Re: GPL and economics

On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:

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

Now you are treating each project independently! So because you treat
each project as independent you can make the argument that they are
exercising exclusive control other their code. But each individual
project is not a monopoly. So then you put all these independent
projects into one big bag and argue that together they exercise
exclusive control.
That does not make sense.

Furthermore, for control to be exclusive, you have to show that it is
hard to become part of the group that exercises it.
(http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=exclusive)

   exclusive adj.

   1. Excluding or tending to exclude: exclusive barriers.
   3. Not divided or shared with others: exclusive publishing rights.
   7. Excluding some or most, as from membership or participation: an
      exclusive club.

The control over Microsoft products is set at the executive level of
Microsoft. You can beg, offer them large sums of money, offer to agree
to any condition including selling your soul if you want, they will not
let you in and have you dilute their control.

In contrast, to become part of the 'group of copyright holders' all you
have to do is modify some code (even remove some), and agree to some
simple terms that apply not only to you, but in exactly the same way to
all other copyright holders. And to do this, you do not even have to ask
permission to anyone, or even tell anyone for that matter.

You don't even have to be part of this 'group of copyright holders' to
use or distribute GPL software. And when you modify GPL software you
automatically become part of the opyright holders. So it really does not
fit any of the above definitions.


> 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.

No. CDW, CompUSA and Amazon all sell the same product which is what
Microsoft puts out. But RedHat, Mandrake and Debian are not selling the
same product.

So you have a Ford monopoly if >90% of the car dealers in the country
sells only Ford cars. That's the situation with Microsoft (==Ford) and
CDW/CompUSA/Amazon (==car dealers).

But you cannot claim that car manufacturers (==RedHat/Mandrake/Debian)
have a monopoly because car dealers only sell cars (==Linux).


> > 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.

GPL 'copyright holders' do not form a cartel or oligopoly anymore than
the group of proprietary vendors forms such a cartel or monopoly.

You may say that bad things will happen if the GPL license becomes the
dominant license in the industry, just as one can say that having
proprietary licenses dominate the industry has negative effects. But you
can accuse neither of forming a cartel, oligopoly or monopoly.


> > 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.

The key word being 'single' in 'single product'. You whole argument was
to treat thousands of independent projects as a 'single product' and
then call them a monopoly. And that is wrong.


--
Francois Gouget         [email protected]        http://fgouget.free.fr/
        It really galls me that most of the computer power in the world
                          is wasted on screen savers.
                     Chris Caldwell from the GIMPS project
                       http://www.mersenne.org/prime.htm