Re: Economics and the GPL

Francois Gouget <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 7 Jun 2002, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> [...]
> > The only problem with this idea is that the GPL isn't really "free market"
> > because it coerces the programmer into applying the GPL to other code that
> > might not have been licensed that way given a choice.  If the programmer
> > loses to right to choose the license on their own code, the market can
> > hardly be said to be "free".
> 
> I really resent this abuse of 'coerce' by *GPL opponents. It's akin to libel.

The 'coerce' statement is *far* more true than any of the truely libelous
statements of the pro *GPL camp stating that Transgaming 'stole' code, or
has given *nothing* in return.  

> Exactly same is true of software source.
> 
> Before you start using (as in modifying it and incorporating it in your
> development) or distributing software, *read* the license agreement
> carefully.

The problem is that you are viewing the license in isolation (a single program
all by itself).  As for reading the license, it doesn't matter with the GPL.
Take the following example:
  Program A calls LGPL library B.
  Library B calls LGPL library C. 

As far as program A knows, it's using only B.  Now see what happens
if library C turns GPL in the next version.  The outcome of it would be
that anything that directly or INDIRECTLY uses library C *must* be
licensed GPL (for that next version).  
 
> And don't complain either that you don't have the resources to redevelop
> that peiece of software. What would you have done if it had not existed
> in the first place? If your whole project relied on the existance of
> this piece of *GPL code then you should have read the *GPL first anyway.

This all assumes that the project was GPLed to begin with....
 
> Now, some people have complained that the change of the license from X11
> to LGPL has somehow 'stolen' their code. This is simply not true!

I don't recall anyone using this particular argument.  Is there a reference?
However, the claim that LGPL was used to coerce Transgaming into releasing
their source is indeed true.

From yahoo:
coerce 

TRANSITIVE VERB:
   Inflected forms: co·erced, co·erc·ing, co·erc·es
   1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of
   pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel. 
   2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced
   the strikers into compliance. See synonyms at force. 
   3. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce
   agreement. 

 
> First, your code is still available under the X11 license, just get the
> CVS of the 2002/02/28.

This is why the *GPL camp is just plain *wrong* when they claim X11
source can be 'stolen'.
 
> On a quite different subject, Deven is also concerned that *GPL software
> is going to put him out of a job because 'it's the "free beer"  aspect
> that keeps people coming back for more'.
> 
> Well, guess what, X11 and *BSD software too is free as in 'free beer'.
> 
> Following the usual 'economic' reasoning, if proprietary versions of an
> X11 and *BSD project thrive, it's because they offer many compelling
> proprietary features that are missing in the open-source project.
> Another way to say this is that the open-source version is so behind the
> times that nobody wants to use it. Is that a win for the X11 and *BSD
> licenses? I would rather call it a farce.

This is the model that's used for Netscape/Mozilla and OpenOffice/StarOffice.
I'm glad to see you think mozilla/openoffice is "so behind the times that
no one wants to use it".  
 
> And if proprietary versions prosper while having no big advantage over
> the X11/*BSD version, then it means that these companies must be relying
> on something else to live... like better packaging, better marketing or
> services. All of which work just as well with *GPL projects.

The point is that if there is no big advantage, the propriatary versions would
dry up.  I don't know of any non-free package that is identical to the free
version whose sales would be considered a resounding success.  RedHat is
probably the closest that comes to mind, but even they (redhat) is concentrating
on other avenues for their main source of income.
 
> So this is not going to calm Deven's fears but, in my view, if *GPL
> software kills the industry, then so will X11 and *BSD software.

No, because X11/BSD limits the amount of "dumping" damage it does by allowing
itself to be used without restriction.
 
-r