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

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Steve Langasek wrote:

> With your examples, you seem to continue focusing on a very narrow segment
> of the software market: operating systems.  I can't bring an example to
> mind of a software house that has gone out of business doing Open Source,
> with the exception of makers of OS distributions.  If you can cite other
> examples, I'd be interested to hear them.

I'm not referring only to operating systems, but I don't feel like trying 
to dredge up examples either.  Why don't you provide an example of some 
company that has make a profit purely from Open Source development, not 
ancillaries like boxed software, or service and support?  One that doesn't 
depend on revenue from proprietary interests?  One that isn't a deliberate 
loss taken as a business risk to damage a powerful competitor?

> Then don't base your code on someone else's code that imposes such a
> requirement!  An abundance of Open Source code in the market does not
> impinge on your freedom to write a piece of software from scratch; and if
> it impedes your ABILITY to do so, the burden is still upon you to show
> that you are providing a useful service to society.

Sure, you can still write code from scratch (and I do), but that imposes a 
handicap on those unwilling to accept such requirements.  Someday, it could 
become an oppressive handicap.  (I'm not saying it is just yet.)

> If something that a group of hobbyists does in their spare time genuinely
> demolishes your business model, then it's not a very sound business model.
> If the only way for proprietary software houses to remain profitable is to
> impose an artificial restriction on the growth of the copylefted commons,
> then their continued existence is a net LOSS for the free market.

Although I think the GPL threatens other proprietary interests, that's not 
what I'm worried about trying to fix.  It fills me with vague concern for 
the future, but that's just a fuzzy thing, and not a reason to start a holy 
crusade against the GPL.

I'm actually looking for a solution to benefit those very hobbyists you 
speak of.  I'd like them to be able to work on their projects full-time and 
make a living that way instead of being forced to treat it as a hobby.  The 
other benefits they already receive would apply, but it would free them 
from the drudgery of having to work a day job as well.  THAT is my goal.

Yes, on a separate basis, I'm interested in possibly pursuing some business 
interests, but that's not why I'm discussing the GPL.  For any for-profit 
business interests I would pursue, I don't have a problem writing code from 
scratch or building on non-GPL code, if the GPL would be incompatible with 
any business model I might choose.  I don't see the GPL as a threat AT ALL
to any business interest I might pursue myself, so it's irrelevant here.

I don't think the GPL will make it possible for the hobbyists to survive 
without a day job, so I'd rather see them use some other license and some 
other economic model, which would make it possible.  Nobody else has done 
it, so maybe I'll make an attempt.  But THIS sort of operation would be on 
a non-profit basis, because I'm interested in helping all those hobbyist 
programmers stuck working day jobs instead of working on their projects.

> THEN DON'T USE GPL CODE IN YOUR SOFTWARE.

If it won't benefit me, I won't.  My point was that people keep pushing for 
businesses to develop code under the GPL, yet it's likely not to be a wise 
business decision to do so.  That's part of the problem with many of the 
"open-source business models".

> If the competitive advantages of keeping your code secret outweigh the
> difference in cost of being able to leverage existing GPL code, then write
> your program from scratch and keep it proprietary!

Yes, yes.  You're missing my point.  My point was not "boo hoo, why can't 
we use GPL code for proprietary use", but rather "there's good reasons why 
it might not make sense for a business to use the GPL".

> But also recognize that there are more interests involved in the Open 
> Source and Free Software communities than just those of companies that 
> wish to make money directly from the software they write.

It's not necessarily about making money.  It may only be about avoid taking 
a loss as a result of choosing a free software license.  Business seek ROI, 
and writing free software doesn't seem to provide it very well, if at all.

Believe me, I'd like to see a proven model show how for-profit companies 
could make a profit on pure GPL coding alone -- that would show a path for 
the future (to avoid the looming darkness) and be immediately useful.  But 
despite many attempts, it seems like the best models generate open source 
as a side-effect, or at a loss, subsidized by the profitable part of the 
model.  The worst models cause businesses to fail outright.  But if even 
the best models make the development part a loss, companies are likely to 
tend toward cutting (or ceasing) development work, which leads to less code 
out there for everyone to benefit from.

I'd like to see as much code out there for anyone to benifit from easily, 
but I'm not convinced it can be done well if "free beer" is a requirement.

> It also ONLY makes business sense for us to release our modifications to 
> the community if we get something in return.

Not only that, but you have to make sure those modifications aren't giving 
you a strategic competitive advantage over your competitors, since you'd 
lose that advantage if they get your code.

> > Transgaming publicly claimed that they were attempting to implement the 
> > "Street Performer Protocol" as their business model.  This model was 
> > proposed at least three years ago and recommended as a supposedly viable 
> > model for funding development of public works.
> 
> And it's wrong to refer to this as an Open Source business model, in spite
> of their affinities with the Open Source community.  The Aladdin Free
> Public License is not an Open Source license.

Who said it was?  They promised to release the code under the Wine license, 
which IS an open source license.  However, they never reached the necessary 
subscription threshold to sustain their business, so the model was never 
fully executed.  It's still an Open Source business model, just one that 
failed to produce results.

The fact that they released some code under the AFPL is irrelevant.  That 
was a generous gesture, to release the code in any form, having already 
taken a business risk by developing it in advance of the revenue coming in 
to cover the development costs.  They could have legitimately followed this 
Open Source business model by not even writing ANY code until reaching the 
subscription threshold.

Instead they went out on a limb and developed code, never knowing if they 
would be able to cover their costs.  When the community fails to step up 
enough to support their Open Source business model, comments like yours 
above accuse them of not REALLY being Open Source.  You imply that they 
misled and betrayed you, yet I see no evidence of that.  It looks like the 
model they chose was a valid and truly Open Source business model, but just 
not one that worked for them in practice.  (Perhaps the model can work, but 
the Wine gaming community just wasn't big enough to support it...)

> I have not questioned the quality of their business model, I've only said
> that it does not deserve the moniker "Open Source".

Then you'll have to justify that assertion.  Their promise was to release 
the code under an Open Source license if and when the community did their 
part in supporting the development.  Since the latter never happened, the 
former was not required.  That doesn't mean it wasn't a valid Open Source 
business model that they were attempting to implement.

Suppose they had quickly achieved their subscription goals, and their old 
and ongoing code was released under the X11 license.  Would you have then 
been arguing that it wasn't an Open Source business model?  Just because 
the execution failed doesn't change the nature of the model.

> Who ever said it was?  Why are you tarring me with the same brush as
> anyone who accused Transgaming of reneging on their promise?  Is "I don't
> harbor any ill-will towards Transgaming" so ambiguous?

I'm not tarring you with any brush.  I was speaking of the fact that they 
were criticized without any real evidence of wrongdoing, just assumptions 
by people who were jumping to conclusions.

I never said YOU were one of the critics.

> I think Alexandre is free to hold an opinion about whether Transgaming's
> business model is sound without being accused of changing the Wine license
> in order to harm them, which is the tone that I've read in your emails.

Then you've misread me yet again.  Alexandre is entitled to any opinion 
about Transgaming he cares to hold.  I may not find it justified, but 
that's not his problem, nor mine.  There's probably more to the story than 
what's publicly available, and there's certainly more available than I've 
seen.  But people trying to prove Transgaming's malfeasance have pointed 
out messages that aren't suggestive of wrongdoing.  Lacking any evidence of 
wrongdoing, I'm forced to conclude that much of this criticism was unfair.

Alexandre may well have evidence of wrongdoing that I'm unaware of, or 
perhaps there's a personality conflict between him and Transgaming.  There 
are always people who will fail to get along, and it seems that they don't.
(Maybe they do get along, but the tone of his messages sounds to me like 
he's upset with them.)

I never accused anyone of changing the Wine license for the purpose of 
harming Transgaming or anyone else.  I've never argued against the license 
change, although I did once suggest that Wine require proprietary vendors 
to pay their fair share to the project by selling proprietary licenses 
instead of letting them just take it for free.  (So you could say that I 
argued in favor of a license change.)

I did say that I didn't understand why Alexandre didn't want to trade any 
patches under any circumstances, even if the trade was significant and 
heavily weighted in Wine's favor.  In such a case, it seems like cutting 
off your nose to spite your face -- refusing a benefit because you don't 
want someone else to benefit as well.  But maybe it's just a philosophical 
thing after all.  I don't know.

Alexandre is free to hold any opinion.  I don't know if he holds ill-will 
toward Transgaming, but I can infer that he does, and he hasn't denied it.  
I argued in favor of a license change (even if not this particular one) and 
never claimed it was wrong to change licenses, much less claimed anyone did 
it with the intent of harming Transgaming.  (It does seem that the impetus 
for the change was Transgaming and Lindows, at least in part.)

Since you don't seem to be very accurate about it, please stop reading 
things I didn't say into things I did.  I've already written more than I'd 
like to, and more than most want to read.  I don't want to have to write 
even MORE just to keep you from misinterpreting and reading someting into 
it completely different from what I said.

Deven