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

--- "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.

Good suggestion, I should learn more about other copyleft licenses.

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

Good point.

> Unfortunately, Stallman would have to make such modifications [to the GPL].  

You're right, of course, but that wasn't what I meant.  I was thinking more in
terms of crafting an alternative license with terms similar to the GPL, rather
than an actual modified version of the GPL (which, as you say, is protected by
the FSF copyright).

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

Or work harder!

> > 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.)

Well, I can tell you that in the Windows market, I don't see GCC as any
significant threat to commercial compilers.

> I found this page of Heinlein quotes:
> 
>      http://www.redbrick.dcu.ie/~odyssey/Quotes/Popular/SciFi/Heinlein.html

Ah, yes, I remember that story now.  It is a great quote, thanks for reminding
me of it.

> > 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...

Sorry, I didn't make my point clearly enough.  Yes, the BSD offers the
possibility of creating a better compiler and making a profit from it.  But
Brett's argument was that so long as a no-cost, "good enough" compiler was
available, no one would ever pay enough to justify the creation of a better
compiler.  In other words, even if GCC went to a BSD license today, anyone
attempting to sell an improved version would never get enough customers to
justify the cost of development.

Personally, I'm skeptical of Brett's arguments.  It reminds me of an ad showing
two friend in the 1960's arguing whether they could make money selling mountain
spring water.  The skeptical one insists his friend is crazy, saying, "Water's
free, man!"  If enough people can be convinced to pay over $1 for a bottle for
water, when they could get it free from their tap, then I tend to think there's
hope that one can compete against even "free" products and make a profit. 


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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