“There are subtle lessons about freedom in the GPL, but you’ll never find them by just reading the license. Instead, you’ll have to read between the lines (so to speak) and try to see what can’t be seen. Furthermore, these lessons, despite being deceptively simple, could have a profound impact on human freedom if only people understood them. In a sense, software freedom can be seen as a metaphor for human freedom.” Read the editorial at Advogato. Update: Checking out my email this morning, I found a submission about another new article on Free Software.
The Binary Nature of Freedom
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Just nice.
I needed something positive and optimistic after all this bashing, this did it. Hopefully this thread won’t become a flamewar.
Nonsense. These guys have no idea what the true meaning of freedom is. What a load of propaganda.
Having freedom means you are allowed to choose between right and wrong. You are free from all restrictions. It’s because of this that you can appreciate the nature of the consequences associated with your actions. You cannot fully appreciate these consequences if you are not truly given the choice.
GPL zealots seem to think that closing the source is wrong, and that keeping it open is right (this of course is debateable at times — such as when dealing with national security, etc). The GPL does not truly allow the developers to make this choice. Developers keep the code open because they have no other choice (apart from dropping the code and writing their own non-GPL’d code).
It’s nice to be idealistic, but you cannot (and should not) force others to comply with your ideals. People must choose for themselves. Just as you should choose to not commit murder because it _is_ wrong — not because the law disallows it.
The GPL community shoots itself in the foot in the sense that it does not understand that the most effective way to get free software out there is to allow everyone to use it. Sure sometimes people will take your code and use it in ways which you might not agree with, but that is a risk associated with _real_ freedom. Take OpenSSH for example. Do you think it would be so widespread had it been covered by the GPL? I highly doubt it.
The GPL has nothing to do with freedom. It has everything to do with telling people what to do and how they should do it. Don’t take my word for it though. Research it — look at the history — then come to your own conclusions.
Hmm… If we are going to try to compare the GPL to human freedom… Well… GPL in political terms most closely resembles socialism. That’s not freedom in my book.
Gotta totally agree with you. IMNSHO, the only true “licenses of freedom” are the MIT and BSD licenses. You can truly do what you will with those.
OMG, *********. Can’t you keep at least _one_ thread free of flames? Is that asked too much?
What “BSD zealots” (I’m starting to hate the zealot term) don’t understand is that GPL people have usually no problem with BSD but BSD people bash on GPL whereever they can (not everyone of course, only the dumbhead fanboys).
So tell me, who is intolerant?
Yes, BSD is “more” free. It’s completely free. Not caring about anything else. GPL is not. Some people just want to support only free software with their code, how can you deny them this whish? Should they rather keep the code for their own and release them as proprietory software instead? Why do you have to bitch and bash all the time? Are GPL coders somehow attacking you? Do they limit your rights? About them shooting in their own foot… Laughable. Free software as in BSD is great but it will never stand a chance _against_ closed source because closed source can just take your code, you can’t. GPL is simply the try to have a fair and healthy competition between closed and free and it works great as existing GPLed software clearly shows.
Sad.
boring rather than inspiring stuff. Time for a group hug.
This has been gone over so many times that it really is not important. Encouraging people to use the GPL is just encouraging people to value ONLY physical labor and NOT intellectual property. This is the old communist canard that states the fight is between labor (who do the work) and capitalists (who own the work).
Unfortunately, the results in today’s economy are not as good as when things were more labor intensive. Now, instead of giving people freedom from corporations, Stallman et al will enslave them to corporations.
This has been repeated over and over but here goes again:
Don’t sell software (because it should be free) so you CONSULT — i.e. do labor for corporations. What fun!
Are you a musician? Well, naturally you’ll be paid for performances but that’s it because the bits and bytes of your recorded work should be free. It’s free because we don’t want corporations/capitalists ripping you off…so instead of getting pennies who get nothing.
Graphic artist? Better charge REALLY high because you get paid once and then your work is free for the world! FREEDOM BABY!
Open source has produced numerous great technical works (Apache, Linux, Perl, etc). It has produced virtually no good creative works (Carmack’s stuff is not developed in an open source environment — he just releases the source after making some money — that I think is an awesome way to go about things).
Once the “free everything people” realize that there is a value to CREATIVITY and not just LABOR then maybe they can come up with licensing schemes that really benefit everyone.
Right now, Stallman et al believe they are fighting the old fight for helping labor (presumably programmers) but there is no evidence to support that they in fact are doing much good to help programmers. In fact, forcing programmers to earn money by consulting or joining with corporations rather than creative programming is not good because it means less innovative software…err, hmm, maybe that’s why most open source is all about copying what Microsoft has done
[just joking!]
Personally, with millions and millions of open source developers working for the past decade on projects (see sourceforge), I’m not that impressed with the results.
Forcing people into communities, whether corporate or open source is not good. Stallman doesn’t seem to want invidiuals to be lone creators and profit makers.
I applaud those small creative groups that produce great works that represent their own ideas rather than corporate ideas. I’m glad you guys can live off of income that generates from consumers rather than have to spend time and energy making corporations better by your consulting work.
Open source will fail in most arenas because it stifles creativity. The Carmack way of working in-house; making money; and then releasing the source once you’ve moved on is a noble course of action. Can’t imagine a better policy. No politics there; just hard work, creativity, profit making and sharing. Wow!
Let’s learn from Carmack and not Stallman!
Support business methods that help the small sustainable business where labor and capitalists are one and the same.
While I think that there are some interesting and even significant political aspects of the GPL license and open source software in general, I think the author is trying to overreach with his metaphor. James Gosling would have been “free” if he had used an ordinary proprietary license for GosMacs, and, in fact, he was free. He freely sold it. The “special exception” should have been included in the contract of sale, instead of in an offhand message.
True individual freedom is freedom from coercion, the freedom of the individual to do whatever he wants to do as long as he is not violating someone else’s rights. No software license violates that right unless the software itself was obtained by coercion. GPL and BSD licenses merely assure that the programmer’s intention to make their software widely available won’t be taken away by somebody else somewhere down the line.
I think it would be more fruitful for us to consider the nature of intellectual property, and how it differs from other forms of property. But I’m not sure that would be appropriate for OSNews. 😉
All of the major lisences have a point. BSD if you just want anyone to have it and be very usable with lots of things. LGPL as a good middle ground giving ome developer protection while giving flexibility to those using the code. The GPL is for those who want protection and dont want their work to go to loss by businesses just using it and giving nothing back (if a change is made).
Im not as big on everything should be free. Like Anonymous said, Carmack’s system works well. Companmies should treat software like patents (but not patent software). They should develop the app and when it is starting to die off, they release teh code for the betterment of all. This would let everyone use all the old abandonware. Then people could port their old favorite software to the persons “Right Platform” like take an old DOS proram and update it to the windows world, linux, BSD, whatever.
Squeezing a few cents out of a piece of a dead cow isnt worth the good publicity of helping people.
GPL is a choice, and just one of many choices out there. It works well in some situations, and sucks in others. As Linus would say, whoever writes the code gets to choose the license. There’s nothing religious to fight over here. If you don’t like GPL, don’t use it, and don’t make it sound like some other folks are stupid or “zealots” for using and advocating it.
“As Linus would say, whoever writes the code gets to choose the license. There’s nothing religious to fight over here.”
Yeah… Unless you link against a GPL library. Then you don’t get to choose. Even if you only use a single function from that library. Any code you write that is linked against that library automatically inherits the GPL license. Even if you only use ONE function.
So much for the code writer getting to choose what license they use.
Exactly Ed, you got it.
Every license has a point. And proprietory software is completely fine with me as long as I’m not forced in anyway to use it (I wouldn’t mind using some optional closed source tool that is well done). And of course closed source is perfectly fine for games (they are as optional as they could be). If id Software then releases the source of old software, even better.
I don’t udnerstand why some (unfortunatly a lot) people are so damn bitter about this issue.
You still don’t get it, do you? Every coder is free to choose whom he allows to link his library to. You are not forced to use a specific library, are you? There is no real neccessary system library that is GPL anyway (besides of Qt).
“There is no real neccessary system library that is GPL anyway (besides of Qt).”
You’re right. And Qt is why KDE failed in the competition for the standard replacement for CDE, even though KDE is more advanced, more stable, and easier to use than Gnome. Commercial UNIX vendors bulked at the Qt GPL license and weren’t willing to spend the big bucks for a commercial license. (Qt is not cheap).
I wonder… If the KDE project had it to do over again… Would they have used GTK instead of QT?
> And Qt is why KDE failed in
> the competition for the
> standard replacement for CDE
Uuugh .. don’t you think the jury is still out on that one?
“Uuugh .. don’t you think the jury is still out on that one?
”
Ok… Possibly the jury is still out on it.
But one thing I am sure they are not out on. I am sure that the KDE project would love to have the money that IBM, Sun, HP, and Red Hat are pumping into the GNOME project.
Surveys have actually shown that at this point in time, GNOME’s user base is pretty dismal compared to KDE’s user base. Whether that will continue with the 4 major *nix vendors all throwing their support behind GNOME is going to be interesting to see.
“I wonder… If the KDE project had it to do over again… Would they have used GTK instead of QT?”
I’m pretty sure they would have choosen it again becaue they love it. And my impression of the KDE developers is, that they are more interested in the technical stuff than politics and success.
“Uuugh .. don’t you think the jury is still out on that one?
”
He is probably talking about the fact that SUN has choosen Gnome to replace CDE on Solaris. But of course there is also a Solaris port of KDE so you might be right somehow.
RMS annoys me. Its cool all hes done for the community, but he isnt so much about freedom as he and his followers suggest. His views are more communist than freedom based. Sure the GPL rocks and was perfect for the situation in which he created it, but overall the BSD license is the way to go if your comparing freedom to licensing.
and whats up with this article? it sucks. ‘the binary nature of freedom and humans’ what a crock he just talked about GNU/RMS.
Can’t you see the positive side of ANYTHING?
Is beeing an ass and bitching a so much more thrilling way of life? I don’t get it.
You know this is a really stupid argument. The GPL is one licence among several that a developer can choose from. If someone chooses to GPL their code, they more then likely have a good reason for doing it. I mean someone is not going to get up and GPL their code base just for hell of it. They’ve most likely read through the actual wording and know what they’re getting into.
I don’t blame them. People get tired of having their code stolen and they want some protection so they use the GPL. Can you blame them? It’s their right to use the GPL if they so choose.
I think what this really boils down to is some people want to use parts of the GPL code base or get help from/access to the GPL community but don’t really want to pay the piper when it comes to sharing their code. So they bellyache about it.
Of course, as always I could be wrong.
I wasn’t terribly impressed by the article as others are discussing but there were other errors:
He for instance throws in examples such as DRM, the US Army using games for children and Nuclear weapons.
While DRM may be seen as a form of too much corporate control people tend to forget the people such as musicians who lose out when people copy MP3s. I’m not talking about the megastars but the guys who make a living but may not be terribly famous.
The US Army using software has absolutely nothing to do with the article, it’s simple irrelevant what license they use. Even if they were to break the GPL National security would likely overrule when it came to court. People seem to forget that armies exist to protect people and their freedoms (even if they are sent off to do other less agreeable things, but thats a political matter).
Same thing for Nuclear weapons: The Manhattan project was started because it had been found out that the Germans were already developing Nuclear weapons. Fortunately Hitler didn’t realise their potential and put his efforts into missiles instead. When it was becoming obvious Germany was about to lose They put their nuclear material onto a U-boat and sent it off to Japan who also had a Nuclear program.
There’s lots of talk of freedom but does anyone really know it’s true value?
A: This article is pretty good
Z: No, it isn’t, IT SUX! It’s just GPL/RMS propaganda!
A: But it’s nice!!
Z: But freedom is about choices!!
A: Well, we agree there, and the GPL is another choice, right? He was expressing the freedom given by CHOOSING the GPL!
Z: NO! NO! the GPL is the EVIL and SOCIALIST choice!!! It doesn’t free you, it LIMITS you into code-labor without any control over your creation!
(insert post about the nature of intellectual property, and on the individual/small team vs. the corporate machine here)
A:It’s NOT!!! It allows code to remain free!! That’s why Gnome is getting more corporate support, because it’s free, and no corporation can swallow it up!
Z: Is SO!!! It forces people into code labor camps with no true vision and restricts capitalism!!! This is why Gnome is so sucky, and KDE is so much better!
A: Oh, you are so full of **** about Gnome! You’re leaving out important details of their story!!!
Z: Oh, you are so full of **** about KDE. You’re leaving out important details of their story!!!
M: You know, neither of them has actually WON.
N: How about that John Carmack? He keeps his stuff proprietary, then gives it away. Doesn’t that seem like a…sensible compromise?
A and Z: (with little hearts in their eyes) John Carmack is WONDERFUL, and he’s a super genius.
John Carmack: um, ok…if you say so, whatever…by the way, Matrox’s Parhelia sucks…oh, wait, it doesn’t…my goof! Bye, now!
Z: Weren’t we arguing?
A: Oh, yeah…
M and N: never mind…
A: You’re so negative! Stop yelling at other people just because you disagree!!!! It’s not like anyone’s FORCING you!!
Z: You’re so deluded! Stop yelling at other people just because you disagree!!! It’s not like anyone’s FORCING you!!
A and Z: Oh…
A: So, um, choices, yes?
Z: Yes, choices…
Narrator: and they both lived happily ever after, each disagreeing, but respecting the other’s opinion. Oh, and yes, Carmack hit upon a clever idea that other people have had before, and good on him for it. It allows many older gamews to live on because of it, and new games to be made.
–JM
Note: Carmack’s comment about Parhelia taken from recent .plan file entries.
It’s getting to the point where a spade needs to be called a spade. I don’t know if I’m the only one sick of this constant circle jerk of open source/alt.os people programming desktop software in their free time wanting to be called freedom fighters or saviour of the computer world. These aren’t kids devoted to the furtherance of operating systems.. Most of the time they just barely know enough code to start putting things together with other peoples code. The GNU/Linux “community” is an exclusive playground of people with superiority complexes. The licenses are the sticks they have to beat you with when you don’t comply with their rules. How fast does the great RMS pick up that stick at the first sign of defiance? All this talk of brotherhood and freedom when the leader is more malevolent than Bill Gates ever could be. The only reason people get so riled up is because this isn’t a big faceless corporation hitting you, it’s the people you’ve been playing in the playground with. GNU is Richard Stallman’s stick and he will beat anyone friend or foe with it at the top of his lungs as he goes around the world signing autographs. If you haven’t seen this then you haven’t been watching or you’ve turned your head at the right time. Anyone catch the public humiliation RMS inflicted on those LUG guys that forgot to add the GNU/?
Linux is a great operating system.. and I code for it. I don’t release my code to the public or throw up a sourceforge page with a logo, forum, and donation link because I know I don’t have time to deal with it. I don’t want to have pre-made .sig’s that say “If you don’t like it code it yourself.”, “I have a REAL life.”, “Hell you’re not paying me.”, “I code what I want to code, if you don’t like that fuck off.” That so many people seem to have no problem throwing up immediately.
Linux is great, the developers that made it great I am thankful for, but the mob mentality that arises when they get together to do other things than code is disgusting. The only people opressing Linux and GNU coders are their other Linux users and GNU coders. Brotherhood and freedom my ass.
There are a few who are saying that the GPL is JUST a license. If you don’t like it then don’t use it…you are free to use or not use the license. That would be fine if the GPL nuts also thought that way and didn’t get violent or throw little girlie fits when other licenses were mentioned.
NOTE, the point of the _article_ is that it not just a license but that, as noted in the brief posted here, there is something more…:
“…these lessons, despite being deceptively simple, could have a profound impact on human freedom if only people understood them. In a sense, software freedom can be seen as a metaphor for human freedom.”
And also we should remember Stallman’s comment that he DOES NOT support the freedom to distribute closed software.
Typical elitist view, of course, with regard to “…if only people understood them.” That means if you follow my way then you are also elite and far more sophisticated than the others who obviously aren’t enlightened enough to understand true freedom.
Whenever you need to recruit young people who lack identities and self-esteem, it is always a good tactic to praise them and make them feel important and above the rest. Most people who violently defend the GPL probably don’t even program but just feel special being part of the GPL “movement.”
The GPL crowd with their bizarre mixed up view of freedom remind me of some of the radical protesters that claim to be anarchists (no govt) but want communist (strong govt) style regulation of markets and also who demand the fruits of capitalism (limited govt) like the latest pharmaceuticals, high speed internet access, etc. for everyone. What a hoot!!!
Another recruiting comment:
“Do not listen to those people who derisively tell you to get a life, because they have no idea what life is.”
Ignore everyone…they don’t have the answers; you can find freedom YOUR WAY…so long, of course, it is also OUR way. Ignoring people is a good idea IMHO…but the problem with the GPL loonies is that they ALREADY have the answer for what “your” way should be!!!!
Look over any college campus recruiting material from the communist party (and even some cults) and you’ll see all of this…classic stuff; it should be preserved.
sorry for the double post but this was good…
[ from: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.04/jennings_pr.html ]
Jennings scoffs at intellectual property radicals like Richard Stallman, who believe software makers should accrue revenue only for technical support. (See “Copywrong,” Wired 1.3, page 48.) “I am not an ideologue,” Jennings insists. “I think Stallman’s ‘Free Software’ stuff is a fantasy, and he’s being propped up by money that’s not his own.”
—————
Jennings also founded Homocore – an anarcho-gay zine – so he’s not just some right winger taking aim at a communist.
“That would be fine if the GPL nuts also thought that way and didn’t get violent or throw little girlie fits when other licenses were mentioned.”
Everyone throws girlie fits in this buisness at one point or another. 8>) *L*
From Scott Ladd’s article:
>Individuals focus on their piece of code, their personal
>domain, their expertise, … somehow, the whole comes >together into a final product — but how is that product
>going to suit the needs of the many, when it is designed >for the personal needs of a few?
Simple … if enough people satisfy their own needs, and share their results, then for any given new user, the chance that the new user’s need has already been satisfied and shared becomes quite large. It’s admittedly often not as thorough as what a well-funded corporation would end up with, but as Scott says, somehow it eventually all comes together.
>”Write it yourself” is the all-too-common retort of “free”
>developers to requests (even polite ones) from users. I
>smell a sense of superiority, a feeling of power in
>programmers who respond that way; they know damned well
>that most people lack the knowledge or time required
>to “write it.”
Why is it that nobody would think of asking a commercial software developer to give them software for free, but somehow people think they have a right demand an open-source developers spare time for nothing? If you want the feature written so badly, and lack the knowledge or time to write it, why not PAY the open-source developer to write it for you? If you’re not willing to pay, then you must not really want the feature that badly.
>Even worse, some “free” software developers often declare
>that they don’t care if their software is useful to
>commoners.
Surprise — 90% of commercial software authors don’t care if their software is useful to commoners either. That’s because most software authors are busy making highly specialized or custom applications to fill a particular need for a particular company. Every program is written with a particular usage scenario in mind, and if that scenario doesn’t include Joe CompUSA, then that’s how it is. It doesn’t mean the software (or the developer) is flawed, it just means that it isn’t what you wanted (for free, no less).
All, everybody cut back on the caffeine. The GPL _is_ just a license. People _choose_ to release there code under the GPL. If you have a problem with the terms of the GPL, don’t use it, don’t use GPL code in your code. It’s that simple.
BTW, if you somehow had the code to, say Microsoft Office, and you used it in your code, do you think Bill would smile, maybe send you a letter saying how he was glad he could help out?
My guess is that the lawyers would be knocking at the door before your code finished compiling.
Socialism is the collective ownership of the production of goods or services, administered by a central authority. Usually by “collective ownership,” one means a distribution of costs–if the central authority is the government, accomplished through taxes. If you’re an American, the insurance that protects your savings account (the FDIC) is socialized, as is the highway system. In a canonical sense, so are employee-owned companies like Continental Airlines and SAIC.
None of which applies to the GPL. The GPL explicitly keeps control of a work with the creator. The BSD license explicitly denies such control to the creator. Neither one says a damn thing about collective ownership nor administration through a central authority, though.
The GPL’s roots are in the spirit of academic sharing in journals, not in Marxist philosophy! The premise is that the true value of research comes from sharing the results and building on the work of others. In this light, keeping research secret and proprietary for commercial purposes is at best counterproductive and at worst actively harmful to progress.
One can argue about the relative merits of the GPL approach and the BSD approach (both of them ultimately come out of the same “share the results” philosophy), but in practice the choice boils down to authorial intent. If I write and release code, I do have the right to dictate the conditions under which you’re legally allowed to use it; if you don’t like those rights, your legal recourse is to not use my code. If the license was commercial there wouldn’t even be an argument over this.
The big difference is that code released under the GPL must remain shareable in all its permutations. Again, if you don’t like this restriction, don’t use the code. But if I release a program under the GPL, don’t whine to me about my anti-capitalist tendencies. My choice to release my work for free doesn’t mean I’m required to let you come along and make the profit I explicitly chose to forgo, and I guarantee you that if you claim otherwise, Alan Greenspan and Milton Friedman will not rally to your defense.
My biggest irritation with this ongoing battle is that people seem to be slamming the GPL’s insistence–you must share the results–without pausing to consider what the effects on the Internet, let along Free Software As We Know It, would have been if instead of the “share the results” philosophy, MIT and UC Berkeley had started out with a “maximize the profit” philosophy. The BSD license allowed commercialization, and that had its benefits, certainly–but without rampant non-commercialization we just as certainly wouldn’t have the electronic freedom we have now. I part company with Richard Stallman in that I don’t think the GPL approach is clearly superior to the BSD approach, but I don’t hold the reverse to be true, either.
Still I don’t understand why people is bashing GPL or other OSI licenses…
If I write something that I like to share but I want not to feel spoiled because somebody take my work and code upon it the only thing I can do is chose GPL and stay away from BSD like licenses.
BTW I still can sell my work as binary optimized or subscription support.
If I don’t care and I also want to make sure that I can take part of the profit that even someonelse can do upon that I can set up a license like the sleepycat one.
If I just care about my name on the work and the derivatives BSD is ok.
If I don’t care at all about how ends my work… public domain knowledge is perfect for me. (or Allegro license)
“There are a few who are saying that the GPL is JUST a license. If you don’t like it then don’t use it…you are free to use or not use the license. That would be fine if the GPL nuts also thought that way and didn’t get violent or throw little girlie fits when other licenses were mentioned.”
Funny though that nobody here did this, isn’t it? I see only anti-GPL people bitching, feel free to prove me wrong (with quotes).
BTW, “someone”‘s posting was really great and I laughed my ass off. Good one.
There are times when the choice to not use the GPL might not necessarily be much of a choice. Let me explain.
1. Standardization: In the name of standardization developers may wish to support and use a specific library or codebase. Why? Because it would be stupid to rewrite the code and fragment the OSS world more than it already is. If this pre-existing code is GPL’d then the developer is forced to either comply with the GPL or fragment the community.
2. Most OSS projects are no longer one man projects — an entire team is working together to achieve the same goal. The code base is large and the design is complex. One man could not write it all himself. Often our areas of expertise differ, and if an innovative individual wanted to take this code and improve on it in ways the authors couldn’t — then he would have to comply with the GPL (assuming the code was GPL’d). This is a lose lose situation because there is no way someone could choose to _not_ use the GPL — as it would be unfeasible (and unrealistic) to rewrite the entire pre-existing code base.
EXAMPLE: Take OpenBSD for example. There is no way in hell that Theo could have started OpenBSD without the entire NetBSD codebase. All in all OpenBSD is a great operating system from which we have all recieved benefits. Had the NetBSD code base been GPL’d then OpenBSD would also have to be GPL’d. SURE, Theo could have decided to _not_ use this GPL’d code but where would OpenBSD be right now? Could he have rewritten the entire OS himself? I don’t think so.
This would be a perfect example where the GPL carries an unfair amount of clout. It almost forces you to comply with it because the alternative is unfeasible. (IE: The path of least resistance)
The problem with the GPL is it doesn’t play well with others (not even its own friends). Give it up guys, we’re all (or most of us) fighting for the same cause. Look at the history of open source software. You will notice that the only thing the GPL has done is prevent excellent software from getting the attention it deserves.
Your car is cool but you’re not going to get to far on those square wheels.
It all boils down to this:
BSDL: The BSDL basically says “Don’t sue us, and don’t pretend you wrote the code”. Use this license if you truly want to release FREE code that everyone can use. BSDL code leads to standards because _everyone_ can use it. It doesn’t need protection from someone closing the source because you can’t kill off code once it’s been openned — however — others are allowed to innovate and profit from your work.
GPL: Use this if you can’t stand the idea of others inovating and profitting from your code. Use this if you’re trying to make a political statement and for some reason need a license inorder to do so.
The companies who release code under the GPL generally _are not_ software companies. They don’t make their money from their software and consequently want to have the benefits of open source (read: free development) whilst preventing their competitors from being able to get ahead of them. Companies such as SGI & IBM are not interested in “giving away” software. If they were then they would release their code under a BSD style licence. They’re out to make money, and they can use the GPL to do this without the risk of losing the market to some sneaky innovative company who patiently waited and played their cards right.
I’m not saying this is the original intent of the GPL or that this is what everybody wants. The fact of the matter is businesses will find a way to screw you even if you don’t let them.
The GPL is long, complicated, flawed, and painted red with political propaganda. It has too many moving parts and it’s often hard to predict how (or when) it will break down when placed in an enviroment different from that of it’s intended. I think you will find in the years to come your opinions on it will change dramatically once we see more and more companies try and abuse it.
Spark: What did you expect to read here? It was a pro-GPL essay which neglected to mention _any_ of the downsides towards using the GPL. Read my posts. I have provided a clear logical explanation complete with examples. I encourage you to come to your own conclusions, but _please_ look at both sides of the coin before you do this.
“All, everybody cut back on the caffeine. The GPL _is_ just a license.”
We can’t. We are IT people. Caffeine is necessary for our proper function.
By the way… Where is my caffeine IV drip? I put a request in for it 5 days ago and it still isn’t here. I’m contacting my union representative about this. This company is failing to provide the basic necessities for the proper function of an IT person.
“I encourage you to come to your own conclusions, but _please_ look at both sides of the coin before you do this.”
I do exactly this.
There was a time when I would have agreed with you, but since then I thought a lot about it.
I don’t understand anymore why BSD friends are so hostile against the GPL.
All your arguments are flawed. Or better… they aren’t flawed but they don’t proove that the GPL is evil, they just proove that choosing the GPL is not always the best thing to do which I agree with. But sometimes it is, you even said that.
Companies wouldn’t want to release their software as BSD, because this would be equal to “give away” their software. Why should they do that? Would you? The GPL is a way to release software as free software and still profit from it. I have to admit, I would release my software as GPL in most cases simply because I’m an egoistical person. I don’t give the code away to help mankind, I do it because I hope someone helps me to fix this one nasty bug, or someone improves it and I can use the improved software.
If someone doesn’t agree with it, the only reason for it is, that he wants to make it closed and I don’t want that. If he doesn’t accept to play by my rules, he is not allowed to use my code, simple.
Your argument with libraries and standardisation is valid but it’s rather a LGPL versus GPL argument than BSD versus GPL. There is no difference in library restrictions between LGPL and BSDL.
I’m not against the BSDL, not the slightest. I think it’s great that some people actually write code and give it away without expecting anything for it. But you just can’t expect everyone to do this. BSD is mainly helping others to create good software, while itself will always live in their shadow. I have a lot of respect for the BSD creators who are not jealous or angry because of this.
I just don’t understand why some of those very same people are so hostile against anything else. It just doesn’t fit.
“I don’t understand anymore why BSD friends are so hostile against the GPL.”
You want to know why? It’s simple. It’s very very simple. Both the BSDL & GPL are open source communities with very similiar goals. The BSDL allows the GPL community to take whatever code they desire but the reverse isn’t true. The BSD community has an issue with GPL’d code because they can’t use it without infecting their own codebase.
“All your arguments are flawed. Or better… they aren’t flawed but they don’t proove that the GPL is evil”
Don’t make claims if you’re not prepared to back them up. My argument is not flawed — not in the least. And who said I was trying to prove the GPL was evil? The only thing I was trying to prove is that it does the open source community more harm than good.
I read in an earlier post you wrote:
“Free software as in BSD is great but it will never stand a chance _against_ closed source because closed source can just take your code, you can’t.”
If anything BSD licensed code has a greater chance against closed source. Why is this? This is because the BSDL doesn’t descriminate against anyone.
So what if some closed source meanie can take a _copy_ my BSDL code? Maybe I can’t get it back, but can I get back GPL code after the GPL community takes it and assimilates it? I think not. It’s one thing to have your lunch money stolen by a bully, but when your own brother steals it it’s pretty sad and pathetic.
People here have no concept of a commons.
Their anti-gpl comments show that.
For those people who are angry about gpl, I can only say good. As a developer, I’ll use any license I damn well please, and you can’t convince me otherwise.
The gpl code base will continue to grow, taking int the best of the bsd style license ideas as well, and there’s nothing you can do to stop it.
So you claim GPL projects are “stealing” code by BSD projects, when this is explicity allowed and encouraged by your license? Don’t you see that this is exactly what the GPL avoids? I think I can now understand why many BSD supporters are so bitter. This is exactly the problem of the BSD license, whatever you do, you loose. You don’t get anything back. So if you decide to do that, please have at least the character strength, not to bitch about exactly this.
It was your choice.
What if I want to have my lunch money neither stolen by a bully nor my brother?
Now I’m getting mildy annoyed. This argument is turning really stupid really fast.
Sparky old boy, you’re knee deep in it and you know it.
“So you claim GPL projects are “stealing” code by BSD projects, when this is explicity allowed and encouraged by your license?”
Are you on some kind of medication or something? The BSDL might allow people to steal BSDL code but it certainly _doesn’t_ encourage it. Your reasoning is flawed and you know it. So if the law doesn’t explicitly tell you not to kill people does that mean that it encourages it?
I personally don’t care how much BSDL code the GPL community takes — hey, it’s open source, spread the code my friend. I however have a problem when you GPL zealots go around crying and whining how if you don’t license your code as GPL some evil bastard will steal your code and close it — making it unuseable to you — the exact same thing you are quite willing to do to BSDL code. There’s a word for this practice, it’s called HYPOCRACY.
*flog* dead horse *flog*
This thread is finished.
You talk about hypocracy?
I don’t see any GPL people crying and whining so if that’s your only problem, why are you getting so angry (even offending). You are the one talking shit about the GPL, not the other way round. You can also hardly blame the GPL for people stealing code from BSD projects.
With “encouraged” I just meant that it is strictly allowed.
Now is your problem the GPL or the people using this license?
Yeah well, we won WW2, and don’t you forget it.
You remind me of that annoying Speed fellow that wouldn’t leave me alone. Are you Speed by any chance?
*flog* more dead horse *flog*
… is public domain. You can do what you want with it, even slap your own copyright on it if you want. The BSD and non-GPL related OS licenses still have their own conditions, which although they might not be as extreme as the GPL, still exist.
I think all this boils down to is lack of respect os the original authors’ intention. The author did the work the code is his and it is his choice as to how he wants to license it.
I don’t see anyone saying how unfair it is that you can’t use proprietary code any way you want. Why is that people think that they should be able to use GPL code any way they want?
The GPL, in my opinion, is necessary due to the huge imbalance in power there is in the computer industry. The only reason Open Source has gained the position it has, is due to the actions of proprietary software companies, Microsoft in particular. If there was a free and open software market controlled by true competition and not monopolies, the open source would be largely unknown and the province of hobbyist (where it’s roots are). BTW, I don’t mean that in a bad way. I have the umost respect for open source community and believe they are fighting the good fight.
The FSF has played an important role. If nothing else, by being a viable alternative to proprietary software, it will keep the proprietary companies honest.
Personally, I would like to see a vibrant computing ecosystem full of choices. There should be plenty of room for everyone; GNU/Linux, BeOS, Amiga, Apple, and Microsoft if they want to play fair. But of course they are not going to settle for anything short of total domination, they have probaly only tolerated Apple and kept it on life support to help with their legal problems. When that changes, no more Apple.
Until the monopolies lose their strangle hold on the market, the GPL insures that all of the code developed can not be co-opted (as MS did with Kerberos, and has tried to do with other standards).
The best way to address the current situation, IMO, is for there to be free open standards for all data and file formats. People use computers to process data. If you can process any kind of data on any kind of computer, then it doesn’t matter what kind of computer you have. You are free to chose to run the software you want on the operating system you want. I would still run Linux, but I might dual boot Amiga if it was affordable.
So lets stop screaming at each other and address the real problem. A good start would be to lobby your government to pass a law stating that all data accepted, transmitted, or stored by the government will be in a free open format, it is after all our data.
If companies should start acting like good consumers and make it a requirement that all software they purchase used free and open formats (just like they require ethernet, and TCP/IP).
While this may not bring about a computing utopia, I do believe it will bring competition and choice which will be good for everyone (include a monopoly located in the western USA, they will have some real challenges, such as how to develop secure quality software and sell it on its’ merits).
Until then the GPL _is_ important.
“The only free license… is public domain. You can do what you want with it, even slap your own copyright”
Releasing your code in the public domain is stupid.
Even the pro-GPL’ers know that. This is one thing we _can_ agree on. It doesn’t protect the original author and certainly isn’t in the best interest of _anyone_.
There’s nothing stopping a company from taking it and _actually_ making it unuseable to everyone else — and if they try and use it then they risk being sued.