Descriptive Quote from the OSOpinion editorial: “Open source and free software were founded on the idea that all information and knowledge should be made freely available for the benefit of all, and what is software but the embodiment of knowledge? Unfortunately, much of today’s open software is not free in one important respect. The use of copyright and the General Public License (GPL) restricts its commercial exploitation.”Our Take: Personally, I object. While the Public Domain license feels and sounds more “liberal” than GPL itself, it has a very dangerous legal catch. Sometimes people use the term ‘public domain’ in a loose fashion to mean ‘free’ or ‘available gratis’. However, ‘public domain’ is a legal term and means, precisely, ‘not copyrighted’. And when you release software on the wild, under a Public Domain license (not copyrighted and without any accompanied warranty that is), the state can file a lawsuit against you if they wish, for any (even small) bugs they may find. This is why there are ‘public domain’-alike licenses around (truly liberal), but without the catch: the BSD license for example.
Public Domain Software – Better Than Open Source?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The GPL sacrifices the greater good for the sake of showing a handful of monopolists a stop sign.
<P>
Read no further. “A handful of monopolists”, what a dumb expression. “Oh, a monopolist here, in the OS space, another monopolist there, in the gaming space, yeah, it’s really just a handful.” What an idiot. The GPL is meant to restrict monopolization, that’s the whole point, and that’s why MS has singled out the GPL for excessive FUD: They see it as the biggest threat because they can’t “embrace and extend” GPL programs.
<P>
Long live the GPL.
Microsoft’s case against the GPL is very strong. Obviously, if someone writes code and wants to release it under the GPL, that’s fine. However, when you’re talking about government funding of open-source projects, the GPL is no longer “fine.” If the government sponsors the development of software, *everyone* should be able to use it, and that includes corporations. By definition, almost all software companies cannot use GPLed software in their own products, and that’s why government funding of GPL software is wrong in Microsoft’s eyes. I wouldn’t call it excessive FUD.
(This, of course, only applies to government funding of software. If companies and/or people want to release things under the GPL, that’s more than fine)
> Long live the GPL.
nooo!
Long live the LGPL and MIT/BSD!
let the flames begin!
If GPL is too broad why not be more explicit? I can only think of one illegal software monopoly. If developers wanted to prevent the use of source code by Microsoft then why don’t they release it under something like the Microsoft Exclusionary License (MEL) which would make it possible for anyone to use the source for any purpose except on any Microsoft (or their successors) platform.
This would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. The argument boils down to this:
1) For-profit-companies are upset they can’t maximize their profits through the use of code they wouldn’t have to pay for.
2) The desires of the for-profit-companies are to be valued over the rights of the individual coder.
If the coder want’s to keep their product out of the hands of for-profit-companies, but allow us regular folks to use it free of charge, that is the coder’s right. Just as it is the right of the for-profit-companies to hold a copyright on product they create, allowing no one to use the product without paying, and litigate anybody into the Bronze Age who violates that copyright.
The idea that people will vote with their wallet when they wind up with skunk software makes for a nice exercise in an economics class. If this were true in the real world, Gates’ head would be on a stick for all to see, his body drawn and quarted, the parts buried thousands of miles apart, and the burial grounds sown with salt. And they would have made Balmer do all the digging.
And no, an “As Is” clause on a public domain ware offers no less protection to the creator than the same clause on “properly” copyrighted ware. It’s just easier to file a lawsuit against an individual than a corporation.
GPL is a just and necessary thing, and it should be kept for the common good.
> Microsoft Exclusionary License (MEL)
Lol
Are the BSD’s (free, net, open) Under the GPL or are the under a BSD license?
With The GPL, if I write a program release the source under the GPL can I then take that same code and then sell it as well?
Why not double license. You make a GPL program, and company “A” wants to use it, so all they have to do is hire you to improve it, and relicense the improvements to them,(but the original will stay opensource) or they can buy it as a proprietary software. Or, even better, if they pay you do upkeep it and make it better, and keep it open
Eugenia, I am not certain that your statement about being able to sue a person who has released software to the Public Domain is valid, however, most projects released to the Public Domain will include a clause akin to this:
–8<–8<–8<–8<
This program is in the Public Domain
THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE AUTHOR “AS IS”, WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS
OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE
HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES CONNECTED WITH THE USE OF THIS PROGRAM.
–8<–8<–8<–8<
By doing so – you’re of the hook!
On another note: I really don’t understand some of the statements in the forum regarding the oh so wonderous GPL. GPL has it’s merits but it isn’t a fit all license – no license is!
One chooses (should choose!) the license which best suits the project, not GPL/LGPL per definition.
> Are the BSD’s (free, net, open) Under the GPL or are the under a BSD license?
BSD license. Some parts (GCC, KDE,…) are under GPL.
> With The GPL, if I write a program release the source under the GPL can I then take that same code and then sell it as well?
Yes, you can. You can do what you whant with it. You are the copyright owner.
“However, when you’re talking about government funding of open-source projects, the GPL is no longer “fine.” If the government sponsors the development of software, *everyone* should be able to use it, and that includes corporations. By definition, almost all software companies cannot use GPLed software in their own products, and that’s why government funding of GPL software is wrong in Microsoft’s eyes.”
I think this argument is faulty. Microsoft can do anything with GPL code that you, I, or anyone else can do. There is nothing in the GPL restricting it to private or non-commercial use. Corporations are not singled out in any special way. They just are required to follow the same rules as everyone else.
I think MS doesn’t like the GPL because it is weighted so heavily toward freedom for the user, rather than freedom for the developer. Sure, it isn’t in Microsoft’s business interest for the government to fund free software, but the government is supposed to consider everyone’s interests, and the benefit of all may warrant doing things that don’t happen to be financially advantageous for Microsoft.
It’s really quite simple:
GPL – “Free” in the sense that people in socialist/communist countries are “free”. (i.e. “Free is what we tell you is free”)
BSD – Free as in Liberty (i.e. “You decide what is free”)
I actually did some research on this, and posted the result on my own site at http://www.platypus.ro/content/entry.php?2001/September/04c. The short version is that if you want to put something in the public domain you cannot attach *any* conditions to its use. The copyright FAQ at EFF and other sources are very clear on this. Interestingly, a lawyer might even consider a disclaimer of warranty to be a condition of use that would prevent it from being public domain; there’s apparently no clear-cut precedent to say. More worrying, perhaps, is that there’s nothing to prevent someone else from stripping the disclaimer from code that they redistribute, and yet you as author could still end up being accountable. Yes, I know it’s ridiculous. Much of what’s in the law, and in particular copyright law, is ridiculous, but that’s a whole different topic.
To avoid liability, therefore, you’re better off not putting something in the public domain. Instead, release it under a license that attaches no conditions *except* for maintenance of the disclaimer. The Cryptix or Eiffel licenses are good examples of this class of license. Remember, too, that you’re always free to license the same code under different terms if you want.
The GPL is “socialist” only in that it enforces the canonically socialist “the workers own the means of production” (you know, like those radical employee-owned companies?) by limiting the rights of others to use what’s produced: you may improve the product, but you must make those improvements available in the same way the product was made available to you. You don’t have the right to impose new restrictions.
A restrictive license isn’t anti-competitive. The GPL is much *less* restrictive than commercial licenses, which give you no right to do anything but use the software. I don’t see all of the people screaming “the GPL is not free” bitching about that. Why not? Do they think Richard Stallman invented the idea of preventing competitors from using your code for their own profit? Adobe won’t let me use their Illustrator code to make a competing product! Why, those damn communists!
Look, if you’re a programmer, you have the freedom to choose the license you want to use. If you’re a user, you have the freedom to choose what kinds of licenses you want to use, too–at least to the degree you always could. If you want to use a piece of software that has an “open” license you’re philosophically opposed to, tough patooskies, kiddo–your choice is no more or no less restricted than it was with closed licenses: Use it or don’t. If you never need or want access to the source, the GPL doesn’t affect your freedom as a user either way.
And last but not least, if you want to use someone else’s code in your work, well, the license they’ve chosen determines how easy it is for you to do that. Just like it always has! If you want to use GPL code without releasing it, you can talk to the author and try to negotiate a license, and if you can’t get one, guess what? It’s his choice! He’s not required to let you do that any more than Adobe is required to sell you (much less *give* you) the rights to use their work!
Pardon my cynicism, but unless you’re prepared to knock all proprietary software licenses as communist–they impose much harsher restrictions on reuse of code than the GPL does, after all–give it up, guys. The GPL only denies you the “freedom” to use someone else’s freely-given code without accountability, and for God’s sake, it was their choice to put that restriction on their own code to start with.
GPL, by it’s design, does not restrict people in any way other than to restrict their ability to restrict access to others. That’s it! Corporate distaste is due to their need to close-off source in some misguided thought that will give them a competitive advantage.
“They just are required to follow the same rules as everyone else.”
Exactly, and those rules are such that the code is worthless to software companies who don’t want to open-source their products. Therefore, the government should not be sponsoring code based on those rules. It’s an arbitrary restriction on the use of the code, and it just so happens that it only affects one group. That the rules apply equally to everyone is irrelevant when the rules are unfair.
The question is why it should be required that when the government pays for the development of code that I give away everything I make based on it for free. Do I somehow owe the government which paid to create it with my tax dollars? If I as a developer want to put the GPL on my code, fine. But no one has yet to give a good reason why the government should demand it.
“and the benefit of all may warrant doing things that don’t happen to be financially advantageous for Microsoft”
First of all, you can’t say “the benefit of all.” At best, it’s the “benefit of most,” (which it isn’t, but I’ll discuss that later) as most software companies are automatically disqualified. Any time the government funds anything, it’s a forced contract. You have to pay for the product and have no say in its quality. This is why government projects are almost always less efficient than private industry–the accountability simply does not exist. So when the government funds software that competes with private industry, you’re darn right that industry is going to be upset. Why would a person buy my products if they can get the open-source version for “free” (of course, by that point, he/she has already paid for the open-source version through taxes, but most people don’t think about that). So now it’s either take the open-source version which he/she has paid for or pay even more to buy a private product. Then, add on the slapping of a restrictive, arbitrary license on that code that everyone, including software companies, paid to develop. I would say that software companies have a very reasonable complaint.
Forget for a moment whether or not GPL’d projects should receive public funding. Can someone tell me what GPL’d projects have (or are being considered for) public funding? Is this really an issue? I’ve always thought this argument was a canard. Useful to Microsoft, in their effort to discredit free software, but incredibly misleading.
I still don’t think it follows that there is something intrinsically wrong about the government funding projects that wind up getting released under the GPL. The only way that this discriminates against private software companies is that it gives them extremely low-cost competition. The argument that GPL code is useless to corporations but useful to everyone else (and therefore that the GPL is discriminatory) doesn’t hold water – “useful” depends on the use to which one wants to put something. There is nothing to stop Microsoft from setting up Linux boxes, web servers, etc and getting as much utility out of the free software as anyone else.
I would definitely agree that commercial software companies have a very valid political case in lobbying against government actions that might harm them. My point about the “benefit of all” doesn’t literally imply that every single person will necessarily benefit from free software (or any other government decision, for that matter), just that the government has to weight competing interests, and that the government routinely uses tax dollars on projects that not everyone agrees with, and that may be counter to the interests of some taxpayers.
fwiw, the BSD-type licenses fit more closely with my personal views.
I personally don’t care if some company takes my code and incorporates it into some closed-source products of theirs. After all, I just want better, easier computing. I think, it’s a great thing for a company to just take some open source code (instead of having to reinvent the wheel again) *without* being forced to release their code as open source also.
For example, I’m sure for Microsoft incorporating parts of the BSD network stack into Windows decreased their development time and did not sacrifice quality. And as an *end user* that’s all I want, and I have no desire to look onto the source of that network stack because it *just* works. It’s reliable and easy to configure, a goal that the GPL-world with their thousands of developers and $ billions of funding/sponsoring still could not achieve.
Another example is PartitionMagic and it’s ext2 resizing code. It is written by the ext2 developer himself and he kindly licensed this code to PowerQuest under a different license than GPL. Would there be an ext2 partition resizing program of the same ease of use and quality out when PQ had to release PartitionMagic as GPL as well? I don’t think so, because for one mose people would just download (it’s “free”) instead of buying it, and for another there would most probably exist a couple half-assed forks (PartitionWizard, SuperPartitioner, you name it).
If a developer wants to release a piece of work under the GPL, then he/she is giving their work to an entity I will call the GPL Community. This community is mode up of any persons or companies who is willing to follow the terms of the GPL license. What difference is there between this and a company licencing a piece of software under a different license? The licensee is still required to follow the terms of the license. The difference is anyone who wants to can accept the licence terms of the GPL and use, modify, sell, or do whatever else they want to, provided they follow the terms of the license. Nobody within the GPL Community needs prior permission from the copyright holder to do this with GPL’ed software. If they want to use the software for purposes other than those permitted by the GPL, they should seek different licensing terms from the copyright holder.
This applies to original work released under the GPL. Now if others within the GPL Community have taken a piece of software and modified, extended, incorporated it according to the GPL terms, then there now exists a piece of software with multiple copyright holders. If a company wanted an alternate licence to such a piece of software, there is a problem in that all copyright holders need to be identified and contacted to negotiate alternate terms. A piece of software that has many contributors can become unclear as to who holds the copyright to what. This would essentially ensure that this modified piece of solfware remain solely the property of the GPL Community.
The GPL Community is open for anyone to join. No person or company is forced to follow or barred from this community. The decission is only theirs to make.
“The argument that GPL code is useless to corporations but useful to everyone else (and therefore that the GPL is discriminatory) doesn’t hold water … There is nothing to stop Microsoft from setting up Linux boxes, web servers, etc and getting as much utility out of the free software as anyone else.”
Yes, Microsoft can “use” the existing open-source products, but they cannot build on them. It’s a difficult analogy to make, but let’s say the government funds some math research, and the researchers discover some theorem. Is it right for the government to say, “Hey IBM! This theorem might be useful to you, and you can use it freely. However, if you discover or prove anything else based on this theorem, you have to tell us about it”?
The GPL is a restriction on the use of software. What, then, is the rationale for allowing the government to place this restriction on software it funds? Your argument deals with who gets hurt by it–Microsoft can still run Linux boxes, etc.–but you haven’t justified why the restriction should be allowed in the first place. Many people in the open-source community have countered arguments against the restriction (poorly, IMO), but I have yet to see a compelling reason on why the restriction should be allowed. Usually, it boils down to, “I like Linux and not Microsoft. This helps Linux. Thus, it’s ok” or, more generally, “I like open-source and not closed-source. This helps open-source. Thus, it’s ok.”
Does anyone have a compelling reason why the government should put a restriction on the software it funds?
“Can someone tell me what GPL’d projects have (or are being considered for) public funding?”
I have no details, but any software that was worked on from a university receiving public funding would certainly qualify, for example.
Just so people don’t misinterpret my last statement, obviously not everything written by students or professors at a publicly-funded university would qualify; it would only qualify in cases where the university itself owns the rights to the intellectual property.
>Eugenia, I am not certain that your statement about being able to sue a person who has released software to the Public Domain is valid, however, most projects released to the Public Domain will include a clause akin to this:
Brian, as I wrote in the article, ‘Public Domain’ is not just a license that you can add your warranties etc. ‘Public Domain’, as a word, holds a a legal entity. And it means exactly that: not copyrighted. If you can’t copyright it, you can’t add your warranty on it. No matter if you stick your warranty paragraph, it may not be valid. So, when something is not copyrighted, it falls under the *DEFAULT LAW*. And the default law says that when you release something that has bugs, or does damage somewhere, the state can sue you back. No matter if you have had that warranty there.
This is why BSD is a better license than Public Domain. Not for any other reason, but just because it can protect you from the default law. Public Domain cannot. Even if it is a liberal license, it cannot protect you from being sued.
At this point I am not explaining which license is more liberal. I am not getting into flamewars about which license is more open than others. But I do make my case regarding *the danger* of being sued when releasing something under ‘Public Domain’, even if you have sticked a warranty there. Because that warranty is not valid in some states when something is under the legality of ‘Public Domain’. I hope you understand what I mean.
>>”The GPL is a restriction on the use of software. What, then, is the rationale for allowing the government to place this restriction on software it funds? ”
Wtf are you talking about? Corporations can use GPL software. Corporations can develop GPL software as long as they release the code back. They will follow the same rules as everyone else does concerning GPL software. Perhaps that is the problem for you, if provisions were made in the GPL so that it was biased in favor of people possessing large sums of capital the corporations would you like it? This is much less of a restriction than the properitary stuff most governments use.
Should the government fund BSD license projects, so that corporations can have more corporate welfare. So they can take government funded code make minor changes and sell it, as a new product, without releasing the changes back?
“Does anyone have a compelling reason why the government should put a restriction on the software it funds?”
It already does.
The Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) have paragraphs/clauses referenced in contracts that limit (i.e., put restrictions on) software, whether these be in the form of “Restricted Data Rights,” that is, the author retains the intellectual property rights; or, the author has surrendered them using one of the other related clauses or some other paragraph in the contract.
It follows that if a author has retained the intellectual property rights to developed software, then that developer has the LIBERTY to enter into another two-party agreement with the GPL community. All kinds of contract law and clauses start to muddy this water, but the point is, if the author’s contract with the government has allowed the author to keep the rights to the software, then who is any person to prevent that person from doing what they wish with their software. Person here means individual or C-Corporation–for example, Microsoft.
Even if this author never provides the software under the GPL, a company can’t just come along and take the software because the author’s intellectual property rights would be violated.
Phew! Back to lurk mode and to easy stuff like software
I think the GPL is an excellent license, since it allows people to share software without feeling that some company will get rich off of their efforts without giving anything back. In fact, I have GPL’d more than one of my own software projects.
My main problem with the GPL is that, for a while, the GPL license was not Python-compatible for what were, from my vantage point, trivial reasons. I wanted to have it be possible for the Python community to interoperate with my software (if they wanted to) without having to worry about the license my software had.
Theirfore, I released my software to the public domain.
Alan Cox felt that the problem with a Public Domain license is that it does not protect one from liability lawsuits as well as GPL or BSD/MIT licensed software does. As a result, I have added a legal disclaimer, which I have made promininently visible while compiling the program, in all of the man pages for the program, and when the program starts (the user can elect to not see the license).
– Sam
“The GPL is a restriction on the use of software. What, then, is the rationale for allowing the government to place this restriction on software it funds? Your argument deals with who gets hurt by it–Microsoft can still run Linux boxes, etc.–but you haven’t justified why the restriction should be allowed in the first place.”
1. The GPL is an enormously less restrictive than anything MS has ever licensed. The GPL may not grant others *everything*, but compared to any commercial license it is exceedingly nonrestrictive.
2. I don’t see why it takes a lot of debate to see why “the restriction should be allowed in the first place”. For starters, I would hope that the government would respect the wishes of the authors of the software in question, and not mandate a particular license model. I don’t think that there is a federal rule requiring the GPL — I think the people writing the software want it to be licensed that way. And I don’t think that there is a clear case to claim that they are wrong, and that the government should step in as the employer and proclaim a different policy – from a public benefit standpoint, the GPL is very reasonable, and the government should take that into consideration.
Anyway, I think that in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, programmers should be allowed to release software under the GPL (or any other license of their choosing), even if they are funded by the federal government. At the very least, the government should produce some sort of policy on software licensing.
“Corporations can develop GPL software as long as they release the code back.”
Exactly. That is precisely the restriction to which I was referring, which you did not justify.
“They will follow the same rules as everyone else does concerning GPL software.”
Yes, but how is this relevant when the question is whether those rules are wrong in the first place?
“Perhaps that is the problem for you, if provisions were made in the GPL so that it was biased in favor of people possessing large sums of capital the corporations would you like it?”
Precisely my complaint with the GPL is that it is biased against anyone. The GPL is biased against closed-source software companies. That is why government-funded software should not be GPLed.
“This is much less of a restriction than the properitary stuff most governments use.”
But it’s still a restriction that you haven’t justified. Being less of a restriction certainly doesn’t make it valid.
“Should the government fund BSD license projects, so that corporations can have more corporate welfare. So they can take government funded code make minor changes and sell it, as a new product, without releasing the changes back?”
Yes, that’s exactly what the government should fund (if they fund anything, which I’m not saying I support). Software that *anyone* can use without restriction. And, yes, “anyone” includes closed-source software companies (who aren’t always big corporations, by the way). Should I not be able to patent an invention I made because I used the laws of physics when creating it?
>”Does anyone have a compelling reason why the government should put a >restriction on the software it funds?”
“It already does.”
The information you provided is interesting, so thank you, but it doesn’t answer the question (nor even address it).
“1. The GPL is an enormously less restrictive than anything MS has ever licensed. The GPL may not grant others *everything*, but compared to any commercial license it is exceedingly nonrestrictive.”
Yes, but it is still restrictive. That petty theft is less of a crime than murder doesn’t make it ok. You still have to justify allowing the restriction.
“For starters, I would hope that the government would respect the wishes of the authors of the software in question”
When authors accept funding, their wishes for the license become irrelevant. Clearly, the government can (and should) say “we will only fund projects which are released on a BSD license model” and if the author agrees to the contract and takes the money, who cares what his/her opinions are?
(Note that here I’m not saying *all* government-funded software should use the BSD model, but that all software funded by the government for research purposes should be. That is, if the government is paying someone to develop software for an internal system, such as the CIA, it obviously should not be BSDed. But all software funded “for the general good of the public” should be, such as that created at public universities and research institutions. I think everyone has understood the shorthand I’ve been using, but just to make sure…)
“I don’t think that there is a federal rule requiring the GPL”
There isn’t, and shouldn’t be. There should be one requiring a BSD-like license, though.
“I think the people writing the software want it to be licensed that way.”
Again, once they accept government money, what they want regarding licensing becomes irrelevant.
“from a public benefit standpoint, the GPL is very reasonable, and the government should take that into consideration.”
It’s only reasonable if you don’t consider closed-source software companies to be part of the public. I think some people here see it as a fight between the common man and these big, evil software corporations.
You could just as soon say that we shouldn’t build public roads going to closed-source software companies, but we should build them going to everywhere else. That would benefit everyone but the closed-source companies, who could use the roads to get to the library and the grocery store, etc. “just like everyone else.” You’re saying it’s reasonable because it only hurts a select group of people, and I’m saying it’s not reasonable precisely because it unnecessarily hurts them.
“programmers should be allowed to release software under the GPL … even if they are funded by the federal government.”
Obviously, programmers can and should be able to release software under the GPL if they so desire. I’m not saying the GPL should be illegal or anything like that; I’m saying nothing even close to that. But if the programmer accepts federal funding, he has sold part of his ownership and no longer has complete control over the code and its licensing (obviously, the specific details depend on the contract between the programmer and the government).
I can’t see this issue as being too difficult. If I work at Adobe authoring Photoshop, I can’t just decide to release Photoshop’s source because those are my [the author’s] wishes. Similarly, the government should say that they will not fund any non-BSDish (they obviously would write up their own license) software projects for “the good of the general public” purposes.
“At the very least, the government should produce some sort of policy on software licensing.”
Exactly. It should be “we will not fund non-BSDed software for ‘the good of the general public’ purposes.”
The point is that there is not currently a public policy that states that “BSD is public interest, GPL isn’t” (or the contrary). Until such a policy arises, programmers receiving federal dollars can do what they think is most fair.
Sure, if there was a ground rule that publically-funded software should be released under a BSD-like license, then I would agree that programmers should follow the rule. To say that “When authors accept funding, their wishes for the license become irrelevant” is only fair if there is a known policy for licensing when the funding is accepted. If the terms of licensing are “part of the bargain”, how can the bargain be fair if licensing is undefined? Under present conditions, it seems that licensing is undefined.
Anyway, what got me onto this thread was the contention by Microsoft a few months ago that it is intrinsically wrong for the the government to support GPL projects because GPL code is usable by everyone except commercial software companies, and hence the support of such by the federal government is unfair. I find that argument to be untenable. The use of GPL code may be restricted by the GPL, but its restrictions affect everyone equally, and in any case its restrictions reflect the wishes of the authors of the software. If the government doesn’t want software funded by the public to be released under such terms, the policy needs to be put in place, and in any event prior works are not bound by subsequent policies. Certainly, a blanket statement “GPL by the government is bad” is only an opinion.
“The point is that there is not currently a public policy that states that ‘BSD is public interest, GPL isn’t'”
My point is that there should be. And that is essentially Microsoft’s complaint, too.
“Anyway, what got me onto this thread was the contention by Microsoft a few months ago that it is intrinsically wrong for the the government to support GPL projects because GPL code is usable by everyone except commercial software companies”
And I’m saying I agree with Microsoft. Closed-source software companies can use the code in their personal servers and whanot (i.e. running Linux boxes, writing code using emacs, etc.) but they cannot use the code in their products.
“The use of GPL code may be restricted by the GPL, but its restrictions affect everyone equally”
How can you say that the restrictions affect everyone equally? Sure, everyone is “equal” in that they are obligated to legally follow the GPL, but it calls for an action that closed-source software companies simply cannot do (releasing the code). Therefore, how on earth can you claim that it affects everyone equally? Being subject to the same rules does not mean that the rules affect you in the same way.
“If the government doesn’t want software funded by the public to be released under such terms, the policy needs to be put in place, and in any event prior works are not bound by subsequent policies.”
Granted, but this is all besides the point. Microsoft is claiming that the government should no longer fund GPL software. I’m also claiming that. You have yet to refute this claim, and quite frankly, while your points here are correct, they are irrelevant to the larger issue. It’s been multiple posts since I asked you to state why the government should be allowed to fund GPLed software and even though you have written paragraphs, you have declined to answer. You keep avoiding the point. Saying “the system isn’t currently in place” is true, but it’s completely irrelevant.
“Certainly, a blanket statement ‘GPL by the government is bad’ is only an opinion.”
Nothing you have written thus far supports this statement in the slightest. Not everything in the world is an opinion; there are absolute rights and absolute wrongs (if you’d like a formal refutation of the theory of Relativism, I’d be happy to point you to the right places). I have provided several reasons why the government should not be funding GPLed software, and have called on the people here to refute my points. Thus far, people have merely evaded the question.
yeah, flames, the LGPL would be better, as it
a) keep the code ‘free’
b) alow private companys (inc MS) to link to, and :. make us of, the fuctionality of the public funded work.
It seems that if the government (which in this case largely means universities receiving public funding) is going to release free software “for the public good”, then there are two main licensing models currently in operation, the GPL and BSD. I think it comes down to whether the government wants to subsidize programmers or user.
The argument for BSD licensing is that developers can do whatever they want with the code, including incorporating it into proprietary products. This, of course, might be useful to software companies and hence Microsoft and others would prefer this. The end consumer, of course, may then have to pay Microsoft ffor government-written code that is now incorporated into Windows or some other product. The net effect is a government subsidy for software development, which of course may be a perfectly reasonable thing for our government to do.
If the government pays for GPL development, the aim is different – it is to subsidize the creation of software that is free for users. Obviously, this serves the interests of users but not those who wish to sell them software. Software companies won’t like it, but that doesn’t mean it should be prohibited.
In summary, I think it comes down to a decision between a user-centric free license (GPL) and license that fits more with the interests of programmers (BSD). I don’t see anything intrinsically wrong with subsidizing users rather than developers or vice versa.
I found your recent post to be an interesting way of looking at the situation, but I think your premises and thus conclusions are incorrect.
The primary mistake I think you’re making is with your distinction between “subsidizing” programmers and “subsidizing” users. You say that with the GPL, the aim is “to subsidize the creation of software that is free for users.” However, this is also true with BSDed software. In both cases, the government-funded software is equally free for users. With the BSD, what are not necessarily free are any extensions to that software that individuals or companies make to the software.
I really don’t like the phrase “subsidy for software development” (which, in context, implies a government subsidy for commercial software development) when talking about the BSD because the government isn’t paying just, say, Microsoft to create software for the public good. They are funding general knowledge, which is open to everyone, not just commercial software companies. I think that with your reasoning, public education, for example, would be considered a subsidy to industry (the government funds people to have certain abilities, and then private companies sell what is built on those abilities), which I don’t think can reasonably be considered the case. Your post makes it seem that with a BSD license, the only people who can use the code are commercial software companies, which is most adamantly not the case.
Clearly, the BSD license fits the interests of programmers more than the GPL does, as you stated. However, contrary to what you stated, it serves the interests of the users just as well as the GPL does–when considering the software that the government paid to develop. Clearly, it seems in the benefit of users (at least, in the short term) to require that companies give them everything for free, but that is a different point and is not directly addressed by your argument.
So while I find your reasoning intriguing, I also find it to be misguided, as your conclusions are based on what I consider to be incorrect premises.
(Note that here I’m not arguing that the government *should* fund “general good” software. I’m just arguing that if they do, it should be with a BSD-ish license.)
Both of you have valid points. I’m gonna have to side with the GPL here, though. Although, in the short term, it’s true that the government subsidizing BSDed software is good for both the user and the developer, the BSD license allows developers to take that code, extend it and close it. That is really the only issue.
Some developers like having that ability, but they are NOT entitled to it. When my tax money is being used to hire a corporation to code for hire, I don’t think it is unreasonable for the government, as my representative, to dictate the license that code will have. I know if I hired someone to write code for me, I would expect to hold the copyright and dictate the licensing terms. There really is no difference here whether the govt hires someone to write the code or if they write it internally. They make the rules, period.
So, the real issue and argument is whether it is morally “right” for the public to pay for the creation of software under either or both of these licenses. The worst case scenarion, in my opinion, would be for the government to fund the creation of software whose copyright is then granted to the company, allowing them to close the source. That option is basically government sanctioned theft from the public. The GPL puts that publicly funded code in a trust for the public. It creates the restriction that those who use it must give their modifications and improvements back to the public trust from which they obtained the code. It’s a two-way street, you can’t have it, unless you are willing to give something away. BSD on the other hand allows profit seeking individuals/corps to take from the public without giving back. And, as they modify and release that newly closed source, they are working toward making the original code obsolete and therefore useless to the public.
Your whole premise that profit seeking ventures are entitled to the work of others for free is the flaw. If you want to own your source, write your source. If you do work for hire, don’t expect to have any say about what happens to your work.
In conclusion, I think both you and Microsoft are whining. You have no “rights” in this scenario. What you want is to have your cake and eat it too.
No, Microsoft doesn’t have a strong case. The government “funds” along the following:
1) They have an employee, paid by Gov, to make stuff for the Gov. What Gov does with the newly made stuff is up to the Gov. They may choose to tell one and all to bugger off (particle beam weapons research in Alaska). Or, they may choose to let us regular folks in on the deal (DARPANet>ARPANet>Internet).
2) Gov gives money to someone, not a direct employee, to make something. I don’t know if you’ve ever done any Gov funded research. Gov stipulates not only how the money it to be used, but ownership of the results. Don’t like the conditions? Don’t take the money.
Gov may want to keep the results for themselves. The work producer, in this case is what we call a contractor.
Or, Gov decides they want a copy of the results to use for their own ends, and the work producer can do with it as they choose. This is how most grant money goes out. In the case of product that winds up with a copyright or patent, sometimes Gov wants a cut, sometimes they don’t.
3) Gov simply hands out cash to help with general operations, and doesn’t do much oversight because they simply don’t care.
Your list of Gov funded projects is simply the link to state university research? See options 2 and 3 listed above. You want a justification/reason for the way governments do “business?” I would suggest reading Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” for a *very* meta- overview.
If you want to get a bit more recent, try E.P. Thompson’s “The Making of the English Working Class.” Or if you want a very narrow take, research the Luddite “rebellion.” Kirkpatrick Sale’s “Rebels Against the Future” is a great place to start, which sets you up for the Chartists a generation later. To wit, Thompson touches on both of them.
Or you could simply look at the history of labor in this conutry during the first half of the 20th century. You’re obviously smart enough to hang around this board, so I think you can connect the damn dots. Whether you want to or not is another matter entirely.
I quote you in your response to David Bruce:
“[GPL] rules are such that the code is worthless to software companies who don’t want to open-source their products. Therefore, the government should not be sponsoring code based on those rules. It’s an arbitrary restriction on the use of the code, and it just so happens that it only affects one group. That the rules apply equally to everyone is irrelevant when the rules are unfair.”
Again, the answer is no. GPL is not an arbitrary restriction. GPL is designed to restrict use along one axis, and one axis only: The generation of capital. If you want to tow the Randian Economics line, that’s fine. Just expect to get called on it 24/365. You want to equate the general freedom of general use with the specific freedom of generating capital. They are not the same. Whether out of convenience or genuine ignorance, you continue to ignore the obvious intent and use of GPL.
OK, David Bruce can’t say “the benefit of all.” I simply chalked his statement up to some sort of Paine-like bit of rhetoric. So, I’ll say this here: GPL is for the benefit of most. Specifically, the most being talked about are not actively engaged in generating capital. Generators of capital are the exception, not the rule.
A company isn’t prohibited from using GPLWare. They can use it in their daily operations (A developer runs a Linux Workstation). That company can use GPLCode in a product they want to take to market. That’s fine. They can even charge money for the new product. They just have to GPL the new product.
Now to spike the coming “how can they stay in business if they have to give their products away for free?” argument. That’s about as weak as your university funding argument. For-Profit-Companies charge money (in part) to cover their costs of development. In short, that’s the cost of doing business in a *truly* capitalist system.
Speaking of weak arguments, your “they’re spending my tax dollars” riff is tired. First, taxes are the cost citizenship. That’s how governments work. Don’t like the taxes? Move somewhere that has a taxation scheme you like. That, Mr. Gault, is Randian Economics in action.
Second, it is a *portion* of your tax dollars that are being spent (aparently) in a fasion you don’t like. With current events being what they are, sending hard coin through the mail might be a problem. So, e-mail me your postal mailing address, and I’ll send you a couple of unused postage stamps to help defray your living expenses. I know it’s a feable attempt to right the wrongs of our tyrannical Gov. However, I’m unemployed, and my pockets aren’t as deep as Gov’s, but I think I can swing it. If a couple of postage stamps will keep you from leaving the country, and help maintain the velocity of money in this country, I’ll do my patriotic duty.
I use the self-adhesive type (no licking required) postage, and I’ll try to
accomodate your design choice as best as possible.
You mention the lack of direct address to your initial argument. Now you have it. Unfortunately, I still don’t have an answer to my intial argument (It’s the fifth post on this thread. I’ll give you the short version here:
“The argument boils down to this:
1) For-profit-companies are upset they can’t maximize their profits through the use of code they wouldn’t have to pay for.
2) The desires of the for-profit-companies are to be valued over the rights of the individual coder.
If the coder want’s to keep their product out of the hands of for-profit-companies, but allow us regular folks to use it free of charge, that is the coder’s right. Just as it is the right of the for-profit-companies to hold a copyright on product they create, allowing no one to use the product without paying, and litigate anybody into the Bronze Age who violates that copyright.”
You’re right, there are absolute right and absolute wrongs. Well, what about it? Simply put, this is about an individuals right to control their output, whether they use GPL, BSDL, or the suggested MEL (that totally rocks), or copyright.
No, Microsoft doesn’t have a strong case. The government “funds” along the following:
1) They have an employee, paid by Gov, to make stuff for the Gov. What Gov does with the newly made stuff is up to the Gov. They may choose to tell one and all to bugger off (particle beam weapons research in Alaska). Or, they may choose to let us regular folks in on the deal (DARPANet>ARPANet>Internet).
2) Gov gives money to someone, not a direct employee, to make something. I don’t know if you’ve ever done any Gov funded research. Gov stipulates not only how the money it to be used, but ownership of the results. Don’t like the conditions? Don’t take the money.
Gov may want to keep the results for themselves. The work producer, in this case is what we call a contractor.
Or, Gov decides they want a copy of the results to use for their own ends, and the work producer can do with it as they choose. This is how most grant money goes out. In the case of product that winds up with a copyright or patent, sometimes Gov wants a cut, sometimes they don’t.
3) Gov simply hands out cash to help with general operations, and doesn’t do much oversight because they simply don’t care.
Your list of Gov funded projects is simply the link to state university research? See options 2 and 3 listed above. You want a justification/reason for the way governments do “business?” I would suggest reading Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs, and Steel” for a *very* meta- overview.
If you want to get a bit more recent, try E.P. Thompson’s “The Making of the English Working Class.” Or if you want a very narrow take, research the Luddite “rebellion.” Kirkpatrick Sale’s “Rebels Against the Future” is a great place to start, which sets you up for the Chartists a generation later. To wit, Thompson touches on both of them.
Or you could simply look at the history of labor in this conutry during the first half of the 20th century. You’re obviously smart enough to hang around this board, so I think you can connect the damn dots. Whether you want to or not is another matter entirely.
I quote you in your response to David Bruce:
“[GPL] rules are such that the code is worthless to software companies who don’t want to open-source their products. Therefore, the government should not be sponsoring code based on those rules. It’s an arbitrary restriction on the use of the code, and it just so happens that it only affects one group. That the rules apply equally to everyone is irrelevant when the rules are unfair.”
Again, the answer is no. GPL is not an arbitrary restriction. GPL is designed to restrict use along one axis, and one axis only: The generation of capital. If you want to tow the Randian Economics line, that’s fine. Just expect to get called on it 24/365. You want to equate the general freedom of general use with the specific freedom of generating capital. They are not the same. Whether out of convenience or genuine ignorance, you continue to ignore the obvious intent and use of GPL.
OK, David Bruce can’t say “the benefit of all.” I simply chalked his statement up to some sort of Paine-like bit of rhetoric. So, I’ll say this here: GPL is for the benefit of most. Specifically, the most being talked about are not actively engaged in generating capital. Generators of capital are the exception, not the rule.
A company isn’t prohibited from using GPLWare. They can use it in their daily operations (A developer runs a Linux Workstation). That company can use GPLCode in a product they want to take to market. That’s fine. They can even charge money for the new product. They just have to GPL the new product.
Now to spike the coming “how can they stay in business if they have to give their products away for free?” argument. That’s about as weak as your university funding argument. For-Profit-Companies charge money (in part) to cover their costs of development. In short, that’s the cost of doing business in a *truly* capitalist system.
Speaking of weak arguments, your “they’re spending my tax dollars” riff is tired. First, taxes are the cost citizenship. That’s how governments work. Don’t like the taxes? Move somewhere that has a taxation scheme you like. That, Mr. Gault, is Randian Economics in action.
Second, it is a *portion* of your tax dollars that are being spent (aparently) in a fasion you don’t like. With current events being what they are, sending hard coin through the mail might be a problem. So, e-mail me your postal mailing address, and I’ll send you a couple of unused postage stamps to help defray your living expenses. I know it’s a feable attempt to right the wrongs of our tyrannical Gov. However, I’m unemployed, and my pockets aren’t as deep as Gov’s, but I think I can swing it. If a couple of postage stamps will keep you from leaving the country, and help maintain the velocity of money in this country, I’ll do my patriotic duty.
I use the self-adhesive type (no licking required) postage, and I’ll try to
accomodate your design choice as best as possible.
You mention the lack of direct address to your initial argument. Now you have it. Unfortunately, I still don’t have an answer to my intial argument (It’s the fifth post on this thread. I’ll give you the short version here:
“The argument boils down to this:
1) For-profit-companies are upset they can’t maximize their profits through the use of code they wouldn’t have to pay for.
2) The desires of the for-profit-companies are to be valued over the rights of the individual coder.
If the coder want’s to keep their product out of the hands of for-profit-companies, but allow us regular folks to use it free of charge, that is the coder’s right. Just as it is the right of the for-profit-companies to hold a copyright on product they create, allowing no one to use the product without paying, and litigate anybody into the Bronze Age who violates that copyright.”
You’re right, there are absolute right and absolute wrongs. Well, what about it? Simply put, this is about an individuals right to control their output, whether they use GPL, BSDL, or the suggested MEL (that totally rocks), or copyright.
sorry, everyone.
“the BSD license allows developers to take that code, extend it and close it”
Wrong. The only code that can be closed is the code the company wrote itself.
“Some developers like having that ability, but they are NOT entitled to it.”
You’re coming at the argument wrong. The question is whether or not the government has the right to take public funds and use them in a way which deliberately hurts one group for the benefit of another. Obviously, commerical software houses are not entitled to government-funded code, but neither is the public. The “entitlement” argument only serves to eliminate government funding altogether, or else imply that the government can be completely arbitrary with the rules it makes for what it funds (which is also not the case).
“I don’t think it is unreasonable for the government, as my representative, to dictate the license that code will have.”
It’s not unreasonable for them to dictate the license. They *should* dictate BSD. What’s unreasonable is allowing them to dictate an unfair license that for no valid reason excludes certain taxpayers, whom the government is representing in addition to you.
“They make the rules, period.”
Agreed. As citizens, it is our responsibility to ensure that those rules are fair. I’m saying that allowing GPL isn’t fair. Thus far, you have not contradicted my argument in the slightest.
“The worst case scenarion, in my opinion, would be for the government to fund the creation of software whose copyright is then granted to the company, allowing them to close the source.”
I repeat, a company cannot close the source to BSD code, as they by definition *do not* own the copyright. The code is open for everyone to use.
“That option is basically government sanctioned theft from the public.”
This statement relies on the false premise that the government-funded code would no longer be available to the public, which is clearly false. BSD code is always open for everyone.
“BSD on the other hand allows profit seeking individuals/corps to take from the public without giving back.”
First of all, they helped fund the code, so it’s not like they’re receiving something for free (at best, yours would be an argument against government funding of any “for the public good” software in general). Secondly, you haven’t argued why they should “give back.” Do I owe the police something when they catch the man who burglarized my home?
“And, as they modify and release that newly closed source, they are working toward making the original code obsolete and therefore useless to the public.”
The government paid to develop open code for the public to use, and the public is able to use that code freely. That it becomes obsolete is completely irrelevant. They received the code they paid for.
“Your whole premise that profit seeking ventures are entitled to the work of others for free is the flaw.”
That you think government funding is “free” is only one of many flaws in your argument.
“If you want to own your source, write your source.”
Exactly. This doesn’t help your argument, however.
“If you do work for hire, don’t expect to have any say about what happens to your work.”
Exactly, which is why the government should mandate BSD licenses for all “for the public good” government-funded software. Again, this doesn’t help your argument in the slightest.
“In conclusion, I think both you and Microsoft are whining.”
Seeing as you were unable to construct even a remotely intelligent argument (you got both the premises and the supporting arguments wrong; that’s quite a feat), your opinion that I am “whining” does not bother me one bit.
“What you want is to have your cake and eat it too.”
No, what I want is that when the government funds software “for the public good,” that the entire public can use it.
“Again, the answer is no. GPL is not an arbitrary restriction. GPL is designed to restrict use along one axis, and one axis only: The generation of capital.”
I didn’t mean to imply that the GPL is arbitrary. I’m saying the government’s sponsorship of it is arbitrary. As I stated, it restricts use to one specific group. The government deciding to hurt that group by funding GPLed software is therefore indefensible.
“If you want to tow the Randian Economics line”
I most certainly do; she by far has the best grasp of true economics. But that’s a completely different discussion.
“You want to equate the general freedom of general use with the specific freedom of generating capital. They are not the same.”
How are they different? How can you say that you have the freedom of general use if you can’t use that freedom to generate capital?
“Whether out of convenience or genuine ignorance, you continue to ignore the obvious intent and use of GPL.”
I fully understand the intent of the GPL, which is exactly why I believe the government should not be funding GPLed software. The GPL is a license to hurt one group that the proponents of it disagree with. I see the government funding GPL as really no different than them funding “streets for white people only” and the like.
“GPL is for the benefit of most. Specifically, the most being talked about are not actively engaged in generating capital. Generators of capital are the exception, not the rule.”
This does not help your argument. “Most” people might benefit if we make a law to take away all property owned by some minority ethnic group and divvy it up among everyone else; that doesn’t make it morally right.
“They can use it in their daily operations (A developer runs a Linux Workstation).”
Yes, I know, as I’ve mentioned this a bare minimum of twice in my various posts on this board.
“They can even charge money for the new product. They just have to GPL the new product.”
Exactly. They have to forfeit the rights to code they wrote themselves. Being placed with this decision is fine if some random guy writes something and GPLs it; the GPL itself is not wrong. But government funding of GPLed software discriminates against commercial software companies, who for obvious reasons usually cannot open-source their code. So public money (which includes the money of the software companies) is being used to create software that is at best worthless to them and at worst competing directly against them.
“That’s about as weak as your university funding argument.”
Seeing as you have yet to defeat even that one…
“For-Profit-Companies charge money (in part) to cover their costs of development. In short, that’s the cost of doing business in a *truly* capitalist system.”
Actually, for-profit companies charge money to provide property they own to people who are willing to pay for it. In the case of software, it is intellectual property. I don’t see where you’re going (or the relevance of) your “*truly* capitalist society” remark. Are you claiming that in a truly capitalist society, companies should be forced to charge only a certain amount for the property they wish to sell? I assume (and hope) not.
“Speaking of weak arguments”
Again, you have yet to defeat a single one of mine. So if mine are weak, yours are therefore _____?
“First, taxes are the cost citizenship.”
Yes, and governments exist to protect the rights of the citizens. Your statement implies that governments should be able to charge what they please and do what they please, which conventiently ignores that governments are created with a specific purpose. Clearly, taxes should not be collected past the necessary costs of performing the government’s stated functions (in the U.S.’s case, as written in the Constitution).
“Don’t like the taxes? Move somewhere that has a taxation scheme you like.”
Actually, I would prefer to stay in my country and vote, and also try to intelligently persuade my fellow citizens to agree with me and thus vote with me as well. You seem to be implying that the government can do what it wants, and if you don’t like it, tough. This is certainly not the case.
“That, Mr. Gault, is Randian Economics in action.”
Mr. Gault? Did I miss a reference?
“So, e-mail me your postal mailing address, and I’ll send you a couple of unused postage stamps to help defray your living expenses.”
Interesting argument. You’re saying that, “so what if you don’t like it. It doesn’t cost you much, anyway.” I suppose if the government started funding death camps for Jews we shouldn’t complain, either, as long as the costs are low? You’ve successfully confused principle and real-world consequence. Congratulations.
“Now you have it.”
Unfortunately, you also did not correctly address it. You did NOT justify government funding for the GPL. A tirade about how little it financially hurts me personally certainly didn’t help your case, either.
“Unfortunately, I still don’t have an answer to my intial argument”
I have addressed all of these points throughout my various posts on this thread. But I’ll do it again here.
“1) For-profit-companies are upset they can’t maximize their profits through the use of code they wouldn’t have to pay for.”
No, they’re upset that the government is funding (with their tax money, no less) code that is at best useless to them and at worst competes directly with them. This is not right of the government; the code should be useable by *all* people, which includes companies.
“2) The desires of the for-profit-companies are to be valued over the rights of the individual coder.”
Certainly not. Rights are everything. I’ll address this further in my response to your next statement.
“If the coder want’s to keep their product out of the hands of for-profit-companies, but allow us regular folks to use it free of charge, that is the coder’s right.”
Yes, it completely is. That’s why he can GPL it or do whatever with it. This ceases to be the case, however, when he sells the ownership of the government. I’m saying the government should require, before funding any “general good” software, that the code be BSDed. If the coder agrees to this contract, his desires for the code’s license become irrelevant.
“Simply put, this is about an individuals right to control their output”
No, it’s not. When you sell the ownership of your output (as you do when you make a contract with the government and receive its funding), you no longer rightfully control it.
This is my last post on this particular thread. You’ll continue to shift on the rebutal, and I have many fresh baked chocolate chip cookies to eat.
1) Gov’s “sponsorship” of GPL isn’t arbitrary: It’s non-existant. Traditional copyright is sponsored by Gov. That is one of the reasons why GPL exists.
2) You endorse the Randian Economic model, and you didn’t catch my mispelling of John Galt’s name? Back of the class (pun intended) for you.
3)Freedom of general use is a superset that includes the subset of use to generate capital. No, one does not equal the other.
4) Gov does not fund GPLWare. Gov does its business, as I stated (and you didn’t seem to have a problem with the way I outlined it). You want a justification for the way Gov does its thing. Anybody who’s smart won’t give you a justification, they will give you a reason. Here is the reason. Because of the way Gov *inherently* operates, things like GPL will exist. Because of the way Gov *inherently* operates, they won’t attempt to legislate something like GPL. Nor will Gov attempt to exert “undue influence” on something like GPL.
I’ve given you suggestions for reading. Since you haven’t said anything about them, I’ll assume you aren’t familiar with them. Which means you don’t understand the underpinnings of the relationship between Gov, citizenry, and responsibility. Your assertion as to what I meant (Gov should get to do what it wants) suggests this. So yes, your argument regarding the citizenry is weak. I’d suggest you go to the shallow end of the pool until you reconfigure your dive plan.
5) Besides an implied link to development at public universities, you offer no specifics on Gov funded GPLWare. Yes, I’d call that a weak argument. The best I can do to help you out is the following: The only thing I can think of in this environment that comes remotely close to your criteria for “bad” (being an unfair competitor in the marketplace, etc.) is BSD. However, BSD isn’t GPLWare, it’s BSDLWare (which you apparently don’t have a problem with).
6) In a truly capitalist society, there would be no Gov subsidy of commercial markets. The movers in commerce would be responsible for the creation of all its products from scratch, with the responsibility of generating the necessary seed capital the sole responsibility of the private sector.
In a truly capitalist society, market drives demand. That means no false advertising, no monopolies, no abuse of the law to further economic gain, no protectionist policies in place to artificially support demand and profits. Products compete based on value and price. Sorry to be lead man in the bummer tent, but the last time a market like that existed was prior to the Industrial Revolution.
But today, it’s not a truly capitalist market. Industry gets all kinds of hand out, and they far outstrip what the citizenry at large gets. You want a *genuine* level playing field? Fine. Capitalism as we know it is dead within 20 years.
So before you go on any more about how unfair you *think* GPL is, give me a list of Gov sponsored/funded GPL projects that have a quantifiable adverse affect on the market. Also list market segments in the US that are the sole creation of the private sector, with no knowldedge/tech/financial input what so ever from Gov. Then, give me a trend analysis of Real Income vs. Wages, indexed against the polarization of capital in this country. I already know the answers, but my hope is that you might learn something. If Lumpy’s Proletariate goes into syndication, The first remote feed is going to be from *your* house.
7) No, I do not think Gov should do as it pleases. We are beyond a “Big Man” society, and Gov has responsibilities in their part of the social contract. When they fail (enough) to carry out those responsibilities, the citizenry has a tendency to vote the offender out of office. If the failure is systemic, the citizenry tend to pick up hatchet, pike and gun, and do something about it.
Gov doesn’t need to entangle itself with GPL regulation (for lack of a better term). You indicate familiarity with the US Constitution. If you’re not familiar with other texts of the era, I would suggest following up with the writtings of Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Paine. And, the corresponding chapters from Thompson’s book, which I mentioned earlier.
8) My offer of postage was an attempt at remedy. I’m not saying it’s great, I’m saying it’s the best I can do. I’m also saying don’t try to run the lame “my taxes” argument. Whatever portions of your taxes wind up going to a project that gets GPL’d doesn’t total a buck, and is *way* low on the societal transgressions list.
However, I can’t resist being a Bastard here. So, I’ll play the “my taxes” game for a minute. The majority of tax dollars are from individuals, not corporations. Assuming (I don’t believe they do, and you haven’t provided anything to the contrary) that Gov contributes significant dollars to GPL projects, the question is which of the dollar contributors should we listen to?
Most of the dollars in question come from the citizenry at large, but the complaints seem to be coming from corporations (and you). In other words, your financial contribution is not statistically significant, and your opinion is in the minority. You lose. Thanks for playing Representitive Democracy, and we have some swell consolation gifts.
No one has been voted out of office or killed (that I’m aware of) over GPL issues, so I think I’m on the right track here. You can’t show me significant harm with the current system. So, yes, I’d say you have a weak argument.
9) Trotting out some sort of Holocaust analogy is usually a sign of stress. First, if you want to go thatroute, use Stalin next time. He had a longer run and a higher body count. Stalin is a better corpse to whip, because he wasn’t showing obvious indicators of tertiary Syphilis like Hitler.
Also, I’d recommend that only professionals try to run the Holocaust gambit on somebody who minored in Propaganda. Yes, the hoocaust happened. Yes, millions of Jews died. What I’m speaking of are your word bending skills. They need much improvement.
That said, your Holocaust anaology is at best, offensive. Worst, it’s not even relevant to the discussion.
I’m not the one trying to blur the line between “principle and real-world consequence.” The real-world consequence of no GPL is Microsoft. There’s your real-world consequence (monopoly) of a lack of (moral) principle.
10) But, you insist the desires of corporations (profits) are not to be placed above the rights of the individual coder. By an individual coder, I am not talking about an employee of (let’s say) Microsoft.
An employee of Microsoft is there to create stuff for Microsoft. Unless otherwise negotiated, the employee has zero claim on their output for Microsoft. The employee is an instrument of the company. I think we agree here.
What I’ve been talking about all along is the Individual Coder. They rightfully control their product because they haven’t sold it. They can GPL, BSDL, MEL, or Copyright their product.
If you argue the Individual Coder was able to create that product only because Gov provided some sort of funding, I refer you back to number 6. Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways.
11) In closing, you want a capitalist model when it suits you. Except when you want a protectionist model. Your interest is in corporate welfare, in the strict sense of the term. Worse, you want to be able to dictate what the citizenry at large is allowed to call their own, and you want to be able to plunder their output at will.
Sounds like Evil to me.
Sorry bkakes, but I won’t drink the Kool-Aid. At best, I will agree to disagree.
Cheers,
“Sorry to be lead man in the bummer tent, but the last time a market like that existed was prior to the Industrial Revolution”
How is this even the slightest bit relevant?
“Trotting out some sort of Holocaust analogy is usually a sign of stress”
That you couldn’t point out where it was wrong demonstrates something very important about how valid it is (not to mention that I didn’t troll out the Holocaust in its entirety; I merely asked if I shouldn’t complain if the government to set up death camps for Jews since it doesn’t cost me too much).
“That said, your Holocaust anaology is at best, offensive. Worst, it’s not even relevant to the discussion.”
You haven’t pointed out any problems with it. My point is simply that saying “it doesn’t matter what the government does with tax money, because it costs you little” is poor justification for anything. I find it ironic to hear you speak of relevance, for half of your post deals with how our country isn’t truly capitalist any more. It sounds like you’re a lot more interested in exposing your social beliefs than stick to the discussion at hand.
“Most of the dollars in question come from the citizenry at large, but the complaints seem to be coming from corporations”
Of course this is the case. The GPL doesn’t hurt the citizens at large. It does hurt closed-source software companies. You expect to hear the KKK complaining when the government passes an anti-black law? People don’t complain as long as they and those they wish to protect aren’t the ones getting hurt. They’re more than happy to let the rights of those they don’t like get trampled.
“you don’t understand the underpinnings of the relationship between Gov, citizenry, and responsibility”
That is certainly one possibility. Or, more likely, I don’t agree with your views regarding their relationship. But it does sound like overall, you’re better read than I; this, however, of course does not make your argument more valid.
“In a truly capitalist society, there would be no Gov subsidy of commercial markets”
I agree with this statement. You’ll also notice that never once did I claim the government should fund “public good” code; in fact, I was very careful to state that I was *not* making any such claim multiple times.
“If you argue the Individual Coder was able to create that product only because Gov provided some sort of funding, I refer you back to number 6. Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways.”
To create products, individuals need funding. It is possible that this funding will come from the government. I’m not saying it *should*, but with our current government, it might. I never claimed that we lived in a truly capitalist society that is free from government subsidies; this is obviously not the case. So how do I want it “both ways”?
“They rightfully control their product because they haven’t sold it”
If they accept government funding, yes, they have sold it.
“In closing, you want a capitalist model when it suits you”
I can’t see where you got this idea from. All I claimed is that *if* the government is to fund “public good” software, which I’m not saying they should, it should be BSDed. You’re putting words in my mouth so you have something you think you can defeat. I’m not arguing for or against any model of society here (that I said I tend to like Rand’s beliefs was an aside, not the argument as hand). Again, you could delete 90% of your post if you’d just stick to the topic at hand.
“Sounds like Evil to me.”
Sounds like putting words in my mouth and twisting what I’m saying completely without ever addressing my points to me.
Why don’t I talk about why you should be reading Kant, Grice, Strawson, and Searle? Until you fully understand the philosophy of language….. That would just as irrelevant as much of what you said. Your argument amounts to almost nothing beyond the surface.