Re: Economics and the GPL

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:

> I'm not certain of the answer, either.  I agree that one should not leave it
> purely up to RMS or the FSF.  Not because I think they are evil, but simply
> because I don't think any monopolist should be expected to be entirely
> self-regulating.

Power corrupts, right?  No wonder self-regulation is unreliable...

> > Most importantly, how can one adress this danger without coming to be 
> > viewed as an "enemy" by GPL adherents?
> 
> Well, I've given one suggestion:  advocate for much shorter software 
> copyright duration.  The FSF already publicly supports that, and it would 
> limit the power of the xGPL by making the code public domain (and open to 
> non-xGPL users) sooner.  In fact, it would limit the powers of all 
> software monopolies, whether they be an xGPL project or Microsoft.

Indeed.  I have no argument against this -- copyright duration is already 
WAY too long.  Unfortunately, this is a legislative issue, and nothing we 
can take unilateral action on.  It's good to lobby for, but no telling if 
that lobbying will ever be successful.

> Until such legislative change, perhaps a modified version of the xGPLs 
> could give similar benefits.  Something along the lines of "5 years after 
> receiving this work, you may distribute a work derived from this work, 
> provided you licensee all others to distribute and modify the derived 
> work, free of charge, 5 years after distributing the derived work."  One 
> could still require source be distributed with binaries, but could 
> prohibited redistributing the source for up to 5 years.  This would give 
> proprietary companies a 5-year window of exclusive distribution of their 
> version, allowing them to make a profit, while requiring them to 
> eventually return their code to the public and xGPL community.

Actually, the GPL may have a loophole -- you can comply with the GPL by 
accompanying the binary with a written offer to provide the source.  What 
if the written offer were to say that the source would be released 5 years 
after the initial release of the corresponding binary?  It would constitute
prima facie compliance with the letter of the GPL, as long as all offers 
received are eventually redeemed with the source...

Of course, people could still redistribute binaries meanwhile (eliminating 
the profit incentive) and the source when released.

Actually, I'm surprised that the companies who want to "beta test" versions 
of GPL-derived code without providing source don't take advantage of this 
provision, use a written offer and just not fulfill the orders for source 
until the beta test terminates.  (They might even hide it as a processing 
delay and not admit to it in the written offer...)  As long as they provide 
the source, eventually, for the exact version of the source that went with 
the binary being beta-tested, it would be hard for anyone to point at the 
GPL and say where a violation occurred.  (No doubt GPL v3 will be even more 
restrictive to close such loopholes.)

Anyway, reducing copyright duration is fair because it puts everyone on a 
level playing field.  One could place code directly in the public domain 
and never bother with the GPL, but it's one-sided; proprietary companies
could take advantage too easily.  No doubt that's why the GPL exists.  To 
suggest that the GPL be time-limited sort of defeats the purpose...

Deven