Re: Economics and the GPL

Deven T. Corzine wrote:

>That's exactly the question I've been asking myself for a while now.
>
>I'm not sure what the answer is.  I don't think Stallman can be trusted to 
>rein in the GPL, though it's in his power, even if it becomes a destructive 
>monopoly, because it wouldn't be destroying what HE cares about.
>
>Most importantly, how can one adress this danger without coming to be 
>viewed as an "enemy" by GPL adherents?
>
>Deven
>
>  
>

First, you have to realize RMS does not intend to take away freedom, 
contrary to the rhetoric spouting up around here like Old Faithful.  He 
simply does not want his source code to find its way into commercial, 
proprietary products, because he believes these products infringe on his 
right to modify what is his.  He encourages others to join his cause 
because there are others like him who believe we are better off with the 
free flow of information, even if we can't get rich off what we enjoy 
doing in the first place.

This is an ethical, not political, issue for him.  It has become a 
political issue because of the patent and copyright climate in the US 
and the EU; consumer and author's rights are being traded for corporate 
rights, to the point where people are arrested for creating code to play 
DVDs on operating systems that have no DVD software available.  In fact, 
the more I see of the current political climate, the more sure of RMS' 
ideology I become.  Although I agree with the ethics involved, I believe 
in the GPL as a political tool, a method of usurping control from the 
corporations and returning it to the individuals, where it belongs.  But 
that's me, Anti-Corporation Taylor.

Secondly, if you critisize the GPL, critisize it for the true flaws, and 
avoid rhetoric like, "It'll destroy the industry!"  First, there's no 
indication the GPL is going to ruin the industry, even if it becomes the 
dominant license; for me, it's already made it better.  Most GPL 
apologists will think the same way: it's already helped.  No, instead 
focus on the flaws such as: it does not give back to other free software 
licenses, like X11 and BSD, though it takes from them freely; it is in a 
legal limbo until it has been tested in court, and may not even hold; it 
addresses mostly old-style programming, when a library was a library and 
a program, a program, and does not take into account the evolving 
realities of distributed-service computing; and there are some quibbles 
with definitions in the LGPL that can change the entire meaning of the 
license (like, where does a module begin, and where does it end?  What 
constitutes a "whole work?").

Vague worries about its impact on the future industry come off like Ed 
Yourden's Y2K fear-mongering.  Plus, both sides are indefensible, and 
this will not lead to a productive discussion, but will only devolve 
into name-calling.

Finally, be open-minded, but do not expect the same from your debate 
opponent.  Most heatedly-active GPL apologists are similar in nature to 
their anti-GPL counterparts: bullishly closed-minded, opinionated, quite 
paranoid, and will refuse to debate real issues, but instead focus on 
the points that cannot be disproved.

At least, that's my experience.

                    - Tony