Re: GPL and economics

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:

> Just want to add my 0.5$
> 
> We all are discussing potential future damage of the *GPL.
> 
> Let us for a moment consider the damage that has actually bee DONE by 
> proprietary licensing. Consider for example the case of M$ Windows(thats 
> why we all are in this list anyway). How comes that one proprietary 
> software giant can have a monopolistic hold on the entire world of 
> computing forcing thousands of companies through upgrade cycles, etc...

I don't dispute the damage done by Microsoft.  They're slimy bastards, no 
question.  I'm rooting for the 9 states still fighting the good fight...

> Stop pointing your fingers on the *GPL. It seems that everyone takes the 
> damage done by M$ as something natural. I doubt that the damage the GPL 
> will do, if any will ever compare to what was caused my monopolistic 
> practices based on proprietary licenses...

Microsoft is so damaging because it's a monopoly.  Blame IBM.  Those dolts 
could have insisted on buying the rights to MS-DOS outright (as Bill Gates 
bought them from Digital Research) and Microsoft wouldn't have gotten that 
crucial foothold that they ultimately leveraged into their current monopoly 
from hell.  Microsoft needs to be taken down quite a few pegs.

What's "natural" about Microsoft is that MOST proprietary interests tend to 
abuse monopolies once they achieve them -- it takes a lot of self-control 
NOT to, because it's so easy for a monopolist to take advantage.  I don't 
think Sun, Oracle, IBM or AOL would be any better in charge, either -- even 
if they have supported Linux at times or even released code as open source.
(Sun isn't necessarily our friend just because they released StarOffice!)

But what makes you think a monopoly under the proprietary GPL license would 
be any more rosy?  I'm sure Bill Gates thinks he's doing wonderful things 
for the world, and Stallman would think the same.  (He already does.)  With 
monopoly power, Stallman would probably abuse it as readily as Microsoft, 
without believing he's doing anything wrong, just as Gates clearly believes 
he's in the right and doesn't understand why so many people oppose him...

> I dare you to show me any damage of the GPL that is comparable.

Of course the GPL hasn't done any comparable damage YET.  The point is that 
it could.  Microsoft didn't do any serious power until they had power, but 
that didn't mean they weren't a danger.  Now, the danger of Microsoft's 
power has been realized.  The danger inherent in the GPL is yet unrealized, 
but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

> I think its not only M$, proprietary software of other vendors can also 
> have adverse effect. Did you know that some software companies go bankrupt 
> and leave their customers without any support? Since they don't have access 
> to the source code of the programs, they have to buy another proprietary 
> solution and start from square one...
> Nice, isn't it?

I think it speaks very poorly of the people running those companies.  Some 
companies are more responsible about it; Trolltech has guaranteed that Qt 
will be released under the BSD license if they get bought out or go out of 
business.  That's a more responsible approach.

I'm saying that ALL proprietary interests are dangerous if given too much 
power -- including the GPL.  I think proprietary interests are a necessary 
component of the economy because of the motivation provided by the profit 
incentive to write new code, but there needs to be a balance so proprietary 
interests remain competitive with each other, and there also needs to be a 
stable base of code either in the public domain, or effectively so as with 
the BSD/X11 licenses.

When ANY proprietary interests gets too much power, it's a bad thing.  Why 
would you be in a hurry to turn the reins over to the GPL?  It would be yet 
another taskmaster, just with a different style, and a holier-than-thou 
attitude to top it off...

Deven