Re: Economics and the GPL

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> But anybody and any company can use it. If you ignore this fact then you 
> miss the point. Microsoft can and does use GPL code.  Anybody means 
> anybody and the fact that they have to go by the same rules as everybody 
> else does  not make it proprietary.  If you go with the argument that 
> having an owner makes it proprietory then BSD is just as proprietary as 
> GPL.  If you go with the argument that it is the exclusiveness then it 
> can't be proprietary.

Just because there's an inherent dichotomy where one can participate in the 
GPL community and simultaneously stand apart from it, doesn't negate the 
fact that there is a distinction here.  Microsoft can use GPL code and 
benefit from it in one context (utilizing the free aspects) while at the 
same time being restrained (by the proprietary aspect) from benefitting 
from the GPL in another context.  This is a dichotomy, but not inherently 
inconsistent.

There is exclusiveness involved with the GPL's restrictions on distributing 
modified code.  That doesn't go away just because the same person or same 
organization can benefit from other aspects of the GPL in other contexts.

And yes, strictly speaking, BSD code is also proprietary -- it is under 
copyright and has owners.  However, having freely given away most of the 
benefits of the code, BSD code is LESS proprietary than GPL code.  (While 
GPL code is, in turn, less proprietary than most closed commercial code.)

> Anyway I am not the only one that decides what the definition for 
> proprietary software is, feel free to take it up with someone else. 
> (Even Stallman if you want). I get the idea about were you stand on this 
> issue and saying that the GPL is proprietory goes against the commonly 
> held definition.  So good luck with the campaign to fix this.

The "commonly held definition" within the free software community is 
Stallman's distorted definition.  I'll stick with the English language in 
this case instead of trying to redefine it for ideological reasons.

That doesn't mean I'm going to go on a crusade to convince Stallman of the 
error of his ways, but neither will I allow him to dictate my terminology.

Deven