New subject: ? Is the GPL completely misunderstood?

31 Mar 2003


      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
http://daviesinc.com/gpl.rxml

-- 
Frederick Noronha    : http://www.fredericknoronha.net  : When we speak of free
Freelance Journalist : http://www.bytesforall.org       : software we refer to
Ph 0091.832.2409490  : Cell 0 9822 122436               : freedom, not price.

Re: ? Is the GPL completely misunderstood?

Regards