Re: Economics and the GPL

I found myself agreeing with the vast majority of your last article.  You make
some very cogent observations and suggestions.  I hope you're not too burned
out yet to read yet another response to some of your points.

--- "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The GPL does not compel exclusive licensing because it cannot.

Couldn't the FSF just add terms to the GPL that say something like "software
offered under these terms may not be offered under any other terms"?
 
> However, this is circumventing the GPL, not working with it.  

I agree that the RMS would probably prefer that one use the GPL as an exclusive
license.  But from what I see on the FSF site, I don't see that they view this
as abusing or circumventing the GPL.  The FSF does document that GPL is a
non-exclusive license, without any mention that they disapprove of this use
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCReleaseUnderGPLAndNF).  

> And people want to claim that Stallman isn't a Communist?  I've never heard 
> him say that he is, but he doesn't deny it, and he sure acts like one.

"Also, for the record, I am not a Communist or anything similar." 
--Richard Stallman (June 28, 1999), "RMS Responds", SLASHDOT
(http://slashdot.org/articles/99/06/28/1311232.shtml)
 
> I do have a problem with him wanting to send the 
> program itself, without regard for the author's wishes, to someone that's 
> not already a user.  

Now we're dealing not with the GPL, but with the FSF's core philosophy. 
Personally, I think RMS makes some very good arguments about why some limited
copying by private individuals should be allowed even against the author's
wishes.  
   
>THIS is the thing that makes funding so difficult.

Even RMS accepts that placing restrictions on unauthorized mass, commercial
duplication may be necessary to make funding of works possible.

> The GPL can hook 
> you while your commitment is small, but you're still on the hook no matter 
> how large your commitment grows.  This is an insidious thing.

That is a valid concern.  But there are similar risks in other common
transactions that have long-term contracts.  I sign up for a cel phone plan,
but then it turns out I don't use it as much as I thought I would.  I take out
a loan to buy a car or home, and later my income decreases.  In each of these
cases, I'm still on the hook for what I said I would pay.

> Perhaps the logical solution is to use 
> the GPL or another copyleft license early in development, and switch to the 
> BSD license once the project is well-established.  

That is an excellent suggestion.

> > -I don't see a simple way to easily balance the value of each person's
> > contribution.
> 
> But the GPL doesn't even try at all.  

It seems to me that it is BSD/X11 that doesn't try at all.  The GPL formula may
be extremely simple, but it at least tries to establish some balance.

> I think I'd consider BSD-type software (plus public domain of course) to be 
> the true "public" software.  

I'd say both are "public" in the sense that anyone can use them.  They do have
different costs and rules, but then again many "public" resources have costs
and restrictions on how they are used.
 
>An appropriate designation for GPL software 
> would be "communal" software.  Of course, that would be an even harder name 
> to sell than "free" software!

Agreed on both counts.  Perhaps "community" software?  And you have to be a
member of the community to get all the benefits (just like you have to be a
member of my local homeowner's association to use the association's pool)?


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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