FanBoy analysis from Papa Joe? Sigh.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Jan 29, 2005 12:06 PM EDT |
This one gets my goat because I generally like and agree with Papa Joe. Joe is no newcomer to the cause. He's understood the issues around free software longer than most Linux users have been able to spell free. The GPL gets misrepresented by friend and foe alike. Either it's the wicked wedge of communism trying to destroy intellectual property and outlaw apple pie, or it's God's Own License. It's not the ultimate enemy of The American Way, and it's not the One True Answer to all that ails you. A meaningful discussion requires going beyond bumper stickers. What, for instance is the real (as opposed to imagined or RMS-opined) difference between free speech and free beer? In more than a few contexts -- including the GPL -- they can be interchangeable. That's especially true when you consider that the GPL requires you to permit anybody who receives your software access to the source code with full freedom to re-distribute so long as that re-distribution also conforms with GPL requirements. That, my friends, amounts to a requirement for free beer. And why should Papa Joe wish to jump on other licenses? is he really that upset at the Apache team? Apache ain't GPL'd, and I daresay that it qualifies as one of the most successful free software projects ever. For that matter, the newest darling, Firefox isn't GPL'd, either. Perl, the old mainstay is available under the Artistic License as well as the GPL, meaning that no perl user is bound to the GPL. X (whether from x.org or xfree86) is not GPL'd. Postgresql? BSD license. Even the runtime license for GCC, the very epitome of FSF software, is not GPL'd. It, like the Ogg Vorbis libraries and sdk and gtk, is LGPL'd, a license that may share a few initials, but actually has more in common with the BSD license. Lots of honorable people doing wonderful work creating great free software. Papa Joe perpetuates a myth -- a lame myth a that -- by pretending you can pirate software without violating its license. People who choose to use the BSD (or the LGPL) license generally wish to allow certain freedoms that aren't available under the GPL, specifically the right to make modify and re-distribute in binary-only form. It ain't piracy if the copyright owners say its ok. There's a second myth that Papa joe wraps into that strange concept of piracy: that people can somehow take free software and make it "unfree". The classic example is Microsoft's incorporation of the BSD TCP/IP stack. You would think that everybody else using the stack had to give up TCP/IP communication. They didn't. Microsoft is free to make it's own "improved" versions of the stack, but the original free stacks are still available and still free. In fact, you could argue that the RSM's "free speech, not free beer" argument applies more properly to the BSD license than it does to the GPL. After all, the BSD license lets you do anything the GPL does, but doesn't force you to permit free availability of your code, with the ultimate result that it becomes free beer. There is plenty of room for people to prefer one license over the other. Nothing wrong with that. But let's at least be honest about it. |
| tuxchick Jan 30, 2005 7:45 PM EDT |
Perhaps Joe Barr's colorful language- which I enjoyed immensely- obscured what I think is his most important point: The GPL does not let developers take without also giving, and it forces transparency. Businesses like Microshaft love the BSD licenses because they can take and use the code without giving anything back, and they can hide it away. They have zero conscience about exploiting anything they can get their hands on, including the skilled labor of F/OSS developers. They would love to do the same with GPL code, but fortunately the GPL has enough teeth that there is effective recourse. When the bloody buggers are caught, that is. The GPL also enforces interoperability. As long as the code is open, it is impossible to erect proprietary barriers. I agree that the GPL is not a one-size-fits-all license. But I believe it deserves the majority of the credit for the astonishing growth and quality of Linux. |
| dinotrac Jan 31, 2005 6:13 AM EDT |
I enjoy Joe's language, too. I also have tremendous respect for the GPL. The GPL facilitated the wide-open bazaar development methodology of the Linux kernel's early days. However, Linux (or an alternative) would succeed with or without the GPL and the GPL would succeed with or without Linux. |
| peragrin Jan 31, 2005 7:59 AM EDT |
>>However, Linux (or an alternative) would succeed with or without the GPL and the GPL would succeed with or without Linux. Actually Dinotrac I don't think so. GNU would stll be around bt I bet hurd developement wouldn't be very strong. And Linux without the GPL wouldn't of worked either. You would of had a BSD style license which not everyone supports, or Linus's first license before Stallman got to him. Which if memory serves required everyone to sign copyright over to Linus. (I might be wrong on that but it was restricetive). Linux would still be a hobby OS, as well as HURD. In fact I wonder if even Apple would still exsist. Or even MSFT for that matter. Apple did use BSD license, but it also knows the value of the GPL to some of the Software that is being used to create OS X. MSFT wouldn't of had any competition to speak about in front of the judge for the Anti-trust trial. It could well be possible for them to have been broken up. Linux needs the GPL to force peole to stand with it. The GPL needs Linux because people will stand with it. The two are like a married couple. They don't always get along but they have learned to live with each other, respect one another, and know deep down that without the other they are incomplete. For whatever reason, techincal, spiritual, the Community came together under the GPL & Linux. Hurd, minix, BSD's are all good OS's,but do you really think oneof them have the charisma that brought together a community as large as Linus did? |
| dinotrac Jan 31, 2005 10:55 AM EDT |
I think Linus (and the AT&T lawsuit over BSD) had a lot more to do with the success of Linux than the GPL did. A talented, persistant, and relatively egoless young man gets stuff done, a story that the media loves, a cute mascot... |
| peragrin Jan 31, 2005 11:21 AM EDT |
Dino I agree about linus. He is remarkable. I don't agree about BSD. That Lawsuit was over in 1994. Linux didn't start going main stream until 1999 as IBM and others started in behind it. Tech wise there isn't a lot of anything that the others couldn't do. Each of course has it's strength's, but really which was the more mature tech in 1999, BSD's or Linux. I would say BSD's were a better kernel in 1999, but Linux had the momentum. So why choose Linux over the BSD's in 1999? The answer is simple linux was licensed under the GPL. A license that forced you to give back to everybody. So if you did make changes and improvements everybody got stronger. As I said Linux without the GPL, or GPL programs without Linux wouldn't be same. Freshmeat lists 68% of projects GPL. How many of those projects are in various linux distro's? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!