Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:

> You and I are in violent agreement on this:  it is possible that a GPL 
> monopoly could occur, and such a monopoly could be harmful.

This is my real concern.  Currently, the GPL is fine with me, except that 
it seems to have a "dark side" -- this potential to evolve into a dangerous 
monopoly.  And it may catch us by suprise one day.

> But I don't think that the GPL should be abandoned simply because of that 
> risk.  First, outside of a monopoly situation, the GPL can be beneficial.  
> Let's not throw the baby out with the bath.

Most of the benefits of the GPL are conferred by other copyleft licenses 
like the MPL, without the viral aspect that has the most potential for 
damage.  I'm starting to wonder if the BSD license is ultimately better 
than copyleft, but I'm still not convinced.  Currently, I'd take the MPL 
over the GPL any day.

> Second, even if a GPL monopoly arose, it could be controlled by legal 
> means (such as copyright law), just as other monopolies are controlled by
> antitrust laws.

Yes, but that's such an uncertain means of control.  The legal system 
hasn't done a very effective job of reining Microsoft in so far...

> Ideally, I would like to see modifications to the GPL to reduce its 
> potential harm.  But, for now, I think having it as an option is more 
> beneficial than harmful.

Unfortunately, Stallman would have to make such modifications.  (Actually, 
the FSF, but they'll do what Stallman says.)  He would have no interest in 
making such modifications because this potential harm is his greatest aim.

> I'm concerned about that, too.  My full time job is as a computer programmer,
> so I have a personal stake in this.  But this is a risk everyone takes. 
> Eventually, there may be less demand for my job, or someone or something else
> may come along that does my job for less than I get paid.  I like my job and my
> pay, but I also enjoy the benefits of competition, including lower costs for
> goods and services.  

I guess we'll just have to cross our fingers and hope for the best, huh?

> So long as the competition is fair, I feel the personal risk is worth the
> benefits.  So far, I don't see the GPL as unfair competition.

So far, it's not in the general case.  Perhaps it is in certain limited 
areas.  (Brett Glass suggested GCC is unfair competition in the compiler 
area, for example.  I don't know enough about the market to either agree or 
diagree with him on that.)

> > Far from it.  I agree with Heinlein -- just because a company was able to 
> > make a profit in a certain way doesn't mean society is obligated to ensure 
> > that they always can.
> 
> I loved reading Heinlein, but it's been a while.  Can you point me to some
> references, I'd love to see what he had to say on the subject.

I found this page of Heinlein quotes:

     http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~odyssey/Quotes/Popular/SciFi/Heinlein.html

Here is the full quote in question:

> There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the 
> notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the 
> public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged 
> with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face 
> of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange 
> doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals 
> nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock 
> of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit.
>
>       - The Judge, "Life-Line"

It's a great quote.  Heinlein has a lot of good quotes, actually.

> It seems to me that BSD software could have some of the same economic 
> harms that GPL software could.  Take Brett Glass's example of GCC.  If 
> GCC was good enough that no one was willing to pay for a better compiler, 
> then compiler writers would be in much less demand.  That is true whether 
> GCC is GPL or BSD/X11.

I disagree.  If GCC were under the BSD license, proprietary companies could 
developed improved versions, with incremental improvements over the public 
version.  As long as those improvements are worthwhile, they could stand to 
profit from making them.  With the GPL, their efforts would be unable to 
return a profit to justify the investment...

Deven