Re: Economics and the GPL

--- "Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Also, I'm not sure it [exclusive GPL licensing of original works] would be
enforceable.  
> Perhaps that would be a null statement, in a legal sense -- as the KDE 
> developers were free to violate the GPL on their own code, wouldn't the 
> copyright owner be perfectly free to ignore this self-constraint?

Probably.  What if the GPL itself had such a stipulation in its own license. 
In other words, the FSF could change the license on the GPL itself from
"Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license
document, but changing it is not allowed." to some terms that said that the GPL
could only be copied and distributed with works that are exclusively licensed
under the GPL. If the work was distributed under the GPL and another license,
then the FSF could sue for breach of the license for using the GPL.

> > Even RMS accepts that placing restrictions on unauthorized mass, commercial
> > duplication may be necessary to make funding of works possible.
> 
> And does he suggest that can be done in a way compatible with the GPL?

No, what he suggests [in his writings and speeches] is that if copyright laws
were changed to allow personal copying and the other freedoms he advocates,
then the GPL would no longer be necessary.  In other words, the GPL is more a
protest tool than the ultimate goal.  He sees the current copyright system as a
weapon of oppression, and seeks to change the system by turning that weapon
back upon the oppressors.   

> If the GPL had the 
> code "expire" and fall into the public domain or BSD-style free licensing 
> after a fixed time period (e.g. 5-10 years), I wouldn't worry as much...

I think that would be a great improvement to the GPL.

> Of course, Wine has sort of done the reverse -- it was well-established 
> under the BSD/X11 licenses, and switches to LGPL.  

netatalk recently made a similar switch from BSD to GPL.  My impression was
that it was more because of a theoretical concern about code stealing than
because of any specific event.

> The BSD camp makes an interesting argument, but I can't fathom how to 
> construct a valid test to figure out if they're right.  There's too many 
> other factors you wouldn't be able to control, so it's all anecdotal...

I was thinking about that, too, and came to the same conclusion.  

> If anyone could use them, Microsoft would be.  

Microsoft can.  In fact, Microsoft does.  Microsoft distributes various GPL
tools as part of their Microsoft Services for Unix product (see
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/sfu/default.asp).

> Now, it's true that membership is open to the 
> public, but under conditions that are unacceptable to some.

Now we get into questions of how free is free.  Even public parks have rules on
conduct.  If one finds those condtions unacceptable, one will be asked to leave
the park.  Does that make them no longer "free" or "public"?

> It ["community"] doesn't carry the '60s hippie connotations that 
> "communal" does.  

Exactly. It's funny how chaning "al" to "ity" can change one's perception.  

> I've been considering trying to create a community that 
> doesn't necessarily support "free beer" code, but otherwise could have the 
> sorts of benefits the GPL community derives from the GPL.  
> 
> So, do you think it could work?  

I think it's worth trying!

> How could I avoid backlash from free software/OSS ideologues who would just 
> assume it must be bad just because it doesn't conform to the FSG/OSD?

Well, for OSS folks, the primary goal is to have source code available to the
users.  So as long as you gave the members source, and allowed members to
distribute fixes to other members, I think you could get some support.

For FSF folks, their two main goals are to have source code available to the
users and to allow personal redistribution.  For the first, see above.  If you
also allowed members some limited individual rights to redistribute code to
nonmembers, you might reduce much of the FSF camp's opposition.  Yes, there
would still be a "free beer" aspect.  But the idea is to allow giving away six
packs, but prevent building a brewery.

=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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