Comments on: Eben Moglen predicts broad embrace of GPL 3

Open-source legal expert is bullish about the prospects for the upcoming new version of the General Public License.

[mwendy]

Moglen MS knock tiring

Moglen's quote about MS harm is junk. Most of the world is on the Internet because of Microsoft and its offerings. Calculate those benefits, Eben - or, are they too vast?

[sabot96]

Disconnected With History

You must be young or a paid MS shill. The fact is what brought people to the Internet was the Internet browser and the free and open content. When the internet was becoming king over AOl and all the past BBS type information services it was Netscape that was making it easy for people to access the web. MS was focused on their OS until it was almost too late. Then they embraced the Internet and destroyed Netscape. MS is a monopoly that needs to be broken.

[b3timmons]

Microsoft, the most regressive force in IT

Most of the world has bad habits of one sort of another. How is that fact any endorsement of the bad habits? Recall the ugly findings of fact--which withstood every appeal--about Microsoft from their anti-trust trial.

Now, with Microsoft making so much noise about suing others over patents that will never be specified, any claims about how Microsoft benefits the world look not just groundless but ridiculous.

Indeed, Moglen _understates_ what Microsoft is. They are no mere monopoly but were found to be an illegal one. It's no surprise at all to hear about, for example, the trouble that the EU has time and again with Microsoft. Crying over Microsoft sounds just like when certain Luddites cry over how great it was during the AT&T monopoly--ridiculous.

[ORinSF]

Designed for ensnarement

Although more recent drafts seem to be getting slightly better, it's clear that the GPL3 is designed to ensnare commercial software makers wherever possible.

Basically, if you go anywhere near the GPL3, or touch software that is licensed under it, there is a good chance you will be subject to provisions to which you didn't intend to put yourself under.

Mr. Moglen seems to think that a license can "level the monopolist". Is that the motive? Seems to me that writing better software is a more progressive approach to beating the incumbent.

[b3timmons]

Designed for freedom

The GPL has always been about freedom*. Even if you are unconvinced about this freedom, it is easy enough to at least learn what the specific four freedoms are:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

The GPL3 simply tries to restore some of the protection for these freedoms that have been lost from attacks on the GPL2. The GPL3 will be the license of choice for all of those who want the most effective means of promoting those freedoms.

Naturally, anyone promoting nonfree software will be skeptical, and given the huge investment in that legacy business model, it is not surprising to see all manner of attempts to disparage the GPL3. That Microsoft leads the disparagement tells prospective free software developers all they need to want to learn more about what the GPL3 can do for them.

(*): "Leveling the monopolist" is not quite a motive; it's a side effect. More generally, spreading freedom tends to threaten illegitimate power built from ill-gotten gain, e.g., Microsoft.

[mw13068]

Don't like the GPL? Don't use GPL software. Easy.

When you say "commercial" software, you really mean proprietary, non-free software. Plenty of people are making money with Free Software completely abiding by the terms of the GPL.

Furthermore, this "snare" comment is dumb.

If you make proprietary software, that's your right. You don't have to go anywhere near the big, scary GPL. Write all of the non-free, proprietary software you want!

What you *can't* do is take our communities' GPL'ed Free Software and incorporate it into your non-free program. It's that simple. There is no "snare".

Don't like the GPL, fine. Don't use it.

[ejryder3]

Rather pay MS

I would rather give money to Microsoft than listen to this shifty socialists trying to redefine free markets.

People, given a choice, use MS products by far higher numbers than anything else. Why use Windows when Linux is free? Here are some reasons:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=420

[chabig83]

People are not given a choice

By and large, people are not given a choice. Go computer shopping
at a store (like most people do) and show me the choice. It's not
there. Every machine is running Microsoft Windows.

Put Linux computers in those same stores and discount them to
reflect the lack of MS Windows, and then people will have a choice.

[ben::zen]

Socialists?

Why oh why does every person who wants to attack
FOSS choose the term socialist to describe them?
The fact is, this is not socialist, that is a
political ideal. FOSS is a way to produce
quality software. Also, free markets mean
everything has an equal chance. Is that very
apparent here?

[mw13068]

Your idea of what a "Free Market" is is busted.

You think the current state of the software industry is a "Free Market"? Are you smoking crack?

Free Software creates a free market situation far better than *any* proprietary software can. With Free Software, users have choices of distributions, and support. They can choose whomever will provide the best software and services available.

If you need a change made to Internet Explorer, how many companies can you call to get that change made?

You have no idea what a Free Market is.

[m7sang7]

better never would have existed Ms

Some time ago I wrote;
Finally, I want to talk about a very important point and forgotten one , really are we conscientious of the enormous harm done by Ms? , With their policy to becoming rich at absurd levels (just have a look at Bill Gate's wallet) has been able to widen the breach between poor people (who could not buy the software) and the other people (that bought it), between the rich countries and the poor countries and it is because software (not everything) is NOT LUXURY, THAT IS the DIFFERENCE WHETHER YOUR SON CAN OR CANNOT OBTAIN a GOOD LEVEL of education. it is in essence, my friend, EDUCATION, and the people as Bill Gate and his gang apparently do not understand it.

All this not having in mind other kinds of Social Cost, such as Moral cost (many times we forgive piracy as they are the last and only mean many poor people have to access to education itself, regardless of the fact piracy is highly negative in itself). We could carry on widening this topic but just leave it.
I am glad there is more other people out there aware of this fact. If we weight the technological advance reached through Microsoft and the cost over society it is very likely we end up concluding better never would have existed Ms.