Re: Economics and the GPL

--- "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Somehow I don't think we'll ever be able to make this [grocery store] analogy
really work, 
> so I'm not going to try further.

Fair enough.
 
> 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.

I don't see why the GPL is unfair.  If all you want is to use a portion that
was written by 1 person,  all you need is permission from that 1 person.  The
GPL does not compel exclusive licensing:  if I release something under GPL, I
am free to release it under other licenses, too.

If you want to use all the code, and that code was written by 5 people, then
you have to get permission from all 5 people.  I don't see what is unfair about
that.

> How is unfair competition from the proprietary GPL codebase any better than 
> unfair competition (e.g. dumping IE) from a proprietary corporation like 
> Microsoft?  

Again, I think we agree:  if the GPL codebase were a monopoly, then it could be
as harmful as Microsoft's dumping of IE.  Until then, I don't see it as
"unfair".

> It's an incredibly simplistic measure, 

True, but is there a better alternative?

> and most importantly, demanding ALL 
> of the added value leaves nothing for a profit motive to spur development.

I would say "leaves little" instead of "leaves nothing", but I essentially
agree.  That is a problem with the GPL, but I don't think that automatically
disqualifies it from consideration as a licensing option.

> 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.

I think this is an interesting point.  This reminds me of the apparent
contradiction of Adam Smith's invisible hand:  that by allowing everyone to
pursue their own interest, society gets more benefits than by trying to force
everyone to serve society.  The same may be true of GPL vs. BSD.  GPL, by
trying to force people to give away code, may result in less code being
available.  BSD, by not forcing people to give away code, may result in more
code being available.

> 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.

I misspoke.  The point of the GPL is to promote allowing individuals the
freedom to redistribute code.  Requring that money be paid to redistribute code
is the most common way that freedom is impeded.  So, one of the primary goals
of the GPL is to allow code to be redistributed without requiring a cash
payment.

> 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.

It is not my experience that prices are always negotiable.  In fact, my
experience is the opposite:  usually a price is a take it or leave it
propositition.  In that sense, I don't see the GPL as being any different than
placing a fixed price tag on any good or service. 
 
> > 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.

And the GPL doesn't shut the door to that possibility.  You are always free to
negotiate with the rights owners for different terms.  The GPL merely gives one
another option:  automatic permission to redistirbute, subject to its terms. 
But one is by no means precluded from negotiating other terms with the rights
owner.

As you rightly say, this can be difficult if there are multiple rights owners. 
The same would is true of most goods with multiple owners:  all the owners have
to agree to the terms of sale.  In this case, the only alternative I see is for
authors to preemptively surrender all claim to how their works may be
redistributed, as they do under BSD/X11. 

Short of negotiating seperate terms for every exchange, and having perfect
knowldege of the true value of both sides offers, there is no way to guarantee
that every exchange will be exactly fair and equitable, especially when one is
using a barter system.  There also comes a point of diminishing returns, where
the effort involved in trying to negotiate an equal exchange outweighs the
benefit. 

> 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.
  
I agree, this is a weakness of GPL, and I think there is room for improvement. 
But I don't see the GPL terms as so unreasonable, so outrageous, that they
should be dismissed and never used.  I also don't see the BSD's unconditional
giving away of value without any guarantee of return as a perfect solution,
either.  

> 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.  

Again, you are correct.  That is a weakness of the GPL system.  But again:
-I don't see it as a fatal weakness
-I don't see a simple way to easily balance the value of each person's
contribution.
-I don't see how BSD/X11 is any better at solving this problem.

In a co-op, it is easier to come up with more objective criteria for how much
each person has contributed: x dollars, or y hours of work, or z acres of land,
etc.  It is much more difficult with source code; see how many metrics there
are for measuring the "value" of code (lines of code, function points, etc.). 
Unless someone can come up with some neutral, objective way of measuring the
"value" of code, how can we avoid this problem in any open source project?

> 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.  

True, but the GPL as it stands today does not require buying entirely into the
FSF philosophy.  It doesn't require one to give up all one's claims to all
copyrights, past, present and future.  Of course, I think that's a good reason
to avoid the "or any later version" clause when using the GPL.  

> 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...

I agree.  I tend to think of GPL software more as "public" software, and that
it is like a public park.  Like a public park, it is available at little or no
cost to use.  It is open to everyone, but there are rules restricting what one
can do there.  The rules are designed to keep the park safe, enjoyable, and
accessible for everyone, and one is probably not allowed to run a business or
post advertising there.  Like public parks, I think public software has its
place and can be beneficial.  


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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