Re: Linux... OK but definitely second best

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 10:46 PM 7/27/98 -0400, James Love wrote:
 
>	The people who do the GPL software are every bit as hard working and
>smart as the people who make software with a profit motive in mind. 
>They are entitled to attach conditions to their software.

You're absolutely correct. But the problem with the GPL is that it attaches
conditions that, in the long run, will have negative effects. Therefore, it is
important to ask them not to publish their software under that license. I
believe that if they truly at the big picture -- understanding both the true
philosophy that spawned the GPL and the negative results it will produce --
they will consider using a license that allows commercial re-use of their
code.

>Why is it
>"good" for a proprietary copyright that restricts reuse, because we love
>profit making enterprises so much, but "bad" for developers to dedicate
>the fuits of their labor to the general community of programers and
>users?  

Unfortunately, the GPL doesn't dedicate their labor to the "general community"
of programmers and users. It leaves out a specific group: those who would like
to use it as the basis of commercial software. 

The most benefit would be realized if the base of open source code is a truly
universal resource -- a "public library" of classic code that can be used by
anyone for any purpose. This is akin to saying that individuals can use the 
material they public library, but businesses can't -- or that individuals
can quote Shakespeare, but someone making a speech in a business setting cannot.
As one of the guiding forces behind a movement to protect the public domain,
you can understand, I'm sure, why such things are important. We mustn't FORCE
code out into the open, but should encourage its completely free use once it's 
there.

>> Again, I must disagree. The BSD license is better in all cases, since the
>> GPL's sole purpose is to reserve power for one specific faction (more below).
>
>    Brett, I don't see how you can be more one sided than this.  "better
>in *all* cases" ???    Is this the same as better because it is defined
>to be better?

No.... I've given a great deal of serious thought to this issue, and can envision 
no situation in which the GPL would produce a better long-term result than a 
license that allowed commercial re-use. 

>This "one specific faction" stuff seems a bit bitter. 

Nope, it's reality. The FSF, on its Web pages and in public speeches, derides
all other forms of open source software. It thus positions itself as a faction
that is opposed to all others.

>Aren't these people using their own private property in the way that
>they are entitled to?  

Microsoft makes that same argument for its actions. ;-) Seriously, though: of 
COURSE these people are entitled to do what they want with their intellectual
property. However, we should ENCOURAGE them to do what produces the greatest
long-term benefit for all concerned -- including them.

>Even if some software firms are unhappy about the
>restrictions, it doesn't mean the GPL restrictions are not rationale or
>appropriate. 

The reason that the GPL restrictions are inappropriate is not that "some
software firms" are unhappy with it, but rather because -- if you look, again,
at the big picture -- they are counterproductive. They stifle productivity,
innovation, and entrepreneurship.... Which are not things that I believe any of 
us want.

>	Not everyone shares your opinion on the dangers of embrace and extend
>strategies, and after watching what MS is trying to do to Web protocols,
>who can dissmiss the danagers?

Open source is not more or less subject to "embrace and extend" strategies
than any other type of software. If Microsoft, for example, really wants to create
proprietary extensions to a protocol, it can do that with or without open
source. 

Historically, however, it has been shown that by providing the open source to 
commercial software vendors for re-use, one can establish the standard so solidly 
that it's tough for ANYONE to create incompatible versions. This advantage does not 
occur unless the commercial vendors can use the source. If they must reimplement, 
they're tempted to tinker and often add incompatibilities -- if for no other reason
than that they've interpreted the standard in different ways.

But if the code *is* the standard, this doesn't happen; everyone just uses it, and
interoperability is greatly enhanced. This is what happened with BIND, the Berkeley
Internet Name Daemon -- it literally holds the Internet together.


>    This is plainly wrong.  THe FSF doesn't even control the
>distribution of its own software, and it clearly doesn't control Linus
>Torvald.  Even Linus doesn't control access to Linux anymore.  He shares
>the copryight with 50 or so developers who have made various
>contributions, and everyone one of them would have to agree before the
>license was changed in a significant way.

This is part of the danger. The GPL "locks itself in" in a way that makes it
difficult to undo. It's tough to veer away from the FSF's agenda later, once
it becomes apparent that it would have been better to allow commercial vendors
to use the code.

>>What's more, it seeks to tilt the playing
>> field away from ALL commercial software vendors.... Not a good plan. Commercial
>> and free software can, and should, always coexist.

>     Not true in reality, as the rash of commercial announcements for
>Linux products demonstrates.  Heck, some of the Linux Windows manager
>programs are not subject to GPL, and much of the software that is used
>in the Linux distributions comes from a variety of licensing schemes.

These are not counterexamples, because they do not incorporate the GPLed 
source code in the commercial code. They can't.

However, there are good examples of positive effects from the ability to
include OTHER open source code in one's own products. BSDI is one example. And
there are the many embedded systems that use code from Apache, FreeBSD, BIND, and
other programs that are published under more flexible licenses -- for example, 
Internet routers for small offices. Or print servers small enough to clip onto
the back of the printer and can be controlled via a Web browser.

>	Everyone was very happy when Corel and Oracle made their linux
>announcements.  

Not quite "everyone." I'm sure Microsoft wasn't happy! And as a FreeBSD user, I 
would of course rather not run these companies' products under Linux emulation.
I think users should have a choice of OSes in the open source world as well as in
the world of commercial software! In fact, I think it is just as dangerous, in 
the long run, to have these vendors embrace only one open source OS as to have them
embrace only one commercial OS. As you and Ralph have said many times, users should 
have a real choice.

>> In an earlier message, Jamie expressed concern that open source software could
>> be "monopolized" too. Well, it can -- and the GPL is the mechanism via which this
>> particular faction seeks to do it. As the song so brilliantly puts it: "Meet the
>> new boss.... Same as the old boss." The "revolutionaries" of the FSF are attempting
>> to fool us again.

>       Except, they aren't bosses.  Brett, for all your bitterness
>toward Richard Stallman, 

I'm not "bitter" toward Richard Stallman; in fact, I take great pains to
correctly represent his views and aims. It is true that those views and aims
are extreme, but (as you know) even Richard admits that.

>how many shots do you think he calls in Linux
>development?  The people calling the shots are the people who write the
>code.  For once.

It seems that some developers are allowing the FSF to call the shots
vis-a-vis licensing, and this is dangerous. I believe that they should reconsider 
their actions and release their code under other licensees.

>	You don't have to be a communist to appreciate a little non-commerical
>space in your life.

Agreed.

>I think the Internet, which is based upon open
>public domain standards and no "ownership" of the net itself, shows how
>our lives can be enriched by public infrastructure.

I agree with this as well. Let's start building that public infrastructure in a
way that allows everyone to benefit and excludes no one. Instead of closing the 
"public library" of code to commercial traffic, why not open it up to all comers?

--Brett Glass