Re: What about an OS monopoly under GNU license?

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 01:12 PM 3/26/98 -0500, you wrote:

>[The Berkeley license] just explicitly entitles you to capitalize on your use of code so
>licensed without requirement to provide source on what it became part of,
>thus breaking the chain of full disclosure on what you are up to.

Exactly! It's a great disincentive to innovation if you must reveal every
last detail of what you do and how you do it. What's more, it invites
blatant copying by Microsoft.

>Since the mood is to editorialize with snippets, an excerpt from the GPL v.
>2
>
>-----------snip-------------------
>
>  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
>price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
>have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
>this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
>if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
>in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
>
>------------snip------------------
>
>I'm not sure what you find here that is anti-consumer or on the economic
>fringe. 

As in laws in which the true agenda is not made explicit, this
portion of the "preamble" does not explicitly state the anti-consumer
intent of the license. Note that it sidesteps the issue of the 
"freedom" to reuse the code on one's own commercial software.

>It provides the recipients of software with the ability to obtain
>source and clearly states that one is free to charge for their services.

Services, yes -- such as consulting. But as anyone who has done this
sort of work knows, consulting is a treadmill -- there is no buildup
of equity and much less incentive for innovation.

>That, for some, is a sufficient living and less complex life style.

That's fine for "some," but it is an insufficient incentive for those
who want to reap a greater reward from their innovations -- by
publishing rather than just consulting. The purpose of a software 
license should not be to dictate the lifestyles of others.

>---------snip------------
>
> 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
>programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
>to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
>Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
>make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
>of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
>of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
>
>----------snip-------------

Note the copious use of the word "free." Commercial software vendors
need not apply -- period.

>I fail to see an anti-business agenda here.

As mentioned above, the fact that the commercial reuse of the code is
explicitly prohibited is harmful to the development of new software.
Discouraging or preventing the development of commercial software
is an explicit goal of the Free Software Foundation (see Stallman's 
statements on the same Web site).

>The GPL does not try to grant
>rights to intellectual property that naturally rest with the author. 


Not so. The author is the one who agrees to license the code under
the GPL, and may not realize the agenda behind it.

>One is
>free to negotiate for reuse with the legitimate owner of the works. That
>code which is under the FSF copyright is also left open to negotiation.
>Sounds like business to me.

Many portions of the code have dozens -- even hundreds -- of authors.
While these authors might have no objection to commercial reuse of
the code, it may be infeasible to contact all of them. And it is
indeed necessary to contact all of them, since the contributions of 
each author are not called out in the code. What's more, if even one
relatively minor author can't be reached, it could prevent the reuse
of all of the code. Again, a great barrier to commercial re-use.

>:What I advocate
>:is that the Consumer Project on Technology take the position that the
>:"Berkeley-style" license is preferable, because it fosters the development
>:of both commercial and non-commercial alternatives and does the most to
>:promote consumer choice.
>
>I don't see it as such a burning issue and do not feel compelled to make
>such a fine distinction. 

If it were only a "fine" distinction, I would not raise the issue. In
fact, the GPL imposes extremely high barriers to the commercial re-use
of publicly redistributable software -- as the author, who is opposed
to the very notion of commercial software -- explicitly states. It
is important that we strongly favor licenses which facilitate commercial
re-use.

>Thank you. I am somewhat familiar with FSF's texts and works. I am also
>aware of rumored efforts to undermine their existence using underhanded
>tactics, largely promoted by commercial interests that view them as
>anathema. 

I20 has been cited as such an effort. However, if so, it is not directed
exclusively at FSF but at all software for which source code is freely
distributed.

>From what I can see, not only does a large quantity of well
>written code come from FSF, 

The code does not come from FSF itself, but from authors. In the interest
of consumers, these authors should be encouraged to license their work 
under the least restrictive terms possible. Ironically, many parts of
Linux were in fact released under the Berkeley-style license. The
developers of Linux could not have appropriated the code were it not
for that license.

>there are also legions of folks mentored by FSF
>that become some of the best sysops, sys admins, and computer security
>specialists - all to the delight of these talent starved industries.

FSF does not "mentor" any more or less than any other group that produces
freely redistributable software. But the point is irrelevant to the
discussion at hand. What we're concerned about here is the promotion of
the license which will, in turn, do the most to promote innovation and
competition in the industry.

--Brett Glass