Comments on: GPL 3.0: A bonfire of the vanities?

Jonathan Zuck says GPL advocates are adopting a religious stance on software development, rather than a practical one.

[amosbatto]

Bad Research--Misunderstands Tivo case

The author of this article doesn't have the slightest idea what he is talking about. Although the development of GNU/Linux certainly owes a big debt to IBM, Novell, SUN and all the rest of the tech corporations who do open source development, GNU/Linux would have been created even if none of the big companies hadn't gotten involved. It may have developed slower and some parts like the OpenOffice and Mozilla wouldn't exist today without the big corporations, but GNU/Linux would still be a very usable OS. Look at the state of GNU/Linux in 1997 before the corporations all jumped on board; it was developing without the corps. Corporate investment helped mainstream GNU/Linux and make it user-friendly for people like this author.

GPL 3 is just closing the holes in the GPL 2 that companies like Tivo are using to get around the original intent and deny the 4 freedoms of the user.

Stallman may not like the mixing of proprietary and free software, but the Tivo case is not about mixing proprietary software with free software as this author argues. No, the Tivo case is about denying the user the ability to modify the code, which is one of the 4 freedoms. If you modify the code, the Tivo box won't run it. Stallman is trying to ensure that the user always has the 4 freedoms.

The analogy of Savonarola with Stallman is silly. Stallman doesn't destroy the work of others (well he wasn't exactly thrilled by Lucid's additions to emacs, but that is a different story). Stallman may burn a lot of bridges and alienate other people, but he doesn't destroy non-free software. Furthermore, the corporations are hardly the enlightened Medici rulers who Savonarola was denouncing. Corporations pushing Tivo and DRM are not expanding our freedoms, but restricting them and making the world a meaner and nastier place.

Most people in the open source world don't object to the GPL3 and most don't think it is burning bridges and dividing the community. Linus may not like the GPL3, but his objections are not based upon sound arguments in the opinion of many. Some of the other kernel developers think GPL3 is a good idea, but even if the kernel stays with the GPL2, it won't be a major problem.

[P Ross]

Distracted by the analogy

In reading the comments here, it seems people are either (a) defending Stallman or (b) defending GPLv3. The first makes sense because Zuck does paint a very unflattering comparison between Stallman and an extremist Dominican priest. One can read Stallman's own work to see a sense of religious fervor, but I can understand why Stallman supporters would be put off by the comparison and might not concentrate properly on the argument at hand.

On the second point, it is obvious GPL fans will support it any time they feel it is under attack, as would any supporter of anything out there. And many fans of both GPL and Stallman will accept GPLv3. No problem with that.

The way I read this piece, though, it seems that as with any new technology or service, people will have a choice as to whether they will adopt it. One can't argue adoption of GPLv3 will be universal; Torvalds has already declined. So that leaves us with an obvious fact -- GPLv3 will continue on and many will write code under it, and others will continue with open source but in other areas, and some of those areas will receive corporate support.

It that really so controversial?

[emacsuser]

a more apt analogy

re: Your comparison of Girolamo Savonarola and the Medici family with Stallman and presumably Sir William. A more apt analogy would be the Chamberlen family and Royal College of Physicians.

History records that for monetry gain, they kept secret the invention of the forceps thereby retarding the develpement of obsterics.
Microsoft/ACT being Chamberlen and the Royal College of Physicians being the Free Software Foundation.

www.gnu.org

[hawkeyeaz1]

Two things

Firstly, just because Girolamo Savonarola ended
up hung over a bonfire doesn't mean he was
wrong.

Secondly, GPL3 only affects those who put their
code under it, which includes those who
explicitly choose it or those who included "or
later versions" in the GPL2 license.

The issue Stallman is raising, while many
disagree, and many see him as a religious fool,
such as yourself, is a valid one of who has
control: You or Someone Else. Certain companies
and governments have been trying to seize
control from the people for millenia. Why are
you trying to make foolish a valid and critical
issue? Microsoft truly has deceived you.

Stallman's practical contribution

"However, it is the intensely practical efforts of the open-source community (people such as Linus Torvalds and corporations such as IBM, Red Hat and Hewlett-Packard)"

Although the author makes a valid point about GPL3, he seems to believe that Stallman made no practical contribution to OSS.

On the contrary, Stallman and his organisation have contributed a complete set of developement tools for Unix a long time before Linux.

I believe Torvalds may have had nothing to run on top of his kernel if not for Stallman and his followers. Hence, one can argue that Linux may have never existed without the GNU tools: Emacs, rcs, etc.

And Torvalds was able to use thse tools because of GPL.

[umageller]

this article mere FUD, proof: RHAT NOVL

proof:

RHAT: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=RHAT

NOVL: http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NOVL

oh wait, maybe a more reliable news source is:
http://news.com.com/Red+Hat+revenue+surges+46+percent/2100-7344_3-5770714.html

their entire business model is based on Linux and the GPL.

sounds like impractical to you ?

[austrian.software]

$ 12.4 Mio profit ;-)

According to the article you cite, Red Hat had a profit of $ 12.4 in Q1/05 - that's much money if you have it in your pocket but not enough to prove a licensing model or the fact, that it is economically advantageous to follow it (compared to other companies). Maybe Red Hat is supervalued at all ;-)

Cheers
Andreas

Red Hat, based in Raleigh, N.C., grew profits too. First-quarter net income climbed to $12.4 million, or 7 cents per share, up from $10.9 million, or 6 cents per share, a year ago. Revenue and profits for the quarter were within the range expected by most analysts.

[stevey_d]

IT'S *JUST* A LICENCE. Don't like it? Use another one.

This *has* to be MS funded FUD of the tenth order. I use windows and think it's great, but Microsoft waste way too much on evangelising.

Here's how this works:
1. Write some code.
2. Choose a licence to issue it under. You want to go free, use BSD, GPL2, GPL3 etc.

WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?

Only 1% of what Microsoft sells software for goes to write the software. They wouldn't even need to worry about free software if they did something radical like spend 2% on writing software.

Richard Stallman
--------------------
He wants to make an island where people can swap software freely. GPL2 did this until now, but GPL3 is needed to keep the island in the world of DRM.

Linus Torvalds
-------------------
Ingrate. To get others to work on his kernel, he had to use GPL2, since they wouldn't work on it otherwise.
He also used Richard Stallmans' code (GCC) to write his kernel in.
Through GPL2 Linus has become a millionaire and world celebrity. Without GPL2, no one else would have worked on his kernel, and it wouldn't have gone anywhere.
Linus repeatedly shows ignorance of what DRM is. (If DRM existed when Linux was released, then Linux could never have run on anything).
Linus was recently talking about some kind of deal with FSF, and changing the draft GPL. You have to wonder at the amazing presumtiousness of Linus. In my honest opinion, I think FSF really really don't care one jot what Linux thinks. They are writing a licence to keep an island of software freedom for the future. One crappy kernel just doesn't matter in the vast context of the future that the FSF is thinking about.

Crappy Kernel
-----------------
OK maybe a bit strong, but personally I've found the lack of ABIs a bit strange (why can't use use an old binary driver?), hings like bootsplash complexity. and the mess of devfs and so on totally strange. I think the project has been very badly managed, including the whole bitkeeper fiasco. Only LT wanted to go with bitkeeper in the first place.

We're supposed to want this kernel over windows or bsd or hurd or anything else?

[kakman1]

RMS vindictive towards Linus Torvalds

Misleading analogy, but rms has harboured specific grudges against Linus Torvalds, as Linus used GNU tools to compile and edit OS, and later employed GPL license in place of his original Linux license and rms feels he deserves as much of the credit and also deserved to have a bigger say in Linux development. I believe this draft of GPL 3.0 (not effective YET!) is not only about addressing encryption per se but an attempt to wrest some control of the Linux community. Far fetched? Check rms history. Any perceived licensing fork will not damage the Linux or open source/ free sofware community; majority saner heads will prevail now that a larger business, education and scientific interests that having a large vested interest will engineer a compromise, or a technological or legisaltive solution.

[hipparchus2001]

Grudge? Maybe YOU should check RMS history

1. RMS said that "Linux" as in Linux distros should be called GNU/Linux distros since there is probably far more GNU code in them than Linux code (linux is the Kernel and drivers). This is hardly trying to wrest control, it was simply a request for the world to be fair, and give credit where it is due. Note GNU is not just RMS but a large number of programmers. If you've followed RMS in the press, and read his stuff, you'll find he's a true blue American with freedom in his heart, a hatred of oppression, and just about the fairest person you'll come across. One of the basic rights that RMS is fighting for is the freedom to use his own brain to fix something he owns. If everything is wrapped up in DRM and information is hidden, one cannot do this. You know how you used to be able to fix cars, now if the black box breaks, you need a new black box. This is wasteful and expensive. It's a legal business model, but DRM will only work if everyone is forced to adopt it by law. In this scenario, by law, RMS cannot use his own brain to fix what he owns. Common sense will tell you this is a ridiculous target for us to be heading towards, especially with global warming and so on being such a problem now. (it's wasteful to throw something away because you aren't allowed to fix it).

2. Linus Torvalds has a history of dissing everyone who built the foundations he started with. The work may be good, but IMHO this is a puerile man.

3. Your comments about Linux are funny expecially since you can now download a LiveCD version of Hurd at last. Er WHY would RMS care about Linux again?

4. The GPL is a tool for GNU software. Linux is not GNU software. FSF publish the GPL for others to use it if they want to, but first and foremost the GPL is a survival tool for GNU software in the prevailing legal situation. So many people just don't get that, thinking they can "influence" the licence to suit their own ends. If the GPL is perfect, GNU survives, if it isn't, GNU won't survive. FSF could care less what anyone outside GNU thinks. Imagine swimming away from a sinking ship, and someone in a helicopter commenting on your stroke (because they want to use it in a news clip, if only it looked "right"). Would you care? Nope.

4. There CANNOT be a licencing fork. Only the copyright owner can re-release code under a new licence. There *can* be a fork, but the licence must stay the same. However contributors to Linux could take their own code, and put it in GPL3 Hurd for example.

5. "Licensing fork will not damage the Linux or open source/free source community".
Open source people are a community, free source people are a community, the hangers on without conviction are hangers on without conviction.
There isn't one community here, there are two at least, and they are seperate BY THE LICENCE.
In the open source world, you have minix, darwin, freebsd, netbsd and openbsd, in the free source world you have linux, hurd.
Note: mostly the only thing different between these "operating systems" is the kernel.

[egroise]

GPL just a licence ?

I am always amazed to see how pro-GPL people react when someone (like Jonathan) is just talking about the difference between ?dreamland? and reality. And please, stop saying that GPL is not only a licence, it?s much more than a licence: it?s a religion.

When I wrote my tiny Open Source software (SushiWiki) I choose the BSD licence because it looks much more realistic. If you want to share your work with others, share it to everybody, without any limitation, or don?t share. 99% of the source code found on Source Forge is in fact written by developers during their working hours and in consequence paid by private companies. And these companies do not pay their developers for the ?Beauty of freedom software?. They pay them because they produce private software with it. I really believe that ?community software sharing? is a great thing. Java could never be so popular in IT systems if Open Source was not here (JBoss, JLog, JUnit, JCache, Hibernate?). But if all the companies who are using these great stuff had to respect 100% the GPL licence: all these piece of software would not be so famous and successful today. Reality is that GPL is widely violated by the companies who helped this ?licence? to by so successful!


Eric GROISE
Member of the Association for Competitive Technology AND definitely not paid by Microsoft :-)

[Bill Dautrive]

Proof

"99% of the source code found on Source Forge is in fact written by developers during their working hours and in consequence paid by private companies."

Nothing like pulling numbers out of your arse eh?

Idle Talk, the GPL marches on.

I don't remember Stallman begging the world for attention, and I'm not sure he'll care if people are "turning their backs" on him.
He started his little GNU thing and got it going for years before linux popularized the GPL license to a greater audience, and I have no doubt he'll keep going should it ever go back into obscurity.

That said, I highly doubt it ever will. Until the DRM and software patent scandals get resolved properly at the least, there will most certainly be a market for truly free software.

It *is* a licence, and it is *still* legal.

Calling it a religion is a bit like calling a person crazy: It's a great way of dismissing outright any comeback. "hey, it's one of those crazed fanatics I was talking about". Way to go.

Regarding the GPL,
You don't have to use it, and you didn't.
You don't have to care about it, yet you do.

(Well, there's a good chance you've actually agreed to the license itself by choosing to use GPL'd software, but let's not be finicky.)

If you disagree with the license, you are entitled to ignore every piece of software licensed under it.

You make a point that many people and corporations would never license their software under the GPL, which is ok. GPL-licensed software is prospering as it is.

Your claims of widespread GPL violations are interesting. Maybe you could elaborate on those alleged copyright violations.
I understand there are various folks that'd be interested in these matters.