Re: Economics and the GPL

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
> Francois Gouget <[email protected]> wrote:
> [...]
> > 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.  

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Transgaming has given *nothing* to
wine. If they are suggesting this, then they're wrong.


> 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).

No. Both Library B and Program A have a choice:

If library C switches to GPL, then library B has two choices: either
continue developing the LGPL independently (ie continue LGPL version as a
fork) and maintain its LGPL license, or switch to GPL itself. It is
perhaps, easier to switch to GPL, but its certainly not a requirement.

There is a corresponding choice for Program A, if B goes GPL because C
went GPL, then A must choose between going GPL or continuing development
of Libraries B & C as LGPL alternatives.

In both cases people developing the software had the choice to follow with
GPL, or to create a fork and continue their work as LGPL.

But, this all seems rather academic. Are there any examples you can think
of where the license switch from LGPL -> GPL forced other code to switch
to GPL?


> > 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....

Well, that is the topic under discussion after all :^) It seems a natural
enough assumption, from which the argument continues.


> > 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.

[snip defn of coerce]

People may wish to believe that the switch to LGPL might force Transgaming
into releasing their DirectX code. However, from his previous post
   http://www.winehq.com/hypermail/wine-license/2002/05/0158.html
Alexandre has stated he had no such intention / delusion.


> > 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'.

Stolen? no, obviously.
Hijacked? maybe -- the opportunity is there from the license, whether it
happens in practise very much depends on the specifics of the project.

So, I think it is a mistake to generalise too much on this point.

----
Paul Millar