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

Roger Fujii wrote:

>Patrik Stridvall <[email protected]> wrote:
>  
>
>>>Perhaps not the ideal solution, but very modern
>>>in asserting that "copyright" and "intellectual property" are
>>>essentially terms of the past that provide benefit only to small group
>>>of companies who are powerful enough to enforce these rights against
>>>others.
>>>      
>>>
>>... like communism pointed out the unfairness is society and proposed
>>a solution so does the GPL. However I predict that while the pointed
>>out problem is correct (like for communism) the GPL will fail to
>>provide the solution. But (non-viral) open source will solve the
>>problem in a similar the way the mordern welfare state solved
>>the problems.
>>    
>>
>
>I agree totally.  I liken this period in software is like the initial period
>of the space race.  If you were trying to gauge success in the 1950's, you'd
>think communism was destined to be the winner.   Something really should be 
>done, but GPL hasn't shown too much in the viability department so far to
>be considered the one to choose as the replacement.
>
>-r
>
>  
>

GPL is accused of being "viral" because the designers of it did not want 
GPL'd code used in proprietory products period. This aspect of the GPL 
was designed as a posion pill (as a deterent) and it does the job it was 
meant to do.  This license has the most protection for the community of 
volunteers. Since the All source code is always available any company 
using GPL has to live off one or all of the following: support, service, 
packaging or some other form of value added service like consulting. 
LGPL/MPL/SISSL have less restrictions on being incorporated into 
proprietary software and other additional options are open to companys 
that use those licences.  X11/BSD has the least restrictions as far as 
business go but has the least amount of protection for ensureing the 
community is compensated.  

Mozilla uses MPL and while there was some inital complaints about it not 
being GPL it seems that things are working out ok for both netscape and 
the open source community around Mozilla. While it is probably too soon 
to say how things will work out for Star/Open Office they too have a 
similar license.  Linux has the support of many companys including IBM. 
Each of these company's have found a business reason for supporting 
these projects and the open source communities seem to be satisfied with 
them .  These are win-win situations because both sides feel they are 
getting what they want.  Even in the case of Apache it worked because 
both sides are ok with the situation.


As far as I am concerned Wine could have chosen MPL/SISSL/LGLP/WineOrg 
and I would have been OK with the result.  


Tony Lambregts