Why I think the OSS licenses are more relevant than the GPL
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jboyd Mar 14, 2006 12:27 PM EDT |
Hello again Tom, I am a relative newcomer (yes I am trying to cover my....rear end lest it gets skewered by a Defender of the GNU faith) to linux and the philosophy of theGPL. Since I started using Linux I have been trying to wrap my mind around this whole GPL vs OSS thing. And these are the impressions I have so far: The GPL lends itself to ambiguities.This is not to say that other software licenses don't. I still see prominent people in the open source.... sorry Free Software...wait....whatever.. butting heads as to what can or cannot be done under the GPL. My impression is that the GPL portrays itself as the defender of software freedoms and it does this by "restricting" the authors of software from protecting any code that they (the software authors) may consider their competitive advantage. I could well imagine someone trying to tell Google that hiding their search engine technology is unethical. While I have read many articles that rebut the view that GPL and Mr.Stallman are communist/Marxist ,I am not totally convinced,and believe me I read alot, on one hand the Defenders indicate that no where does it say that GPL software cannot be sold, while on the other hand I have this taken from the About GNU Project - "Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software." Now ,I am a novice, and I don't buy cds, I download and burn and recently I have started only doing net installs. There goes one source of income, offer services you say, well that might be the in thing now but linux distros seem to be getting better and better by the hour. My fedora core desktop just does not crash ever. How long before those service calls become fewer and fewer. Please forgive me if I am may seem ignorant of the linux service business , I am. I am basing my argument on how stable even some one-man distros are.Even the open source lamp framework was recently judged to have very few bugs, see http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6046475.html. What grinds the me the most is that the Free Software movement says it is morally and ethically wrong for someone to produce software under anything but the GPL . Yes I know ,no one has ever said that, but it sure is the tone of nearly every article I have read concerning GNU and GPL. In conclusion, unless I am convinced otherwise : The GPL is ultimately Mr.Stallman's baby, and it's aim is to further his beliefs. The BSD license is the only license that guarantees true freedom. Free software truely became accessible to the average man when Mr.Eric "Shoot the recruiter" Raymond and company formalised the concept of Open Source. Left up to the original computing guys, computing would have stayed the province of academics and government. But thanks to Microsoft the average joe can now use a computer. The Open Source movement ,as described by Mr.Raymond, made free software accessible, because he got big business into it and it(free sofware) was no longer owned by some fringe group. I believe that the more the GPL is modified to reflect Mr.Stallman's philosophy , the less developers and companies would use it. And ultimately some form of open source license , chosen and designed by the developer would be used. Hence my money is on the OSI, and Mr.Eric Raymond. (pity the poor Jehovah's Witness that calls on ESR on a sleepy Sunday afternoon) Well that's my two cents, fire away. |
| grouch Mar 14, 2006 12:53 PM EDT |
IBM, MySQL, Red Hat, SUSE, Mandriva, Ernie Ball, Burlington Coat Factory, Amerada Hess, Pixar, SGI, Oracle, Sonera, Amazon, Intel, Mercedes, NYSE, TrustCommerce, Bynari, BMS Bayer, Telstra, BBC, Cray, Sony, Zumiez, Reuters, Motorola, Nokia, Samsung, Unilever, PeopleSoft, Netflix, Orbitz, Deloitte, PEC Solutions, Net Aquila Solutions, Palm, Boeing, Cendant, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Liderar Seguros, Banco Mercantil, Incyte Genomics, HP, Sun, Life Insurance Corp. of India, Keybank... These are not Marxists, they're businesses using Linux after examining the GPL and finding it very suitable to them. It's not even the tip of the iceberg, either. Saving millions of dollars is not a matter of ideology to a business. Businesses which do not depend on selling commodity software choose the GPL very often. This ensures that any code they contribute to the projects that help their business does not get swallowed up, proprietized, and sold as closed source to their disadvantage. The GPL ensures that, so long as they play by its rules, they get to leverage their programmer expenditures. They get more out than they put in, individually. |
| jboyd Mar 14, 2006 1:48 PM EDT |
Point well taken Grouch, I would like to clarify, I do not think that GPL and/or Stallman are explicitly Marxists, remember I am still trying to figure it out. And let us look at a few of these companies, I will only talk about what I know. Let's look at Redhat, I believe that businesswise Redhat is the best thing that ever happened to Open Source, yet I would not consider them a provider of free software. Even though they talk the talk, they don't walk the walk. They have found a way to keep their distribution proprietary by embedding a protected trademark in their software. I regularly see distributions declaring proudly that they are a derivative of Debian, yet Centos on their website has to make an oblique reference to Redhat as "a prominent North American Distribution" I think this is wrong, however it shows that Redhat believe that some form of restriction is necessary to keep it profitable, legally it is not a violation of the GPL but in spirit it is. As far as I am concerned the only free distributions are Debian,Slackware and Gentoo ( no.. I did not leave out Ubuntu, I consider this distribution the unruly son of Debian who is going force his parents to upgrade their wardrobe). IBM, how much more money did they make selling Windows ? Is Linux their way of getting out from under the thumb of Microsoft and therefore is the fact that linux is GPL, only incidental and they can live with it (for now)? If I did not know better I would think that IBM invented the word patent. Mysql is dual licensed , why the need if the GPL is so great. The long and short of it , I do not believe that these companies are really interested in the GPL but cheap rugged software that works. As long as the license does not mess with the dollar machine. Note you said " ...after examining the GPL and finding it very suitable to them." I fully agree with you on that one, but what would happen when the GPL outlaws DRM related software, would companies such as Sony still use it. I say "when" because I get the impression that the true GPL supporters want this. These companies do not use open source software because of the GPL, they use it because it is open source ( yes ,this is only my opinion). These companies are going to make sure and protect whatever they believe gives them competitive advantage. The trend I see is that the big companies only make something open source when it is failing. No problem there, I have yet to see HP and IBM open source their alternative operating systems, and Sun chose to use their own license. My basic premise is that the philosophy of Mr.Richard Stallman is flawed,and if and when he can plug all the loopholes that allow companies to use GPL software for IT related business, that is not totally transparent and "free", that will be the end of the GPL. |
| jboyd Mar 14, 2006 1:58 PM EDT |
And Grouch, Would I be correct in saying that the great majority of companies you listed depend on closed source software and/or patents for their bread and butter? |
| tadelste Mar 14, 2006 2:06 PM EDT |
jboyd: I read your comment. I'd retort but I haven't got the motivation to correct such a huge misunderstanding of the subject. You haven't got your hands around the issues at all. Sorry. Keep trying. |
| jboyd Mar 14, 2006 2:12 PM EDT |
tadelste, I am disappointed, If you reread my first paragraph, I indicated that I am trying to understand, hence my post, I know that this is a touchy subject yet I opened myself up. With the hope that eventually I would be able to concretize my impressions and change them if need be . So be it .I would have expected that this would be the sort of forum for this. I guess this is your version of RTFM. Best regards. |
| tadelste Mar 14, 2006 2:49 PM EDT |
jboyd: If you would ask questions instead of making assertions, it would be easier for me and others to support you. I'd also suggest chunking the questions into multiple posts. I also feel disappointed. Your post looked like an onslaught to me. The article itself attempted to deal with the flotsum and jetsum that comes across our editors' desks each day. So, which issue would you like to discuss first? |
| jboyd Mar 14, 2006 3:15 PM EDT |
Fair enough, I do apologise. And I will take your suggestion of chunking the question into multiple posts. My first issue is the definition of open source. When I think open source, I think only that, the source is open,nothing else. I do not ascribe any concept of freeness, desire for community building or anything else of the sort to it. Therefore if open-exchange decides to give a piece of software under the GPL, it means that they feel that it is good for their business, fine with me, the source code, don't matter what the attendent license, once it is out in the open, it is open source. Alternatively if they feel that they need to keep certain tools proprietary to stay in business, that is fine with me also.I feel that every software company should have that right, without having to have whatever open source contribution they make, be depreciated. Whoa boy ... I am having great difficulty pressing that send button. Whoops there I go making assertions again, give me time I will eventually find a way around that. |
| tadelste Mar 14, 2006 4:10 PM EDT |
A definition with explanations of open source exists: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php You suggest that "the source is open, nothing else". However, that's not what they definition says. It deals with all kinds of issues such as distribution and redistribution, license specific to products, derived works, etc. Unfortunately, people claim that they product is open source and it is not. It doesn't comply with the definition. My issue deals with branding. You can say you have an open source software product and keep the code from being distributed. That's not open source but the people use the brand. JBoss is a good example of a company that says they are a Professional Open Source company. They trademarked that term. But the main product is LGPL - totally free in every sense of the word. I had a serious problem with Open Exchange because they don't contribute back. They say, "here's our open source components which we took from the community but you can't have our installer and admin panel." I don't consider them open source based on the definition. Not only that, they combine software under the GPL and similar licenses with proprietary stuff. That's provides no value add to me or you. I can show you the document that tells you how to put those components together. http://www.ibiblio.org/oswg/oswg-nightly/oswg/en_US.ISO_8859... Mead and Johnson put it together. So, they took the components and the software combined it with their wrapper and that's it. They don't get my vote. Something seems odd about that. If you could see the flotsom and jetsom that comes across our editors' desks every day, you might understand the annoyance. People say open source this and that but they are not open source. They use free software in their products. For example, Microsoft used the BSD code for TCP/IP. Does that make them open source? Rhetorical question - I know. So, the problem I had in the first place and to which I addressed the article is how Linux, the trend setter is cheapened by the so-called open source companies. |
| jboyd Mar 14, 2006 4:37 PM EDT |
Ahh, I see from just the introduction on the first hyperlink that my concept of open source is wrong, I stand corrected. On the way down to point 9 on the same page: " 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software. Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed." I am looking at the first three lines, can Open-Exchange seek refuge under this clause, alternatively do you view their removal of their admin tools to violate the spirit of the last three lines. That is, important parts necessary to the proper use of the program they kept for themself, and they can always claim it (the tools) are not an integral part of the software , to work their way out of the GPL requirements. PS I have seen other posters get a red background on their pasted stuff, how do I do that? |
| jdixon Mar 14, 2006 5:40 PM EDT |
jboyd: Well, let me take a stab at some of your perception problems. > What grinds the me the most is that the Free Software movement says it is morally and ethically wrong for someone to produce software under anything but the GPL . This is incorrect. The FSF says that it is wrong to produce non-free software. They recognize a number of licenses, among them being the BSD license, as being free. Note that they make no effort to make it illegal to produce non-free software. They're not trying to ban the practice. They only say that it's wrong. > While I have read many articles that rebut the view that GPL and Mr.Stallman are communist/Marxist ,I am not totally convinced, Communism and Marxism are political theories. The GPL is about free software, not political structures. Since the FSF doesn't advocate using the law to force the use of free software or stop the use of non-free software, it can' t really be considered in political terms. Doing so is sort of like saying a potato makes a great projectile. Well, yes, it can, but that's not really the point of a potato, is it? > The BSD license is the only license that guarantees true freedom. From a user's perspective, there's almost no difference between the BSD license and the GPL, which is why the FSF considers the BSD license to be free. From a developer's perspective, there is a great deal of difference, and yes the BSD license is more free than the GPL. The question is, which license results in more free software being produced, the BSD license or the GPL? Remember that for the FSF, the goal is the production and use of free software. They think the GPL does a better job of promoting free software than the BSD license does. From what I've seen, I'd say they are correct, but the matter is not yet settled to everyone's satisfaction. > Free software truely became accessible to the average man when Mr.Eric "Shoot the recruiter" Raymond and company formalised the concept of Open Source. I believe that Eric himself will tell you that he considers Open Source and free software to be the same thing. Eric and company (correctly, as far as I can tell) realized that RMS and company's rhetoric was frightening off many businesses, and simply came up with a new way of talking about the subject which was not as frightening to the business community. This is a point you really need to understand: From a practical stand point, OSS and free software were and have largely continued to be the same thing. However, with some of the later Open Source licenses, this is no longer quite as true, and this is why it's important to clear up your misconceptions. What was originally merely a semantic difference has now developed into a slowly widening rift, and it's important to know on which side you belong. > I believe that the more the GPL is modified to reflect Mr.Stallman's philosophy , the less developers and companies would use it. RMS wants free software. The GPL is (to the extent it is humanly possible) the codified form of his vision of what free software should be. To the extent that other people want free software and share his vision of what free software is, the GPL will continue to be used. If other people decide that they do not share his vision of what free software is, or do not want free software, then the GPL will die. > ...They have found a way to keep their distribution proprietary by embedding a protected trademark in their software. Red Hat owns their trademark. It's not software, and is not covered by the GPL. The free software community has no claim on it. And yet White Box Linux and CentOS exist and are functional replacements for RHEL. The GPL worked as intended, and yet you see this as a problem. Can you see the disconnect here? I see it as a success. > ... but what would happen when the GPL outlaws DRM related software, would companies such as Sony still use it. From a free software perspective, the more important question is should they be using it at all? Is allowing the use of DRM to lock down programs and content an appropriate use of free software? That's what the community is trying to decide now. That's the type of thing the GPL3 process is all about. > I have yet to see HP and IBM open source their alternative operating systems... Actually, IBM has done exactly that with large chunks of code. You can see the SCO complaint for a detailed listing of what they consider "misappropriated technology" which has found it's way into Linux. Groklaw is a good site for doing so: http://www.groklaw.net/ > The long and short of it , I do not believe that these companies are really interested in the GPL but cheap rugged software that works. As long as the license does not mess with the dollar machine. Well, that's sort of a tautology. Companies exist to make money for their owners. They're not interested in anything which "messes with the dollar machine". What you seem to be overlooking, however, is that this is exactly why the GPL exists, and why free software folks prefer it to the BSD license. The GPL tells IBM and other companies: Sure you can use our software for your own benefit, but you have to share your improvements with everyone else. Without the GPL, there is no incentive for any company to do so, and numerous incentives for them not to do so. The hope is that the GPL creates a virtuous circle, where the software keeps getting better as more companies and people decide to use it, resulting in yet more companies and people using it, ad infinitum. I hope this clarifies some of the points where I feel you're mistaken, and explains some of the points you seem to be missing. I don't expect it to convince you that free software is better than Open Source software, that's a decision everyone must make on their own over time. I'm just trying to help make your decision a more informed one. Hopefully I've succeeded, at least partially. |
| tadelste Mar 14, 2006 5:56 PM EDT |
Quoting:Open-Exchange seek refuge under this clause, alternatively do you view their removal of their admin tools to violate the spirit of the last three lines That's only one item of complaince. Open Exchange isn't comppliant with other requirements. Look at item 2.The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost–preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. |
| dcparris Mar 14, 2006 7:03 PM EDT |
Jboyd: I would just add that Stallman's real platform is anti-greed. Using the GPL practically makes greediness a moot point. Greedy people aren't all that likely to choose it because it means allowing others to share. And, building on the point jdixon made about which license leads to the most free software, I would suggest that the U.S. Constitution includes a few restrictions in order to ensure the greatest amount of freedom for all. In that light, copyright exists to ensure a balance of rights between authors and audiences. Technically speaking, a EULA circumvents this balance, as does DRM. |
| tadelste Mar 14, 2006 7:20 PM EDT |
Don: To build on your point, people continually put the blame on Richard for everything out of the FSF. He's a nomad continually traveling. He may have started the FSF but today some pretty bright people operate that foundation. Eben Moglen has as much or even more architectural influence on the Free Software movement. Lawrence Lessig is no slouch. A large brain trust exists and everyone has a say. |
| grouch Mar 14, 2006 8:25 PM EDT |
Stallman has never been anti-business. This is a typical misinformation attack by those who cannot stand the fact that the days of perpetually renting licenses for commodity software to customers they've trapped are dying. Sorry to have fed the troll. |
| jboyd Mar 15, 2006 2:03 AM EDT |
Good morning to all, You guys have certainly given me a lot of home work, your responses are well appreciated, I must admit that some of Stallman's antics have made somewhat biased against him, maybe unnecessarily so. jdixon: thanks for taking the time to treat all the points I made, I understand now why Tom suggested I break things up in multiple posts : ) Please do understand, as jdixon rightfuly said "..and it's important to know on which side you belong" and this is what I am trying to do. Yes you all have cleared up some of my thoughts , and have given me starting points to deal with other stuff that I may be at loggerheads with. As long as you will allow me to , I would like to explore these things until I feel that I understand it all. For instance some time in the near future I would like bring up the issue of non-free software being wrong ( as in a moral judgement) grouch: I use free software, I enjoy the community around the use of free software. And I plan in the very near future to make some kind of serious contribution back to the community . Hence the reason that this is necessary for me, maybe you have it totally figured out in your head, I do not. I apologise if I came across as a troll. And I guess until I have it totally figured out , I will come across at times as being an a$$ , at times ignorant, and when I am at my very best, totally hopeless : ) Time for me to start some reading, keep it coming. best regards. PS I am heading over to the open exchange site to judge for myself. I will get back to you on it. |
| number6x Mar 15, 2006 2:53 AM EDT |
jboyd, Its much easier to understand the GPL from a conservative libertarian point of view. The GPL is about guaranteeing the ongoing rights of software users. The purpose is to ensure that the ability of users to access and manipulate the stuff that makes the software work (source code) is never jeopardized. Kind of like Democracy, where the people are actually supposed to participate in the development and running of the government, not just be on the receiving end of solutions handed down from on high. The fact that Free software's source code (That's 'Free' as in Free enterprise remember) is available for no-cost does have an interesting side effect. You are free to distribute the free software created by others. You can charge as much as you want. As an example, IBM's Websphere Application Developer's suite is based on free software but is rather costly. So what is this side effect? Well, no matter what you charge for the end product, the source code is available for no-cost. This promotes competition. Some other people can repackage the same source you are charging too much for and under cut your prices. Yes GPL software is a promoter of that evil capitalist nuisance, Free Market Competition. This tends to have the side effect of turning software from a high cost item into a low cost commodity. Another one of those evil conservative economic trends, commoditization of goods due to increased competition in free markets. This is why so many corporations prefer the OSS licenses. They can legally make a few small changes to other people's copyrighted works, close up those changes, and reduce the competition they face in the market place. Corporations can minimize their costs by using other people's copyrighted works, and maximize their profits while reducing the competitive forces they face. The key to understanding the GPL is to picture it as a mechanism meant to guarantee the rights of the software user to access, manipulate, and re-distribute the source code. If you think like a modern day Thomas Jefferson, it helps. |
| jboyd Mar 15, 2006 3:39 AM EDT |
Hello number6x, I am still digesting what you wrote, and I like the angle you are taking. I should point out though that I consider myself a Capitalist, and I consider Free Market Competition necessary for healthy living (as opposed to evil or a nuisance). |
| tadelste Mar 15, 2006 5:14 AM EDT |
jboyd: I do not think capitalism or communism have anything t do with the issues of OSS or Free Software. Also, I'm a little baffled by what you refer to as Stallman antics. He has a quirky personality, but like I said previously, he's one voice out of many. The difference between capitalism and communism is not political.. Again, we're dealing with labels. In economics, we look at Marx's argument as one related to ownership of the profits of an enterprise. The question comes down to this: Who owns the profit, labor or the people providing the means of production. That argument came up during the National Football League contract talks. The NFL owners last week ratified a contract where 59.5% of revenues, not profits, went to the players association. That's the argument in a nutshell. No one mentioned communism or capitalism during these negotiations. Revenues equate to profits and I don't know the percentages. What people call intellectual property is a hoax. I have contracts with publishers of my books and that's all that really matters. Ownership of a copyright means very little to me and I did a summer internship at the Library of Congress in the copyright division. The original copyright law came about because George Washington wanted to protect map makers for their efforts for a period of time that they were printed and only until someone else came up with a more accurate map or not to exceed a few years. "Map makers". |
| number6x Mar 15, 2006 6:04 AM EDT |
jboyd, My comments about the 'evils' of capitalism are sarcasm. I should have added a smiley :) This is because I'm fed up with the constant "Linux is communist" kind of FUD. The reasons for the start of the free software movement have little to do with economics. They have everything to do with guaranteeing the rights of the users of software. Those rights include the right to have access to the code, the right to change the code, and the right to redistribute the code. The creators of the GPL also want to guarantee these rights to later generations of the code. This is why the GPL requires that derivative works also stay GPL'ed. Some people believe other open source licenses are freer because they allow you to do more varied things with later generations of the code than the GPL does. Apple can take a version of Mach/BSD, add proprietary code to it and close the whole thing up. This is more freedom for Apple, but not more freedom for the users of OS/X. The GPL is about guaranteeing the rights of the users to code now and in the future. You have to look at it as an effort to guarantee the continuing rights of the users. I guess the most 'free' way to do things would be to put them in the public domain, but this would not guarantee access to users of future generations of derivative code. Public domain code can be altered and locked up. The point of the GPL is to ensure access to current code and its derivatives. This may or may not be the best license for a work you create. You have to look at what you want to achieve. A BSD or MIT License will allow others to use your code. A GPL license will allow others to use your code, and derivatives of your code. They are all open source, and all good choices. Don't get religious about it, that just adds to the FUD. Oh, and Let Freedom Ring. |
| Kagehi Mar 18, 2006 5:56 PM EDT |
And one important issue about the, "guaranteeing the rights of the users to code now and in the future", by making sure no one can hide how something works, you make sure everyone can always use or duplicate it. This is one of the big reasons why some people consider it a moral issue. All you have to do is look at Microsoft Word to see what happens when this "isn't" the way things work. A document from Word 1.0 **will not** load 100% correctly in 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, etc., they don't load 100% correctly in any clones or translators people have made, etc. This means that any document made a few years ago, unless you reproduce them some other way, like retyping them, cannot be recovered perfectly, even the same product of the same company that you produced the original document on. Then you get situations like Dr. DOS, where the company owning the original can alter it, or their software, in a way that disables the ability to to use the competing product. MS does this with damn near everything at some point, even adding features that are implimentable within and existing protocol, and instead adding secondary protocols or non-standard changes to the existing one, which don't just add information, but efectively prevent any non-MS (or the original) protocol from working with the modified version. Etc, etc. While MS is the king of this kind of BS, they are not the only ones that do it. For a regular user, this kind of lock-in, lock-out or, "Oops! You mean you can't access your files anymore? Too bad!", type of business is usually only very annoying and time wasting. For a company, it can cost millions. It would be the equivalent of the US mint suddenly reprinting every single denomination of currency, then telling everyone they only had one day to trade the all of the old versions in, after which "no" bank in the country will be allowed to honor the value of the bills. They would have to be insane to pull that, but companies have done, and continue to do, that sort of thing all the time, because they *can* do so, under a non-free license. |
| jboyd Mar 18, 2006 7:42 PM EDT |
Hello Kagehi, I am in full agreement that it is highly unethical for any person or company to hold a persons private property ( in this case information) as hostage. However can you not get around this by making sure that your software can generate standardised formats eg. ODF for documents, DXF for technical drawings etc. ( I am not sure if DXF is considered a standard, I just brought it up because it seems nearly all cad programs seem to be able to read it. If so, would it be fair to say it did not matter if you use a proprietary or free software product , once it can generate these formats ? And would a person not also get this benefit if he used any number of OSS labels or are you saying that only the GPL guarantees this. Remember I originally started arguing for the relevance of OSS labels over just the GPL. Admittedly I did not do a good job of it (understatement) and I may have put my foot so far down my mouth my tail pipe is growing toes :) Overall though,I understand and agree with what you are saying, a proprietary program leaves room for the software writer/vender to be unethical ( hold your info as hostage) whereas free software does not leave room for this abuse . In fact whether or not there are standardised formats you always have the means to access you data. |
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!