Re: GPL and economics

Francois Gouget <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Matt Seitz wrote:
> > 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.

What do you think m$ does with windows + office + directX + mice + .....?
Although they are not controlled by a single entity, why is it unfair to
say that all these projects using pure GPL are not by "like-minded" people?

> 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.

So, if I "beg, offer them large sums of money, offer to agree to any condition
including selling your soul if you want" to FSF so I can have a propriatary
version of GCC, you think they would "let me in"?
 
> In contrast, to become part of the 'group of copyright holders' all you
> have to do is modify some code (even remove some), 

Actually, I'm not sure about removing part.

> 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.

I think you misunderstand the point of the argument.  It is the vast "derivative"
claim that is bad.  Let's say I develop a portable C app under solaris.  I take
it to a linux box and link it to a GPLed C lib (as an example).  Why should a GPL
claim be made
against this app - can you honestly say that requiring my source in this case to
be licensed to GPL fair?

> 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).

I don't know what the rules are in france, but in the US, it's not illegal to BE
a monopoly.  What *is* illegal is to use anticompetitive behavior.  Cisco has
a virtual monopoly in various markets they are in.  This is OK, as they do not
(at least not AFAIK) use anticompetitive tactics.  The GPL uses anticompetitive
tactics - *that* is the problem.  Whether it can be a monopoly or not is a 
side issue.
 
> > 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.

it doesn't have to be a single product.  It just has to be either a few
key libraries (glibc, gtk..) or enough minor apps/libraries such that
avoiding it is difficult.
 
-r