In any industry, the major players respond to effective, game-changing, competition, not with appropriate, creative competitive strategies and tactics, but by running to the government and begging for a law against the competition. This has happened over and over in history.
It's a business decision. It's much cheaper to lobby the government than to innovate. It would be irrational for them to do otherwise, at least in the short term.
So stupid since open source licenses are all about intellectual property rights: you create something and thus it is your right to determine the license that allows other people to legally use it.
That said, shitty laws paid for by corporations will be problematic for us (an easy prediction to make!)
I don't really mind describing myself as a pirate. They need to come up with a label that stings. "Thief" works better, but unfortunately also makes it obvious that it's just bullshit.
I guess they are in league with the SCO guy who considered open-source the equivalent of Communism...
It reminds me of an awesome Swedish cartoon where a kid during WW2 who works at the post office takes Christmas packages sent to people with fancy titles and gives them to the poor. When his father finds out, he says "What did you say you did? I have nurtured a Communist!" and the voiceover goes "... because Tycho Jonsson was one of those people who thought that anyone who gave something away for free was a Communist."
Except in that story, the kid isn't giving his own stuff away for free, he is stealing, and this sounds similar to "from those according to their ability to those according to their need."
IIPA claims "open source [...] fails to build respect for intellectual property rights". Wtf does that even mean ? Not respecting ip rights is one thing, but since when is anyone's obligation to build respect for ip right ?
Since respect for IP rights was elevated to the status of human rights... or higher, since the US seems to put HR on the back burner whenever it threatens commercial or business interests.
How open-source can be seen as a threatening factor for capitalism? In my opinion, thanks to open-source, entry barrier for startups is much lower. Even though, 99% of startups fail - 1% will create new workplaces or will be acquired by another big capitalistic company.
It's the usual sleigh of hand that equates capitalism with specific current players. Like the Economist said, "being pro-business is not the same as being pro-market."
The terrifying thing is that it's easy for a good writer/orator to convince legislators that software is a zero-sum game. It's easy to visualize a big pie of software and see open source conversion as cutting into the profits.
Whereas for those of us actually in the industry it's obvious how pathetically shallowly we've scratched the surface of the potential of software, and how commodified open source software is the foundation of future software progress which will never be achieved if everyone has to endlessly pay a tax on every decades-old innovation that a company stole from academia to bootstrap a software business back in the day.
Maybe not paying as such, but freeing your organisation from the annoyance of dealing with licenses has been a major factor in some migrations I've seen. I wouldn't call that ideology, more more of an economic factor, as there is both a direct cost and an opportunity cost to dealing with licenses.
Totally agreed. In a professional setting, especially when working on a project basis, using open source stuff is huge.
I work on embedded systems in renewable energy manufacturing. I can't imagine what it would be like trying to deploy some of our stuff if we had to worry about database licenses, subscriptions, or any of that stuff. Negotiating licenses with several vendors for each project would be horrendous.
Open source products still require you to deal with licences. It’s just that the software’s usually licensed under a clear and free-as-in-beer licence.
Compared to the average vendor library license even the GPL is clear, concise, unambiguous and friendly.
The biggest advantage is that once your lawyers approve the (L/)GPL, Apache and BSD licenses for use you get access to a vast range of stuff with no more legal work to do. Vendors aren't organized enough to pool a small set of standard licenses.
Technically true, GPL, LGPL, etc are all licenses. But they are licenses that require fairly limited thought to use the software (modifying the software or borrowing its code is a slightly different story, but those aren't even options in most cases in the closed source world).
Compare that to major enterprise software where everytime you need to install it on a different machine, move it from one machine to another, etc can require careful licensing management. At one corporation I worked for, licensing tracking and management was a major portion of the work of one fairly senior person.
I think you're misunderstanding, we're talking about free software, as in OSI-approved licenses, not random proprietary software that happens to ship with source code.
OSI-licensed software isn't "usually" anything, it's always completely free, both beer and speech.
I think a lot of people use many open source packages because they are better with little thought spared for idealism.
Python is, in my own personal opinion, the best language for much of what I do. I prefer it to say C# with Visual Studio, for most projects, and I have a fully licensed and paid for version of Visual Studio (I do use C# for a few things where it works well, especially in conjunction with SQL Server). I prefer FireFox to every other browser on the market. I do not do heavy image manipulation, but for the little I do I think GIMP works better than Photoshop.
Of course, I also use proprietary software. I do use C# for some projects. I prefer SQL Server to all other RDBMS, including MySQL. And I have yet to see top rate video games from the Open Source community.
Most open-source users are doing it for reasons of idealism? I would be interested to see actual numbers. I personally think open-source is nice and everything, but the reason I started using it was when I lived in the developing world and any commercial software was prohibitively expensive.
It doesn't matter. It's already been proven that code is speech, and unless there is an amendment to the Constitution, speech cannot be restricted.
If it becomes illegal for me to give away my work for free, I will just sell unlimited rights to my code for one cent. Proceeds will be donated to the EFF.
It mostly feeds into other negotiations and trade agreements. It is not actionable itself but provides political pressure during almost any other trade agreement.
I don't have first hand knowledge but am led to believe that this report is often used during trade talks to apply pressure to favour USA in negotiations. (as suggested by the above Howard Knopf and Michael Geist)
...well the amount of code 'snippets' developers copy from the Internet (tutorials, QA forums, tech websites and blogs) - I would argue that almost all software contains 'open source' code :-) - which again makes a farse of this type of legislation.
Communism is bad when it is forced (which it must be in order for any hope of working properly). I can see the resemblance to the GPL, but in general you shouldn't equate the two because open source is used as a capitalistic business model too.
And no one is forcing us to adopt communism. Nothing is truly forced, in the sense that you have no alternatives.
They are similar because they both take an all or nothing approach that only works in a perfectly ideal situation.
In a perfectly free software world the GPL would have no problem, but the GPL (if you want to use the software) forces you to adopt the policies of that ideal world in the current incompatible unideal world.
Like. Communism, if it is being attempted, people will have to be forced to be dedicated to the whole (if they want to exist in the group).
Free software should be enforced by nothing but practical reasoning, just as communism should too (but most people are selfish idiots). The GPL seeks to enforce it through law, regardless of whether it makes sense here and now (similar to forced-upon communism).
Also if anyone disagrees with me I'd love a response. Better to win over enemies than destroy right?
GPL has little to do with communism, for 2 reasons. One is not very important. The other is crucial.
The lesser reason is the development model of free software: Open Source. To have the power over an open source project, you have to contribute. The money is good contributions, and the rewards are reputation and control over the project. Add in the inevitable political discussions about the direction the project, and you will see a rather capitalistic micro-society.
The greater reason is that sharing software is not the same thing as sharing food or shelter. Food and shelter are scarce. Sharing them mean having less of them. Software is abundant. Sharing it will not mean having less of it. Communism forces you to share scarce resources. The GPL forces you to share abundant resources. This is completely different.
Even then, the only circumstances in which GPL forces you to share is when you distribute "derived work". Meaning, if you have GPL software, you have the right to use it and modify it any way you like. Without sharing anything. If you distribute this software (modified or not), then, you have to release all of it. Mods included.
This is worth repeating: when you use GPL software, you don't have to share any of it. Even when you modify it. Remember the 4 freedoms: when you have a copy of some GPL software, you have: (0) the right to use it any way you like, (1) the right to study it and modify it any way you like (privately if you want to), (2) the right to share it, and (3) the right to share your mods. You can share, but you don't have too. If your company uses GPL software, and modify it for it's purposes, it doesn't have do release anything. This is very important. If you had to release your mod no matter what, this would be an attack to the freedom of thought.
You say the GPL is incompatible with our less than ideal world. Fair enough. Now, can you name one ideal which is compatible with our world? Even slavery isn't completely abolished. I mean, any political idea will have its opponents. The GPL embodies a political idea (not being a slave of your computer). Therefore, it has opponents. If your conclusion is that a software licence shouldn't embody political ideas, take a look at proprietary software licences. Restrictions like "thou shalt not study this software" are indeed quite political. Especially when this kind of restrictions is widespread —and it is. The only way to effectively oppose such a political idea is to go political yourself, and use GPL (or other free) software. If you don't care about either political ideas, you can wait and see. Which is fine. I do that for countless political ideas. You can't, however, oppose the GPL without being in the camp of proprietary software, at least to some extent.
You say the GPL is an "all or nothing" approach. It is not. It was specifically designed with our current world in mind, to make it go from proprietary software to free software, progressively. When the GPL wasn't up to this task, it was not used. The GNU C library, for instance, uses the LGPL. Meaning you can use the Glibc in proprietary software. This strategy better served the free software ideals than plain GPL. Of course, for any individual software, being GPL looks like "all or nothing". In general, however, the adoption of GPL software can't be but progressive.
I also suspect that you think the GPL is idealistic. Not pragmatic. You may think the BSD licence is pragmatic. This is a common view. Some people would like to distribute proprietary software with GPL code in it, only to find that they can't. They are pissed off by the idealism of GPL. Then they find they can do that with BSD software. They are pleased by the pragmatism of BSD, which let them do what they want. Hem. That was the point of view of a proprietary software vendor.
Actually GPL is way more pragmatic than BSD. Look at what the BSD licence says: "do whatever you want with my code, I won't ever oppose you or your political ideas". As neutral as it gets, and a bit weak. Many people who work on BSD licensed projects don't like proprietary software, but let their code be used in proprietary software anyway. The GPL, on the other hand says: "If you want to distribute this code, you will do it on my terms.". The GPL pragmatically serves an idealistic political agenda (most are, anyway).
Remember: the political agenda behind the GPL is freedom. Communism as it was implemented heavily restricted your freedoms. Remember Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!". When Richard Stallman asks us, repeatedly, to give up the convenience of proprietary software to have the freedom of, well, GPL software, he is closer to the ideals of the founders of America than communism.
Communism is about as similar to the GPL as it is to pro-lifers. Nothing more, and I did not mean to imply any more similarity than that.
To help you grab on to my extended metaphor:
Communism: a communist controlled authoritarian country => GPL: the subset of _released_ software licensed under the GPL
Communism: your natural free will and ability to make a choice => GPL: Your guaranteed rights (in free world) to intellectual property
Communism: everyone's forced to be selfless (fair redistribution of wealth)... under penalty of death? => GPL: everyone's forced to license under GPL under penalty of being sued
Communism: if not forced, one person could shift the economy because communism != economic equilibrium => GPL: If GPL does not force GPL on derivatives, then one proprietary software could shift the balance of power so that it's more advantageous not to open source. This is because if on guy doesn't share, he expends less resources on helping others, while taking in fruits of others' labors.
Public domain is like a family, or really small communal group, whereas GPL is like some authoritarian communist state. You've got the family which works well on the ideal of dedication to the whole. It's small, but it's all by free choice. You've got communist China supposedly trying to force this ideal of a harmonious multi-billion member family on its people, while probably never going to achieve it. Sure they're converting more people to communism, but at what cost?
There is no absolute force. There is always at least 2 distinct choices, and any "forcing" as we know it is a result of external pressure. The GPL exerts an external pressure on decisions, so for all intents and purposes, it forces, thus limiting true freedom. True freedom is when there are no external pressures on a decision.
Communism (in practice): In order to propagate and preserve itself it needs to be forced upon people because the slightest selfish act topples the whole system. This is opposed to letting everyone choose to be selfless (not bloody likely, which is why force is necessary).
GPL: In order to propagate and preserve itself it needs to enforce its doctrine by law whether or not it makes practical sense in individual cases. This is opposed to letting everyone choose when it's appropriate and practical to open source, and when to proprieties (like in Communism, it can be disadvantageous for all if only a few keep their software proprietary). However I do concede that since the GPL does not force you to release the changes it is one good thing about it.
Pro-lifers (in practice): In order to propagate life and preserve the sanctity of it, it is necessary to force people to do the morally right thing, whether or not it's practical in each individual case.
Common themes: absolute black and white world view; end justifying means; restricting free choice
It's particularly hypocritical of the GPL, which espouses freedom, to achieve it's goal through restriction of freedom.
Hey sure if we are all nice selfless people we could live in a global commune. If we are all righteous, we wouldn't need to be forced not to kill (or make) babies we don't want. And if we all understood the benefits of free software, we wouldn't need to be forced. But we aren't Jesus, aren't righteous, and aren't smart enough to appreciate free software. Therefore it's unfair to encourage anything that forces people to pretend the world is ideal.
------------------------
>Now, can you name one ideal which is compatible with our world? Even slavery isn't completely abolished. I mean, any political idea will have its opponents.
Your question is an oxymoron. By definition anything ideal is unattainable, and as for the purposes of our discussion, it means it's also not compatible with our world. But I don't know why you are treating me like I'm Microsoft, I love free software. I've learned all I know from free software and it's let me build some wonderful things. But I love free software for freedom. And the GPL is not free. It's trying to make the world free, but by utilizing the very restriction on software freedoms it's trying to abolish. Hey if free software is really good for everyone, why not let it propagate by its own merits, rather than artificial restrictions/terms? I for one have faith in the practical benefits of free software, and don't believe it's necessary to force (if you want to benefit from GPL) people to adopt it.
> If your conclusion is that a software licence shouldn't embody political ideas, take a look at proprietary software licences.
Not my conclusion at all, I think free-er licenses are just as political.
> Restrictions like "thou shalt not study this software" are indeed quite political.
And what's the difference between "thou shalt not study this software" and "thou must make any changes public upon distribution"? They both restrict your rights. And the only time the GPL's restriction wouldn't matter is if the whole world's softwares were under GPL. But that ain't happening any time soon, and sure as hell ain't going to happen if I'm forced to do it.
> It was specifically designed with our current world in mind, to make it go from proprietary software to free software, progressively.
Yes progressively by force... by constantly limiting our choices until one day we've got none but GPL (or do everything yourself).
>Remember: the political agenda behind the GPL is freedom.
The whole idea of freedom is to have freedom in means, not just the ends. Plus, being an ideal, that end will never be achieved, which means all we've got are the means. So if the means aren't free, we'll never be free. So given that the GPL restricts our rights to try to achieve a probably unattainable ideal, we'll probably be stuck having our rights restricted until the end of world.
> You can't, however, oppose the GPL without being in the camp of proprietary software, at least to some extent.
That's like saying you can't be pro-choice without being at least a little pro-death (which is not true btw). Like I said before, I want all software to be free, but I'm not going to waste my time restricting rights while trying to achieve that goal.
It looks like it boils down to the restrictive clauses of the GPL. The reasoning is easy: BSD gives you total freedom. GPL gives you the 4 freedoms and some restrictions. Logical conclusion: the GPL is less free than the BSD.
This forgets a basic freedom principle however: ones's freedom must stop at other's. The GPL guarantees that you can't further restrict the freedoms it gave you. The BSD does not. Effectively, the BSD gives you the freedom to restrict other's freedoms. We have some examples of liberally licensed software which were more often distributed as proprietary software rather than as free software (IIRC, X was such an example). Therefore, when you look at the society as a whole, you could see that GPL software is more free than BSD software. (Now that companies see the practical advantages of Open Source, this effect is arguably weakened.)
My conclusion is that the GPL does a better job at promoting freedom than the BSD licence. To me that's what's matters. You may still disagree, but I'm out of arguments.
PS: Sorry for treating you like Microsoft, I got carried away.
Just to be clear that all this only makes sense if we assume that intellectual property is a sham.
> This forgets a basic freedom principle however: ones's freedom must stop at other's.
Ahh, but there is no action which is self-contained. Everything we do will affect others and somehow restrict someone's freedom in some way. For example if I take an apple, you can no longer take that same apple. It only becomes fair when everyone mutually agrees on the terms. Murder is an obvious one we can all agree on, intellectual property is hazier.
So with the BSD you are guaranteed your software stays free, but other's can stay within practical limits while still benefitting from free software. And if enough of this natural, unforced benefitting happens, more people will learn and move to free by choice, not by force.
In case you compare it to slavery: These are two different things, because for unfree software, we all have the right to make our own software. It simply restricts our right to utilize others' creations. But since this is a uniform restriction, it's not unfair. Slavery is not a uniform restriction. It only applies to the group being enslaved and affects the same fundamental thing we're talking about with software: people, but in a different way.
> Just to be clear that all this only makes sense if we assume that intellectual property is a sham.
I do. It's a useful sham, however, so I'd think twice before abolishing it.
> So with the BSD […]
I don't think the GPL forces you to choose free software. GPL software just can't be used to make proprietary software. Right now, you still have plenty of proprietary alternatives. People still buy them. You still have the choice. In the end, if the GPL takes over, that will be because everybody who didn't chose it will be out of business. I'm not sure this is bad in any way.
I think what you actually don't like about the GPL is its give and take nature: if you don't give, you can't take. So, being forced to give imply being forced to take. If nobody is forced to take, nobody is forced to give.
Do you think anyone is somehow forced to take? Meaning, does anyone is forced to distribute GPL derived work? Do you have any example (actual or hypothetical)?
