Re: GPL and Economics (was Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias))

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:

> Dumping is an act committed by a dominant player primarily in an attempt to
> drive substatially less well funded competitors out of business.  If an xGPL
> project were a dominant player, with substantially more resources than any
> competitior, then one could compare the xGPL to dumping.  I agree that if 
> this ever becomes the case, then there would be a need for corrective 
> action.

Dumping can be done by dominant players and non-dominant players alike.

However, it's only really dangerous when done by a player so dominant as to 
have an effective monopoly on the market.  This is exactly the reason why 
antitrust laws exist, but only apply to the monopolists.  It's perfectly 
legal for a non-monopolist to take actions (like dumping) that would become 
illegal if taken by a monopolist.  That's the nature of antitrust law.

The GPL is constantly dumping.  That's its nature.  This only becomes truly 
dangerous if and when the GPL becomes an effective monopoly, as you said.  
Of course, this is the exact situation I've been expressing concern about.  
I'm not concerned about it as long as the GPL is just another player in a 
diverse marketplace.  But if Stallman has his way, it will become dominant.

> I agree, there is the potential for the xGPL to become a coercive,
> anticompetitive tool, but only if an xGPL project becomes an effective
> monopoly.  Short of that, the xGPL is a legitimate competitive tool.

Yup.  But once the ball really gets rolling, the coercive nature of the GPL 
makes it hard to stop that momentum.  Even if it becomes obvious before it 
has an effective monopoly, it will be hard to keep it from reaching that 
point, sooner or later.

Of course, if the GPL ever does achieve an effective monopoly, the most 
obvious outcome would be that an antitrust lawsuit would be filed against 
the FSF for the noncompetitive effects of the GPL, especially since much of 
the GPL software gives the "any future version" authorization to the FSF to 
relicense it with a new GPL revision later.  It's quite possible that the 
government would force the FSF to remove the viral aspects of the GPL, or 
the courts or congress might simply invalidate the GPL entirely.

Of course, I'd rather not see it come to drastic legal solutions like that.

Deven