The legitamacy of the GPL (continued from GPL violation thread)

[MfA]

Enthousiastic developers without much exposure to english speaking websites produce some great software, and yes there are disproportionate amounts of such developers from eastern/asian countries who misunderstand the GPL in that enthousiasm.

Apart from the occasional early teen you would have to be living in a cave as a westerner not to understand that the GPL is a tit for tat license though.

Im pretty sure Linus, Ben Rudiak-Gould, Michael Niedermayer, Michael Militzer all understood the (L)GPL perfectly well. Im also pretty sure some of them would have been less likely to share their source code freely if they could not expect the same courtesy of anyone extending it. In a world according to kwag a lot of the software we cherish here would not exist ... shh would have never shared his source code, and MovieStacker would never have existed.

[Nic]

@everyone: Sorry to sound like a broken record :) But please keep this thread civil or it will be closed/removed. Also, please try not to reference individuals such as kwag, shh, etc in this thread, because it is about the license. And not about the shh issue.

Thanks :)

-Nic

ps
For the record, I really like the GPL and what it stands for. I've even used it in the commercial world, and it does fit into the commercial world well.

Some people have a view I've never understood:
i.e.
http://www.linuxandmain.com/essay/sgordon.html
(as referenced in http://www.softpanorama.org/Copyright/License_classification/index.shtml)

They find the GPL frustrating, the simple answer is not to use it. No one forces you to try to use GPL in a commercial world. (he does however, make relevant points, but he forgets the GPL was not made to make him money... ;) )

[Doom9]

I started the read the introduction on one of the links kwag has provided, but got stopped dead in my tracks when I came across this:

The fact is that while GPL pretends to provide some ways to restrict others from profiting from your work, all commercial Linux distributors do exactly what GPL wants to prohibit -- they make money off of the hard work of the Linux, GNU and other GPL-using developers. There's no need to read any further as this is a clear indication as to what the author is getting at and where he's coming from. It is also a complete misconception, so if somebody starts out under this pretext, the results cannot be trusted.

When can you sell a work under the GPL? Basically anytime.. though if you can get the same for free online, then why bother? What Linux distro makers offer is an easier to use package, plus often some additional software.. they might extend a GPL project to make things easier for the user. So it's perfectly right that they get compensated for their efforts.. but the GPL protects the original author by forcing the distributor to release his changed source, so that whatever made people buy that distro, the additional improvements, still get shared with the community. So, anyone can make money off your work just as with most other open source licenses, but you'll get something back from whatever makes other people make money with your work.. if they make great additions and sell a boatload.. great.. you'll get the sources back, and perhaps you can make something even greater out of it (and in turn sell a boatload youself).

[MfA]

Nic, well I disagree somewhat ... it isn't just about the license, it is also what the license makes possible. You wont get away from naming names, shh was the easiest example of someone who only released his source code because he had a reciprocal alternative to BSD style licenses.

Also it is hard to get away from mentioning kwag since he is the one we are argueing with, the only people who are on the opposing side in this arguement borrowed their arguements directly from him.

I would just like to get the moral justification from kwag which justifies abusing the trust of someone who shared his source code with you ... that is the only reason I started this thread.

I dont really care about the legalese loop hole seeking shit, that is why I said legitamacy not legality, that is fine for a-moral-people/lawyers. But if his contention is that he doesnt care if it is right or not as long as he can get away with it then he should come out and say that, instead of coming up with ad hominem attacks on Stallman/Raymond (which are completely beside the point) and other such rationalizations.

[Nic]

@MfA: I know what your trying to say...But I think that kwag will stick to his guns, and so will you and Neo, and this will end up in a bad flame war...which none of us want.

I really would like to look to the future with shh issue rather than look at the past. I hope you can understand that :)

shh maybe the easiest example, but seeing this currently a sensitive subject, perhaps a less sensitive example can be found for the purposes of this thread...

Cheers,
-Nic

[wmansir]

The author of the peice above is mistaken if he thinks that the GPL allows him to charge for source code, beyond the cost of physically distributing it.

From the GPL:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

Also, anyone who purchases their software/source code is able to distribute it freely (in both meanings).

I was going to say more but lost it when Firebird crashed. Darn this cheap open source software! I'm going to try moving to Firefox and pray the plugins are working for me by now.

[dragongodz]

ye i was basically trying to say that the article that was reproduced in the link that kwag gave is clearly biased against GPL and filled with misconceptions which try and show the GPL and anyone who uses it as against commercial software. commonly called FUD. :)

as for legitamacy, well the fact it has been held up in a court of law should be proof anyone needs that its valid.

also SCO was tried to claim that GPL was unconstitutional but then dropped it. why ? because they knew they could not win, it was just another attempt to try and put pressure on the companies they are suing IMHO. more info here
http://www.groklaw.net/
(thanks to NobbyNobbs for the link)

large companies such as IBM , SUN etc have had and continue to use GPL programs. the thing is they take note of what the rules are for doing so and there is no big backlash against them.

so its really the few trying to claim that the GPL is not valid when the evidence is clearly saying otherwise.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Nic
@MfA: I know what your trying to say...But I think that kwag will stick to his guns, and so will you and Neo, and this will end up in a bad flame war...which none of us want.

Not much to worry about from my end. Kwag's just not on the same level. On the rare occasion he posts to me it is basically never about any points or issues I have raised. But more often to post more pointless links. It would be one heck of a one sided flame fest. And those are no fun. Then people would just think I was picking on Kwag. And I would always refrain from doing that sort of thing here anyways. [but if you think I am getting borderline let me know.] Though I have at times done so elsewhere. ;)

[int 21h]

Vidomi is a great example.

Look who won that fight :p

Its great you can really go out and download an enterprise level software product for free, and do some things now that were unheard of 10 years ago. Consumer Linux may not be ready for primetime (read: gaming), but enterprise/small-business/educational Linux has been here for at least 3 or 4 years. At my place of employment we saved over $30,000 in software costs from switching to Linux workstations, and took that money and put it right back into RHCE (RedHat Certified Engineer) training. The GPL really highlights the idea of support contracts.

You can download BIND off of the internet and have your own DNS server. But do you know how to configure it? Optimize it? You can setup your own MySQL server but do you know the principles of Normalization? Query optimization? When your boss wants to know why a query over 35,0000 rows takes 20 minutes, will you know the answer? Same goes with things like Apache, Tomcat, Beowulf, etc.

Even Microsoft is realizing that the real money is in the lucrative enterprise of support. Their last contract here for installation, consultation, and continued support of SMS and MOM was well in excess of $40,000.

That being said, some companies can't really exploit the support market. Game companies are a good example. They're profit comes from the game itself, and sometimes the revolving fees associated with the game (MMORPGS, etc.) Not too mention the various technical problems with releasing a game opensource (Cheating is a good example). Other companies use closed-source for a security model. Content providers such as DirecTV, EchoStar, etc. rely on closed-source proprietary cipher filters for encrypting their broadcasts, obviously if they released the firmware for their recievers into the open-source market, it would be a less than ideal situation. More and more companies are attempting to bridge the gap though by releasing information to interface with their products. Yahoo, for example, has said that the lastest version of Messenger will contain an API for access by developers making third party add-ons to the program.

I think the GPL outside of the commercial arena is great too. It really encourages a grass-roots development. Something like MythTV is a great example. Its a TIVO-like Linux project that has 20 or 30 active developers. Its gone from a real basic interface to something with addon modules, making it much better than a Tivo. Not too mention since its open-souce, you can just hack in your own things as well. XviD and Avisynth are other good examples.

The GPL obviously has strong legal footing. But so does the US patent system, and people blatantly disobey it all the time. For instance, when was the last time you used LAME? Its been suggested time and time again that LAME infringes on several patents owned by Thompson. People always try to skirt around the fact by compiling their own sourcecode, or saying its for educational purposes, but in truth, its a debate of morals.

Do you feel morally comfortable with taking someone else's ideas and work, expressed through a digital medium, copying it, and claiming it as your own, maybe even earning a profit on it? Do you feel morally comfortable with possibly denying a multi-million(sometimes billion) dollar cartel license fees for your own personal benefit?

Its up to each person out there to make their own decision in these regards. Beware, legal systems were invented to give someone who doesn't agree with your decision recourse ;)