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

"Deven T. Corzine" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> 
> > Do not underestimate the value of peer review and community
> > debugging.
> Agreed.  But the value of keeping strategic code secret does outweigh this.

but you can have peer review without allowing free distribution.  The original
BSD code could only be received by people who already had an AT&T license to
receive it.   Personally, I think "open source" should mean that you SHOW your
work and allow third party contributions.  The licensing aspects of it is not 
too relevant.
 
> If you leave out code developed under the FSF (driven by Stallman himself),
> what significant project has been developed under the GPL from day one, and
> achieved significant success?  Linux is the only example I can think of --
> can anyone offer others?

I am awaiting for an answer to this question also.
 

> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:
> > I think this is an interesting point.  This reminds me of the apparent
> > contradiction of Adam Smith's invisible hand:  that by allowing everyone to
> > pursue their own interest, society gets more benefits than by trying to force
> > everyone to serve society.  The same may be true of GPL vs. BSD.  GPL, by
> > trying to force people to give away code, may result in less code being
> > available.  BSD, by not forcing people to give away code, may result in more
> > code being available.
> I'm not sure, but I have to concede that this could be the case.  On the
> surface, copyleft seems like a better approach to ensure the availability
> of more code, yet in practice BSD has been surprisingly effective.  This is
> counterintuitive, I think -- but that doesn't make it wrong.  I'm still on
> the fence on this one.  Is the BSD license is ultimately more effective?

Depends on how one defines "effective".  GPL is seemingly more effective in 
reducing its competition (one shouldn't equate this with forking).  It seems
that X11/BSD seems more sustainable (given the longevity of X11/BSD projects),
but only time will tell.
 
> It's possible that the BSD license is only preferable for older, mature
> code and/or for vital, active projects.  I'm not sure.  It's so easy to
> "steal" that it seems like the project might need to be well-established to
> truly benefit from the BSD license.  (But that's just a guess.)

well, apache didn't start off well-establisted (though it did grow out of 
the NCSA project).   Though I think it's fair to say that for many projects,
the choice of X11 or GPL wouldn't make any noticable difference.

> > And the GPL doesn't shut the door to that possibility.  You are always
> > free to negotiate with the rights owners for different terms.
> The GPL certainly shuts the door on this possibility.  Which is exactly why
> you have to circumvent the GPL, going behind its back to the copyright
> holder who has more power than the GPL has.

Well, this really isn't a possibility with most GPLed projects, as it's difficult
to track down all the copyright holders in the first place, let alone get an
agreement on letting you use it.
 
> > I agree, this is a weakness of GPL, and I think there is room for
> > improvement.  But I don't see the GPL terms as so unreasonable, so
> > outrageous, that they should be dismissed and never used.  I also don't
> > see the BSD's unconditional giving away of value without any guarantee of
> > return as a perfect solution, either.
> I think the BSD approach is more noble and truly free.  It's selfless, and
> they're more likely to be taken advantage of for the selfish benefit of
> another.  Yet, this must not be too objectionable to BSD developers, if
> they continue to use the license knowing this can happen.

not only that, they ENCOURAGE it.  See any of the *BSD licenses.
 
> > -I don't see how BSD/X11 is any better at solving this problem.
> I'm not sure that it is.  I think the BSD/X11 approach makes the most sense
> if you feel the software is already "paid" for (in whatever fashion, maybe
> just in satisfaction for a volunteer), but I don't see BSD/X11 working well
> at all if you are still seeking a return on the investment you've made...

I don't think X11 wants to try to address this problem (value of each person's
contribution).   It's like free speech - who's to say what words are more
important than others?  In any case, there are CERTAINLY much better ways
of dealing with whatever problems than the GPL (unless you are trying to
push an free (as in beer), anti-proprietary agenda)


-r