UK Govt Warned: Don't Buy GPL 806
JPMH writes "ZDNet is reporting that a UK IT industry body backed by Microsoft, IBM, Intel, BAE Systems and other high-tech heavyweights has urged the UK government not to commission open-source software, and particularly not software covered by the General Public License. According to Intellect, which lobbies for about 1,000 UK IT companies, the requirement of open-source licences for software funded by the government could have a negative impact on competition for contracts, the quality of the resulting software and even the confidentiality of government departments. In particular, Intellect recommends that the government drop the GNU General Public License (GPL), the licence upon which the GNU/Linux operating system is based, from its list of acceptable default licences for government-funded software, and steer clear of the GPL generally."
Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:1, Insightful)
big surprise.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
The government is there to hand out taxpayer money to corporations.
It's so obvious.
Its a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
interesting times indeed
And apparently the UKG is supposed to overlook... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Don't buy GPL" (Score:3, Insightful)
* Don't send a gift to Linus
* Never buy a beer from the OSI guys
* [your 'I misunderstood the topic,too'-line here]
Before you get upset about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
From the list above, you can see that some of the most popular open-source technologies are not GPL. "Recommending against the GPL" does not mean "Recommending against open source."
Just something to keep in mind...
Re:IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
So what else is new? In the OS/2 days, there was an internal segment of IBM that loved OS/2 and promoted OS/2 while at the same time another segment of IBM was doing almost everything in their power to destroy OS/2. Schizophrenia at IBM is not unheard of.
Re:That's pretty weird (Score:5, Insightful)
I would even go as far as to suspect that IBM's Linux services division would be upset at this.
From IBM's own mouth, they make over 80% of their revenues on custom integrations and support, which means that GPL software is a good choice from their perspective. Proprietary software wouldn't make them much more money.
They're more inclined to listen to South Africa (Score:3, Insightful)
The Commonwealth looks like it's verging towards a common strategy.
"The OEE and the DTI are considering establishing open-source licence terms as the default for government-funded software"
This sounds like it's swinging the pendulum even further than South African plans.
"When the Government decides to develop software using a restrictive licensing base, such as the GNU GPL, (it) should be aware that this would prevent it from deriving commercial gain
Which would be bad because we all know how much of our software we buy from the British government.
Dont do it (Score:2, Insightful)
Fax your MP. (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously, don't content yourself with ranting here, exercise your political opinion where it counts, and Fax Your MP [faxyourmp.com] about this blatant abuse of our political system.
We all know that Open Source raises the bar for the rest of the industry, encourages competition rather than extinguishes it; make sure your MP does too, and that if he or she doesn't present your view, you may be more chosy with your vote next time round.
Negative impact. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, it's a bitch when a company can't slap a widget onto government funded software and then sell it back. You can see how the GPL might drive bid prices, aka government costs, down. As for quality, it's hard to see how someone can go wrong with GPL'd software.
GPL-lovers are very quick to cry for censure of any company suspected of violating the license.
Hey, that's the way copyright works. Big dumb companies set it up so they can screw you and me. Too bad when it gets used in a way they did not expect. Various programmers are quick to cry foul when they see work they wanted to stay free and are giving away, used by some big dumb company in an abusive manner. You don't think those same big dumb companies hesitate to set their well funded leagal department on individual programmers if they catch a wiff of anything they might lay claim to? Just look at SCO trying to extort the entire world of Unix. Nothing like that can ever come out of free software. Get back in your hole, troll.
Intel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:2, Insightful)
These are taxpayer dollars we're talking about. Shouldn't they be spent on something where the user is completely free to modify
You mean the way the user is able to modify MS Windows, MS Office, Oracle DB, Adobe Acrobat, IIS, and all the other software that government purchases with taxpayer dollars. Methinks you have lost perspective.
The solution is acutally quite simple. If you don't want your work to fall under the GPL, don't base it on GPL software. How hard is that? Just do it all yourself and you can license however you want.
Government Business (Score:4, Insightful)
Call me old fashioned (and having said that I know I'm going to get at least one post that says "You're old fashioned"), but I thought governments were about internal order, external defense and maintenance of currency. Even being relatively liberal they should still only be concerned with generally looking after their citizens, not creating software.
After all, the British govt. providing the NHS really limits its ability to make money by running private hospitals. And if they didn't provide all those policemen they could make a fortune as a private security firm!
Cheers, Paul
Interoperability not in TCO (Score:3, Insightful)
It might make MS stuff look better in the short term, but I think we need to send emails etc. to the makers of theres TCO analysis and demand it be included. Why would the cost of interoperability be any less than say education of system Operators.
Once the component is included it is much easier to have a sober debate on the long term cost of "lock-in"
Public domain is the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no reason why publically funded IP should be copyrighted by a corporate entity.
I could understand BSD if it was only partially government funded, but for anything paid for by the taxpayers... PD is it.
Re:Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:1, Insightful)
Second, if you think that's why these folks are against the GPL, you are NUTS. They are against the GPL because Linux is under the GPL and Microsoft is calling the shots here.
The GPL is a great license for people who don't want their work used against them in the future. It's probably BETTER for companies like Microsoft to release the code under GPL rather than BSD, etc., but since Linux is GPL'd, Microsoft has to be 100% anti-GPL. And the anti-GPL crowd laps it up!
Instead of being anti-GPL, be pro-Free-software. That includes GPL OR BSD OR public domain. ANY of those are better than closed-source software paid with public funds, don't you think??
Re:Hard to buy (Score:3, Insightful)
just my 2 eurocents.
Re:IBM too? (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to view corporate relationships with a lot more cynicism than we currently do. The corporation views you as a resource, much like a desk or a computer monitor and will treat you as such. You can't hope they won't turn on you -- you have to expect them to. It's not a matter of "if," it's a matter of "when."
I'm sorry if I come across a bit strongly here, but it's something that very few people in the community actually understand. I think we all want to believe, in our hearts, that companies are made up of people and people are inherently good. Well I'm here to tell you that companies are made up of people and people inherently suck!
Re:Before you get upset about this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps not. But if you would have read the article, or heck, even the summary you would have seen this little gem:
ZDNet is reporting that a UK IT industry body backed by Microsoft, IBM, Intel, BAE Systems and other high-tech heavyweights has urged the UK government not to commission open-source software, and particularly not software covered by the General Public License.
Nobody seems to have pointed this out yet... (Score:5, Insightful)
They clearly either misunderstand the GPL or are blatantly lying. The GPL does not require you to disclose anything unless you distribute the modified version.
Thus the MI-5, CIA,CSIS, Interpol, or whatever can freely develop their own internal software under the GPL, and deploy it throughout their systems. The requirement to include source only applies if they distribute the product. I expect intelligence agencies don't normally distribute sensitive software outside the agency.
Re:That's pretty weird (Score:2, Insightful)
IBM has to walk a thin line between pushing open source (in the form of Linux) to weaken its competitors, and hold back open source where it could damage their money-making proprietary systems.
Granted this is most likely just a case where IBM wasn't fully aware beforehand, but I would expect to see situations like this more often in the future.
Re:BSD is the way to go (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. But how is that any different from any other software license?
Even closed source code is open to legal trouble. Perhaps even more so?
Re:big surprise.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this case, the GPL is exactly the same as the BSD license.
It's only when the user stops being a user and starts being a distributer that the rules change. The GPL does not allow people to stand on the shoulders of giants without a return in contribution.
It's not users (or "beleaguered UK taxpayers") but profiteers that are under additional restriction.
GPL license is political (Score:4, Insightful)
Unlike BSD, the GPL carries a political message in it, and the government would have to back all the statements in GPL such as "All published software should be free software", the definition of "free", etc.
For what it's worth, I personally don't think all software should be free, but more importantly, I disagree with the idea of having to distribute a political message with my software.
All the OSS software I wrote has been released under BSD-like terms, and when I use software in my projects, I give preference to BSD-licensed ones.
Re:I'm confused! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not what the government has purchased with tax dollars but what the government has developed with tax dollars.
Re:That's like Ronald McDonald... (Score:5, Insightful)
"It'll cost more in the end, you don't have the freedom to choose from a menu, plus no Happy Meals!"
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, the table have turned. These UK lobbists are asking to deny a software based on its license, and that it doesn't matter if it is the best tool for the job. As long as it is GPL, it is wrong.
Highly amusing. It only indicates that proprietary vendors are shooting everywhere hoping that one of their arguments convince someone. And that the "feature-rich" argument, after all, isn't working.
Re:Hard to buy (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, I realize it was a joke, but still: We're talking about government-comissioned software, here. Some groups want to require that all government-comissioned software in the UK be open source unless a special agreement is made; even if an agreement is made to keep the software proprietary, they want to require it to become open source after two years.
It's understandable (reasonable, even) that proprietary vendors would not like this, but especially if they do such works for hire.
Re:Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:2, Insightful)
True, but when you make money, the government makes money.
Re:Hard to buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good Sense (Score:5, Insightful)
It's so obvious."
Parent is modded as funny, but it's actually fact.
The Public Private Partnership, championed by the New Labour government, was all about (in it's propaganda blurb) the private sector getting the profits, because it was taking the risks.
In practice, however, they take the profits, and the taxpayer bails out the compaies concerned when things go wrong - the private sector gains and the public sector takes all the risk.
The government does hand out taxpayer's money to corporations.
It's not obvious, though, it's bleedin' blatant.
dead wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely incorrect.
The GPL does not in any way cover internal distribution. This is not the same as public distribution. Making modifications and keeping them within your company, but not releasing the source, is completely uncovered by the GPL.
In regards to software that the government funds, the government should NEVER fund proprietary software development (except for things which are meant to always be secret, like the US govt's program to predict how radar bounces off of curved surfaces). Public money should not be used to create private information, or proprietary programs, which the public then has to pay for again.
In regards to what software is acceptable for the government, this organization's concerns about the GPL are bogus, and anything they say should be ignored. Irrelevant of the truth, they are going to advocate the use of proprietary software. It benefits them.
The proper course of action is for the government to give strong consideration to FOSS, and if it decides against using FOSS, it should have to publish and explanation of it's decision to the public. In fact, any decisions on what software the government uses should be justified to the public, and the government should be required to consider FOSS, for the very frequent cost advantages of using it. The government has an obligation to tax-payers to consider what is likely to in most cases be a less costly solution.
Re:IBM too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Corporations pay taxes too... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not losing anything but the ability to fuck over the citizenry with proprietary lock in schemes and dodgy data formats. How the hell is that in the public interest?
There is a weird proposition here, that because a business says they would like govt to give them code they can lock up, they should get it. The point is that no corp would have that code without the govt forcing them to fund it via tax. Why, exactly, are they deserving of the right to take from the commons and not give back?
Re:Public domain is the way to go (Score:2, Insightful)
Do you really want weapons design software in the public domain?
Re:Hard to buy (Score:5, Insightful)
Wich doesn't exclude the usage of GPL'ed software. GPL only says that you should allow anyone that got binaries from you to get the source code as well. Meaning that your government actually get the code of the guidence systems. That government is then 'allowed' to share that code with whoever they choose, but they are not forced to do so in any way. So there is nothing in OSS that prevents anyone from keeping things secret...
When you only have a hammer... (Score:3, Insightful)
Businesses are geared to think only in terms of how profitable a certain action can be, and are incorrectly projecting that necessity-for-profit onto others. Intellect appears to be trying to equate their perception of a reduced commercial value of GPL'd software to a reduced societal value of GPL'd software. And while the former is an unproven assertion at best, the latter is downright wrong.
Should we abandon the creation of roads where the cost of building a new highway exceeds the revenue of the resulting taxes? What about housing for the poor? Surely we're not "deriving commercial gain" out of those projects?
Seems to me this is yet another case where commercial organizations need to be reminded by the public that they exist only at the pleasure of the populace, and by their grace. When a commercial organization (or other entity) begins to promote it's own interests over the advancement of the society as a whole, that society is correct in recognising such an organization as hostile.
Re:That's pretty weird (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think IBM or any of the other old-UNIX-gone-Linux vendors especially prefer Linux. They sell it because customers demand it.
If they had their druthers, they'd still be locking folks into AIX, OS/2, or other solutions they can control. There's a huge benefit to customers making purchasing decisions based on insurmountable need for more of your product, rather than price shopping whenever a cheap new commodity box might lighten a load.
They'd also be quite happy if the software wasn't getting faster instead of slower. It used to be a given that the new versions of your software with new features you need would run slower than the last version, mandating extra hardware upgrades.
They're preaching to the converted (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm confused! (Score:4, Insightful)
You should improve your reading comprehension; there is no indication in this article that IBM endorses this action, or even knows about it. They just happen to be a member of the organization that does, one of over 1000 members.
The GPL and predatory monopolies (Score:5, Insightful)
Suppose I am a government funded researcher. To be precise, people and businesses in my country pay their taxes and the government awards me some of this money to fund a new software system. Suppose my system is useful for SMEs to quickly help them to communicate opportunities to do business. It doesn't matter what it does exactly; the key is that there is communication between different organizations and that this is facilitated by my government-funded project. If I GPL this software, everyone in the country gets to use the software. If you're so inclined, you could go into business to try to make money from the software; you could improve the interface, or make it easier to search for partnerships, or whatever. Of course, you must GPL your changes, but you might be the clear leaders in the installation and configuration of this SW, so you could make some money. In any case, whether you can make money or not, the taxpayers do not lose out.
Suppose now that the software is released into the public domain, or even under a BSD licence. Suppose further that half-a-dozen firms spot a market opportunity to improve this project and make a commercial product out of the system. This is fine in principle, but if one of those six firms is Microsoft, we have an immediate problem. MS could decide to integrate the system into MS Outlook; perhaps the system uses email to communicate opportunities. We still have no problem of course, because there are five other competitors, any of whom could come up with a better approach to improving the product. Perhaps some of them will flourish in organizations which do not use Outlook for whatever reason.
However, if MS wishes to, they can simply make a subtle change to the protocol used by their version of the software. Because MS Windows is universal, this new protocol becomes the de facto standard. Of course, even this wouldn't be a problem, so long as MS published their changes to the protocol.
Suppose however that MS declines to publish their changes to the protocol. Our five other competitors are pushed out, and whatever money there is to be made from the software will accrue to Microsoft. For all I know, MS are paying a huge amount of tax, and perhaps they should have the opportunity to make a killing like this. The problem is that all the other taxpayers get to pay twice; they funded the original software with their taxes. And now if they want to get the benefit from the money they "invested" before, they have to pay again, this time to Microsoft. Of course you could argue that MS might have made significant improvements, but I don't think that argument holds, because they wouldn't have to make any useful changes to effectively require taxpayers to pay again for what they have already funded. All Microsoft needs to do is to make some subtle and unimportant and secret change to the communication protocol and they've made an instant market for themselves (or, more accurately, they've damaged another market).
I think that this is the key problem with BSD and public domain licensing for taxpayer-funded software.
Re:Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they? Your tax payer dollars pay for your city park, yet you aren't free to set up a business in your city park; in fact, what you can do in your city park is quite restricted. And the purpose of those rules is so that everybody can enjoy the city park.
It's quite analogous with the GPL: tax payer dollars pay for the software, and the GPL ensures that the software remains there to be enjoyed by everybody.
Likewise, the fact that tax payer dollars pay for software development doesn't mean that anybody should be able to use that software for whatever they please.
Keep in mind that the same kind of people who make this argument against the GPL now had not trouble making the argument a few years ago that governments should pay for software development in the private sector and then leave ownership of that software with the companies that developed it.
Re:Hard to buy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporations pay taxes too... (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely it should be open for use by all. GPL software is absolutely "open for use" by one and all. The GPL even states it has to be. So don't worry, your business can run linux, too.
Re:Don't be stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL does no such thing. It does not prohibit dual licensing. These companies are perfectly free to offer to buy the rights to incorporate the code under another license directly from the copyright holders.
Now why should the government, in other words *you*, via your tax dollars, be financing work which proprietary software vendors can then appropriate for nothing and sell at a profit? Welfare programs should be reserved for people that need help, not Bill Gates.
Software which all the taxpayers pay for should be available to all taxpayers. The rights to any additional software should be reserved to those who invested in the salaries of the programmers who developed the software. IMHO, government programs should be reserved for all citizens, not just the rich OR the poor.
Re:ZDNet is not reporting accurately (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, If I understand the GPL correctly; they can. They just can't redistribute their changes without revealing their code (and codes). Althought, they can distribute changes (the source code itself) for what changes they don't hold confidential. Therein returning work to the community. You can make all the changes you want to GPL code without releasing the code. You just can't release the (new) binaries without contributing it's code also.
Re:Hard to buy (Score:3, Insightful)
Most software in use is special purpose.
It actually makes sense for a customer to want his program to be gpled, he is not dependant on the original supplier for later upgrades.
(Although usually the original supplier is the best place to go for such things as they have the best knowledge of both the product and your setup).
Jeroen
looks like a job for the European Commission (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Corporations pay taxes too... (Score:2, Insightful)
The goal of BSD is to get as many people as possible to use the code. If that happens to make everyone's software better then yippee. The point is not to ram some (false) utopian vision of the world down everyone's throats but to write code and have people use it. Simple as pie. That's why BSD is better.
The BSD license is designed to allow code to be used. The GPL license is designed to change the world into GNU/World.
Re:Well, of course. GPL is severely restrictive. (Score:2, Insightful)
there's no magic machine that changes pounds into dollars. american companies are forced to either to sell the pounds at the market (driving down the pound, thus increasing british exports), or to invest in the british capital markets which is also good for british investors. so basically quit whining you silly protectionist.
Re:Corporations pay taxes too... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can do whatever the hell you want with it, except prevent others from doing the same.
I guess it also really irks you that you can't set up a toll booth at the entrance to a public park, eh?
Re:IBM too? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:IBM too? (Score:2, Insightful)
"Just because one tiny part of one division supports Linux
This is incorrect.
"OSS is a new and very tiny part of IBM's busines"
Also incorrect (more like corporate "core strategy", but whatever)
So, I disagree with the basis for the conclusions (facts all wrong), and also disagree with the conclusions (personal opinion, but I differ). That's all.
PS
IBM has commited that all of its hardware will run Linux. The customer can still choose MS, but at least they have the choice of using nothing but Linux when they buy IBM hardware (and, I'm sure even more profitable than hardware for IBM, services)
Re:Corporations pay taxes too... (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree absolutely, which is why the government should create software under a BSD license.
"There is a weird proposition here, that because a business says they would like govt to give them code they can lock up, they should get it."
Whose locking up anything?
Under the BSD license the code is FOREVER free. The only thing locked up is the extra contributions added to it, which is their work and they have the right to decide what they want to do with their own work, right?
"The point is that no corp would have that code without the govt forcing them to fund it via tax."
Are you saying the govt should never fund software development?
"Why, exactly, are they deserving of the right to take from the commons and not give back?"
They give back in other ways, by creating jobs.
I'm amazed at how ignorant some people are with regards to economics.
Re:Hard to buy (Score:3, Insightful)
In the early days of computing it was a highly specialiased art with few practitioners, and those in the hands of hard nosed businesses. Companies like Unisys and IBM would develop software without releasing the code or IP to the company that paid for this, thus causing vendor lock-in. This benefitted the vendors, but was less great for the companies who were now locked in.
Times have changed, and now many companies insist on keeping the IP for any bespoke development, or at least having the code in escrow. Escrow can protect them from the company going bust but often doesn't protect against the development company (who has an effective lock-in until they chapter 11) from "bleeding" their client dry on updates and support.
Software development is more commoditised now, and their are more available vendors who are willing to work under terms that are fairer for the person paying the cheque. This is leading to a greater expectation that people who pay for development will retain rights to the code.
The next logical step for this process is being spearheaded by the government, whose needs are different to that of most businesses. The govenment does not compete with businesses and has a greater need for openess than many proprietry businesses. The government is funded and staffed by us, for us, the people, and all products of the government should be able to directly benefit all the people - not the shameless few who rule the top 100 computer companies, but everyone - because we all took a part in the cost of developing the software. Open Source guarantees that everyone who paid for the software (that's the whole taxpaying country) can see the source and benefit from it.
It would be an entirely different matter if the government wanted to mandate this for businesses, but they don't, they only want to do this for themselves.