Re: Free software vs. commercial software Was: Comparing Lisp conditions to Java Exceptions


Matthias Buelow <mkb@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Greg Menke wrote:
>
> > Too bad, Matthias. If the re-use of your code is of concern, then you
> > should have released it under a different license. No "holier-ness"
> > about it. The licenses are different and have different consequences.
>
> So you advocate that everybody uses a license for his FREE SOFTWARE that
> makes it impossible for other people who develop FREE SOFTWARE under a
> slightly different license to make use of that software? You prefer a
> "Balkanization" of free software? Because that's what a dogmatic
> license like the GPL creates. You're so anxious about Microsoft (see
> last paragraph in your posting). Do you really think Mr. Gates is
> unhappy about the use of the GPL in the free software community? It's
> working in his best interests if the free software community is
> uncooperative and divided on policy matters.

I think Mr. Gates is perplexed by the free software community in
general, and very interested because its eating his monopoly away bite
by bite. Pretty soon Microsoft will be forced to compete which they've
not had to do since the early 90's. I think he's particularly
interested in GPL people because they have a firm ideological stance
that excludes him. He has no problem with BSD licenses, he can just
take the code and do whatever- but the GPL stops him in his tracks.

I don't see how the free software community has any "policy" as such,
organizations have policy, some elements of the free software community
have them too- but for the most part people do the work they want to and
each makes their own choices with respect to licensing. And just who
the hell is going to be telling me about "policy matters" with respect
to the GPL work I do?


> > Its all known ahead of time so I don't see why you're complaining about
> > it as if you got hit over the head with it unknowingly.
>
> Well.. the argument hasn't started just now. It's been going on for
> many years (probably as long as the GPL exists already).

True- and it shows no signs of winding down. I think the fact that
people are bitching about it means its pissing off something like as
many people as it enfranchises, which makes me think its doing pretty
well.

>
> > I kind of like the fact that the work I contribute to a GPL program
> > won't get sucked into some other piece of software with license
> > restrictions that prevent its own re-use and adaptation by other 3rd
> > parties. Am I a liar or devoid of common sense for preferring that
>
> You simply have to add a clause that the license is void if the code
> becomes proprietary (or non-opensource). That can probably be
> formulated in a couple lines. At the same time, one could lift the
> infectious nature from the license. Let GPL' be that modified GPL. The
> effect would be this:
> Every open-source developer can use your code, for free software. For
> example, I could use your GPL'-licensed code, or library for my free
> code. That's the positive effect. If however, someone takes my code
> and uses it for proprietary software, if allowed by my license, he would
> have to stop using your code, according to your demands. This is also
> basically what those dual-licensing schemes like for Qt achieve. The
> proprietary software maker can still opt to use just my software and not
> use your software, possibly by rewriting the GPL' covered parts or
> libraries since my code isn't affected by the license of the software I
> used from you.

But I LIKE the "viral" nature. It provides an impetus to cooperate for
real because you can be confident the other guy working on the project
isn't going to take your work and contribute nothing back. I probably
agree that the GPL is overly assertive, however I also think that being
clever in wording a kinder, gentler GPL variant is a receipe for
confusion. And I don't really want to demand anything more than my code
stays available wherever it goes in other projects, whatever their type.

I think a licensing scenario like QT is unstable, its neither one or the
other and maintaining the duality is really a balancing act. I'm not
saying it doesn't work but I wouldn't contribute work to it.

I don't mind people writing my software out of an app, more power to
them- and I give them full credit for honoring the GPL. My issue is
fundamentally the maintenance of my contributions open in the same sense
as I contributed them.


> However. This runs diametrically against the intentions of the FSF.
> The goals of the FSF, as implemented with the GPL, are not to further
> the sharing and distribution and general "freedom" of the licensed
> software. The goal is to spread their license in a viral way to as much
> software as possible, in order to get a foot in the door. They're using
> the GPL-licensed software as a vector to attack the proprietary software
> makers. It's basically a kind of slow-motion economic distributed
> denial-of-service attack. Remember, it's the explicit goal of the FSF
> to "make proprietary software obsolete". This effort for sure won't
> stop before all software is GNU and all non-GNU software is outlawed. A
> goal that cannot be reached, of course, but fanatics never care about
> the realisability of their projected Utopia, nor about the casualities
> that will litter the way. Ironically, in the end who will win are the
> big companies. The small ones go belly-up and the free software
> community is split into factions.

I don't think a 2-bit organization like the FSF and the GPL is going to
make proprietary software obsolete whatever the "mission statements"
are. And since when do we believe mission statements and philosophic
meanderings of any organization? Good for-profit software is written in
well funded, well organized and well run organizations. Those can exist
in a variety of sizes and that is where you'll find innovation that
makes people want to buy the software. The other less efficient
organizations don't get my sympathy, and lacking compelling competition,
free software allows me to not give them my money. Its hardly a denial
of service, its giving me a choice. I am a customer with money, I don't
give the smallest damn about the convienence of the software authors-
either they have something that makes me want to buy it or they don't.

I view the "viral" aspect of the GPL as a necessary means to help bring
developers to the table. There isn't a budget and many of the
developers wouldn't work on these projects if they had management to
deal with (I certainly wouldn't)- so a strong assertion of how the work
will be conserved in a distributed and unmanaged environment is very
important.

Gregm
.

Relevant Pages