Re: Economics and the GPL

--- "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:
> 
> > This is like saying the grocery store seeks to take money away from people
> by
> > saying "pay me money, or else you can't have this banana".  
> 
> No, it's more like the store owner saying, "add my name on all your bank 
> accounts, let me have as much of your money as I want, and you can have all 
> the bananas and anything else in my store you want."  Very different.

Also very different from what the GPL says.  Using GPL code in a single derived
work does not compel one to turn over all works one has created or will ever
create.  Here's a better (but still imperfect) analogy:  a grocery store owner
says to an ice cream store owner, "I will give you all the free bananas you
want, but you must give me free banana splits whenever I ask."

> > That [the GPL] to me is not "taking", it is trading.
> 
> Normal trading is an equal exchange of similar value.  

First of all, "similar value" is strictly in the eyes of the beholders.  What
one person considers "similar value", another may not.  If one feels their work
will be worth much more than what they get from the GPL code, then by all means
they should not use GPL code.

Yes, the GPL's measure of similar value is crude:  all my code in exchange for
all the code you derive from my code.  But what is the alternative?
  
1.  One can simply give all one's code away, like BSD or X11.  But that's not
an equitable trade, either.  

2.  One could put a price in dollars (or your favorite currency) on the code,
but the whole point of offering a GPL license is to find a way to offer code
without requiring a cash payment.  Besides a price tag does not guarantee equal
value:  one person may get more use out of a good or service than another, but
both have to pay the same price.

3.  One could negotiate a barter with every potential licensee.  But that would
be a long and cumbersome process.

The GPL has the advantage of being (relatively) simple and universal.  It
requires some return of value, without reqiring individual negotiation or cash
payments.  It's not perfect, but it seems better than many alternatives.  

>Using the GPL is 
> more like joining a commune.  Hardly the same thing.

While there is some validity to the commune analogy, I think the comparison is
not entirely fair.  In a commune, everyone shares everything.  The GPL does not
compel one to turn over everything they own, only what they build using the GPL
source.  I see it more like a co-op.

Besides, at least with the GPL or a commune, you are entitled to get something
back for what you are giving.  BSD/X11 is more like a charity:  you take
without having to give, and you give without being guaranteed anything in
return.  It's a noble institution, but one that is subject to abuse.


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com