support requirement

[VAB]

Dj wrote:
> 
> VAB wrote:
> 
> > A fact rarely mentioned on the list is that release under a
> > license other than the GPL brings with it the danger that
> > the software product will be reimplemented under the GPL.
> > This is likely if Vendor X releases under a license which
> > is unattractive due to say, required support terms.
> 
> That reads more like carefully couched GPL blackmail.
> 
> "Release under GPL or we'll copy your product make it GPL ourselves".

I have no intent to blackmail anyone. Please don't take this
as a threat to reimplement the software if they don't release
under the GPL.  It was my intent to express that I didn't feel
the license being proposed was "free" enough.  I was expressing
my believe that upon being presented with such a license (one
which did not guarantee freedoms in the same way as the GPL)
the community would write their own free software to perform
what ever tasks they would have needed Vendor X's application
for.

I think of my self as part of the Free Software Community.  I
think of that community as consisting of the developers and users 
of free software and of the codebase of free software (most of
which happens to be under the GPL.) I don't think of myself
as part of the opensource community.  Many opensource licenses
don't meet the qualifications of my definition of free software.
I therefor avoid those licenses and source code licensed under
those license. I avoid that code because even though it may fit
the definition of opensource, it's not really free software - it's
not part of the community.

In a perfect world I would get to work with all free software.
I don't want to work with code unless it's free. If I need code
and the only code out there is available under Vendor X's 
license and I have the time and ability to reimplement that 
code and place it under the GPL, I will do it.  The Free 
Software Community has a long history of duplicating the 
functionality of software in order to produce a totally
free version of that software.  I could list scores of
examples, but I'm sure everyone here is familiar with many
if not most of them.

> What are the ethics of duplicating the functionality of an application?

I'm surprised to hear you ask that.  Are you suggesting that GNU/Linux
never should have been written because Microsoft Windows and AT&T Unix
existed first?  Or suggesting that gnumeric never should have been
written because Microsoft Excel existed first?

I feel that I should be free to write what ever software I choose
as long as I don't infringe upon the copyright of another developer.
I am strongly against software patents and laws such as the cryptography
export restrictions which restrict my rights (of free speech) to write
software.

While it still cannot compare to the personal beliefs of many of the
community developers, the GPL codebase is now driving a significant
amount of such reimplementation.  Let's say for example that I have
GPL'd app G and I want to take Vendor's X's app H and combine some
of the functionality of H into G.  I can't do it unless H is also
under the GPL.  There's is allot of GPL'd code out there.  Most
software has gotten so complex that it's difficult for a single 
person to write it.  Many community developers re-use vast amounts
of GPL'd code, hence their application must be GPL'd. They must
reimplement the parts which are not GPL'd, if they seek to derive
their application from the GPL'd code.

> Oh, and there's an assumption that Vendor X's application will be
> sufficently compelling as to take up a position of standardness in
> it's niche yet there's no assurance of that.
> 
> I suspect to sell the open sourcing idea within Vendor X, someone's
> going to need a bit more than a faith that the product will be picked up
> by the community.

This, of course, can't be given.  Facts are facts, if it's not
GPL'd someone will likely reimplement.  The FSF has had numerous
projects going on for many years to reimplement non-GPL'd (non-free) 
software.  A very large portion of GNU/Linux consists of that 
software.  As an example take the Mozilla project. There are many
browser projects progressing under the GPL even though the Netscape
released much of their source code under the MPL.  Even though the
MPL qualifies under the terms of the OSD as an opensource license,
the MPL licensing terms discouraged people from working on that
project and from working with that code.  The terms of the MPL
were sufficiently unattractive enough to some developers that they
started their own browser projects rather than contribute to the
Mozilla project.  To write a web browser is a massive project. Some
alternative projects would exist even if Mozilla was GPL'd, but I
believe the number would be drastically reduced if that was the
case.

I congratulate Vendor X for the foresightedness they are displaying
by looking into the possibility of making their software systems more
open.  Weather they meet my free software definition, the FSF's 
free software definition or the OSD - or weather they meet none of 
them - they will find benefits to open systems.  However, I think
that if Vendor X were to have software which was totally free they
would reap maximum benefits (which I would expect is what they are
looking for as a result of this action).

I think it's important for companies to understand that they don't
get the benefits of free software or opensource software just because
they meet some licensing criteria or because they can plaster a logo
somewhere.  These benefits are not something you can buy, or something
that you can expect. The benefits come from the community.  The
community of developers and users.  If Vendor X is interested in the
benefits of opensource or free software, they would do well to focus
more on  their contribution to the community rather than their ability
to meet the OSD definition.

	- VAB
---
V. Alex Brennen    [vab at pog.ufl.edu]
[http://www.metanet.org/people/vab/]
Systems Administrator/Sys. Prgr
Pediatric Oncology Group
[http://www.pog.ufl.edu/]
Statistical Office
University Of Florida
352.392.5198 x303
352.392.8162 Fax