groklaw as much weight as I do a fly.
Still, it has had quite an negative impact on SCO’s FUD attempts – which is why SCO has now resorted to personally attacking PJ with their usual theatrics.
I personally dont believe a word that woman writes because it is a pro-linux propaganda site.
You consider publishing legal documents propaganda? That’s an…interesting opinion, to say the least.
Does she expect us to believe she is unbiased?
No, she doesn’t. In fact, she’s admitted to her own bias numerous times. But being biased is okay when your facts are straight – and in this case, they are.
Whatever. As with the SCO case, I will wait for this one to go to court.
Er…it is in court. It has been for months. And so far it’s been downhill all the way for SCO – so much so that no one is really worried about it anymore. If there had been a smoking gun (nevermind the “overwhelming evidence” SCO had promised early on), then we’d have known it by now.
Note that this did have a positive effect on Linux development, as it is now much more controlled. But, to reuse an old slogan of mine: “SCO’s toast!”
“I would also suggest taking articles from linuxbusinessnews/sys-con with an extremely small grain of salt, given the hard anti-linux slant presented by “journalists” such as Maureen O’Gara.”
So, we have two news sites that look like they are designed to spread FUD and are actually Anti-Linux;
* http://www.linuxinsider.com (OSNews article:
http://osnews.com/story.php?news_id=10386 )
* …and linuxbusinessnews/sys-con
Anyone want to go dig up the owners and sponsers for these groups?
I don’t see how the GPL is price fixing because the Charge of price fixing requires an illegal (in the USA) organization called a CARTEL to be set up as the price fixing and monopoly protecting agency for several companies and or nationalized economies. (DeBeers in diamonds and OPEC in oil are examples of this.)
From what I can see the Free Software Foundation existed long before the more profit oriented F/OSS companies like Red Hat, Mandriva (Formerlay Mandrakesoft) and SuSE came into being and is still completely independent of such companies. Therefore it CANNOT be considered a cartel for price fixing in F/OSS software therefore neither can its software licenses (GPL/LGPL).
However I do see several instances of ILLEGAL CARTELS hiding genuine price fixong and monopoly protection organixations behind the “anti piracy” smokescreen. Here are some examples.
BSA (Buisness Software Alliance).
RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)
MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America)
DVD-CCA (DVD Copy Control Association)
(These last two are essentially the ones who are creating all the legal hash against DeCSS and libdvdcss to keep CSS/DVD playback Windows only which is a form of monopoly protection, they are also involved in price fixing on the home video movie distributiion industry.)
“So I say keep GPL legal, just don’t use it.”
The GPL is one licence of many. In some situations, public domain, BSD, or X11 are more appropriate…while in a commercial realm some highly restrictive licences are better.
The GPL and licences like it have one truely useful feature: They force everyone involved to play fairly. They build a level playing ground where different groups that might normally be hostile can get to the task without having to hold back or consult with lawyers as much. Here’s one example;
* If Company A contributes to a GPLed program, Company B and anyone else can use it without fear that Company A will back stab them.
* If the GPLed project does not go in the right direction, it can be forked…while both the fork and the original branch are still available.
Yes, this greatly simplifies potentially complex issues, though for the most part it is true of GPLed (and similar licenced code) where it is not true of many other licences.
In the case of public domain, BSD, or X11…the code can be made propriatory or modules of it can be shipped seperately making the only viable version the one with the propriatory parts. (This is both a strength and a weakness of the BSD/X11/Public domain licences…sometimes it is really good to have that as a capability in an open source project — and not just for the propriatory software companies. The typical example is for procesing libraries such as LibPNG and Ogg Vorbis that have licences in this general category.)
Closed source licences or restrictive source available licences also have benifits and can be useful for specific nitch products. That said, Blender — http://www.blender3d.org and http://www.blender.org — seems to be thriving under the GPL where it was stalled when available only as a closed source binary.
“And regarding the requirements of the GPL cited earlier: it only requires the *source* to be freely distributable. That doesn’t mean you give away the executable. If you honestly think Joe and Jane Q Public are going to learn the complex inner workings of the compile chains for large stacks of software so they can get something for free, forget it. Most of the users I potty-train all day ask where the Internet goes when they minimize their browsers
”
Software cracking works on the premise that a few have the means to crack and then distribute. So why can’t a few outside the software distributer compile a package for Joe and Jane? Or as the saying goes “were there’s a will, there’s a way”.
“Software cracking works on the premise that a few have the means to crack and then distribute. So why can’t a few outside the software distributer compile a package for Joe and Jane? Or as the saying goes “were there’s a will, there’s a way”.”
They could indeed. However, the most widely distributed software, that for Joe and Jane, is usually already free. The GPL for profit works best in a business environment when the applications involved are specific and narrowly targeted to particular niches. In those environments piracy is a lot more risky, because profit-making businesses that violate licenses have a lot more to lose.
“Anti-dumping laws come into effect when something is sold for less than what it costs in order to drive competitors out of the market. But manufacturing software (i.e. copying it) and distributing it basically costs nothing, so there’s little ground for the price-fixing accusations. ”
What I’d like to know is every time this “equation” is pulled out. The costs to create the software are left out.* Copying and distribution may be lower with digital goods. But then copying and distribution usually aren’t the biggest costs to begin with. And are the easiest to lower.
*Harder to lower by the very nature of software creation.
“I don’t see how the GPL is price fixing because the Charge of price fixing requires an illegal (in the USA) organization called a CARTEL to be set up as the price fixing and monopoly protecting agency for several companies and or nationalized economies. (DeBeers in diamonds and OPEC in oil are examples of this.) ”
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/pfbrprimer.pdf
IMHO of course. My interpretation is that the “Cartel” is those who’ve adopted the GPL.
Now as far as the issue of price. That’s an issue more of human nature and free will than anything else. However I do think it is a legitimate subject of discussion of what happens when something that’s free is basically dumped into an established market. Will it have an:
1-Effect on the market?
a-Positive?
b-Negative?
2-For whom?
3-Against whom?
that some of the open source projects advertising on “Linux Business News” do not in fact KNOW that their ads are running on a site which is ANTI-OSS!
I contacts SugarCRM to suggest that they might want to stop running ads on a site that is running articles attacking their business model. They told me they weren’t running any ads on Linux Business News! They only had a contract with Sys-Con’s site, LinuxWorld.
I informed them that the ad was right there next to the article. They checked and found I was right. They weren’t even aware that Sys-Con was running their ad on Linux Business News!
Makes you wonder what Linux Business News business model is?
Contract to run ads on one site, then run them on all of them? Does this inflate the click-through or something? I don’t understand the point – unless it is to associate open source companies with ANTI-OSS articles in an attempt to deflate open source company sales?? None of this makes any sense.
But it does seem that some sort of scam is taking place which involves the sort of articles O’Gara has been running.
” Still, it has had quite an negative impact on SCO’s FUD attempts – which is why SCO has now resorted to personally attacking PJ with their usual theatrics. ”
What theatrics? Oh the one where they say she is an IBM covert. Les see, her hosting comes from Ibiblio which IBM donates equipment and who employs the admins of that service. Her Linux insurance company that she was with, their biggest investor guess who? IBM. And now I’m sure IBM happily “donates” to Groklaw. Coincidence? almost as coincidental as Microsoft and Baystar.
” You consider publishing legal documents propaganda? That’s an…interesting opinion, to say the least ”
Her legal documenst are questionable at best because the wording in a lot of them could point to one way or another, yet she only reports one sided. Just like with how much Info IBM was supposed to produce, WRONG. Supermarket tabloids publish photos but does that mean they are real?
” No, she doesn’t. In fact, she’s admitted to her own bias numerous times. But being biased is okay when your facts are straight – and in this case, they are. ”
Straight? Ok riiiiiiight. You wanna know facts alright, heres facts. IBM is a company that has literally one way or another screwed over every partner they ever had. That they have fought this fight through Groklaw, and Novell. Speaking of novell, their $50 million dollar investmentfrom IBM. Nice number, but we all forget that $50 million is also the same amount that Baystar invested in SCO, dang, all these coincidences!!! Amazing. And you want people to suddenly believe that every developer in IBM is honest? That they dont take shortcuts, that they are beyond stealing code. I’ll believe that when Satan becomes a saint. IBM’s developers are human and not all humans are honest. Plus they are very contaminated working on AIX and Linux at the same time. One more fact, if IBM is so innocent and ave nothing to hide, why are they not so forthcoming on their discovery that was ordered by the court.
” Er…it is in court. It has been for months. And so far it’s been downhill all the way for SCO – so much so that no one is really worried about it anymore. If there had been a smoking gun (nevermind the “overwhelming evidence” SCO had promised early on), then we’d have known it by now. ”
You have it and the Linux community is disputing it, as it is the natural thing to do. When Linux said he would gladly take the code out, my reaction was:
What a crock!
Thats admitting guilt if SCO came to him and asked him to pull their code and he did. Linux would have died that day, Linus isnt stupid he offered up an olive branch yet yanked it back when SCO came forward.
” Note that this did have a positive effect on Linux development, as it is now much more controlled. But, to reuse an old slogan of mine: “SCO’s toast!” ”
Nice slogan, I dont think so and my favorite old slogan is “Just because you believe Moses parted the red sea, doesnt mean I have to believe it” Im not going to bother responding because we have a diffrence of opinion and Im not going to fight in Eugenias forums. But, I take Groklaw and Pamela Jones as seriously as I take the National Enquirer. And everything on Groklaw with a grain of salt. Have a nice day.
I agree, as an old guy that gives “green PC’s” to local poor families, why would I pay for Windows, then Microsoft Works and go through the hassle of registering it (Yeah, right, register Microsoft on the phone). When several Linux distributions are free, with all of the software 9 and really good software) that they will ever really need for schoolwork, no need to register, no strings attached?
I think its ridiculous and take 5 seconds to show as false :
http://www.amazon.com search for Linux
http://www.thelinuxmall.com/
Now , last time I looked there whas “one company” wich price is the same all across good old USA , and wich offer Price Fixing so that some “big clients” get better deal :
Microsoft.
I dont think they have a case against GNU/Linux and the FSF , but I think one could argue that Microsoft does what GNU/Linux is beeing accused of.
Might be fun to see If Microsoft can buy the US judicial system another time.
too stupid to even comment on……… guy wants some attention thats all! about like Nat at guilford college and his airplane security test! just pitiful!
(I had to leave while I was writing my response earlier. I’ll finish what I was writing before)
dylansmrjones: Now try selling MS Office for 10$ … That’ll stop piracy of MS Software
First of all… No it wouldn’t.
I know people who pirate $5 programs. So why would they not pirate a $10 one?
Second of all… Why should MS do it? They make more than enough money. The only reason to do it would be to counter the competition. Which most people won’t even consider anyway. As I was saying… That’s why prices are high. If you refuse to look at the competition, then MS can and will charge whatever they wish.
dylansmrjones: Yes. I agree. And people would buy MS Office if they can get for 10$ … but an obscure office suite is not something people wants to pay for. I doubt think the mentioned obscure office suite is harmed by piracy. Too few out there to want it
Wrong. Large companies like MS are the ones who (usually) are not hurt by piracy. Small companies usually are.
For example, how do these people know they don’t want it? They don’t even know what it is! They won’t even look at it! I’ve had people turn down demos of software from little companies simply because they wanted what the big company puts out. They just ASSUMED that the software put out by the little company couldn’t do what they wanted.
If piracy came to an end they would have two choices. Buy the expensive MS Office or… Buy a cheaper product (like ThinkFree Office, Gobe, or what have you) Since these people CLAIM to not have enough money (in an number of cases) they would HAVE to look at the cheaper alternatives. For those that claim they do not WISH to spend that much, they then SHOULD look at the cheaper alternatives and compare them to MS Office. But because of piracy, they do not bother. They think they need MS Office, so why look at the competition? Can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it? Just pirate it.
dylansmrjones: No.. of course… they already had the game. Why buy a game you already have? But if it had been sold for 10$ when it came out? Then it would have sold a lot more.
To prove that what they say is true? That price is the reason why they pirate? You know the old saying (maybe) “Put up or shut up?” Most pirates when the time comes for that don’t “put up” and they don’t “shut up” they just pop out another excuse. That’s why some people (like me) are so disgusted with them.
Because for a number of these people Starcraft was their favorite (or one of their favorite) games and they could show support for the game by buying a copy?
Maybe in some instances it might actually help the company involved?
Like with Total Annihilation, a number of pirates I know pirated that game (even when it became cheap) and claimed how their “piracy does not hurt the company”. Cave Dog (the maker of that game) was supposedly closed down because they weren’t generating enough in profits. Of course… Afterwards, the pirates I know claimed that their purchases would have had no effect.
dylansmrjones: I don’t mind paying for software (incl. games) if they’re better than a FLOSS-solution. I bought Worms2 for like 10-12$ because I wanted to have the game (with the videos). I bought a legal diablo II as well for something like 15$ and then the extension for 15$ also. At that price there is no real value in piracy software. The disks are too expensive in Denmark.
When Baldurs Gate was released it wasn’t copied illegally in Denmark. Why not? Because it was released on 4 cd’s and the price for 4 illegally copied cd’s was 400 danish crowns – the same price that the game was sold for in the shops. So there was no piracy of that game. Quite simple.
Ever heard of trying to set it up so it runs from your hard drive? That’s what some pirates I know do. No need to make CD copies.
well i personally am more than happy to pay for software as long as I consider the price to be reasonable! and i am a cheeeaaapskate! i dont think any program is worth over 20 bucks unless i am going to use it VERY often then maybe 40 at the absolute most would be $99 and that is if i used it day in and day out for something I considered important…. I happily paid $9.99 for my pdfill program and would of paid more, I paid for other software that I use day in and day out but paying hundreds of dollars for a pain in the ass, register it gotta updat, spying in only bill knows how many ways… sorry a hacked copy is fine with me
or a open alternative! So I think I would throw in with the guy that says lower priced software will LOWER the amount of pirating! I dont think he said eliminate but certainly I would think “lower” is a reasonable term. nuff said
joe: So I think I would throw in with the guy that says lower priced software will LOWER the amount of pirating! I dont think he said eliminate but certainly I would think “lower” is a reasonable term. nuff said
My point was that competitors frequently offer comparable (note comparable not identical) software for less money, but pirates frequently (not all everyone is different) couldn’t care less. Once they want the “super duper product” from say… MS… (Or Adobe) Even though all they’ll be using MS Office for is to write a simple letter (which they could just as easily do in Notepad or Wordpad) they decide that the cheaper product is not good enough even before they look at it or have any idea what it does.
Which is one reasons why prices are so high. It’s hard to sell cheaper products to people who won’t even look at what you’re selling. So the companies either flat out go out of business or are simply not carried by stores or change their product line to something else and forget about the “little guy”.
So the cheaper products don’t (generally) exist.
In one of examples, I was talking about ThinkFree Office vs MS Office. (ThinkFree Office is locally available from a store for $10, as I mentioned before) But I don’t know any pirates who would even consider looking at ThinkFree to find out what it does. They just ignore it and go straight for MS Office, which they consider to be the best.
In fact… I recently found out, ThinkFree Office is no longer available from said store since no one was buying it. My case in point.
People wanted to pirate MS Office, so now the cheaper alternative is gone. (At least locally) I believe it’s still available on the internet though.
As a result, the average price of an office suite from said store has risen.
Deletomn: ThinkFree Office is locally available from a store for $10, as I mentioned before
Should have been ThinkFree Office was locally available from a store for $10, as I mentioned before
Since I have discovered that it is no longer available locally. (Fortunately I bought a copy)
I agree that reaserch has been a motivator, but most of that has a profit component (The internet with the department of defense – think there is no profit there). And yes a lot of people have done some good things out of the more pure motives. But what are the good open source models: Apache, MySQL and Linux. Sure there are more but they are the biggest.
Apache is absolutly a wonderful example.
MySQL is pretty good, but their license is a little different, I can get the source but i can’t use it commercially unless I pay them. there is a lot of profit motive in that – which is a good thing.
Linux is an example of the best and the worst in open source – it is very solid and a great server platform. However, on the desktop it is a disaster (very programmer friendly and user unfriendly).
I think open source is great, but I think a freer license like the BSD and MIT (or even LGPL) offer a better option.
The bottom line is that I program to make money. I used to do it for fun, but now i have a morgtage to pay. I am not going to spend the time to make huge improvments in open source software unless I can make signifigant amounts of money. However I may choose to free give up some of the libraries and tools for others to use, but the stuff that makes my products unique, I am going to keep proprietary.
The GPL creats a situation that everything it touches must be open. This is just unacceptable. A GPL like license that states that you have to make your changes to their source public, but not requreing the application as a whole open would be a good comprimise.Someone could not make a “better” MySQL server without making the changes public while still allowig their applications to include that server (not the best example as this could be achived, just not in a zero config mode) as part of a larger app.
But as I said earlier, I do not think it should be illegal, i just wish people would CHOOSE a better license.
BTW… On a more personal note.
joe: well i personally am more than happy to pay for software as long as I consider the price to be reasonable! and i am a cheeeaaapskate! i dont think any program is worth over 20 bucks unless i am going to use it VERY often then maybe 40 at the absolute most would be $99 and that is if i used it day in and day out for something I considered important….
Yes… I’m a cheapstake too. But I also don’t pirate. That’s one of the reasons why I bought ThinkFree Office. And I also feel that most software should not be very expensive. Particularly something I need to update all the time. (As in pay for updates.)
Right now, I pretty much use OpenOffice and ThinkFree for my word processing needs. (I have one recent copy of MS Office here that runs on a single machine in the event I actually need it. But that doesn’t usually get used.)
Out of the two, I would say I prefer OpenOffice at the moment. That’s because I’ve found a couple bugs in ThinkFree that kind of annoy me. (But they aren’t serious IMO)
Talk about misinterpretations!! Free dose not constitute an Anti-trust…
Under these parameters PBS and other “Free” things are proce Fixing as well…Dumb@$$es are reaching deep theses days eh?
-nX
RE: Anonymous (IP: —.nc.res.rr.com)
What theatrics? Oh the one where they say she is an IBM covert. Les see, her hosting comes from Ibiblio which IBM donates equipment and who employs the admins of that service
That’s so lame it is unbelievable. IBM supports Ibiblio, which is a nonprofit, just as many other corporations support Ibiblio. The fact that Ibiblio hosts an OSS advocate’s site while being funded by pro-OSS corporations is not all that damning at all. I’m waiting to hear about your evidence where IBM paid Groklaw ANYTHING. This is all conspiracy theory.
Her Linux insurance company that she was with, their biggest investor guess who? IBM.
This is more hot air from the nutcase fringe. How is this even relevant? Where is there any evidence of collusion?
Her legal documenst are questionable at best because the wording in a lot of them could point to one way or another, yet she only reports one sided.
Please provide ANY evidence at all. Legal documents can’t be questionable unless someone tampered with them. I haven’t seen any evidence of that at all. Her viewpoint may be biased but that is known up front, which automatically disqualifies it from being propoganda. Also there is discussion in the forums about her opinions that provides balance to the debate.
Speaking of novell, their $50 million dollar investmentfrom IBM. Nice number, but we all forget that $50 million is also the same amount that Baystar invested in SCO, dang, all these coincidences!!! Amazing. And you want people to suddenly believe that every developer in IBM is honest? That they dont take shortcuts, that they are beyond stealing code. I’ll believe that when Satan becomes a saint. IBM’s developers are human and not all humans are honest. Plus they are very contaminated working on AIX and Linux at the same time. One more fact, if IBM is so innocent and ave nothing to hide, why are they not so forthcoming on their discovery that was ordered by the court.
First of all what does IBM donating money to Novell have to do with this at all? You’re just grasping at straws. Second, you fail to provide a shred of evidence again, only conjecture. In fact IBM’s AIX developers didn’t work on Linux. One of SCO’s issues was JFS, but the funny thing is that the JFS used in Linux isn’t even from AIX, but OS/2. They had to backport that JFS to AIX.
You have it and the Linux community is disputing it, as it is the natural thing to do. When Linux said he would gladly take the code out, my reaction was:
What a crock!
Thats admitting guilt if SCO came to him and asked him to pull their code and he did. Linux would have died that day, Linus isnt stupid he offered up an olive branch yet yanked it back when SCO came forward.
You’re either intentionally misrepresenting what happened or are completely clueless. Linus asked SCO to show the code so if there was a problem he could take it out. SCO refused. Linus didn’t admit there was stolen code, he just asked SCO to prove their claims, and they didn’t then and they haven’t yet.
Nice slogan, I dont think so and my favorite old slogan is “Just because you believe Moses parted the red sea, doesnt mean I have to believe it
Yet you believe in crazy conspiracy theories without a shred of evidence. Now who is the fool?
RE: Deletomn
I know people who pirate $5 programs. So why would they not pirate a $10 one?
Your argument is fallacious. $5 programs are the ones that are so simple they should be free. If a complex and useful application like Office was $10 then everyone would buy it. Making the comparison you did is like saying that because people won’t pay $30,000 for a kia, they also wouldn’t pay $30,000 for a ferrari.
They think they need MS Office, so why look at the competition? Can’t afford it or don’t want to pay for it? Just pirate it.
Blame Microsoft for that. If their file formats weren’t proprietary I bet their Office Suite wouldn’t be pirated so much. Somehow I doubt they mind all that much. Big business still buys a ton of licenses. They get to lock people into proprietary formats and then sell the OEMs Office licenses, which people will gladly pay for up front when they get a sizable discount and don’t have to deal with installing software themselves.
To prove that what they say is true? That price is the reason why they pirate? You know the old saying (maybe) “Put up or shut up?” Most pirates when the time comes for that don’t “put up” and they don’t “shut up” they just pop out another excuse. That’s why some people (like me) are so disgusted with them….
Do you actually have a point in that rambling?
Abraxas: Your argument is fallacious. $5 programs are the ones that are so simple they should be free.
Nonsense. Sometimes clearance items are $5 and clearance items can be anything. Also, WickedGL was $5 and some people were gripping about that in the forums. If it was such a simple program, why didn’t someone else make a competing program for nothing?
Abraxas: Blame Microsoft for that. If their file formats weren’t proprietary I bet their Office Suite wouldn’t be pirated so much. Somehow I doubt they mind all that much.
This is somewhat true. But think about it. How do you know that ThinkFree (or another product) doesn’t work with MS Office’s formats if you’ve never used it? You assume it doesn’t. Same thing with Gobe.
Also… People lock themselves in when they won’t even look at the alternatives. The least you can do is look at them and see what they can and can’t do. Perhaps they don’t suit “your” (talking generally here) needs, but then perhaps they do. When you don’t look you don’t know.
Abraxas: Do you actually have a point in that rambling?
No it wasn’t rambling. It’s the truth. Most pirates lie about the reasons they pirate in order to be “Robin Hood”. When the time comes for them to prove their claims they make up another excuse. It’s never “the time”. Always some other time (for many of them anyway). Those same ones are always trying to “convince” others to do the same.
Linux is an example of the best and the worst in open source – it is very solid and a great server platform. However, on the desktop it is a disaster (very programmer friendly and user unfriendly).
It’s funny then that a GPLed desktop (Gnome) is replacing a commercial one (CDE) on many UNIX desktops. There is absolutely no evidence to support your theory that the GPL is not a good choice on the desktop.
…a freer (emphasis added) license like the BSD and MIT (or even LGPL) offer a better option.
That’s entirely subjective. Of course I know you are offering an opinion on what is a better option but you are not clear that the “freeness” of the BSD license in comparision to the GPL license is your opinion, and it is.
The bottom line is that I program to make money. I used to do it for fun, but now i have a morgtage to pay. I am not going to spend the time to make huge improvments in open source software unless I can make signifigant amounts of money. However I may choose to free give up some of the libraries and tools for others to use, but the stuff that makes my products unique, I am going to keep proprietary.
Go ahead. No one is stopping you.
The GPL creats a situation that everything it touches must be open. This is just unacceptable.
Unacceptable to who? You? Then don’t use it. No one is forcing you to. If you want to use GPL libraries but can’t because you want your app to be proprietary then WRITE YOUR OWN SOFTWARE. The software belongs to the community and if you’re pissed because you can’t rip it off I don’t know what to tell you other than WRITE YOUR OWN SOFTWARE. The GPL is for us. You can find something else if you don’t like the rules.
But as I said earlier, I do not think it should be illegal, i just wish people would CHOOSE a better license.
That’s your opinion creeping in again. I think the GPL is a better license because I am more concerned with the social implications of it. Neither of us are right. We just have different opinions but you seem to think your are right.
Nonsense. Sometimes clearance items are $5 and clearance items can be anything. Also, WickedGL was $5 and some people were gripping about that in the forums.
Have you ever seen a clearanced MSOffice suite or clearanced ferrari? I didn’t think so. You’re argument again is invalid.
If it was such a simple program, why didn’t someone else make a competing program for nothing?
Maybe because no one who had the time or knowledge to code the program actually cared about the program.
This is somewhat true. But think about it. How do you know that ThinkFree (or another product) doesn’t work with MS Office’s formats if you’ve never used it? You assume it doesn’t. Same thing with Gobe.
I’ve used other programs that are compatible with Office, in fact I don’t use Office now and never did. I really don’t know where this particular comment is heading because the fact that alternate but semi-equivalent programs are not popular doesn’t make a point about piracy. It just means that either people know little about the alternatives or the alternatives aren’t that good. No Office replacement can open any .doc file with 0 errors. Some are quite good but if someone is given the choice between an alternate program that is free (libre) compared to the standard program that also happens to be free (cracked) then most people will choose the standard program to be safe. Most people don’t even understand the implications of what they are doing. A friend just tell them that they have a copy of the software. Most people don’t even realize that they are purchasing a license not the actual program on the disk.
No it wasn’t rambling. It’s the truth. Most pirates lie about the reasons they pirate in order to be “Robin Hood”. When the time comes for them to prove their claims they make up another excuse. It’s never “the time”. Always some other time (for many of them anyway). Those same ones are always trying to “convince” others to do the same.
I don’t get where this came from. I thought we were talking about if people were less prone to pirate software when the price was reduced. Is this comment directed at me? It would be pretty funny if it was considering I don’t use pirated software. In fact I have no need to pirate software. If this wasn’t directed at me then what was the point of bringing it up?
“But as I said earlier, I do not think it should be illegal, i just wish people would CHOOSE a better license.”
The GPL isn’t ‘better’ or ‘worse’. It’s one licence of many.
To choose the GPL or to choose another licence depends entirely on your goals combined with the environment that you see the software being used and developed in (customers, competitors, industry, expectations, bundles/tie-ins, service goals, …).
The GPL is the primary licence used in a variety of companies, some quite large, so profitability definately can be had using the GPL. To say it isn’t so is just not true.
I’ve posted elsewhere in this thread and gave examples earlier, so I won’t repeat them. See the response to “Re: Probably not price fixing but still bad” that first quotes and then starts with the text “The GPL is one licence of many.”
It is…that’s the point of having the GPL or any other licence. The reasons you’ve stated for not using the GPL are true only for a narrow set of circumstances. Other licences are equally as bad under different circumstances…so I’m not convinced that the GPL itself should be dropped or even scaled back. It seems to work well where it is used.
(First of all. The last statement)
Abraxas: If this wasn’t directed at me then what was the point of bringing it up?
Because you brought it up. You called a prior statement rambling. I elaborated on that statement and explained my experiences (to some extent). At no point did I say that it applied to you. In fact, I don’t even see why you’re confused. You reply to something and you don’t expect a reply back?
Abraxas: Have you ever seen a clearanced MSOffice suite or clearanced ferrari? I didn’t think so. You’re argument again is invalid.
No it’s not invalid. I have not seen MS Office on clearance it is true. But I have seen other various office packages (not ThinkFree, but things like Word Perfect) on clearance for various amounts. (Sometimes these products go for as little as $0.25. Sometimes you can even find some really really really really good deals, as in good software packages for a low price. Not just crap for a low price.)
Also… We were talking generally… (With a few different examples. Including StarCraft, Adobe Photoshop, and MS Office)
Abraxas: Maybe because no one who had the time or knowledge to code the program actually cared about the program.
Precisely. So why gripe? It was only $5. Why should the company create it and then give it away? If it is so simple that it wasn’t worth it then the people can do without it or create it themselves.
Abraxas: the fact that semi-equivalent programs are not popular doesn’t make a point about piracy. It just means that either people know little about the alternatives or the alternatives aren’t that good.
How do you know they aren’t good if you don’t look at them? That’s my point. Most pirates (that I know anyway) don’t look at the alternatives before making their decision. They decide… “Oh I must have MS Office (or Adobe Photoshop or whatever). Oh boy it’s too expensive! I guess I should pirate it!” Then they end up (often times) using it for something that a cheaper (or even free) alternative could have done just as well.
Abraxas: No Office replacement can open any .doc file with 0 errors.
I would say any is an exageration. Since I’ve had to use ThinkFree with a friend’s copy of MS Office and we had no problems. (But then his documents weren’t very complicated)
What theatrics?
Ah. Glad to see we’re finally back on topic.
You haven’t been following this very closely. Since the beginning of this whole story SCO has been all talk no substance. They have made dramatic declarations that were later retracted, modified, or simply forgotten. They have tried to win their case in the media, but have come up short – dramatically so – in the court. They have used every stalling tactic in the book after claiming they had tons of evidence.
If you can’t see what I’m talking about, well then you’re probably a SCO executive.
Her legal documenst are questionable at best because the wording in a lot of them could point to one way or another, yet she only reports one sided.
They’re out there. If you have proof that she misrepresented some of the documents, then why don’t you share it with us? Or better yet, set up a web site where you can present those legal documents and your own interpretation.
All talk, no substance. Who does that remind me of?
You wanna know facts alright, heres facts. IBM is a company that has literally one way or another screwed over every partner they ever had. That they have fought this fight through Groklaw, and Novell.
These are not facts, these are allegations. I can see why you’d have problems with understanding legal documents. You are making the allegations that IBM is behind Groklaw, and that they are also using Novell as a proxy. But, you see, that’s not really what happened.
What happened is that SCO decided to take on an entire community by making very grave accusations (all kinds of them, and these have changed over time). The result of this very broad attack was to bring together those who felt threatened. This included IBM and Novell, of course, but also most Linux users, F/OSS enthusiasts, other Linux companies, and so on. That’s not a conspiracy, but rather an alliance.
PJ doesn’t claim to be biased. The web site was started with one goal in mind, to help defeat SCO by countering their FUD. They have succeeded admirably, which explains why they’re so much the target of attack by those few souls sympathetic to SCO’s outrageous claims.
IBM’s developers are human and not all humans are honest.
Yes, SCO is a shining example of that.
Plus they are very contaminated working on AIX and Linux at the same time.
Another allegation. To call this a fact, surely you must have some proof, somewhere?
One more fact, if IBM is so innocent and ave nothing to hide, why are they not so forthcoming on their discovery that was ordered by the court.
They have complied to the judge’s order, but it is customary for companies to resist discovery orders. After all, SCO did it too, and quite a few times. So following your logic they must have something to hide as well…
Let’s be reasonable here. I mean, you’ve seen the ridiculous amount of material SCO requested of IBM for discovery, right? I have, and it was humongous. Any company would have tried to scale it down, if only to lower the costs of gather such an extensive amount of documents.
You have it and the Linux community is disputing it, as it is the natural thing to do.
Actually, no, we don’t. SCO hasn’t come up with much of anything as far as evidence is concerned. Even the judge remarked on it. You know that as well as I do. Stop trying to spread FUD.
But, I take Groklaw and Pamela Jones as seriously as I take the National Enquirer. And everything on Groklaw with a grain of salt.
Offer me any convincing facts – facts, not allegations – and I’ll be glad to consider them. So far you’ve offered nothing of substance on the matter.
Linux is an example of the best and the worst in open source – it is very solid and a great server platform. However, on the desktop it is a disaster (very programmer friendly and user unfriendly).
I completely disagree. My Linux desktop is quite user friendly (I’m not a programmer), and newbie-friendly distros have great desktop. It’s not a disaster by any sense of the word.
I think open source is great, but I think a freer license like the BSD and MIT (or even LGPL) offer a better option.
That depends what you want to do with it. And if it’s not a library, there’s not much difference between the GPL and the LGPL.
Don’t forget dual-licensing, like for Trolltech’s Qt.
The bottom line is that I program to make money. I used to do it for fun, but now i have a morgtage to pay. I am not going to spend the time to make huge improvments in open source software unless I can make signifigant amounts of money. However I may choose to free give up some of the libraries and tools for others to use, but the stuff that makes my products unique, I am going to keep proprietary.
If you want to sell programs, then go ahead. But a good deal of the programmers I know do not work on software that is sold over-the-counter. You know, that’s not the only way to make money for a programmer…
The GPL creats a situation that everything it touches must be open. This is just unacceptable.
It’s also untrue. You can have GPL programs working with proprietary programs on the same system – you just can’t have a proprietary program link with a GPL program (link here has a very definite sense). You will notice that most libraries are LGPL anyway, so the point is rather moot.
The GPL is a good license if it fits with your goals for the software, and it isn’t if it doesn’t. It’s as simple as that.
Abraxas: Have you ever seen a clearanced MSOffice suite or clearanced ferrari? I didn’t think so. You’re argument again is invalid.
Actually… Coming to think of it. Yes I have.
At the school store at a university they had a few copies of MS Office on clearance a couple months ago.
Since you’re so eager… Want to know the school? The University of Colorado at Denver (one of the universities I’ve been to). I can’t remember the exact date. I guess I could go back there and ask them and see if they remember. But I don’t see why I should.
Also… I should add that simply because a clearance item isn’t MS Office or a ferrari doesn’t make it a “simple” program like you stated earlier.
I think it should be obvious to anyone with the intelligence and energy necessary to avoid a carnivorous snail, that Price Fixing never occurs without coercion, that the person accused of Price Fixing has to have some sort of coercive power over the person being coerced into acceding to the Price-Fixer’s demands.
This is easier when several people collude together, as it is much easier to escape one Price Fixer than a whole mob of them.
Somehow this Wally who has brought the case, has failed to make it clear to all of us concerned, how a marketplace that is full of very different companies with totally different business plans and marketing strategies to the extent that the most common accusation is that Linux will fragment like Unix did before it, has the internal discipline necessary for it to collude for long enough for the heavily-business-oriented such as Novell and Red Hat and the totally community-trust oriented such as Debian, to agree to tie their shoelaces up.
Let alone how a voluntary organization like the FSF manages to collude with an company like Red Hat, let alone IBM which it is deeply distrustful of, in order to exert the kind of coercion needed to prevent this Wally from running his business.
As I say, this guy’s a Wally, and it’s not just his name either.
If the GPL is a form of price fixing, why aren’t patents considered a form of price fixing?
> You can have GPL programs working with proprietary programs
> on the same system – you just can’t have a proprietary
> program link with a GPL program (link here has a very
> definite sense).
Where can I find the definition of ‘link’? Any definition I’ve seen so far would include syscalls as linking.
Also, the GPL mentions ‘derivative works’. How is that defined? Any definition I could think of would describe programs compiled with GCC as derivative works of it.
Where can I find the definition of ‘link’? Any definition I’ve seen so far would include syscalls as linking.
Wikipedia is your friend:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linker
“A linker or link editor is a program that takes one or more objects generated by compilers and assembles them into a single executable program.”
Syscalls are definitely not included in this.
“Modern operating system environments allow dynamic linking, that is the postponing of the resolving of some undefined symbols until a program is run. That means that the executable still contains undefined symbols, plus a list of objects or libraries that will provide definitions for these. Loading the program will load these objects/libraries as well, and perform a final linking.”
Here there might be more ground for concern, then again most libraries are LGPL, so as I said before the point is moot.
Also, the GPL mentions ‘derivative works’. How is that defined? Any definition I could think of would describe programs compiled with GCC as derivative works of it.
Uh, no. You can compile proprietary programs with GCC. A derivative is made from the same source code.
dylansmrjones: Piracy happens when price of software is inflated. When software price falls piracy falls. Period.
That’s not true at all.
Locally for example we have ThinkFree Office available for a mere $10. What do you suppose I hear all the time from people, “How does ThinkFree Office compare with Microsoft Office?” Nope. “Can I have a copy of Microsoft Office for free?” Yes.
The problem is, that they think ThinkFree Office will not work for them, as they believe it is not 100% Microsoft compatible.
This is a monopoly problem. Today everybody expect that the recipient party will be able to open an MS-Office document they send. In a more a market with more diversity, the parties would have negotiated a mutually satisfying file format. Now that doesn’t happen, people are expected to read MS-Office period.
This is how a free market works. GPL monkeys with it – providing a zero cost solution that does not need to generate profits, will cause the prices for the “proprietary” solutions to rise as they have to charge more to make the same profits, from the smaller pool of people willing to pay.
So, if the competitor offers your product for free, then you have to add value to your product, or find out some way to make money from it even if you give it away.
This makes it less profitable to be in the software business. and hurts overall innovation. Sure you get a bunch of usable applications but few excel. There are eceptions, but most are not equal to their commercial counterparts.
Then perhaps we should shut down the software industry.
We don’t see many tailors today, but nobody complains about that people buy ready-made clothing. Why should software industry be protected from structural change?
In most countries software industry only make up a minor part of the GDP. Yet, software is very important to the rest of the industry. Wouldn’t lower software prices be beneficial to companies producing other things than software? Of course it would.
Today such industries supplies the major part of all programmer/developer jobs doing inhouse development so a shift to a service oriented business model would not likely lead to unemployment. One advantage with a service oriented software production is that it is harder to move to low cost countries like India. To provide service it is an advantage if you are close to the customer.
MySQL is pretty good, but their license is a little different, I can get the source but i can’t use it commercially unless I pay them. there is a lot of profit motive in that – which is a good thing.
Last time I checked, MySQL used GPL. This means that you can use it commercially. What you can’t get without a licence is support from MySQL. As far as I can see they have no problem selling licences.
> Modern operating system environments allow dynamic linking,
> that is the postponing of the resolving of some undefined
> symbols until a program is run.
Sounds very much like syscalls to me, although the exact interpretation varies:
In some systems, dynamic linking is different from syscalls in that the symbol resolution is done once and then cached in the code.
Some systems use numeric symbols for syscalls, not ASCII symbols.
Some systems switch contexts/privileges in a syscall.
If I write an operating system that resolves syscalls by name (for binary compatibility), caches the target address (optimization) and does not switch context (e.g. because security is not an issue), are the syscalls no longer syscalls then? Where’s the line? What guarantees does the GPL give me that THIS is the line and nothing else?
All of this under the assumption that the OS is GPL’ed, not LGPL’ed.
> Uh, no. You can compile proprietary programs with GCC. A
> derivative is made from the same source code.
In what way is a program compiled with GCC not made from the GCC source code? Every instruction in the output binary can be tracked down to GCC code as much as it can be tracked down to my own source code. You can find counterparts for the binary code both in the source code and in the GCC code. The binary code does not contain verbatim copies of either code, but information from both sides flow into the output.
If the output code had only the source-to-compile in it, why would I need the compiler to produce it? If no information from the compiler flows into the output, where do the machine-specific instructions come from? They’re not found in the source.
But then, if the output contains information from the compiler, why can I still distribute it under proprietary licenses?
I say “information from the compiler” because you won’t find more than traces of the source-to-compile in the output binary either.
For the syscalls issue, can you tell me exactly which GPL’d library is causing you trouble? Because a lot of what I read for you are highly hypothetical examples.
I’d like some real-world examples where this has been an issue for you.
In what way is a program compiled with GCC not made from the GCC source code?
Simple: the fact that I don’t need to have the GCC source code to use it to compile a program proves there is no GCC source code going into the compiled program…
Again, provide us with a real-world example: when has the FSF or the GCC maintainers EVER claimed that code produced with GCC must be GPL’ed? If you can’t provide me with a clear proof that they ever did then I’ll have to assume that all you’re doing here is spreading FUD.
Last I checked, the sky isn’t falling…
Nothing is causing me trouble. I rather want to know what the implications are if I place my self-written compiler under the GPL, because I’m not sure if I agree with it. Same for the syscalls issue. It may not make a difference if few people care about my programs. But then, the same could be said about licensing at all.
> Simple: the fact that I don’t need to have the GCC source
> code to use it to compile a program proves there is no GCC
> source code going into the compiled program…
So I can take a *compiled* GPL’ed library and link to it and can place the result under whatever license I want? Because then I don’t need the source code either.
On the other hand, if I have source code and binaries produced by GCC, then to reproduce the binaries I need the GCC. Most other compilers will not produce the same binaries. If a compiler succeeds to reproduce them, it is in this respect similar to the GCC. Similarity means nothing other than partial equivalence, i.e. parts of the GCC where exactly reproduced in that other compiler (even though not a single line of code may match).
You are right in that I don’t need the full GCC source code for recompilation, only parts of it, namely those parts that are still existent in the GCC binary.
> Again, provide us with a real-world example: when has the
> FSF or the GCC maintainers EVER claimed that code produced
> with GCC must be GPL’ed?
By saying that derivative works must be placed under the GPL. There is no problem if they explicitly reverted that claim for programs compiled with GCC (nothing can stop the authors from making less restrictive exceptions for a GPL’ed program). But what are the implications if a compiler author *doesn’t* make those exceptions?
> If you can’t provide me with a clear proof that they ever
> did then I’ll have to assume that all you’re doing here is
> spreading FUD.
Actually I asked clear questions about the implications of the GPL to know whether it’s suited for the code I write, because I think I found a self-contradiction in it. I hope that this is not considered FUD by the majority of the GPL camp, otherwise it would explain why people have a hard time with such a license.
And yes, I think choosing a license without knowing its implications is rather stupid.
I’m sorry if I misunderstood your legitimate concern. My suggest then is to contact the FSF to get answers to your questions.
Deletomn: Locally for example we have ThinkFree Office available for a mere $10. What do you suppose I hear all the time from people, “How does ThinkFree Office compare with Microsoft Office?” Nope. “Can I have a copy of Microsoft Office for free?” Yes.
Uno Engborg: The problem is, that they think ThinkFree Office will not work for them, as they believe it is not 100% Microsoft compatible.
This is a monopoly problem. Today everybody expect that the recipient party will be able to open an MS-Office document they send. In a more a market with more diversity, the parties would have negotiated a mutually satisfying file format. Now that doesn’t happen, people are expected to read MS-Office period.
I somewhat agree with this. I say somewhat because there’s a number of pieces to this. For example, some documents aren’t that complex and will open in 3rd party programs (that support MS Office). Granted this isn’t true for all documents.
Also… Some people only need read-only compatibility which means all they actually need for handling MS Office documents are the different viewers offered for free. So they can use whatever they wish for writing their own documents.
And then for some people… The whole problem is the organization they work in exchanges MS Office documents. If the organization as a whole switched there would be “few problems”. (How many varies with the organization)
And then some people don’t need to exchange documents at all. They just got the feeling that they had to have MS Office.
And then… For a number of these people know, the competitor might be able to handle the documents that need to be handled. The thing being, even if it did, these people probably wouldn’t have stopped long enough to notice it.
Or in other words… Piracy only helps make (or maintain) the XYZ standard. For example, if piracy wasn’t used by those who can’t afford (or don’t WISH) to pay for MS Office. What would happen is that they would have to use something else, like ThinkFree Office, Gobe, OpenOffice, or some other competitor (we’ll say ABC I guess to be fair to all of them). Then ABC would gain marketshare and this could potentially have a number of effects in the market. For example, it could compel the maker of XYZ (in this case MS Office) to reduce their prices in order to compete better with ABC.
Why would they do this? Well… It’s not a given that they would. But if they are concerned that ABC will take a bite out of their profits because of it’s price, then that is one way for them to take care of it. (And that is but one possible effect. There are actually many)
And as you noted that In a more a market with more diversity, the parties would have negotiated a mutually satisfying file format. Now that doesn’t happen, people are expected to read MS-Office period.
Which basicly ties into my point that for all intents and purposes, piracy frequently reduces the “diversity” of the market by allowing people to go straight to getting what they feel is “the high-end product”. Whether they actually need it (or will use it) or not.
Or it can actually be “somewhat” forced on customers. Since if say I don’t use MS Office, some people I know might offer me a pirated copy of it since they expect me to use it. (I’ve seen this happen before) And once I have a copy of it, why should I use ThinkFree (or OpenOffice or whatever)?
Or in other words, I agree but I see it as more than just a “monopoly” problem compliments of Microsoft. I see it as a “monopoly” problem ALSO compliments of the pirates. (In fact, I would wager that if piracy was stopped the MS Office monopoly would be broken in a number of places within society quite literally over night.)
This discussion makes interesting reading. Did many of posters made themselves familiar with the claim? It is short, and has not much legaleze.
Now, when I remember other GPL discussions on this Web site, there is always someone who says that OpenSource allows to make gazillion free copies, that Red Hat does not sell software- just a box in which software is packed, and that IBM makes money not on OpenSource software but on services.
Surprise, surprise, it is the same claim that guy makes: GPL license enforces free (as in freedom and in beer) software distribution, big boys with pockets full of money embrace that license and artificially drive down price of software- to $0. Buy one Linux distro CD from Mandrake, get 10,000,000 copies free.
These big greedy corporations are not insane and not got overtaken by Russian Communists, we know that- they hide their software development costs in the price of hardware they sell or services they offer.
That, this guy concludes, makes impossible for software developer to make living by selling software.
At any other pro-Linux or anti-Microsoft discussion that statement would not be disputed. In contrary, a said developer will be told to send his resume to IBM and likes to work for salary, or offer services on top of free software he should distribute.
So, generally speaking, a guy is right: GPL drives down software cost to $0, artificially- because it still costs billions of dollars to develop even OpenSourced software- just ask Oracle and IBM how much they invested into just the Linux kernel.
Is he right that this behaviour is illegal? That is where court would have to make a decision.
In my opinion, given the current situation and where the money is, that person will have very, very hard time to convince the court he is right. IBM has better lawyers, and OpenSource has louder advocates.
So, don’t scream at him. He is just old school software developer who wants to be paid based on success of his software, not on how many hours he worked last week. These guys are displaced by developers for hire, employed by the multinational corporations.
We should pity him and send him for RHCE reeducation.
Great post as always.
Basically I’ll sum up your post as IBM, RedHat and others saying “All your open source are belong to us”. Thanks for the free software chumps. We’ll go ahead and sell it along with services. You little independent guys can go eat dirt.
If Open-Source was driving the price of software to zero, how com MS still sells copies of MS Office? How come Oracle isn’t free? How come Adobe isn’t out of business?
It’s not a question of who had the best lawyers, but of looking at the real-world effects of F/OSS. You can’t make a legal case out of what “might happen”. Meanwhile, Mandrake still sells boxed CDs, and enough of them to turn out a profit…
Thanks for the hint. I agree that contacting the FSF is probably the best way to resolve the issue. Fortunately, it’s not pressing at the moment.