Re: GPL and economics

--- Francois Gouget <[email protected]> wrote:
> Of course you have to respect the license! 

Then let's be accurate:  GPL software is not "available to everyone", it's
"available to everyone who is willing to abide by the terms of the GPL".

> If that's unacceptable to
> you then the only software you will find acceptable is public domain
> software.

Not me personally, but some may find only public domain software acceptable. 

> That's completely absurd. These individuals don't form a group any more
> than all the people with blond hair. 

They are the group of copyright holders.  If they didn't control distribution
of the software, then the GPL would be meaningless and unenforcable.  You can't
have it both ways:  either the group of contributors control distribution or
the GPL is toothless and meaningless.

> Even less in fact because anyone is
> free to make up their mind and decide whether or not they want to be
> part of the group. Given these conditions there is no way these millions
> of independant individuals exercise *exclusive* control!

How many GPL projects have millions of contributors?  My guess: 0.  My
impression is that few projects have even hundreds of contributors.  Debian
puts the number of Linux contributors in the thousands.  Most projects have
much fewer contributors.
 
> You are stretching the meaning of monopoly so far that it has become
> meaningless.

OK, let's not call it a monopoly.  Call it an "oligopoly" or "cartel". But the
effects could be similar to a monopoly:  a single, dominant product, with an
artificially low price that prevents competition and therefore limits consumer
choice.

> > But no matter which of those groups I go to, I will have to license my work
> > under the terms of the GPL.
> 
> So what! 

So I have no choice.  Saying that Linux cannot be a monopoly because I can get
it from Red Hat, or Mandrake, or Debian is like saying Windows cannot be a
monopoly because I can get it from CDW, or CompuUSA, or Amazon.  If everyone is
offering the same product with the same license, then I don't really have a
choice.

> Whatever the license you have to abide by it. Furthermore, what
> you are distributing is not *your* work, as in 'all mine'. What you are
> distributing includes the work of thousands of other individuals so it
> is only fair that they have a say on what you do with their work.

Microsoft could make the same argument:  it's our work, representing the work
of thousands of individuals, and we get to say how you will use it.  And in
general, both you and Microsoft would be right.  But if any single product
becomes a monopoly, and the owner or a cartel of owners use that monopoly to
prevent competition, then it could be unduly harmful to consumer choice.


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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