Re: GPL and economics

--- Francois Gouget <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. 

Yes, that is exactly what I am arguing.  I am not trying to argue for some
vast, GPL conspiracy.  What I am saying is that a single GPL project might
establish a majority in it's market.

>But each individual project is not a monopoly. 

Not today.  But if a project became the overwhelmingly dominant player in its
market (say GCC in the C compiler market), it seems that they could become an
effective monopoly. 

> So then you put all these independent
> projects into one big bag and argue that together they exercise
> exclusive control.

It was not my intent to put all the GPL projects in one big bag.  I'm sorry if
I was not clear about that.

> 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.

It seems the same argument could be made for GPL advocates:  no mater what you
offer them, they will not let you dilute their control and threaten the ideal
of free software.  I'm sure some at Transgaming might feel that way now about
Wine.

> 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. 

Those "simple terms" include giving away, free of charge, any and all code you
develop that is linked with the GPL code.  That may be simple, but it is
certainly a big restriction for any company that wants to make money by writing
software.

> And when you modify GPL software you
> automatically become part of the opyright holders. 

But to distribute modified GPL software, you have to agree to the GPL.  But
you're right that a more precise description would be "people authorized to
modify and redistribute" the GPL software.

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

Actually, I can see few ways one can make that argument.  One is the example of
Preston Tucker.  Another is if the current car manufacturers all got together
and decided to stop competition from electric and hybrid cars by offering huge
discounts to dealers who agreed to never sell electric cars, or huge rebates to
buyers who agreed to never buy an electric car.

> 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. 

Again, I am not trying to argue that the GPL license or all of the GPL projects
could form a monopoly.  What I can see possibly happening is that a single GPL
project could become a monopoly in a particular market.


=====
Sincerely,
Matt Seitz

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