> Anyone that purchases a single copy can re-compile and re-release to the world for free.
I have licensed a lot of custom-built software under the GPL (because I used GPL'ed bits and pieces). None of my clients ever redistributed their software, most likely because they considered it a competitive advantage. Think about it for a moment and you'll realize it's not a big problem. For me, it's an advantage, because I could reuse the code I did in other projects, something I wouldn't be able to do if I didn't license the code under the GPL in the first place.
> Stallman doesn't want you to be able to charge for software
No. What he doesn't want is that programmers are able to restrict freedoms of their users. BSD allows that. GPL forbids that.
"None of my clients ever redistributed their software, most likely because they considered it a competitive advantage."
This kind of thing can get really ugly in M&A situations.
I love FOSS, but it can lead to some unexpected and unpleasant outcomes, even for seasoned veterans of software development and business. As soon as you're faced with "redistributing" key software to potential bidders so they can do their homework on your company's technical, operational and financial merits, you're in copyleft land, like it or not.
Don't get me wrong – I'm not an agent of FUD when it comes to FOSS. I just doubt that most consultant developers are thinking about advisors, accountants, lawyers, private equity, investors, executive and board candidates, etc. when they decide to incorporate GPL'd code.
Personally, I think the GPL is a rather poorly-drafted license, and the concept of "distribution" is right at the heart of the issue. Fortunately, its relevance is waning from my point of view – fewer clients showing interest, and I certainly haven't needed anything that wasn't under MIT/BSD in a few years.
> I have licensed a lot of custom-built software under the
> GPL (because I used GPL'ed bits and pieces). None of my
> clients ever redistributed their software, most likely
> because they considered it a competitive advantage
This makes sense if you're selling some niche code to businesses, but things like the Sveasoft Linksys firmware drama indicate that selling direct to users, especially technical users who understand and maybe already use the GPL, is a whole different world.
Yes, but Linksys is selling routers, not software. And basing their firmware on GPL'ed code presumably reduces cost and time to market. The same applies to Sveasoft.
Some people think they can have their cake and eat it too.
The price of using GPL is setting your users free.
Shabble was talking about Sveasoft: a company that made their own firmware based on Linksys', but got stroppy when other people starting to distribute their 'fork'.
Ah, I thought it was reasonably common knowledge, so I didn't elaborate on it.
Essentially, Sveasoft (which is/was, iirc, a single guy) took the original Linksys firmware releases, and built some fairly impressive new features on top. His business plan involved selling subscriptions to receive updates on a regular basis, with the sources being made public (beyond the subscribers) after some embargo period.
What actually happened was that very few people subscribed, and immediately began posting the latest sources publicly (as permitted under the GPL), which resulted in Sveasoft threatening them with legal action, issuing C&Ds to anyone involved, and inserting more and more complicated tracking tokens and other booby-traps in the code.
I'm not sure if (how?) it's ended, but there is still activity on at least one of the anti-sveasoft sites: http://sveasoft.blogspot.com/
I suspect it's mostly died down because there are now much more viable alternatives (DD-WRT, OpenWRT, Tomato, etc) than there were at the time, and nobody wants the hassle of dealing with it.
It does raise the issue (as mentioned in the licence article this thread is about) of dealing with the GPL on embedded devices, where most of the work is in kernel modules or statically linked binaries. The usual techniques which allow proprietary software to be segregated and interface with GPL code aren't really appropriate, and it's quite difficult to build such a thing.
Whether this is a good thing or not depends on your perspective, of course.
"What actually happened was that very few people subscribed, and immediately began posting the latest sources publicly (as permitted under the GPL), which resulted in Sveasoft threatening them with legal action, issuing C&Ds to anyone involved, and inserting more and more complicated tracking tokens and other booby-traps in the code."
Exactly point point. This is why you can't run a viable business selling GNU software.
No. That's why, if you want to sell software to your users without giving them the freedoms afforded by the GPL, you'll have to either write your own software from scratch or base it on one that uses a license that allows you to give your users an inferior set of rights.
I agree totally. As a sole proprietor the GPL certainly protects my interests and my customers are comfortable knowing they can always hire someone else to enhance or maintain the source. I'm surprised that as it becomes easier than ever to start companies that more programmers don't see this advantage. I believe it's primarily because the VC world is still attracted to the idea that "secret sauce" has monetary value, when the reality of course is that the secret sauce walks out the door every night in the head of some hacker.
"None of my clients ever redistributed their software, most likely because they considered it a competitive advantage."
In some cases, it works. How large is your client base? 20? 50? Did your clients even read the license or know that they have the rights to redistribute it?
If Photoshop were under the GNU, there would be a ton of free versions out there for anyone to download. Same thing with Windows or any other high-profile proprietary app.
Both those companies would slowly start to lose money until they just couldn't make a profit any longer. It then comes down to who has the bigger marketing budget.
"because I could reuse the code I did in other projects, something I wouldn't be able to do if I didn't license the code under the GPL in the first place."
Are you talking about other people's code? I can reuse all of my code in any project, regardless of the license.
"In other words, he fights for the users. ;-)"
He sacrifices the freedoms of the developer for the users. Also making it impossible to make a living by just selling software.
I personally don't ever use GNU code in any commercial projects. I prefer the BSD license because I can use code in any way and I'm not forced to give any of my future rights away as a developer.
I also have released many libraries and apps under the BSD license.
> If Photoshop were under the GNU, there would be a ton of free versions out there for anyone to download. Same thing with Windows or any other high-profile proprietary app.
The BSD license doesn't mitigate against this at all, so here you're arguing in general against open source. But more importantly, there are already a ton of free versions of Photoshop and Windows and Rosetta Code and any other popular application, regardless of their level of sophisticated DRM, just a few clicks away on your-favorite-torrent/filedump-site. The legality of this doesn't scare people. The binaries are free for them, yet somehow these companies are still in business...
I have licensed a lot of custom-built software under the GPL (because I used GPL'ed bits and pieces). None of my clients ever redistributed their software, most likely because they considered it a competitive advantage. Think about it for a moment and you'll realize it's not a big problem. For me, it's an advantage, because I could reuse the code I did in other projects, something I wouldn't be able to do if I didn't license the code under the GPL in the first place.
> Stallman doesn't want you to be able to charge for software
No. What he doesn't want is that programmers are able to restrict freedoms of their users. BSD allows that. GPL forbids that.
In other words, he fights for the users. ;-)