Re: Economics and the GPL

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:

> At 05:30 PM 6/19/02 -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> >On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:
> >
> > > At 02:45 PM 6/19/02 -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> > > > > That's one way of looking at it.  Another is that it is using the 
> > > > > tools of oppression against the oppressor.
> > > >
> > > >But are you on a higher moral ground if you act like those you despise?
> > >
> > > He is not acting like those who he despises, he is merely using their
> > > tools. Sounds fair to me.
> >
> >He's not?  Hmm...  Software hoarding?  Check.  Embrace and extend?  Check.
> 
> Unlike proprietary software, GPLed software is free for everyone to use for 
> no charge. Plus you have the source to adapt/modify/improve.

Yes, it's free to use unmodified.  It's not free for everyone to adapt, 
modify or imprive the code -- only for the GPL community to do so.  (Well, 
technically there's a niche case of closed modifications which are used but 
never distributed, but that's a very special and limited case.)

Just because anyone can participate in the GPL community doesn't mean that 
the code is free to everyone.  If Microsoft can't incorporate GPL code into 
Windows, how can you say it's free to everyone?  Microsoft can distribute 
GPL code, sure, but they're not free to use it any way they choose.  Please 
don't claim the GPL is more free than it really is.  BSD/X11 licenses are 
much more free, because anyone can use them with very little limitation.

Now, I'm not saying that the GPL should allow Microsoft to use GPL code in 
Windows -- that's exactly what it's trying to prevent.  And whether or not 
it's the best means to accomplish the goal (and it's debatable), there's no 
reason why the GPL shouldn't be allowed to take this approach.  However, 
GPL advocates should be honest and admit that it's not really free for 
everyone to use, but only for the GPL community to use...

> Usually open source software will use open/official standards(for 
> file-formats etc...) so it enables everyone to participate...

This is a good thing, of course.  This happens because it's better to use 
an existing standard than to invent a proprietary format.  Since most open 
source programmers aren't looking to lock out others, there's very little 
incentive to invent proprietary formats.  (Unless it's for simplicity, in 
which case the format will probably still be documented and open.)

> So I see a lot of differences between proprietary and GPL.

Then you've got blinders on.  The GPL is just as proprietary as Microsoft.  
It's open proprietary software, but nonetheless proprietary.  Certainly, 
there is a big difference from closed proprietary software, but "closed" is 
the word to be demonized, if any -- not "proprietary".  Rail against closed 
software all you like, but it's hypocritical to rant about "proprietary" 
software without distinguishing open from closed while supporting the GPL.

> >I thought Microsoft and others were supposedly bad *because* they did these
> >things, not only because they don't distribute source?
> >
> >I guess the question is, do the ends justify the means?
> 
> Hmm, I think this question is really a bit off topic now :) (Due to its 
> generality)

Perhaps.  What else is new? :-)

Deven