Re: Economics and the GPL

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:

> 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."

Somehow I don't think we'll ever be able to make this analogy really work, 
so I'm not going to try further.

> > > 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.

Indeed.  But the GPL makes no provision for equitable trading -- all trades 
must be unconditional, no matter how one-sided they may be.  This is why so 
many people consider the GPL inherently unfair -- it takes the choice away 
from the individuals sharing code unless you can get ALL of them to agree 
to use a different license.  The more individuals involved, the harder it 
is to accomplish that.

Unfortunately, if someone doesn't want to make the trade, they're faced 
with potential unfair competition against an ever-growing GPL codebase.  
How is unfair competition from the proprietary GPL codebase any better than 
unfair competition (e.g. dumping IE) from a proprietary corporation like 
Microsoft?  In either case, it squashes competition because the proprietary 
interest has overwhelming resources to bring to bear.

This is why concepts involved in antitrust law are relevant.  GPL isn't a 
monopoly yet, but it could become one, then what happens to the so-called 
free market?

> 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?

It's an incredibly simplistic measure, and most importantly, demanding ALL 
of the added value leaves nothing for a profit motive to spur development.

> 1.  One can simply give all one's code away, like BSD or X11.  But that's 
> not an equitable trade, either.  

That's what would worry me most, personally, about releasing code under the 
BSD license or another similar one.  (What is the real difference between 
the BSD license and the X11 license?  Why did Wine switch from BSD to X11?)

It's clearly very easy to abuse truly free software by appropriating it for 
proprietary code.  Then again, if you're giving the code away free anyhow, 
it's not entirely clear whether that sort of appropriation really damages 
the original project.  (It is, however, easy to say that the proprietary 
interest may have obtained an undeserved benefit.)

Darwin, for example, exists as another free BSD alternative, as a direct 
result of Apple's efforts in creating OS X.  True, there's lots of high 
level code in OS X that's missing from Darwin (Carbon, Quartz, etc.) but 
they HAVE released the low-level code and given something back to the BSD 
community that way.  They didn't get back everything that was added, but 
they did get something back.  Plus, they get the satisfaction of knowing 
that BSD code is powering many more computers than it used to.  Also, they 
can now run native BSD and Unix applications on Mac OS X machines knowing 
they'll run as well as they will under FreeBSD.  That's pretty damn cool.

On the other hand, that BSD code Apple started with had been under the 
GPL instead, would the GPL community now have Carbon, Quartz and all the 
other goodies Apple has withheld?  Of course not!  Those are the crown 
jewels, and Apple wouldn't let that happen.  No, if that BSD codebase had 
been licensed under the proprietary GPL instead, it never would have been 
used to create OS X.  Period.

If that were the case, Apple probably would have just revamped their legacy 
OS further, or perhaps licensed "real" Unix from Caldera with a proprietary 
license, or whatever.  The BSD community would have gotten NOTHING back and 
the Mac would have remained just another foreign system, instead of being a
solid BSD system with a slick user interface layered on top.

So, was it less equitable?  It's hard to say -- on the one hand, Apple did 
receive the benefit of lots of development work they never paid for, and 
that seems unfair on the surface.  But dig deeper than this prima facie 
inequity and you come face-to-face with the conundrum -- without permitting 
this apparent inequity, the BSD community would have received no benefit at 
all, instead of the partial benefit they did receive.

The GPL would seem to suggest that the benefits under the GPL should be 
greater, but that ignores the reality that proprietary interests will steer 
away from using GPL code because of the GPL's proprietary interest.  This, 
more than anything, diminishes the potential benefit the GPL truly offers.

> 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.

The whole point of the GPL is not to require a cash payment?  I think that 
you're right, but to hear Stallman tell it, it's all about freedom and not 
at all about money.

But yes, at least placing a cash value on code consitutes a neutral basis 
for trade.  The valuation may be subjective, but it's always negotiable.

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

Well, no need to shut the door to the possibility, but obviously you don't 
want to get too bogged down in negotiations, generally.

> 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.  

It requires unconditional return of value, when it comes to modified code.  
At the same time, it doesn't require ANY return of use value.  The former 
is too extreme for many, while the latter is as open to abuse as BSD code.

> >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.

A co-op tends to have equal contributions for equal value; it's balanced.  
The GPL will inherently tend to take advantage of the more prolific coder 
in an exchange.  Yes, it's possible to live a double life and have your GPL 
life and proprietary life separated.  This is less likely to happen in a 
real-life commune.  Of course, the goal of the GPL is to convince you to 
give up on that other life and live entirely in the GPL realm.  (Of course, 
it's supposed to be voluntary, but in the face of unfair competition from 
GPL code, if it becomes a monopoly, will that really still be voluntary?)

> 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.

I agree, it does seem ripe for abuse.  Yet, the BSD community seems to have 
prospered over the years, so perhaps the potential for abuse appears worse 
than it really is.  Much as the potential for open-source business models 
based on the GPL appears better than it really is.  Maybe the BSD model of 
laissez-faire politics benefits them indirectly by inspiring some (even if 
not all) of the proprietary players to give back, knowing they've received 
value from the BSD code they've appropriated.  They never give back all, 
but perhaps it's sufficient to give back some?

It seems like the GPL is scrambling for ALL of a smaller pie -- this not 
only appears greedy, but may be less effective.  BSD, on the other hand, 
while clearly vulnerable to abuse, seems to benefit from getting a portion 
of a MUCH larger pie.  Maybe it's not so bad after all.  (Of course, if the 
GPL someday achieves a monopoly, it'll have the bigger pie finally.)

On thing's for sure.  The BSD folks have a much stronger claim to the term 
"free software" than the GPL ever had.  If anything, Stallman's use of the 
term "free software" amounts to Orwellian Newspeak...

Deven