Re: Economics and the GPL

On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> >He's not?  Hmm...  Software hoarding?  Check.  Embrace and extend?  Check.
>
> Is this so called "software hording and E&E"  where the source code is 
> available to the end user, or for a programmer to study, the same as 
> when the source is not available?

Not quite the same -- even if you don't want to abide by the GPL, you can 
still look at the code.  Then again, under some arguments, that might be 
"polluting" your mind with GPL code -- if you turn around and write similar 
code, some might claim it was "derived" from the GPL code, indirectly.  So 
maybe it's almost the same in effect -- while you CAN look at the GPL code, 
is it safe to do so if you want to write similar code, not under the GPL?

> OK what have I missed out on here? The agenda for the GPL is simple. To 
> make source code available to everyone.  (and keep it that way) Maybe 
> I'm truly dense but  isn't hording when you hide something away or is it 
> anytime you collect somthing.  

Well, the GPL aims to force EVERYONE to use the GPL, at which point it 
would be available to everyone.  To encourage programmers to fall in line, 
the GPL hoards software for the exclusive benefit of those who agree to 
abide by its rules.  As far as the GPL is concerned, it's tough shit for 
anyone who wants to use GPL code outside the rules of the GPL, even in free 
code like BSD code...

> As far as E&E maybe I missed something there as well but I fail to 
> understand where an entity that used the GPL license has done this?

No, the GPL itself does this.  It embraces code in order to extend the GPL 
community, which is the real purpose of 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? 
>
> GPL does not "horde code" by my definition of horde,  nor do know of any 
> cases E&E.  Also I don't think anyone but their shareholders, would have 
> a problem with Microsoft if they were releasing their source code.  

Then maybe you should double-check your definitions.  The GPL hoards all 
GPL software, refusing to allow anyone but the GPL community to benefit, 
even "kindred spirits" like the BSD community.  That hoarding is the basis 
for the GPL's embrace & extend tactic of embracing code under the GPL (by 
relicensing BSD-derived code, for example) and thereby extending the reach 
and power of the GPL community, allowing it to hoard more code and continue 
the feedback cycle...

As for Microsoft releasing source, I think most of us would be happy to see 
that happen.  And it's possible, but I doubt you'll see Windows relicensed 
under the GPL, at least in Bill Gates' lifetime!

Deven