Re: Economics and the GPL

Francois Gouget 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.
> Then we agree that all three statements are false.

well, depending on the context.  Really depends on how you define 'coerce'.
 
> 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.

Didn't mean to imply that you did - sorry - used a too wide of a shotgun
on that statement.  
 
> 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.

> > 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.

oh?  and what if B is glibc?  You, as an application writer, is going to
take on supporting a c library?  (it's not like a previous version of
a c library will even work without some effort).  Granted, you don't have
a guarentee with commerical software, *but* you at least have commercial
interests working in your favor.  It is the expressed intent of FSF to
make their software _G_PL and convert as much LGPL to GPL as possible.
 
> 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.

It's a little worse than that, as libraries tend to be more system specific
than applications.

> 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 you don't consider this a coercive influence?   I don't think it's
unfair to say that it *is* one in this context.
 
> > 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.

I'll agree that it is stupid.  I won't agree that this is necessarily illegal.

> 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.

The point I was trying to make is that a license change *is* a coercive
influence (because one doesn't necessarily expect that).  
 
> > > 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.

If you read the *entire* thing, it was in the context of determining which
project (LGPL wine or X11 rewind) was better.   In the context of a contest,
I was saying *if* LGPL used Rewind 'only' patches ('only' in quotes because
it's not like it can be legally prevented), it is like stealing.   And this
context is certainly nicer than various GPL advocates' uses of stealing without
the quotes....
 
> 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.

You got me here.  It takes effort and is mindbogglingly stupid, but it is 
possible (you have to remove the copyrights, try to obfuscate the source,
and the other stuff that the linux developer who took the BSD IDE driver
code did).  Just as Transgaming would be stealing the X11 Wine code if they 
left out the Wine copyright.  But I consider this an anomaly, and certainly 
easily rectified.   However, I don't think this is what you meant by your 
statement "change of the license from X11 to LGPL has somehow 'stolen' their code".  
 
> 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

This is in the context of the first example you made (certainly was in the
same thread) as an example of what I was trying to say.  In any case, are
you saying anything I said was libelous?

> > 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.

yes, but can you say the same for the rest of the LGPL supporters?  Unless you
can say "Yes", saying that coerce is abuse by the *GPL opponents is not a fair
statement.
 
> > > 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'?

apologies again.  I'll insert "many in" infront next time.
 
> [...]
> > > 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.

It's better for me, as I like AIM on the tab, and a better compiler was used
to compile n6.  But to each his/her own...

> And if they do then it proves that the standard 'economic' analysis is flawed.

why? There's nothing wrong with paying for something that's better...

> > > 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.

I'm not sure if I would use the word "big".  Really a function of how much
is costs, doesn't it?

> 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.

well, you can look at AFPL Ghostscript / GNU Ghostscript as an example.  Besides,
I don't necessarily see anything bad in this situation anyway.   Really depends
on where the majority of the development is being done.  Unlike some people, I
don't mind paying for better software.
 
> Of course I don't think the standard purely economic analysis is valid.

only in the respect that supply can be infinite.  Though I fail to see
how this changes any of the economic mechanisms at play.

-r