RE: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002, Roger Fujii wrote:

> but you can have peer review without allowing free distribution.  The 
> original BSD code could only be received by people who already had an 
> AT&T license to receive it.   Personally, I think "open source" should 
> mean that you SHOW your work and allow third party contributions.  The 
> licensing aspects of it is not too relevant.

I agree, that would be a better definition for "open source".  However, 
it's already been coined as a synonym for "free software", which is itself 
somewhat of a misnomer, since the GPL takes away freedoms in order to try 
to guarantee others.

> > I'm not sure, but I have to concede that this could be the case.  On the
> > surface, copyleft seems like a better approach to ensure the availability
> > of more code, yet in practice BSD has been surprisingly effective.  This is
> > counterintuitive, I think -- but that doesn't make it wrong.  I'm still on
> > the fence on this one.  Is the BSD license is ultimately more effective?
> 
> Depends on how one defines "effective".  GPL is seemingly more effective 
> in reducing its competition (one shouldn't equate this with forking).  It 
> seems that X11/BSD seems more sustainable (given the longevity of X11/BSD 
> projects), but only time will tell.

Competition often spurs greater efforts.  (Consider KDE and GNOME.)  Maybe 
the GPL helps eliminate competition, but is that necessarily a good thing?  
Once the competition is gone, so is the competitive impetus to improve the 
code, which can lead to stagnation.  Does the GPL shoot itself in the foot 
by eliminating competition?

> > It's possible that the BSD license is only preferable for older, mature
> > code and/or for vital, active projects.  I'm not sure.  It's so easy to
> > "steal" that it seems like the project might need to be well-established
> > to truly benefit from the BSD license.  (But that's just a guess.)
> 
> well, apache didn't start off well-establisted (though it did grow out of 
> the NCSA project).   Though I think it's fair to say that for many projects,
> the choice of X11 or GPL wouldn't make any noticable difference.

The NCSA httpd server was originally funded by public money.  Later, Apache 
developed as an underground activity of webmasters looking to improve on 
the NCSA httpd server -- by the time management generally became aware of 
it, the Apache project was well-established and already becoming dominant.

Do you really think that most companies would have been willing to allow 
NCSA httpd improvements to be released if they thought of that work as 
strategic?  More likely we would have seen that work incorporated into 
proprietary NCSA httpd derivatives.  However, once Apache was established, 
it was too late -- the public project was moving too fast to compete with.

> > The GPL certainly shuts the door on this possibility.  Which is exactly why
> > you have to circumvent the GPL, going behind its back to the copyright
> > holder who has more power than the GPL has.
> 
> Well, this really isn't a possibility with most GPLed projects, as it's
> difficult to track down all the copyright holders in the first place, let 
> alone get an agreement on letting you use it.

Yes, it can be a logistical nightmare, just as it can be to find the owners 
of very old copyrights recently extended (yet again) under the CTEA...

> > I think the BSD approach is more noble and truly free.  It's selfless, and
> > they're more likely to be taken advantage of for the selfish benefit of
> > another.  Yet, this must not be too objectionable to BSD developers, if
> > they continue to use the license knowing this can happen.
> 
> not only that, they ENCOURAGE it.  See any of the *BSD licenses.

True enough.  Maybe they know something we don't. :-)

> > > -I don't see how BSD/X11 is any better at solving this problem.
> > I'm not sure that it is.  I think the BSD/X11 approach makes the most 
> > sense if you feel the software is already "paid" for (in whatever 
> > fashion, maybe just in satisfaction for a volunteer), but I don't see 
> > BSD/X11 working well at all if you are still seeking a return on the 
> > investment you've made...
> 
> I don't think X11 wants to try to address this problem (value of each 
> person's contribution).   It's like free speech - who's to say what words 
> are more important than others?  In any case, there are CERTAINLY much 
> better ways of dealing with whatever problems than the GPL (unless you 
> are trying to push an free (as in beer), anti-proprietary agenda)

I think the FSF does have a free-beer agenda, notwithstanding their claims 
to the contrary.  ("Methinks the lady doth protest too much.")  While they 
could be said to be anti-proprietary, it's only in the fashion that EVERY 
proprietary interest is against the OTHER proprietary interests; similarly, 
the GPL is a proprietary interest opposed to other proprietary interests.

The BSD/X11 camps are more egalitarian, welcoming proprietary players and 
non-proprietary ones alike...

Deven