We Don't Need the GPL Anymore 919
jpkunst writes "In a lengthy interview with Eric S. Raymond by Federico Biancuzzi at O'Reilly's onlamp.com, ESR defends his position that 'Open source would be succeeding faster if the GPL didn't make lots of people nervous about adopting it.'" From the article: "I don't think the GPL is the principal reason for Linux's success. Rather, I believe it's because in 1991 Linus was the first person to find the right social architecture for distributed software development. It wasn't possible much before then because it required cheap internet; and after Linux, most people who might otherwise have founded OS projects found that the minimum-energy route to what they wanted was to improve Linux. The GPL helped, but I think mainly as a sort of social signal rather than as a legal document with teeth."
Hmmm (Score:3, Interesting)
GPL Teeth? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:He's right, of course (Score:5, Interesting)
If what you said were true why didn't Microsoft take say FreeBSD and do the same thing? It's BSD Licensed, UNIX based and a pretty solid system.
Other licenses are becoming more common (Score:4, Interesting)
Major projects like Apache, MySQL, X11, Perl, and PHP eschew the GPL in favor for homebrew alternatives, and while the GPL offers a single license for a disparate range of software.. I agree with ESR, and I believe that licensing of open source software may be better done in a simpler, less arcane way.
Oh for Pete's sake! (Score:4, Interesting)
Sheesh.
Re:GPL is very much needed (Score:1, Interesting)
He is right ! (Score:2, Interesting)
Raymond has it right: The Open-Source-Movement does not need the GPL. As he says:
He is an Open-Source Guy. He thinks, that Open-Source is good, because the developement model (that is: the organisation of the programmers) is better.
He does not care about "Freedom" or ethics. The Free-Software Movement cannot live without the GPL, because without the "virulent" nature of it, no Freedom can be taken away.
This interview proves, that RMS was right, when he rejected the term "Open Source" !
GPL the bane of my life.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:GPL Teeth? (Score:3, Interesting)
LGPL is fine. Dual licensed open source products are fine where you can pay the developer for a license other than compliance with the GPL.
There are lots of reasons that companies and government entities don't want to expose all their source to the GPL including security considerations, protection of intellectual property etc.
The fear is not based on any doubt about the quality of open source/GPL code it is more a concern about the "viral nature" of the GPL. Even where changes are not made to the open source code and its dynamically linked with proprietary code, the attorneys will not allow it. We're actually paying to replace GPL components with non-GPL components to avoid any perceived risk of future litigation.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:If this were true... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now, IBM sometime ago done some adverts making Linux as a so called prodigy, here to re-cap:
IBM is fronting the bill for Linux's TV debut -- the company is advertising Linux as being the key to an "open" future. The ad was directed by Joe Pytka ("created" by Ogilvy & Mather), and debuted in the US on September 7, 2003, during an NFL game and the US Open men's finals.
The ad stars a stonefaced young blond boy, sitting in a nondescript chair in a Matrixesque white expanse, facing another chair in which is seated, over the course of the ad, 13 other people, each elucidating some important topic to the Kid (as well as a soccer player, who juggles a ball). These aren't your average after-school math tutors, either: the guests include Penny Marshall (actor; director), Muhammad Ali (boxer), Sylvia Nasar (author, "A Beautiful Mind"), Henry Lewis Gates (professor, Harvard; African-American community leader) and John Wooden (former coach, the Bruins). The nuggets of wisdom spoken to the Kid:
As the ad ends, "LINUX" blurs into view, and is then replaced by "THE FUTURE IS OPEN", and finally "IBM" with the URL ibm.com/open underneath it.
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=77113 [everything2.com]
think of the above from a developers point of view, working on Linux.
Re:He's right, of course (Score:4, Interesting)
NeXT took 4.3BSD and Mach 2.5, and built a kernel which used Mach to provide a hardware abstraction layer and key services (e.g. threads), BSD to provide a UNIX personality, and their own driver model. They licensed Display PDF from Adobe and built their AppKit on top of it. They created a BSD-derived userland with several of the BSD utilities. They added support for Objective-C to gcc, although this wasn't particularly useful without an Objective-C runtime - NeXT had one, and GNU now has one as well.
Apple bought NeXT (or NeXT bought Apple for a negative amount), stripped out the old 4.3BSD code and replaced it with 4.4BSD lites 2 code to make Rhapsody. They took some userland tools from NetBSD and created a Mac look and feel. A bit later, they updated more of the BSD code with bits from FreeBSD, which gave them a more modern kernel.
Saying that they did `simply embrace and extend BSD' is a gross oversimplification. You might like to compare the Darwin kernel source to any BSD kernel at some point and see how different it is. Sun (and other UNIX vendors) did simply embrace and extend (and extend a lot in some cases) BSD in the early days of commercial UNIX, although modern Solaris is a lot more SysV than BSD.
Picking the right license for the job (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD-like for code that either isn't terribly interesting or important enough to care about it being embraced and extended or code that represents a canonical implementation of a proposed standard that it is hoped will be widely adopted. Yes, even by Microsoft.
GPL-like for interesting and unique code that presents a "Unique Selling Point" for Free-as-in-speech software. Organisations that want use it to reduce development costs and to later redistribute products need to accept the author's terms, or get off their arse and develop their own equivalent code.
LGPL-like for code that would, if it weren't for its intended usage, be otherwise licensed as GPL-like above, but it's better if it's widely used. Yes, even by proprietary applications.
MPL-like for 'donated' code for which the original author wishes to reserve rights for themselves that they don't necessarily wish to grant to others. Their code, their right to choose. If you don't like it, play somewhere else.
None of what I've written above is original, even rms has said similar [lwn.net] things [gnu.org] in the past.
Conceivably, I can accept (and even hope for) the theoretical possibility that the time will come when everyone accepts that Free software is here to stay and that no-one wishes to try to selfishly exploit it. Just like the possibility that one day humans will learn to treat each other with respect and consequently, police forces, weapons, property rights and even laws are no longer necessary to deter unwanted exploitation. Sadly, that day is not yet here. And that's where I disagree with esr.
Re:Actually ESR misses the point. (Score:3, Interesting)
I have one word for you. kswapd
Pick a BSD, any one. Their virtual memory subsystem far outstrips the unstable mess that Linux's has been since at least 1998. VM ain't just swap, it's virtually every every single memory access you make in protected mode. And Linux, across kernel versions and distributions, has consistently made a dogs breakfast of it.
I am dealing with the kswapd issues on three different machines running three different distros, some with 2.4, some with 2.6, some with RHEL (which is practically a version unto its own). I am sick to death of it. If I had any say in the matter, I'd be running FreeBSD.
Not just "improvements". (Score:3, Interesting)
This is far more difficult if you have have release the code for that "extend" under the same license that you got the original code.
If everyone can implement those same extensions, under the same license, then "extinguish" becomes far more difficult.
human nature unchecked (Score:5, Interesting)
http://gpl-violations.org/ [gpl-violations.org]http://gpl-violations.o
Nothing more should need saying, but I've got a couple more minutes.
I'm sure at some point the use of open source software will be so ubiquitous as to make the result of hording, thieving, and conspiring by individuals and corporations ineffectual.
However, I still believe that we have not reached that cross roads yet. There are still a number of people and corporations who have the desire and the ability to plunder the hard work of those who produce the code and then conspire to both denegrate the open source offerings while profiting from that same well.
I like to call these entities the Robber Barons of the Information Age. They are filled with childish and immature emotions and characteristics. They see themselves as icons of a vast empire they built and they are justfied in their actions. Of course the truth is that no one man or even the entire clique of Robber Barons created the information age. In fact it has been the nameless and faceless masses of electronic/software engineers in the background producing all the fantastic hardware and software which makes the information age possible. These men who are supposed to be leaders instead have become filled with themselves. And it all comes down to human nature and the corruption of power.
The way I see it the GPL and the idea behind it is a tool that can be used to take back what has been stolen by the Robber Barons. Many of these same nameless masses who made the Barons are also producing open source code under the GPL and the GPL is poison to the thieving Barons, that is why they despise it to no end.
The GPL is a tool to help keep the Robber Barons human nature in check. I think the end result is that instead of having icons in the open source development circles there are leaders.
Anyhow, thats enough ranting for now.
burnin
p.s. Just a note on the mention of engineering. Not having a degree in engineering does not mean you are not an engineer and conversely having a degree in engineering does not make you an engineer. If you really want to know what an engineer is and determin if you are an engineer just look up the definition of engineer and engineering.
Re:GPL the bane of my life.... (Score:1, Interesting)
A consultant's perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
I've worked with clients ranging in size from Mom and Pop businesses to fortune 500s as a developer and system integrator. The bigger the client usually means the more recognition of the value of Intellectual Capital, and the pressure to protect that capital.
For large clients Open Source can be a tough sell, though it is getting easier, thanks in large part to Apache Server and Firefox projects (Guys and Gals, you rock!). GPL Open Source is a no go with every mid to large size client I've worked for in most cases. In many cases LGPL was also no go.
The secondary reason? The viral nature of the GPL.
What? The secondary reason!? Yep. The primary reason is the rabid fanaticism with which the GPL is worshipped/defended by many (NOTE: NOT all, there are many bright and reasonable folk in the GPL camp).
Case in point: I know a project that was using a vanilla MySQL instantiation and connecting to it via MySQL's Java drivers. They were unable to use a GPL license, but thought they didn't have to as they were just using the JDBC drivers. They were quickly and I am told emphatically informed that their entire project was GPL if they distributed it. The project was rewritten to use Oracle, and a no Open Source policy was instituted.
The moral: Open Source got killed in that project, and many others, because of the fanaticism of the GPL crowd and because of the all-encompassing nature of the GPL.
Fanatics of any stripe are bad. Rabid fanatics are worse.
IMHO the perfect model for an money-making Open Source licensing scheme would be similar to Saxon's: Make a functional product, release it under a BSD style license (no idea what Michael's license is, but I believe not GPL), and then create another tier of product available for sale with features that are very desirable (Namespace support). Supplement that with consulting and you have a decent business model, if your products and skills are good.
As a song said, "Free your mind, and the rest will follow..."
Re:He's right, of course (Score:2, Interesting)
Do you have references for this assertion? What improvements were made to the stack that Unix stacks do not have?
This is the same old BS. It is *good* that they used it otherwise we wouldn't be talking about this over the Internet -- we'd be using the Microsoft Network (remember that?).
The *great* majority of clients out there are Microsoft Windows clients. If Microsoft hadn't accepted TCP/IP, they would all be using some Microsoft protocol and we'd be using Microsoft servers instead of free webservers on every platform. The fact that a monopoly can embrace an open standard makes it possible for non-monopoly players to play too.
Re:Naive Optimism (Score:1, Interesting)
If a company takes a library X and adds features A & B, they will have the difficulty now of maintaining X on their own or remerging A & B into every new release of X. In the long run, it is more trouble and expensive for them than just releasing A & B back to the original open source project.
If features A & B look good to the community, they can probably be added to the library relatively easily. Let's face it, how many times do you see features in a proprietary project and think, "Wow, I could never write that feature!". The real danger here is patents, not the effort of writing the code.
If a company likes X, but doesn't want to deal with the license, they'll write their own version and there is 0% chance that any features are "given back". More importantly, if the company is big enough, it will split the developer community between them.
Here is an interesting analogy I haven't completely thought through: would
We Don't Need the ESR Anymore (Score:5, Interesting)
This guy has 0% credibility from my point of vue, just like any stoopid politician who tries to push his agenda while telling you he's defending your freedom or whatever...
Get a job, and stop annoying us.
Silly OSI vs FSF marketing fud (Score:5, Interesting)
This whole thread is rediculous.
The OSI (open source initiative - a california nonprofit org, funded largely by industry) & members including ESR
has always been at odds with
the FSF (Free Software Foundation - a massachusetts nonprofit organization, funded & staffed largely by academia) & members including RMS regarding free/open software. Each compete for donations, developers, mindshare, etc just like any other two organizations.
Please take anything the OSI says about the GPL, and anything the FSF says about the CDDL with a large grain of salt rubbed in the wound.
(opinionated rant: To ESR and the rest of the OSI - I don't give a damn how much Sun paid you from their Microsoft settlement to get the pattent-encumbered CDDL approved, please stop bashing the FSF and trying to divide and conquor the F/OSS community)
Re:He's right, of course (Score:3, Interesting)
I am kinda curious who retains that contract. I imagine it follows the os portion of old-SCO and would now be in the care of McBride & Co.
My conclusion: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:A consultant's perspective (Score:2, Interesting)
So, instead of talking to the nice folks at mysql.com (the business), they hit the mailing lists looking for legal consultation on licensing issues with the expected results, and in the end decided to talk to the nice folks at Oracle and rewrite the project?
My guess is they wanted to go with Oracle anyway, otherwise they would have invested the legal and project management time required to keep using the existing project codebase.
Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work (Score:5, Interesting)
You ditch the GPL and Linux will fragment just like UNIX did. Companies like HP, IBM, Novell and the now Wall Street obsessed Red Hat would start doing all their work on proprietary branches in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage and "differentiate" their product which is exactly what all the proprietary Unix flavors did. "Differentiation" was the death knell for proprietary UNIX. They are all dead and dieing due to the fragmentation of resources and applications, while Linux is going strong.
Maybe we don't need ESR any more. Some of his lunatic rants make people nervous about using open source.
Exactly. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, it is notable that WindRiver dropped BSD in favour of Linux, which may be because other companies have to be on a level playing field in that realm.
I don't believe one license is necessarily better than the other - OpenBSD probably couldn't have the level of assurance it does under the GPL, as it would be too mutable. On the other hand, I cannot believe Linux could be as feature-complete if it were under the BSD license.
Where mutable code is beneficial, I believe the GPL and LGPL are absolutely ideal, as they promote very rapid growth and evolution. The BSD license is better when growth and change are much slower, where exchanges of code are much more controlled and formal.
Don't use chainsaws on nails, don't use hammers to cut logs.
Linux popularity isn't from the GPL. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:He's right, of course (Score:3, Interesting)
Your argument is highly flawed, because a company like Micro$oft would not choose GPL in the first place. Therefore, you have no contribution anyhow and your hypothesis is totally void of a probability of even coming into being. However, because the BSD license is unobtrusive, you have a higher probability that at least some code would merge back to the code base. We've seen this with Apple and FreeBSD. (I wish I knew some Bayesian theory, it can probably be explained with that
So, unless we factor in pyschological, moral, or political factors, the GPL makes less sense than the BSD license.
You have to understand the setting in which Stallman nurtured his idea of the Free Software movement. He was working in the MIT AI lab, they wanted to make money with Lisp machines, Symbolics came in and hired the best hackers of the lab under NDAs (Symbolics is a great lesson on failure, greed, and the Lisp Machine war probably hurt software development more than we can fathom) and Stallman was alone, the lab was torn apart, all the knowledge there under a NDA hood...And then the AT&T licensing problem with Unix...Back then, "everything was Free Software", there wasn't a need for licenses. But society changed, laws changed, corporations changed. And the hacker mentality gave in to the dot-com bubble and nowadays, those insane patents and lawsuits.
The BSD license represents the really true, free, "do what you like" mentality.
I believe it's a terrible misjudgement to expect every community to behave like the Linux community. Some communities don't: the BSD community, the Forth community (still in a wonderful hacker mindset), the Lisp community, the Delphi community, the Java community, etc., they're all very different and relate different to the issues of proprietary/free software.
Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work (Score:3, Interesting)
If you know how execs and marketeers think, if the opportunity exists to develop proprietary features for Linux that would "differentiate" their product and help them justify selling their flavor for more, and drive sales of their product over their competitors, they will. On Linux all the engineers and lawyers just say, sorry dude you can't make it proprietary becuase its GPL
You would hope companies like HP and IBM learned from their mistakes fragmenting UNIX. While they were busy differentiating, Windows was busy unifying their market and burying UNIX.
The GPL is an important insurance policy to keep companies honest and from backsliding to their old proprietary ways.
Why the GPL is important (Score:3, Interesting)
> who may want to take you up on the offer?
If you want the poster child for the importance of the GPL, I nominate Cisco Systems/Linksys. Every time ESR says teh GPL isn't important somebody in the audience needs to hold up a WRT54G and wave it around. Linksys only released the source because of the GPL, and to be honest, the first release was half hearted. But now a whole community exists around modifying the firmware, which just has to be driving sales in a visible way. So now we get a tarball with EVERYTHING, including the mips toolchain, ready to go. The only part still missing is the network drivers and those belong to Broadcom.
Re:BSD is a great example of what doesn't work (Score:3, Interesting)
BSD is failing because its been massively differentiated, its so fragmented it has no critical mass. Why it fragmented is hard to say but the license is a leading candidate. Linux doesn't really need to risk following in their footsteps if the license lead to its niche status.
The Linux desktop is failing because its been fragmented especially between GTK and Qt, Gnome and KDE, and in audio API's. Most users don't want a differentiated OS. They want lots of apps that do what they want and they can count on to work. Differentiation in apps good, in OS bad.