Re: Economics and the GPL

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Greg Alexander wrote:

> The idea that the GPL "coerces the programmer into [doing something]
> that might not have been [done] that way given a choice" is specious, as
> that is what contracts DO.  Contracts exist to force people to do things
> that they would not otherwise do if given a choice.  People CHOOSE to
> enter into contracts because they get something in return, which is
> usually also spelled out in the contract.

The problem is that this contract is perpetual and it's often not possible 
to foresee just how much obligation you're getting yourself into.  Like a 
drug dealer that offers the first hits for free, the GPL can offer free use 
of a codebase to build on, but once you're hooked, it owns you.  After a 
while, quitting is easier said than done...

> Either way, the coercive aspects of the GPL are no different from the 
> coercive aspects of the BSDL, except that the person using the code (and 
> thus accepting the contract) has agreed to different things.

Sure they're different.  The GPL is much more demanding.

> The cult analogy is flawed in that when you join a cult you agree to
> follow the terms of the cult, but you typically DO NOT agree to be bound
> to those terms by force, either of law or otherwise.

It's more likely to be force of personality and/or physical force from 
other cult members, taking the place of force of law.  Nevertheless, a cult 
can coerce its members, no matter how willingly they joined.

> I think the reason that Francois objects to the use of coercion in this
> context is that it does bring up images of men with guns taking you out
> and putting said gun to your head.  While I'm sure that this can and
> does happen sometimes in copyright law, it probably also happens
> sometimes when people default on their mortgage or fail to fulfil their
> homeowner's agreement.

Usually it doesn't get to that extreme.  That doesn't mean the threat isn't 
there, however.  The force of law ultimately rests upon the threat of both 
physical violence and restriction of freedoms (jail).

> Most native American English speakers don't typically use coercion when
> talking about contracts because contracts are day-to-day activities and
> the threat of force is very abstract.  [...]

I'm a natural-born U.S. citizen, and a native speaker of American English.
I don't need you to tell me this.

> Now, to my point:
> 
> Your use of the word coerce, while technically correct, is a cultural
> misuse unless you have the intention of misleading your readers into
> believing that the GPL has any stronger enforcement provisions than a
> typical contract.

You're misunderstanding the reason why I used the word in the first place.

I used the word precisely because the stronger connotations it carries were 
necessary to draw attention to Stallman's misuse of the word "free".  While 
some aspects of the GPL are indeed free, the restricted redistribution of 
modified works is far from free.  GPL apologists don't care to acknowledge 
this, so it was necessary to point out that coercion is indeed involved, as 
that coercion highlights the misdirection involved in claiming that the GPL 
is the "most free" software license around.

To quote again from the OED, one of the definitions of "coerce" is "To 
compel or force to do anything."  (Original had "to do" in italics.)  Now, 
the GPL compels source code release (or availability) of modifications made 
to any GPL'd works, to anyone who has received the code containing those 
modifications.  This is coercion, plain and simple.  Yes, ultimately it 
rests on the force of law for enforcement.  However, to claim that the BSD 
license is equally coercive because the force of law backs it also is quite 
disingenuous.  The GPL compels more than the BSD license does, which makes 
it a more coercive license.

It's true that most people have grown to view "coercion" as a dirty word, 
much as Stallman encourages people to think of "proprietary" as one (using 
his defition, of course).  However, I only used that word in response to 
the claims about the "freedom" of the GPL which didn't acknowledge the 
tradeoff between the freedoms granted by the GPL versus those denied by it.

Deven