Re: What about an OS monopoly under GNU license?

["P.A. Petricone" <pap@tiac.net>]

I was actually trying to keep this response short for the list, but it
isn't. The GNU/BSD virtue debate is well covered in more appropriate
forums, I would think.

From: Brett Glass +ADw-brett+AEA-lariat.org+AD4-

:At 01:12 PM 3/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
:
:+AD4AWw-The Berkeley license+AF0- just explicitly entitles you to capitalize on your
:+AD4-use of code so
:+AD4-licensed without requirement to provide source on what it became part of,
:+AD4-thus breaking the chain of full disclosure on what you are up to.
:
:Exactly+ACE- 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.
:

Wait a sec, I am amused by the thought that MS may have pinched some GPL
code. More seriously, I have a growing problem with compiled software and
no source. Source should be as available to the consumer as a shop manual
or a house plan.

:+AD4-Since the mood is to editorialize with snippets, an excerpt from the GPL
v.
:+AD4-2
:+AD4-
:+AD4------------snip-------------------
:+AD4-
:+AD4-  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
:+AD4-price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
:+AD4-have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
:+AD4-this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
:+AD4-if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
:+AD4-in new free programs+ADs- and that you know you can do these things.
:+AD4-
:+AD4-------------snip------------------
:+AD4-
:+AD4-I'm not sure what you find here that is anti-consumer or on the economic
:+AD4-fringe.
:
:As in laws in which the true agenda is not made explicit, this
:portion of the +ACI-preamble+ACI- does not explicitly state the anti-consumer
:intent of the license. Note that it sidesteps the issue of the
:+ACI-freedom+ACI- to reuse the code on one's own commercial software.
:

Yet it does not forbid it. It does insure that what you may find there is
free to be used, improved upon and distributed in a manner that is
consistent for the next entrant in the cycle of development. The fact that
it insures source is a measure of constant security and structure for a
large development system of tools not as well warranted elsewhere, a
benefit to the casual user and career developer.

I would guess, without the actual numbers, that there is a +ACo-large+ACo-
contingent of commercial applications developers worldwide working on GNU
and like platforms who's startups may not have been possible if their only
option for a platform were proprietary UNIXs and who most often give back
improvements to GNU software for others traveling the same road. I can see
why they may be motivated to give something back to a community that got
them ahead. For them, commercial code and GNU development are just part of
their work. Probably true for BSD and other like projects.

:+AD4-It provides the recipients of software with the ability to obtain
:+AD4-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.
:

Hmm... Caldera, RedHat, Infomagic, Walnut Creek, etc, etc... I guess they
are all wasting their time. It goes way beyond consulting - I see
enterprises in networked systems, LAN and user support, ISP, e-commerce  -
all working from GNU and like platforms that have opportunity in scale.

:+AD4-That, for some, is a sufficient living and less complex life style.
:
:That's fine for +ACI-some,+ACI- 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.
:

Well then I guess we should all pack it in and subscribe to the MS model -
much less oppressive. I think you are reading more into GPL than is really
there in +ACo-practice+ACo-. It seems to me that FSF is an effort to provide and
maintain the structure of a software development environment free from
commercial interference. As such, it meets it's objectives. While you are
there, you are welcome to stay and use what you need as long as you support
the objective of where you are. Certainly you are not generalizing that
anyone ever using software under GNU is trapped by a dictator, or is not
free to use their skills commercially.

:+AD4----------snip------------
:+AD4-
:+AD4- 10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
:+AD4-programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
:+AD4-to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
:+AD4-Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation+ADs- we sometimes
:+AD4-make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
:+AD4-of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
:+AD4-of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
:+AD4-
:+AD4-----------snip-------------
:
:Note the copious use of the word +ACI-free.+ACI- Commercial software vendors
:need not apply -- period.
:

Parsing this a bit, one example I see is that you could, with the author's
permission, revise their code to run on a BSD platform, thus moving it to
the free-er license. Also FSF claims it is approachable for the same. What
I get is FSF would just like to preserve the ongoing integrity and nature
of it's own enhancements to it's core suites of code that lots of folks
have come to rely on to be GPL without someone trying to stake a claim on
the works.

:+AD4-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).
:

So we should blast FSF because their name says it all. They are just
another repository for folks who need facilities like public libraries to
get something done.

:+AD4-The GPL does not try to grant
:+AD4-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.
:
The GPL states without question that anyone has the ability to contact the
author regarding re-use of code.

:+AD4-One is
:+AD4-free to negotiate for reuse with the legitimate owner of the works. That
:+AD4-code which is under the FSF copyright is also left open to negotiation.
:+AD4-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.
:
I think the instance would be rare.

:+AD4-:What I advocate
:+AD4-:is that the Consumer Project on Technology take the position that the
:+AD4-:+ACI-Berkeley-style+ACI- license is preferable, because it fosters the
development
:+AD4-:of both commercial and non-commercial alternatives and does the most to
:+AD4-:promote consumer choice.
:+AD4-
:+AD4-I don't see it as such a burning issue and do not feel compelled to make
:+AD4-such a fine distinction.
:
:If it were only a +ACI-fine+ACI- 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.
:

Come now, you are asking for a hybrid economy - free to you, +ACQ- to me.
Eventually something stops happening. A bit ponzi-ish. Where are the lines?

:+AD4-Thank you. I am somewhat familiar with FSF's texts and works. I am also
:+AD4-aware of rumored efforts to undermine their existence using underhanded
:+AD4-tactics, largely promoted by commercial interests that view them as
:+AD4-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.
:

Even without I20 there is a lot of affordable OS specific hardware on the
scene now for which driver information is not available. It is shaping up
to be a sole survivor scenario in the consumer market. I would suggest
giving FSF some slack - they are quite resourceful at building 3rd party
drivers.

:+AD4-From what I can see, not only does a large quantity of well
:+AD4-written code come from FSF,
:
:The code does not come from FSF itself, but from authors.

Sheesh, man give us all a break. Some folks actually work at the FSF
facilities and write GNU code as well as do production things for
publications.

: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.
:

Does that apply to the current kernel? Here is the 'Linux' header from the
GPL

--------------snip---------------

   NOTE+ACE- This copyright does +ACo-not+ACo- cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does +ACo-not+ACo- fall under the heading of +ACI-derived work+ACI-.
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

   Linus Torvalds

------------snip----------------

:+AD4-there are also legions of folks mentored by FSF
:+AD4-that become some of the best sysops, sys admins, and computer security
:+AD4-specialists - all to the delight of these talent starved industries.
:
:FSF does not +ACI-mentor+ACI- any more or less than any other group that produces
:freely redistributable software.

I did not say that they did more or less, I don't know. I was trying to
point out that FSF and it's associates in my sphere of knowledge have
contributed their time to empower folks with valuable skills that are in
commercial demand - all the way down to volunteer teaching UNIX in primary
charter schools - commercial distributions at that.

:But the point is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I think the point is just as irrelevant as your John Lennon/Stallman
remark which was uncalled for. You see it as useful to be competitive to be
innovative, others find an atmosphere of freedom enables their creativity -
yet others rely on deception to get the job done and so on.

: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.
:

I was not aware we were designated to make that consideration.

Suppose for discussion BSD was the global license model. There remains for
me problems of sustainability. How do you propose we select over time those
that will be committed to writing all the carefully polished free code
components for you to build commercial apps - lottery? ...

+ACI-Now there is a provocative thought+ACI-, I say to myself while heading for the
barn.

Regards,

-pap