Re: Again: list of advantages of the xGPL

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:

> 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.

Somehow I have a hard time reconciling this notion that xGPL creates an 
"atmosphere of trust" when it uses legal leverage to require that all
modifications be returned to the community.  If you truly have an 
atmosphere of trust, shouldn't you be able to trust them to give back 
without any arm-twisting involved?

It sounds more like an atmosphere of mistrust, actually.

> 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.

First, I haven't seen Microsoft bother trying to embrace and extend BSD or 
X11 itself; why should Linux be any different if it were under a BSD/X11 
license?  You can't really say that Apple is using "embrace and extend" 
with OS X, since they seemed to have simply "embraced" and not extended it 
in a way as to subvert the original.  (They extended it, but it's added 
functionality; the base Darwin system wasn't corrupted for their benefit.)

Moreover, the GPL itself is an "embrace and extend" tactic just as much as 
any that Microsoft has used.  As such, it's a bit disingenuous to suggest 
that using the GPL prevents such tactics.  On the contrary, it's utilizing 
them.  Sure, they can be effective -- that's why Microsoft uses them, and 
also why some people worry about the GPL's longterm effects...

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

This is the only example of this nature I've heard.  Is it an isolated 
example or is there a pattern here?  Do you have similar examples to 
establish an actual pattern?  One example may be worrisome, but isn't 
necessarily convincing in and of itself.

> 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.

Open-source developers reinvent the wheel all the time.  Almost everything 
done for the GNU project has been with the aim of reinventing Unix.  Why 
generalize about this point when there are many, many counterexamples of 
developers willingly choosing to reinvent the wheel?

> 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 is open to debate.  There is ample evidence that many, many companies 
avoid the GPL like the plague, and therefore the GPL gets back 100% of 
nothing at all, in many situations.  If GPL development is avoided, then 
there's nothing to get back.  BSD code, on the other hand, seems to often 
(but not always) get something useful back from proprietary companies, even 
if it's typically an unbalanced exchange in the favor of the proprietary 
company.  Still, a small portion of a larger pie is better than 100% of a 
tiny pie.  The jury's still out on this point.

> Quoting from:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
> [...]

These examples are from many years ago, and seem to point at companies who 
thought they could get away with it.  When confronted with claims to the 
contrary, they backed down.  I haven't seen many such examples in recent 
years, and that might be because most proprietary companies have learned to 
take the hint, and give the GPL a very wide berth.

As such, it's not clear just how often such significant GPL benefits are 
received by the voluntary actions of the preferably-proprietary companies.

> 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.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "bespoken" software.  Requested 
software?  Claimed or hired beforehand?

Anyway, that first "if" is a very big "if".  Since it's common for many 
companies to avoid the GPL, there may be no GPL-based changes to return, 
which means no increase in the amount of free software.

Still, I won't question that the natural inclination of companies will be 
at first NOT to return any code under the BSD license.  However, over time 
they're likely to realize that the cost of maintaining a code fork for any 
non-strategic code is foolish to bear, and the benefits are such that 
releasing that code is often the best business decision.  It's true that 
strategic code won't be release.  (Although it might eventually become 
non-strategic code and finally be released at that point.)

> 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.

This can happen in any area.  GPL projects aren't immune from forking.  
(Consider GNU Emacs vs. XEmacs.)  Regardless of the license, forks aren't 
terribly common in practice, because it divides effort and takes more 
effort -- things which are best avoided without a compelling justification.

I'm not sure that it's worth fretting too much over forks.

And, of course, an X11/BSD -> xGPL conversion (like Wine's) is the most 
likely cause of a fork, since anyone can use the X11/BSD code (and thus has 
incentive to keep that fork alive) and the xGPL code is more restricted.
While a xGPL -> X11/BSD switch might also cause a fork, it seems less 
likely since there's no inherent need to keep an older xGPL tree alive 
under that license.

> Hope this helps, Roland

Well, you're echoing the GPL/FSF party line, but the arguments aren't as 
convincing as I once thought they were.  Maybe I've become more cynical 
with age, maybe it's real-world experience, or maybe it's just pessimism 
from failing to see Stallman's grand vision become reality.  Regardless, 
many of your points above seem either mistaken or clearly debatable, and 
none of them are really compelling.

What's wrong with the BSD/X11 licenses beyond the uncomfortable capability 
of proprietary companies to receive undeserved benefits by taking advantage 
of BSD codebases available to them?

Deven