Re: GPL and Economics (was Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias))

Francois Gouget wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:
> > Francois Gouget <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > The OS X example is very ill chosen because it proves strictly nothing:
> > >  * they have not been using the FreeBSD code long enough to prove that
> > > this enables them to have a viable business (unlike Brett said).
> > Given the acceptance of OSX, it's not like it's going to disappear
> > in the near future.  You may question whether or not the trees will
> > remain in sync, but its success is more certain than the various linux
> > distributions.
> Well, you certainly know more about the acceptance of OS X than I do. So
> I'll take your word for it.

This is what I base it on:  Apple now ships OSX as the primary OS for its
macs (though they still bundle osv9 with it too, but it no longer default 
boots into 9).  There also seems to be a movement in getting apps ported
to osx.  
 
> > >  * their revenue primarily comes from their hardware sales and not from
> > > any potential sales of OS X they may make.
> > Apple historically uses OS upgrades as a revenue stream.
> And would you care to tell us how much of their revenue that is?

Well, according to this:
   http://www.softwaremag.com/SW500_2000/index.cfm
they made $966M in Y2000 (from all software sales).   Given that they charge
$129 for desktop OSX, and $499 for the server version, I don't see it as
a loss leader.  My point wasn't that they made an insane amount of money
from OSX sales - it was just that it generates a non-insignificant amount of
revenue for the company.  
 
> [...]
> > >  * since their advantage is in their proprietary GUI they could just as
> > > well have built it on top of the Linux kernel. So this does not prove
> > > any superiority of the BSD license over the GPL.
> > Since linux is more advanced than BSD (or so the linux people claim), why
> > choose BSD in the first place?  You think they flipped a coin?
> FreeBSD is a good OS. I strongly believe that it's VM is much better
> than that of Linux for instance. So maybe it's because, just as you
> said, it is better than Linux at least for some things.

The linux kernel really doesn't excel at too many things = between BSD (for
efficiency)
and Solaris (for MP and modularity), it's hard to figure out where linux is better
(other than the amount of drivers for it).  I'm open to hear any contrary examples.

> You seem to think that their decision was 100% based on a dislike for the GPL. Why
> don't you give more credit to the technical quality of BSD?

I don't recall saying that it was entirely based on the license.  But, if you
are going to claim:
  1) linux is superior
  2) it's as easy to make a GUI on top of linux
  3) the license didn't matter

it's obvious to me that at LEAST 1 of the 3 is incorrect, and more likely that all
three
are wrong.  Given the FSF boycott, I'm sure Jobs has animosity towards the GPL.

BTW, if you conceed that BSD is generally better than linux (at least for what you
think apple would be interested in BSD for), how do you explain how BSD got that way,
given how non-productive the BSD license is claimed to be by the GPL camp?

> Not that I believe the license had nothing to do with it either. Apple
> does not really have a history of openness. Going with a GPL operating
> system would have been a tremendous change in direction for them.
> Building proprietary extensions on top of FreeBSD certainly was an
> easier sell in the company, a more reassuring one. But that does not
> mean that using a GPL kernel would have been impossible.

Very few things are "impossible" (and if you believe quantum physics, nothing is
impossible).
There is a possibility that Bill Gates will donate billions of dollars to FSF.   Is
this
likely?  So, why do you think vendors would stay away from a vendor unfriendly
license (
and it IS unfriendly, as vendors make revenue by distinguishing themselves from
others -
as the GPL requires them to give it away, it's hard to say that it is anything but
unfriendly).
Now you can make a argument that apps and the kernel are separate, but then you have
explain
what you do with user apps the kernel needs for operation (ifconfig, inetd, cron...).

> > >  * similarly, they don't need to kill their open-source competitor since
> > > it is not a competitor in the first place.
> > so FreeBSD/ppc doesn't exist?  How are you defining "competitor" here?
> You can only compete if you are in the same market. The way I preceive
> things, FreeBSD/PPC is more in the server market while OS X more in the
> 'desktop for graphics designers' market. These are quite different
> markets.

Sorry.  Apple sells: Mac OS X Server v10.1 (10-User Lic.)  $499.00 
They also sell a rack mount server (Xserver) now.  Now, you can say that
FreeBSD/ppc is not a realistic competitor to OSX, but then, you'll have to 
reconcile that with wine not being a realistic competitor in running windows
apps.  
 
> > > > Would it be very successfuly without the proprietary GUI?  Of course not.
> > > > The point was it was possible to add proprietary extensions (the GUI) and
> > > > have it stand on its own, unthreatened by the original openp-source code.
> > > Exactly the same way one can built a proprietary GUI on top of the Linux
> > > kernel. You are not proving anything.
> > Just because one is ABLE to, doesn't mean that it is as EASY as.  Building
> > something like this for linux would have cause a huge negative uproar by
> > the GPL advocates, plus you have to be more wary of what you programmatically
> > touch.   How else do you explain their choice?

> License-wise it would not have been more difficult.

How can you say this?!  It seems the GPL camp always wants their cake and eat it too.
You can't force someone to give up their code, and not say it doesn't make it more
difficult for them.  It's sort of like the LGPL argument with wine.  Either say
LGPL screws companies like transgaming because the new wine is now requiring mods to
be
LGPLed, or stop claiming code is going to *always* flow back.  You can't say DLL
separation will protect you from LGPL and in the same breath say everyone will
contribute now.

> From the PR point of vue, I think you are exagerating the reaction of the
> 'GPL advocates'. It's not like they would be the first to build on top of Linux.

oh yeah... Look at all the positive response that lindows has gotten. If apple were
to sell OSX upgrades (ie, the upgrade is not *GPLed), I'm quite certain various
people would be bent out of shape and threaten to sue (or can you think of an
example where this has already been done?).   Look at it this way:  What do you say 
that linux is offering a vendor to entice it to use it (linux)?

> And don't try to paint all 'GPL advocates' as extremists either.

No, but as with most things, most of the advocates doesn't fully understand what
everything's about and the vocal minority (ie FSF) is leading the charge.  Same 
can be said for the NRA, AARP, Greenpeace (insert your political organization here).

> There's quite a few very vocal BSD advocates too that can mount quite an uproar
> when they want. This list is witness to that!

When you (not you, you, but various GPL advocates) use rhetoric like "BSD is a
license
to steal", don't expect a meager response.  Discussions tend to be stereo, so
increasing
the volume on one side usually leads to an increase in the other.  

-r