gpl backlash?

[Jacques Chester]

>On Mon, 26 Jul 1999, Wilfredo Sanchez wrote:
<snip>
>>   Certainly the GPL has worked well here.  Writing a compiler is
>> enough of a pain in the ass that dealing with the GPL, regardless of
>> your objections, is likely worthwhile.

The GPL has had many areas of success. I wonder, out of sheer
curiousity, whether there will emerge a *technical* or *quantitative*
case for any of the licenses.

However, as I pointed out in an earlier posting, selection of a license 
is an
act with both monetary/business/financial *and* ideological
implications. The two are joined at the waist. I think it would be
foolish to try and consider the money and the beliefs seperately;
the two are now irreversibly entangled. Tread carefully, dear 
traveller.

An interesting point arises from the quote, however. I'd never really
though about how a person choosing among competing software
is affected by the license. I've always looked from the licensor's
view, not the licensee's.

Obviously, the GPL is aimed at being "user-protective" rather than
"business-protective". It distinctly expempts the author from 
liability,
and enforces their ownership, but it essentially throws *control* of
that code out to the community.

In economics, *ownership* and *control* are very different
propositions. In the Galbraithian world-view, they are the basis of
economic Power ... and I'm wandering. Pardon me.

>>   And I'll grant you that the GPL has done great things for free
>> software.  In times when nobody in business thought free software 
was
>> interesting, it kept things moving.  To that end, the GPL is a
>> wonderful thing.  On the other hand, people are starting to see real
>> economic benefit (resource management, compatibility,
>> standardization) to open source.

The business case. "The marketing campaign", which I believe is
one of the descriptions that ESR gave the whole "open source"
push.

>I disagree -- it looks like people are starting to see the benefits of
>getting their end users to fix bugs.  Which can be a different animal
>from open source entirely.

They'll just as quickly discover that customers can honestly tell
how shitty their software is. Relying on your customer to fix bugs is
like a car company expecting customers to repair the faulty seat-belt
designs on a new model. It's not going to last: companies with shitty
source will lose both rep. and business if they go open source.

>[note: I'm not sure if I agree with the APSL but I'm not flaming it
>here; I'm trying to push the idea that there are different degrees of
>freedom to software, and I happen to like the highest degree possible]

That's why a plurality of licenses exist. Diversity is healthy. But 
some
wonder if the GPL's virality is really a play at a kind of monopoly;
dominance over the licensing ecosystem. One of the principle reasons
for choosing the GPL in my brief review was being "approved for use"
with the vast body of already GPL'd code. This is very much like buying
Microsoft Word because ... well ... everyone else uses it. So much
easier to conform than to choose another option.

>Of course, the fastest way to open software up is to provide lots of
>endearing and attractive open source options, that strongly encourages
>more open software.  The GPL in some cases is overkill (there's a
>strong encouragement in the BSD family for proprietary vendors to give
>back), but in some cases its necessary.

The GPL is a good license. The viral clause is like an ideological
agreement button: "By selecting this license, you agree that the FSF is 
correct
in protecting user freedom ..."

>>   The GPL's major flaw is its unbounded viral nature.  
>[snip]
>>         But you have to at least specify what you mean by derivative
>> works, and allow for the possibility of integration of open code 
with
>> closed code.

This will be where the license fails in court. A new version - a 2.1 - 
needs
to *explicitly* define the limits of the viral clause, or there will be 
hell
to pay. Microsoft could kill business interest in the GPL by deliberate
infringement, followed by a huge, protracted courtcase during which
time all GPL'd code enters legal limbo in the eyes of the business
community. The GPL needs more fire-proofing, in my view.

>Do you mean by this that if the GPL were more specific in its
>allowances and prohibitions, it would make for more acceptance and a
>better license?  I can agree with that.  It's important to put people
>at ease that their use of a license is doing what they think it's
>doing, and clear language is important there.

The clear language is good. I suspect the GPL is popular partially
because it is *simple*. The MPL is complex. The APSL is complex.
The SCSL is complex. But the GPL and the BSDL and XL are all
simple non-legalistic licenses. Hackers don't have time to be lawyers.

>>               And yes, you can probably find ways to change the code  
>> such that you don't have to contribute anything of value if you  
>> dance around the license enough, but I can accept that.

If people want to tap-dance around the GPL, they can and they
will. It will merely be difficult.

>> the "protection" that you're after.  Lucky it's never been tried in
>> court; I'm quite curious about it.

I'm more worried than curious. If the GPL loses a case, it opens a
big can of "Oh Shit" all over the open source movement, and all
over flagship GPL code like Linux. A boon for the *BSDs? We shall
see.

>>   Well, it's important that things interoperate, not that they use  
>> the same code, though sharing code does tend to help that a lot.

Yup. Refer to the IETF for examples that are legion.


Be well;

JC.