The GPL Impedes Linux More Than It Helps? 386
Anonymous Coward writes "Linux ought to be even more successful than it is. On ZDNet, Paul Murphy ponders the reasons why. For one thing: The GPL impedes Linux more than it helps. Licensing issues, coupled with patent and copyright FUD, have caused developers and VCs to think twice before committing to Linux. Murphy also suspects that desktop Linux is stuck on stupid." From the post: "Basically, legal issues, or the threat of legal issues, caused some key applications developers to back off Linux while the general negativism of Linux marketing caused many of the individuals whose innovations should have been driving Linux adoption to hang fire until MacOS X and Solaris for x86 under the CDDL came along."
"Ought to be"? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is typical ZDNet FUD. Is there any evidence that intelligent, well-informed businesspeople (i.e. those who have clueful lawyers) have a remote concern about licensing when choosing Linux?
Desktop stuck on Stupid? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who needs Linux when you have OSX? (Score:2, Interesting)
OSX looks pretty and does work well (especially expose), but I have my desktop at home set up exactly how I want it, where as with OSX I'm always conforming to their way of doing things.
This is not hard (Score:4, Interesting)
For me, it was the documentation. (Score:4, Interesting)
The other thing was stability between versions. Linux is notorious for changing kernel APIs between minor versions. This is fine if all of your hardware has maintained open source drivers, but if not then upgrading becomes a game of Russian Roulette - seeing which devices will stop working (it was USB mass storage devices in our department's Linux lab last year, for about a month, with SuSE Linux). Any unmaintained drivers eventually find themselves using a no-longer-supported API and stop working, while closed drivers are often not updated often enough to notice the kernel change until users have started complaining.
Re:Linux and GPL (Score:0, Interesting)
I think the issue is that GPL does not fit with our style of doing business. Linux has been more sucessful in some european countries than in USA, because in america we are not used to (what some call) a "gift economy" outside universities. Some european friends I know have been using Linux sice they were 13, and it is not uncommon to find students who started with Linux in 1993 or 94. Back then, they didn't distrust or back off from software that was not manufactured or supported by a software giant. Instead, they embraced the challenge that Linux presented. In america on the other hand, people are largely used to the capitalistic way of doing things: i.e. you earn money and you find someone who can sell what you need. Anything new (like GPL) that breaks this line of thinking immediately puts people on the defensive.
I think Linux should be distributed with different licenses in different countries.
The US Constitution (Score:1, Interesting)
Desktop Linux is Definitely "Stuck on Stupid" (Score:3, Interesting)
From a real "user's" perspective, however, source code is useless. Unless they have the technical knowledge to change something, or the resources to hire someone to change/configure something for them, it's a total non-starter. From that perspective, Windows, while bad in many respects, actually offers more "freedom" to an end user in terms of what it allows them to do by themselves without having to go through a steep learning curve and specialize in something that should be a tool.
I have been using Linux for well over thirteen years, and I absolutely *loathe* how hard it is to do simple things. I want a fully integrated GUI. Sure, I can do it the hard way, and I like that the power of the CLI is there when I *choose* to go into it, but for the most part, it completely sucks. Apt-get my !@#$.
If source code is the way, then make a completely GUI-oriented, extremely simple, build tool that will take the source as a package and install it without having to type a single command. I would say that perhaps Gentoo was on to something, but from what I understand the community is even more elitist than most.
tech bubble bursting maybe? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think it's been a problem with Linux as much as a more realistic take on the tech industry. Plowing ahead at the blistering pace of the late 90's was fun, but it resulted in a whole lot of wasted money, and it's recent enough that people are still remembering that. It's just a little bit harder to sell that kind of hype right now, so we don't hear as much of it. Meanwhile, Linux is continuing to do what it's always done, there's plenty of development going on for it, and new people continue to adopt it. It might be a little slower right now, it's definitely quieter at the moment, but progress hasn't hit a brick wall.
I think this guy is looking for a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Re:True to an extent... (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree that BSD takeup lags behind Linux. BSD licensed code ends up everywhere. Places you wouldn't even think to look. It just isn't called BSD anymore when it gets there. Again, up for debate/personal opinion whether this is good or not.
Re:True to an extent... (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that we don't have to just speculate here -- we more or less have an example of what Linux would look like under a BSD license; just look at the FreeBSD/NetBSD/etc. Those OS's are fairly similar to Linux, and are BSD'd, not GPL'd. And it seems to me (feel free to tell me if I'm wrong) that Linux has rather more momentum/popularity/support than they do. Why is that? My feeling is that it is largely due to the GPL. Because Linux is under the GPL, people (and companies) feel more willing to contribute their time towards improving Linux, because they feel that their work is going to "the commons" and is more likely to benefit everyone and less likely to benefit only certain parties.
For example: Do you think IBM would be so willing to throw developers at Linux if they thought Microsoft could just come in and scoop up all of that nice code into the next version of Windows?
GPL Protects Linux More (Score:3, Interesting)
The fact that Linux is free and open means, almost by definition, that it cannot have "success" in the usual sense. It cannot be easily sold shrinkwrapped for profit. And it cannot be closed up to thwart competitors either. By the same measure, it also means that it cannot fail either, for there will always be someone for whom it is the right tool at the right time even if MegaCorp Inc. can't make a dime off of it. The GPL makes this possible. Linux isn't going to die anytime soon, but it probably isn't going to be the OS of your grandma either, that is until it's widely used in cell phones, but that's another story!
Re:True to an extent... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know I personally do not develop for anything that isn't GPL (or, occasionally, LGPLed). GPL is a way of using copyright law as a weapon. Company X wants to take the card I wrote, stick it in their proprietary code, then sue me when I make a copy of their program? I don't think so, I'm not playing that game. The GPL levels the playing field- if they want my code, they can have it, they just have to give theirs to me as well. If tyhey don't want to do that, they can rewrite it on their money. Sounds good to me.
The desktop (Score:4, Interesting)
Two potential reasons for the stall:
1. Lack of self-explaining software.
Software should not require the user to read the manual for the most basic tasks, the user should be able to find them out easily. KDE apps usually are self-explaining, GNOME apps too, however most other opensource projects aren't.
2. Application installation. This is a nasty one. The immediate answer is usually that the distros all have such a nice package system. Yeah, but what if software XY isn't in the package database? Tough luck, have fun compiling (if its not a binary-only version). This is where Windows is lightyears ahead: setup screens all look the same, behave the same way, and are easy to install. Linux? ahem... The only ones who got it right were Loki, who created their Loki installer. It is dead easy to install UT2004 in Linux. ALL apps should have self-extracting graphical installers, and the installation system should be *DE*centralized.
3. Hardware support. Despite the advances in the last years, hardware support still sucks sometimes. Try to get a TwinkeCam to work with Ubuntu 5.04. Its impossible unless you want to downgrade the KERNEL to a 2.4 one. Compiling the driver is not possible because of broken code that is incompatible with the 2.6 kernel (even with the 2.6 patches to the Makefile).
4. The community. Look, if you want people to choose Linux instead of Windows, you have to change something. "RTFM" is intolerable. Questions like how to mount a network share should not end in some obscure
To sum it up: People like stuff that "Just Works". Linux desktops rarely just work. The moments when they don't are far more frequent than with Windows and OSX desktops.
Re:This is not hard (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this answers what I've been wondering for a while. That is: If I write my own program nearly all from scratch, but use a single call to some Linux API (let's say a simple network call) do I then fall under the GPL and have to give up all my code? Or do I only have to release the part where I make the network call? Or is it only if I statically link the network call in as opposed to a dynamic call?
Like riding a bike (Score:3, Interesting)
She was peddling along and I was running along by the side holding the back of the seat to keep it steady.
She said "I'm doing it, dad, I'm doing it - dad, get off, I'm doing it."
It was only my holding on that stopped her falling down, but she couldn't see that.
So, the GPL might stop a few VC's from investing in something Linux-y, so what!
If it wasn't for the GPL, then GNU/Linux wouldn't have become what is now starting to tempt VC's.
What do I care for VC's, GNU/Linux suits ME and a lot of people find it that way. I've debugged, contributed source and a few bug fixes, and it's been an absolute bargain for me.
Sam
If by progress you mean... (Score:3, Interesting)
For me the GPL is the only license I see that succeeds in that, at least in the ways that are meaningful to me. Now, I suppose those freedoms may not be meaningful to you. I can't judge it, only be sure of my personal convictions in the matter. Time will tell who is right, I think.
You're right, and it's a good licence (Score:5, Interesting)
So, Linux has an excellent license when it comes to being able to use the great code and complete operating system components without paying a dime. If these people are really dying to write closed source applications using open source code, well, I don't know what to say. I think they could *pay* to do that, don't you?
So why didn't BSD get as popular as it is today without the GPL? Probably because corporations have been sucking out the peices they want to use and giving nothing back because they don't have to. The BSD community was never a sharing community. I don't think it is today either, although because of Linux it's become more so. Do you really think the *BSDs would be as popular now if Linux never came along?
Not to mention, most BSD systems use a heavy amount of GPL code these days, and the Linux kernel on GNU toolsets really took the GPL to the public. What would your favorite BSD look like without any of it?
Many programmers, and companies, are willing to contribute to GPL codebases because they're not willing to let the competition or some company to take their work, close source it, and sell it as something new and better to make bundles of cash. If they're going to give to the community, they want others to do the same. The GPL promotes that type of system.
People will complain about it because they want to use the code like it was public domain but it's not. Maybe this is considered "holding it back" but in my opinion we don't want that kind of thing anyways.
Re:Forgetting development. (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing about the GPL and its viralness is not you building your car from scratch and including your air conditioning, it's about the car company letting you build an air conditioner only if you give it for free, which hardly makes any sesnse for a business since you spent money to build the air conditioner in the first place.
Re:Desktop Linux is Definitely "Stuck on Stupid" (Score:2, Interesting)
Have fun!
Re:Forgetting development. (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree that there is no perfect environment. If there were, anyone would be a developer. On the other hand, Microsoft has generally been helpful and reasonably informative whenever I've posted questions to their newsgroups. Posting a question to an Open Source project forum, newsgroup or whatever many times (note I did not say always) leads to an openly hostile and arrogant attitude that drives many developers away.
Re:True to an extent... (Score:2, Interesting)
That's exactly what a derivative work means: a work that includes or is based on another. The GPL (or any other licence) or RMS and the FSF (or any other licence-philosopher) doesn't get to determine what constitutes a derivative work, the courts do.
The question of whether a work is derivative of another is decided on a case-by-case basis. If trivial enough, such copying might fall under fair use.
Re:Forgetting development. (Score:3, Interesting)
Please tell me how many succeful business you have started? How many of said business were started by YOU beggining an open source project?
By myself, none. I have, however, worked at and own shares in several successful start up companies that create and contribute to open source software. You're missing the point of the business model I described. The GPL is a good business model if a user needs software, not if a developer wants to make arbitrary software. If Comcast and AT&T want particular software it makes a lot of sense for them to each hire a developer to write a GPL program they can both use.
There are plenty of great business ideas for using open source software. There are very few good business models for developing open source software.
Hmm, perhaps you've never considered the thousands of companies that use open source software and develop it, or hire someone to develop it for their own use? You know the vast majority of the people who devote a lot of time to working on Linux, Apache, etc. get paid to do it. They are successful, paid, open source developers. It is a well tested business model and it works.
Games. Hum...no one ever approached a potential game developer and said Hey man can you create a videa game that is like football?
Umm, sure they do, all the time. That is how most games are made. A company says We'll give you 20 million to make a spider-man game and then we'll sell it. Mind you that has nothing to do with the GPL, but neither did your statement.
I actually think the video game market is due for an open source revolution in the next decade. Developers of games don't want to use the GPL because they cannot get as much money per game if they do, but GPL'd gaming engines offer significant advantages to both developers and consumers. Once created for a genre, a single GPL gaming engine can theoretically run any number of games which can come as modules. A module would include graphics, audio, and the story/plot scripting as well as description of controls and object models. By using a GPL engine game developers can rely on only a few engineers to supplement the story writers and artists. Modules need not be GPL and the artwork, etc. does not make sense to license in that way. This has the potential to slash development costs in the medium and long term. Any company that wants to add a feature the the base, GPL engine could easily do so and all gaming companies would benefit, reducing duplicated effort and saving money. I surmise that the company that gets there first and creates the base engine will recoup their losses through the free publicity, consulting, by being the foremost experts on the system and thus gaining work as developers for any franchise that wants to create a new game, and through certification testing for the game. If they are smart they can probably grab a large share of the support and QA testing as well and their is a market for specialized development tools.
Sure it would kick as to look at the code behind some of these games but I don't have any right just because I dislike open source software.
Ummm. Ummm. I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are trying to say here.
Open source does not fit every situation. If you think otherwise you my friend are the idot and not the others that you point the finger at.
Who said it did fit every situation? In fact, I strongly implied otherwise in my post. That said, it does fit many situations and it makes a lot of sense for large businesses and groups of smaller businesses to collaborate to fund/develop GPL software for their own use. It even makes business sense for essential parts of end-user non-business, individual purchase applications. It makes sense for end users to collaborate to fund the development of these works as well, but creating the necessary infrastructure to support the development, while not too hard (it has been done and works) is pretty alien to most users experience
Obvious MSFT troll at work (Score:3, Interesting)
One large (unnamed) software company has even resorted to paying other companies to attack both GNU/linux and the GPL. That, and funding countless self-aggrandizing TCO studies that, were GNU/linux a corporate entity itself, GNU/linux would already have gone to court with said company with slander charges.
Just more FUD. Stop feeding the trolls.
like us smart folks have been sayign .. (Score:3, Interesting)
So, since linux desktop will never be a lot better then office windows, linux will never win by copying
If you look at the history of software, big changes occur when you get a new app that does something cool.
linux will be on every desktop when it has a new app like visicalc
Desktop Linux stuck on misunderstood? (Score:3, Interesting)
If only more people discovered the alternatives, it would both out-class the current desktop market, and put to death that Linux can do nothing on the desktop but follow Windows around. There is literally something out there for every single taste and kink. Of course, we're *all* stuck supporting Windows-clones just for the people who insist that every computer in the world must look, smell, feel, taste, and sound exactly like Windows or they won't use it...but I digress.
Re:look alikes don't really work? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's 2 camps of software that will run on X86 systems. Those being MS Windows (VMS derived) and Unix derived systems. The three divisions of Unix on X86 are traditional unixes (BSD and like, SunOS, and others), Linux and GPL'ed bretheren, and BeOS. Considering BeOS is dead, and propeirty unixes are not desktop suitable, that leaves you with Linux (which the most work at this time is done with) and MS Windows as competitors.
Both represent the two types of architechure development (Cathedral and bazaar opposites, and difficulties of each therof).
---It seems that the best thing about linux is the ideas of open source, reality states this is about all there is, IDEAS, It doesn't matter what OS, and I have checked a number of them, can be just downloaded and run.
The last thing you should do with a Free version of Linux is buy it. Some of the best are not for sale, in the traditional sence of going to a software store or buying a book. Gentoo and Debian are two such. Im sure you copuld find them to buy, but the traditional way of the user getting them is to download them.
Still, Open Source lets you see others implementations of ideas, and how you can guide yourself in the very implementations of ideas. Much more powerful than the Microsoft camp allows with a "default install".
---The wireless cards need drivers to work, fine it you know how to do It, and other things seem to keep poping up.
The problems with WiFi drivers is the companies will not release specs on how to drive the cards. We do not ask them to write drivers. We ask that the specs on how to talk to the card be opened. Think of this for a moment... Do you like using your older hardware? Would you still like to use it 5 years from now? If you dont know how the card communicates, it is worthless if you upgrade to a newer machine that has no driver for that hardware.
My hardware that works with open specs for my drivers will work for years and years. I am not tethered to one specific company.
---I have re-installed XP nine (9) times in the last six (6) months of trying to use LINUX.
Hard drives are cheap these days. Even if you have constraints, you could buy a 70$ USB2 enclosure for a 40 GB harddrive. If XP works, dont keep making it unwork.
---I don't know what to really do it seems so I bought a number of books, POINT & CLICK the last one, with CD's and there is still things that just make no sense whatever.
In order to work with Linux effectively, you must understand what you do. Every little action builds upon itself. The very idea of Linux is sort of like Legos, where every part is interchangable, but you do NEED that part. The parts on the top represent the GUI, below that nice pretty pictures lay a powerful command line to do many things at once. You can rip off each layer as it suits your needs. But, as you probably have learnt, the blocks are the same, but sometimes the blocks are TYCO instead of Lego, so they sometimes dont fit too well. That represents the difference between distributions.
---I always return to Window because I load it, it works. I have checked the linux forams of a number of distro's,
The forums wont help you understand why. Go skim parts of Eric Raymonds, Art of Unix programming [catb.org]. I guess I could force-feed you, but if you have no will to learn, and use free-r software, then go use Windows. If it works for you, there is no shame for using it.
---but it doesn't make alot of sense when you really don't understand the questions to ask, even the questions to look for.
Well, what kind of questions do you have? As an aside, please use better grammar and utilize paragraphs. Many a time, "bad ritings will be kritized in teh softwarez" and will be shrugged off with usually a deriding comment. Errors do ha