SUCH views only further the ideology of proprietorial software, while confusing the subject and furthering the man-works-for-money-alone idea. It also flies in the face of thousands of excellent programmers chosing the GPL as their licence of choice. Perhaps someone needs to be countering this. FN
--__--__--
Message: 1 Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:07:00 -0800 (PST) From: Sukrit D sd_root@yahoo.com To: little_league@yahoogroups.com Cc: Kanhaiya Dalmia dalmiag@vsnl.net, Chennai ILUG ilugc@aero.iitm.ernet.in Subject: [Ilugc] Is the GPL completely misunderstood?
Is the GPL completely misunderstood?
What is the GPL?
The GPL, GNU General Public License, is a license boilerplate that the FSF, Free Software Foundation, has put forward to be adopted by software developers that are creating software. The GPL has some fundamental flaws that may actually make one wonder if people using the GPL license really understand the license.
First, one must understand that the ideals behind the GPL are that software should be 'free', meaning that you should be able to buy it, modify it, redistribute it, support it, etc. Many people, myself included, didn't really understand the license agreement and it is obvious that the FSF must get dozens of questions like that because they hide behind a boilerplate link to a page on their site.
Therein lies one major hurdle. Another problem is that many people are under the impression that if it is GPL, the software should carry no cost. The FSF says that nothing could be further from the truth, however, the GPL ingeniously assures this because of its distribution clause. The first person to buy an application is generously allowed to distribute the code and the source, removing any financial incentive from original software author.
Even the FSF has no idea how to build a business around software that is released GPL. I posed that question, and their response was fuzzy and vague. It was suggested that I run a different division to fund the software development division. As a business owner, why run a division that is a cost center if it isn't needed.
With that in mind, lets consider a few scenarios dealing with GPL software. The FSF clearly states that someone can charge whatever amount they want for software and the source code. So, you take a contract with a company to develop software, do the right thing and release it GPL. You sell it to your client for $500, thinking, I spent dozens of hours writing this, I'll put a reasonable cost on there so that I can resell hundreds of them.
Fair enough.
But, what happens if I, as a client, buy your software along with the source and decide, hey, this is good stuff, let me sell it for $100 and flood the market. What happens to your income? It is gone. Someone else is making the money off your product -- your efforts. Even better, I can decide to distribute the software at no cost. And what you have to show for it is a license that allows your clients to do precisely that. Freedom.
Lets analyze the flip side. Lets say that you decide to write the software and charge the client for every minute of your work. The client ends up with a software product that cost them $40000. Now, you decide that you want to resell that software. What price do you put on it knowing that your next client could decide to distribute it? If you cut the price too much, the client that paid you to do the development won't rehire you since you have given his competitor the tools to compete more easily. Companies generally dislike funding software development for their competitors.
How about an idea you have that will revolutionize the world. Don't release that under GPL, there is no intellectual property protection. Have some secret way of doing something that is better than the way it is currently being done? Might as well just get rid of your competitive edge because the GPL will strip you of any rights you might have to that.
See, the GPL in its Marxist form is a fine thought, but what does it really do?
The GPL creates hundreds of software products that are mimic's of their commercial counterpart, many of which are poor imitations. Yes, I know, the market is new and there are years of existing software development to catch up with. But, most of these software developers have a job and do this as a hobby or are paid by a company to write software released under the GPL. But what have we done? We've turned over development to armchair developers. This isn't to say that there aren't good software projects developed under GPL, but they are in the minority.
Without singling out any application, there is a software package that makes it truly evident that the programmers have no concept what the finished product is supposed to do or what the program they are mimicing actually does. It appears as if they have gotten together to develop a product to mimic a Microsoft product, pushed all of the buttons to see what the results are, and tried to imitate the actions. Push a button and see no visible result? Who knows how that button is supposed to work. We'll leave it in, but there's no code behind it. There is a lot of software that mimic's Microsoft, and yet, time after time, these are the same people that complain about Microsoft and what they do wrong. Then, to top it off, since they released it GPL, they ask for donations. Wait? Can't Freedom have a price?
These authors don't know that they can charge money for their software and still release it GPL. Of course, after the first client, it will get redistributed at some nominal cost or free. Imagine, the first person that needs a program will buy it and then post it on the net for people to get without cost. Almost no different than the Commercial software market as it exists today. Ok, chalk up one licensed user that paid for the software. Authors ask for donations or have service contracts. Some applications are decidedly cryptic just so you have to buy the service contract or installation help. Why? Because the author needs to make some money for their efforts and have a financial reward that justifies the continued development of the project.
Most of the people writing GPL software probably have never read the license. How can you expect them to? Everyone is told to slap the boilerplate agreement at the top because 'GPL good, other license bad,' but how many people that use the license have actually read it?
The GPL has created a dearth of poorly conceived, poorly maintained, poorly written software. There are also quite a few good GPL applications. Suffice it to say, that most of the applications that are good and are GPL usually have corporate roots. I surmise that most of the companies releasing software under the GPL are not releasing their code under the GPL for the right reasons.
The people that slam Microsoft for all that it is are the same ones mimicing Microsoft's applications. Certain applications are designed specifically to look like Microsoft, which is the sincerest form of flattery. Yet, people slam Microsoft because they don't innovate. Well, look at most of the GPL software that mimic's what is out there already? Where is the innovation in that? That's what I thought.
I don't have a problem with the GPL -- it just doesn't happen to be my license of choice. I evaluated the licenses and felt that the GPL didn't protect me or my clients well enough. Most of the code my company produces is released under an Open Source license. Open Source I don't mind. Draconian terms and conditions that sacrifice my rights as an author, or my clients rights, or make it easy for people to avoid compensating me for my efforts is where I have a problem.
<Sarcasm> Unlike most GPL software authors, I am not independently wealthy. I don't have a trust fund handing me money every month. I don't have a rich family writing a check to keep me locked away in a basement churning out code. I don't have a fellowship with an educational institution or sponsorship from a big corporation so that I jet around the world espousing the ideals, writing and releasing code under the GPL. </Sarcasm>
If you develop software that allows someone to make millions of dollars from your efforts, why should you not be entitled to some of that money? What if you write the next killer ap, distribute it, someone else finds a VC, gets capital, goes public, gets rich -- all on your idea? Notoriety is fine, but your bank doesn't accept that when you are paying your mortgage.
In short, I don't believe the GPL serves the software development community in the best possible manner. By virtue, it eliminates financial motivation from those writing software and drives those development costs on existing industry. You may volunteer your time, but your employer ultimately finances your ability to have the time to write that code. Who really carries the true development cost of the software?
If you want the dream of Linux on the desktop to take off more quickly, take the time to explain how a company developing GPL software can protect itself and earn money to pay its programmers and support staff. If you work for a company writing GPL software, take some time to think where your salary ultimately comes from. Help develop a business plan to allow companies to develop software and release the products under an Open Source license that ensures the viability of the company. If you want
Next time you write an application, give some thought to your licensing. A good place to start reading the different licenses is Open Source.Org.
--Chris