Re: Economics and the GPL

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
> 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.

Then we agree that all three statements are false.

I have never said that Transgaming 'stole' Wine code and I agree with
you that they have done nothing of the sort. Those who say such things
are doing a disservice to this discussion.

And I did not say ther have given nothing in return. The issue has been
with the effect their actions had on the community. But it seems these
times are behind us now.


[...]
> 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).

Wrong. All program A has to do is to not use the next version of library
B. It's that simple.

If the developpers of program A believe that using the next version of
library B outweight any possible disadvantages of licensing their
program under the GPL, then they can use it. Otherwise, as far as they
are concerned, it is as if all development on library B has stopped.
Nothing entitled them to continued development on library B in the first
place. And they are also free to fork library B to continue working on
it under the LGPL, together with anyone else who is interested.


> > 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....

No. All I am saying is that anyone who makes plans such as 'I am going
to develop a proprietary kernel and the cool thing is that I won't have
to develop tons of device drivers because I will just use the Linux
drivers' is stupid. When you plan a new project, open-source or
otheriwse, get aquainted with the license of any software you intend to
leverage.

It's just common sense.


> > 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?

It seems that X11/*BSD proponents are always using 'stealing' in
'quotes'. That way they clearly convey their feelings while at the same
time making sure that no one can accuse them of claiming *GPL steals
their code. Example, from one of your emails:
(http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-license/2002/06/0018.html)

    Otherwise, the LGPL project could always 'steal' from the X11
    version, thus always making the comparison worthless.

And you do seem to believe that code which is undert the BSD license can
be stolen. Or was that driver not under the BSD license?
(http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-license/2002/06/0051.html)

    And you *can* steal from BSD - Linux stole (in the true sense of the
    word) FreeBSD's IDE driver.


Finally there is this recent email you wrote where you say
that integrating a patch from Brett Glass into LGPL code would be
"tantamount to 'stealing'". But granted you said so more with regards to
his feelings and yet, if he released his patch under the X11 license
then it does mean he agrees to it being put in the LGPL tree.

http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-license/2002/06/0031.html


`
> However, the claim that LGPL was used to coerce Transgaming into releasing
> their source is indeed true.

I can only speak for myself but my reasons for supporting the LGPL for
Wine are not to force Transgaming to release their code.


> > 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'.

I agree with you that X11 code cannot be stolen. Any individual saying
so is mistaken. But was it really necessary to overly generalize to the
whole '*GPL camp'?


[...]
> > 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".

Quite the opposite. I don't see Netscape 6 as having any advantage over
Mozilla at this time. Yet they may still live. And if they do then it
proves that the standard 'economic' analysis is flawed. As for
OpenOffice and StarOffice I use neither so I don't have an opinion on
them.


> > 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.

Which means that in your view proprietary versions of an open-source
project can only survive if they have a big advantage over the free
version. Which is another way to say that the free version is seriously
lacking. If such a situation persist I don't see how the free version
can survive. And if this situation does not last, then by your own
analysis the proprietary versions will die anyway. Maybe just a little
later.

Of course I don't think the standard purely economic analysis is
valid.


--
Francois Gouget         [email protected]        http://fgouget.free.fr/
        War doesn't determine who's right.  War determines who's left.