Re: Again: list of advantages of the xGPL

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:54, Roland wrote:

> At 04:14 PM 6/12/02 -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
>
> >The only advantage I have seen for the GPL over the BSDL is for
> >companies wanting to be able to sell proprietary versions of the code
> >while making all of the "free" software people happy.
> >
> >For unbridled open-source projects, I have not seen any help from the
> >GPL.
>
> Ok, here is a small list:
> Advantages of the xGPL in comparison with the BSDL:
>
> 1) Create a good atmosphere of trust on projects. Everyone is happy
> sharing because he knows that all modifications will flow back. No
> trading takes place which could slow down the project and generate
> loss of time and trust.

Everyone is happy sharing on BSDL projects as well.  If they were not,
there would be no BSDL projects.

> 2) Prevent embrace and extend tactics. Imagine Linux being under X11.
> I wouldn't feel comfortable thinking about the possibility of M$ using
> this tactic. They certainly have the cash to afford making their own
> fork, think about what happened with the Kerberos protocol.

In regards to Linux, they could just pump a lot of money into the
FreeBSD project to compete with Linux.  This has not happened.  Also,
there is no point for Microsoft to actively embrace and extend any other
operating system.  It would only hurt their own sales.

Besides, the GPL does not prevent embracing and extending the code any
more than it prevents forks.

As for Kerberos, they could have done this easily be writing their own
implementation.  As you said (and I agree), they certainly have the
cash.

> 3) Code development will no longer be halted on the hope for future
> releases of proprietary code. Think about DirectX.

They may have tried a different business model in which they wait until
20,000 people donate a certain amount of money before releasing
anything.

We would never have seen the AFPL version or any version of the code for
that matter.

> 4) With the BSDL people lose interest in coding if some functionality
> is already implemented by a proprietary fork. Think about Marcus
> losing interest in game support for Wine. No one wants to reinvent the
> wheel.

Not true.  FreeBSD had a lot of code they wrote even with a BSD/OS
version in existance.

> 5) Increase the amount of available free software. I think some
> companies will start using/improving xGPL software when the cost of
> reimplementing it is too high.

This applies to BSDL.  FreeBSD received code from BSDi and Whistle, so
they would diverge and end-up rewriting code (or doing heavy merging).

> Quoting from:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
>
> <quote>
> Consider GNU C++.  Why do we have a free C++ compiler?  Only because
> the GNU GPL said it had to be free.  GNU C++ was developed by an
> industry consortium, MCC, starting from the GNU C compiler.  MCC
> normally makes its work as proprietary as can be.  But they made the
> C++ front end free software, because the GNU GPL said that was the
> only way they could release it.
>
> The C++ front end included many new files, but since they were meant
> to be linked with GCC, the GPL did apply to them.  The benefit to our
> community is evident.
>
> Consider GNU Objective C.  NeXT initially wanted to make this front
> end proprietary; they proposed to release it as .o files, and let
> users link them with the rest of GCC, thinking this might be a way
> around the GPL's requirements.  But our lawyer said that this would
> not evade the requirements, that it was not allowed.  And so they made
> the Objective C front end free software.
> </quote>
>
> 6) In the case of bespoken software: If the developer uses a xGPL code
> as basis, changes MUST be returned. If the license was X11 the hiring
> company could demand: Don't release the code back to the public. Ask
> the guys from CodeWeavers about their experiences in this regard. This
> will also increase the amount of free software.

Requirements to return code is removal of freedom, otherwise, you would
have the choice to return or not.

I do not view this as a feature.

> 7) No more reinventing the wheel. With a BSDL you have the possibility
> of several private forks reimplementing the same functionality because
> there is no enforcement to return the code.

Reinvention is happening constantly within GNU code.  The GPL does not
prevent it.

As for myself, private forks do not stop me from doing any development I
wish to do.

With the GPL you can also have private forks.  They just have to remain
in-house.  One of the latest complaints in GNU circles is concerning the
fact that web services do not have to return any code.  They do not
distribute the code, therefore, they are not obligated to return
anything.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]