
Zed Shaw: Why I (A/L)GPL - twampss
http://zedshaw.com/blog/2009-07-13.html
======
wvenable
There seems to be this whole generation of open source programmers who think
that software development is a game. Zed gave away his software to get all
kinds of accolades and adoring fans -- which, when you think about it, is
pretty bloody bizarre.

Open source software is wonderful because it keeps us programmers from
constantly reinventing the wheel. It gives us all the collective ability to
improve the infrastructure that our products depend on. It's not really
surprising that the most mature, stable, and user-friendly products are
operating systems, web servers, database servers, and so on. It's bottom layer
that programmers use to build software products regular people use.

Zed's pissed because Mongrel doesn't get mentioned anywhere. I use open source
software in my business all the time to advance what we can deliver to our
customers; if someone wants to know what we run, I'll tell them. But guess
what, they don't want to know!

If all Zed wanted was credit, he should have picked a product with more MBA
appeal. Instead he build a web server -- that's infrastructure -- and nobody
outside of the programming community gives a crap about infrastructure. It's
the final product that matters. Even if Ruby on Rails gets mentioned, most
people wouldn't know the difference between it and PHP. All they know is that
you're in the same camp as 37 signals. Just as companies that use PHP will say
it's the same technology that powers Facebook.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter what license he gives his software for the game
he's playing. The rest of us, however, just want to get our work done.

~~~
Confusion
_Zed gave away his software to get all kinds of accolades and adoring fans_

That's a straw man. There is no mention of his original reasons for giving
away his software. Only now, in hindsight, he realises it annoys him that of
the great many users, not only do none credit him, but some even blame him.
That's pretty harsh.

~~~
neilc
_Only now, in hindsight, he realises it annoys him that of the great many
users, not only do none credit him, but some even blame him. That's pretty
harsh._

Is it? How many people using Linux know who, say, Ulrich Drepper or Alan Cox
is? How many of the Apache installations in the world give Brian Behlendorf
"credit"? That's just the nature of writing open source software -- IMHO the
whole idea is to write something that other people find useful, and give it
away.

And honestly, Zed complaining about a lack of attention and props is
outrageous. The guy must have an _enormous_ ego. Compared to most authors of
open source software, he is _far_ from anonymous.

~~~
kragen
_How many of the Apache installations in the world give Brian Behlendorf
"credit"?_

And Brian's the highest-profile contributor to Apache. What about Rob McCool,
Robert Thau, Roy Fielding, Ralf Engelschall, Rian Hunter, Rainer Jung, Rasmus
Lerdorf, Rüdiger Plüm, and in some sense Randy Terbush? And those are just the
contributors whose names begin with "R":
<http://httpd.apache.org/contributors/>

~~~
erlanger
I've heard of this Rasmus fellow doing a few other things as well.

~~~
defen
Things of which we shall not speak.

------
blasdel
Uh, Zed?

You know the GPL doesn't have (and expressly forbids adding) any sort of
advertising clause, right? And you know how all those fly-by-night VC-casino
startups prattle on about 'cloud' and don't generally distribute software that
you execute on your own computer? (and when they do it sure as fuck isn't Ruby
or Python)

Yeah.

I don't really see anybody needing to 'convey' software that uses lamson. Not
only is nobody going to want to buy a license from you, are you really going
to get copyright assignment from all contributors before relicensing their
work?

On one end of the spectrum, the Linux kernel, the GPL works perfectly! There
is a nice crystal clear boundary between kernelspace and userspace already,
and the gray border region of closed commercial drivers works itself out due
to the companies' desire to maintain one codebase (it's not a derived work if
the same blob is used in Windows!).

On the opposite end (in order of increasing ridiculousness) there's libraries
for doing basic shit in Python or Ruby, frameworks for sugaring Javascript or
CSS, and _motherfucking Wordpress themes_. Here is where the GPL falls to
pieces. Attempt no landing there.

~~~
kragen
Do you know what the "(A/" in the title stands for?

~~~
blasdel
The 'Affero GPL' -- which is intended to close the software-as-a-service
'hole' -- as thus it is used by noone, and promoted only by the nuttiest
faction of the FSF.

As barely realistic as complying with / enforcing the GPL's terms are
(especially in v3), it's nothing compared to the fantasy-land that is the
AGPL. The GPL at least has copyright law to piggyback off of / fall back to --
The AGPL is just a shitty EULA!

~~~
kragen
It's true that GPLv3, the original AGPL, and AGPLv3 are not as well tested in
court as GPLv2. However, they do not depend on "clickwrap" contracts, as your
profane comment appears to imply; they are written solely as unilateral
copyright licenses, not contracts ("agreements", which is what the "A" in
"EULA" stands for). It's possible that a court might invalidate them, but they
are grounded in the exclusive rights reserved to authors under regular
copyright law.

The AGPL is not as popular as the standard GPL, partly because it's somewhat
new. Laconica is probably the most popular piece of software that uses it.

I don't think the FSF really has factions. People who disagree with Richard
tend to just leave.

------
snprbob86
Every time I think I understand software licenses, I immediately think I
don't. The posts I've seen today have only served to confuse me more. Is there
a simple, understandable, maybe even FUN, required reading page on this
subject? I'm looking for "talk to me like I'm a 3 year old" but also "don't
waste my time". Suggestions?

~~~
jon_dahl
As a partial answer to your question, I for one thought that Zed's final point
made sense (and made me better understand the GPL):

 _Open source to open source, corporation to corporation._

Basically, you can do just about anything with MIT- or BSD-licensed software.
But the GPL tries to make everything around it GPL too. If you build software
that integrates with a GPL'd library, you have to release your software with a
GPL (or similar) license.

So Zed's plan is to offer his software under a GPL license for free (open-
source to open-source), and also sell it without the GPL license for pay (corp
to corp).

Good place to go for GPL info: the GPL FAQ (<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html>)

~~~
enjo
In the case of mongrel or lamson, I don't see the difference. All of the
binding clauses of the GPL apply to distribution. It isn't until I distribute
it that I have any responsibilities at all.

So if I use mongrel or lamson I'm not distributing that code in binary or
source form. Thus, if I want to use the code I can do whatever the hell I want
(modify it, use it, print it out and bathe in)... until I distribute it
somehow (which a typical web-app never does) it makes zero difference.

I'm VERY confused after reading this rant as to what Zed thinks this actually
does.

~~~
nudded
say Zed released Mongrel under a BSD-license, then any big company (or any
person really) could come in and modify it, make it better and then sell it.
And Zed would be left with nothing. That's what GPL is for, adjusting it is
fine, but you can't make money out of a redistributed modified version.

~~~
Tichy
You can sell GPLed software, Linux distributors did it for years.

------
cortesi
Someone has to say it: Zed shaw is a cock. He doesn't get the recognition he
thinks he deserves _partly_ because of his rotten public image, which he
carefully crafted himself: crass, erratic, unprofessional, needy and
infantile. The last damn thing a startup would want to do is to say "Here's
Zed Shaw - we use his software, isn't that great?".

I say "partly", because the other half of the equation is that he doesn't
deserve the reputation he thinks he deserves. He is high-profile due to
controversy, but plenty of other people have done more for the Open Source
community with less kudos.

~~~
axod
I think a lot of his points have merit.

Meebo is a multimillion dollar company (est $200m), built mainly off
libpurple. I really don't understand how the libpurple developers can look at
that situation and not feel hard done by. Tireless work reverse engineering
protocols, which is then taken and silently used without real credit, to build
multimillion dollar companies :/

I had a discussion about this with some hard core free software people, and
they just said they thought libpurple would feel "proud". Well I'm sorry, but
if someone was making millions from work I'd done, I wouldn't feed proud in
the least. I'd feel like an idiot.

(I'm not saying meebo is bad to do this at all. I'm more saying that I don't
get how anyone could be motivated to work on an open source project like
libpurple without some protection in place).

~~~
tptacek
Meebo employs libpurple developers. The libpurple team looks to have
specifically OK'd Meebo's use of libpurple. I don't think they feel "hard done
by".

~~~
axod
Maybe it was harsh of me to use meebo/libpurple as an example here in that
case. Hopefully they're getting a good chunk of the VC money etc.

~~~
tptacek
Here's where you point out that you compete with Meebo.

~~~
axod
Not really, Meebo don't really have a large groupchat offering, and Mibbit
don't really have much of an IM offering :)

point taken though... As I said at the start, I wasn't beating on Meebo, I
think they've done a great job.

I'm sure there's other examples, but Meebo was the one that sprang to mind.

------
gfunk911
Zed should make his own BSD-style license that says you can use his software
freely, as long as you send him a notarized letter stating you're using it,
along with a note on your website.

I can't tell if I'm joking or not.

(To be clear, I think Zed is awesome, and he has the right to use whatever
license he wants. Oh, and we use Mongrel).

~~~
thras
What has Zed gotten out of your Mongrel use? And what have you gotten from it,
financially?

~~~
tjogin
What makes Zed so special that he should "get something out of" his freely
released software — while the developers of all the _other parts_ of the
system that are required for everything to work, don't?

A list of all the developers whose free software contributions are necessary
for a website to be used would not be short. It would be absolutely ginormous.

~~~
thras
Zed's not special. People who write code should be rewarded for their work:
"the labourer is worthy of his hire," after all. This is why BSD-style
licenses in a world where multimillion-dollar companies make a killing off of
the code you write don't make sense for the individual developer -- especially
when you're a star contributor.

~~~
Tichy
Not everybody who uses Mongrel is a multimillion-dollar company.

Maybe if it wasn't free, nobody would be using Rails and Mongrel - everybody
would be on C# and Mono. There is always competition, so "should be rewarded"
is really determined by the market. You can't just work on anything and then
demand money for it.

Mongrel that costs money would be a different product from Mongrel that is
free.

~~~
omouse
_Not everybody who uses Mongrel is a multimillion-dollar company._

Yet they can afford to hire employees who know how to deploy Mongrel and
Rails. Programmers and sys-admins aren't cheap, neither are executives,
marketers, salespeople, etc. Even if you're running a tiny Web startup, you
_should_ be able to afford small donations.

 _edit: You can treat the donation as a "license fee" if that makes the
accounting easier to deal with_

------
ErrantX
As much as he makes good and bad points I think some of the commentary here is
unfair; I think Zed is just explaining why he wants to use GPL license from
now on.

As someone who has been "burned" on some minor pieces of code I agree with him
somewhat. If, for example, I laid down some pretty useful code and open
sourced it - then a startup came along, used it to bootleg their code and made
millions I'd be pretty upset. That's not what it was open sourced for (because
no one benefits from their millions).

Perhaps no money required but it is nice for companies in those situations to
say "yeh and we built it on the awesome XXXXX (link to site)". Because that
means _more_ people can find something that is useful to them.

~~~
zmimon
I'm sorry, if you released the software under a liberal open source license
then you weren't "burned". I don't get what it is that makes people release
software under licenses that say "do whatever you want with my code" and then
suddenly get all self-righteous when someone actually does that. Be pleased
and flattered your software is being used - if that wasn't your original
motivation then you chose the wrong license to begin with.

~~~
ErrantX
Hence the quote marks.

I didnt hugely mind the use of my code. It just sucked that _after beign
asked_ they refused to push fixes and improvements back into the public
branch. That's takign advantage of the permissive license IMO :)

>Be pleased and flattered your software is being used

No one is suggesting this isnt the case :) it's possible to be flattered by
some and frustrated by others (indeed if they refuse to add code to the "pot"
I dont consider their use very flattering....)

------
andrewvc
Zed's a great guy, hell of a programmer, and from what I've read of his, he's
got a good heart. However, he sure makes it hard to like him.

I'll admit that the GPL is, at its heart, a cynical license, and that's what
makes it so useful... But christ, the GPL is also the centerpiece of a
community based around a certain large amount of altruism, I'm unnerved to not
see that mentioned, though given the fact that it's Zed writing I can hardly
say I'm surprised.

~~~
alanlinzer
Do you even know what altruism is? It bothers me how easy people use this
word. Do you really think open source programmers are "disinterested and
selfless for the well-being of others"?! They want recognition for the
contributions because it's in their self-interest to be noticed, respected and
validated by their peers.

~~~
andrewvc
Some of us feel grateful for what the world of FOSS has given us and enjoy
giving back.

Given the condescending and crude tone of your comment it's no wonder such
concepts are foreign to you.

~~~
alanlinzer
It's an insult to assume people would rather work for your personal gain than
their own.

~~~
netsp
How so?

------
jeremymcanally
Summary: My code didn't make me rich and famous so I use these licenses so
people have no choice.

Fair enough, but I think the biggest reason people didn't give him respect and
piles of money because of Mongrel or whatever wasn't that they wanted to steal
his awesome code and exploit him, but it was because he was a douchebag to
them and everyone else. Who wants to deal with someone that toxic?

But, no no, it's not his fault. It's those meanies that jacked his code and
didn't tell anyone. Jeez.

~~~
piramida
Yeah and I also think he's missing the point that people use mongrel not
because it's awesome like Zed, but because they don't have choice. Having
deployed several mongrel-based servers I personally think mongrel is a crappy
server, and is in fact one of the reasons we switched to python/django.

~~~
jeremymcanally
Well that's not so much true anymore. I'd actually be interested to see its
marketshare after the emergence of Passenger as a viable option, along with
other proxying servers like Thin.

But yeah for a while, it was Mongrel or (ew) Webrick. How far we've come! :P

~~~
carbon8
I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem like anyone willingly deploys new apps
using mongrel anymore. It's all passenger, glassfish, etc these days.

------
tsally
For the people on here who hate the GPL, you need to realize that you can make
large (sometimes even massive) contributions to the open source community and
still run a multi-million dollar business. I've written about this before. See
a previous discussion here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=527660>

Also, even if you are a cold selfish human being, realize that your continued
success depends on the success of open source software. Those servers you're
running? You'd have to use _Windows Server_ if it wasn't for open source. And
let's not even get into what you use for your backup strategy, version
control, and text editing. It's a classic situation where you are focused on
short term profit and no attention is paid to what is necessary for long term
success. The open source developers will leave if they have to, or just
license everything under the AGPL like Zed suggests.

------
lsc
I find the dynamics of venture-backed (vs. bootstrapped) companies to be
telling. I mean, not everyone who runs a venture-backed company is shallow or
trying to fool you, but there is definitely a much stronger emphasis on
appearance, when you are using other people's money.

Personally, I would be fine working for a venture-backed startup (I mean, if I
needed to work for other people, which is something I'll avoid if I can.) But
when it comes to my own company, really unless my investor is someone I'd want
as a partner without the money, I'd rather get a dayjob.

------
rajat
He's not doing anything others haven't done before. It's what TrollTech did
with QT for example, and how ghostscript was distributed. Use the GPL-ed
version for open source software; pay money for a proprietary license for
proprietary software.

Lamson looks very useful. As was Mongrel.

------
almost
"I believe that whatever the author wants to do with his or her works is their
right."

That right there is all the argument I think he really needs. It's his damn
software and no one else has the right to get pissed off at him for his choice
of license.

That being said, I don't think it's going to get him what he wants. People
will still be able to use it in their web apps without giving him credit. And
who's going to risk hiring someone who (at least gives the impression of
being) as caustic and erratic as Zed. He's probably not like that in person
but the risk that he might be would be to high for most people I would have
thought.

------
joshu
Investors don't give a shit what software you're running, so long as it
doesn't introduce liabilities. I don't think Mongrel's GPL status really
caused this; instead, the VAST majority of web servers are still Apache etc.

~~~
sho
Mongrel was dual licensed, under GPL2 and the much more permissive Ruby
licenese, so I don't think it was really an issue at all.

------
goodgoblin
Well - I love mongrel, and I love Zed too.

One thing he can hang is hat on is that by giving away mongrel for free he
really helped legitimize RoR by providing a stable platform, which helped the
spread of RoR, which itself spawned many more applications, coded more
quickly, and for less money, that themselves went out into the wild and helped
to organize people's lives, or save them time, or money, and so contributed to
the well being of humanity itself and perhaps brought us one step closer to
the Singularity. So he's got that going for him, which is pretty good.

------
eli
I don't get it.

Is he talking about people who modified/improved Mongrel and then didn't
release the patches or credit him?

Because I don't see how the GPL would affect people who just _use_ the
software in their stack.

------
mtodd
Thanks for sharing, but I do definitely disagree on a few points. Primarily,
and boiled down, it's a fundamental disagreement on the motivation of open
source software. Where I totally agree with your sentiment of wanting
compensation for your generally great karma, there's also no guarantee when
you release your code that it will ever profit you in any way other than
notoriety and useful code.

I think the way the open source model works is by creating a business (support
or consultation) around your software, or by writing open source software from
your own needs (often in support/consultation).

We often associate ourselves too closely with our software, both in its
failure and its success. We should make sure to keep ourselves somewhat
disconnected. We do this in part by releasing something as open source, but
that's just the first step.

~~~
adharmad
Everyone has their own motivations for writing open source software. Some of
them just feel that if you are using help from others (using GPLed software),
you need to pay back in kind (under certain conditions).

In the end, GPL does not care much about the developer's right. It cares more
about the rights of the end users. (That's why it mostly kicks in upon
distribution). On the other hand, BSD does not care about its developers, nor
its users. Otherwise Theo De Raadt wouldn't be writing caustic emails on how
Sun bundled his software without giving him a cent in return...............

And in a way I agree with Zed. Instead of bad mouthing GPL, people will do
better to let the market deal with it - if enough coders do not want to use
GPL, surely it will die a natural death.

------
oz
Zed's damn right. I love free software as much as the next guy, but damn some
people complain. If a man sits down and codes something, it's his decision to
license it anyway he wants, and that includes NOT open sourcing it if he sees
fit.

Personally, I don't know if I have the patience to run an open source project.
The attitude of many users implies that the developers owe them something. Be
bloody grateful, or STFU.

A guy named Mike develops free audio plugins for linux. (linuxdsp.co.uk)
Obviously well done, and based on what I've heard, they sound good, but the
only thing some people can see is the fact it's not open source. Reminds me of
the doctrinal wars I used to participate in when I was a Christian.

And hey, the Bible does say "the labourer is worthy of his wages"....

------
omouse
The only problem I have with this article is that Zed assumes that the
software is given away for free. You _can_ charge whatever amount you like for
GPL software, it's just that a lot of developers feel bad about asking for $$
like that.

~~~
boucher
It's true that you _can_ charge for GPL software. It's just not a particularly
good strategy. Because invariably, that software will wind up easily
accessible on the Internet for free, maybe even with a higher page rank than
your own page.

That's why companies typically dual license or charge for support with GPL
software.

~~~
blasdel
For an example, see the hilarity of when Sveasoft tried to sell subscription
access to GPL linux router firmwares -- it actually worked for a little while
when they were the only game in town, but quickly disintegrated. Eventually
they just started ripping off OpenWRT and died.

------
blasdel
I just realized: Zed made a (pretty good) point a while back about how he'll
be happy to have all the Spammers using Lamson, if only to make Spam less
mediocre.

Good luck getting the Russian Business Network to abide by the GPL!

~~~
praptak
"Good luck getting the Russian Business Network to abide by the GPL!"

Why would they need to violate it? They don't distribute any code except
trojans and worms.

------
alfredp
Today, musicians make products (music) that can be easily duplicated at no
cost. We acknowledge their value by compensating them through the purchase via
proper channels (CDs, iTunes, concerts) and express our appreciation by being
fans.

Software creators are not unlike these musicians; you pretty much need to have
a record deal in order to get the money and the mainstream fans.

In Zed Shaw's case, he's basically using GPL ensures that other people are not
using his work to get the record deals.

------
kevinpet
I would understand this rant if he were promoting AGPL exclusively. Can anyone
explain how (L)GPL vs. BSD relates to any of his points?

------
chanux
What Zed explains is really the idea behind GPL. getting something back for
community.

------
socratees
I totally agree with what Zed says there. And he rocks.

------
GrandMasterBirt
I completely agree with Zed regarding the licensing. If it is so revolutionary
and gpl is unacceptable then we should just buy the right to not abide by gpl
from the author.

However what happenbs if Zed gets hit by a truck tomorrow and dies. Is all
hope for companies using gpled stuff for their own use gone as well?

------
lucifer
"The other reason I love writing email software is nobody else does. You guys
are all giant pansies, even with a project like Lamson you’re still all afwaid
of big bad monsta SMTP."

<http://james.apache.org/>

------
lucifer
[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gate...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Bill_Gates_Letter_to_Hobbyists.jpg)

------
pkrumins
this is ridiculous. who cares about licenses. just get the stuff done. doesn't
make any sense to argue about license. just choose the first one.

------
jasonkester
Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses? I
can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy
decisions based on them. Has anybody ever actually been called on it? Are
there really companies that have open-sourced their entire product just
because they use some random little GPL library?

I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being garbage,
but I'm happy to use the odd open source software package to do my work. If
any of those packages stuck some silly gotcha clause into their license
agreement, I wouldn't know about it. And I certainly wouldn't spend my time
worrying about it.

~~~
SwellJoe
_Does anybody actually read, let alone abide by these open source licenses?_

Of course. If you don't, you can't use the code. Thousands of companies and
millions of individuals are abiding by these open source licenses every day.

 _I can't imagine actually picking through one of them and making strategy
decisions based on them._

Then you can't use the code. You'll have to buy non-Open licensed code, or
write it yourself.

 _Has anybody ever actually been called on it?_

Yes. Though it rarely comes to lawsuits. The GPL is a pretty strong license,
from a legal perspective. The people who've tested it aggressively have
suffered the consequences (SCOX, for example). Some others (The Artistic
License, for example) are more questionable and less strong from a legal
perspective, but even the weak ones have proven to hold up pretty well in
court (there is an ongoing trial involving the Artistic License, though sort
of indirectly, but it seems to be holding its own in the eyes of the law).

 _Are there really companies that have open-sourced their entire product just
because they use some random little GPL library?_

You've already admitted to being willfully and proudly ignorant about Open
Source licensing in multiple posts in this thread. So, why are you being so
damned pushy about sharing your ill-informed opinions on the subject?

You are assuming the GPL is intended as a trap to lure unsuspecting businesses
into being forced to open their code. It is not, and it's a symptom of your
ignorance that you think it is. It is a license that allows anyone to use the
code, provided they share the results under the same terms. In the event of a
license violation (which is in no ones best interest), there are many possible
outcomes, only one of which is opening of everything the code ever touched.
Law, including copyright law upon which the GPL (and all other software
licenses) are based, has many shades of nuance.

 _I tend to avoid using 3rd party code, as it invariably ends up being
garbage_

This says more about the limits of your experience than about Open Source
software or licenses, and is not relevant to this discussion.

~~~
jasonkester
Are you sure you represent the typical developer? Knowing this stuff in the
detail you just provided would seem to put you near one end of the spectrum. I
would suspect that most people simply don't think about it.

I think of places I've worked in the past and the people who worked there.
Would your typical VB developer in a typical corporation know about this
stuff? If he did a google search for a code snippet to perform a task, and
ended up on SourceForge, would he read the license or would he simply drop the
code into his project and get on with his day?

I think hanging out on sites like HackerNews, filled with some of the smartest
programmers around, clouds our perception of the "typical programmer". I've
worked at a lot of shops over the years, and I can count on one hand the
number of devs who I might ever expect to find here.

~~~
SwellJoe
_Are you sure you represent the typical developer?_

Possibly not (I have been involved in Open Source in the context of a business
for over ten years now, so my experience is perhaps longer/deeper than some,
particularly in the areas where business and Open Source bump into one
another), but I rarely meet a developer that doesn't at least know the basic
differences between the GPL and a "BSD-like" license. Knowing those two is
actually most of what you need to know to develop with Open Source software
without handing the legal stuff over to luck.

But, saying "the typical developer doesn't understand" software licenses is no
excuse for not abiding by the terms of the license. That is the price you pay
for admission to a wide world of awesome software that is enthusiastically
free. You either pay the price and learn what the licenses of the software you
want to use mean, or you simply can't use the licensed code. It's both an
ethical issue and a legal one. I can't force anyone to hold to any particular
ethical standards, but, the copyright holder can certainly make your life
difficult if you don't follow the legal requirements.

I think folks who don't take licenses seriously don't understand how strong
copyright law in the United States (and most of the developed world) really
is. If someone comes after you with a provable claim of infringement, it could
cost you a _lot_ of money. I've been involved in a copyright suit, and the
results were that the infringer ended up settling for $30k, even though no
money was being made on the copyrighted work (I was giving it away for free,
and so there were no losses on my part; but copyright law allows for multiple
layers of penalties and had it gone to trial it would have cost them at least
that much).

 _If he did a google search for a code snippet to perform a task, and ended up
on SourceForge, would he read the license or would he simply drop the code
into his project and get on with his day?_

Sure, people violate copyright all the time. People also pirate software all
the time. It doesn't make it OK, and sometimes folks get caught doing it and
it costs them or their employer a lot of money, time, or both.

 _I think hanging out on sites like HackerNews, filled with some of the
smartest programmers around, clouds our perception of the "typical
programmer"._

Open Source programmers tend to be towards the smarter, and more importantly
better informed, end of the scale. That doesn't account for the problem you
mention of proprietary programmers "borrowing" liberally from Open Source
projects without abiding by the license. But, when those things happen and
they are exposed, there's usually a shitstorm over on Slashdot and the company
in question gets harangued and ranted about and blogged about and occasionally
sued until they comply with the license (either by rewriting the offending
code and making a monetary contribution to the FSF of EFF, by way of apology,
or by giving back their changes and using the software according to the
license). One such case was discussed here on HN just a couple of weeks ago.

It happens all the time, and only a small percentage of people who use Open
Source software without abiding by the license are ever caught. But, I'd like
to think that things are getting better as awareness of Open Source increases.

------
jgalvez
Can someone please explain to me why people care so much about licenses? I
mean, what prevents people from actually going forward and using Zed Shaw's
GPL code in a startup? How could he possibly find out? I mean, srsly...

If you're releasing source code, you're pretty much giving away your software
for free with no guarantees of acknowledgement whatsoever. Period. End of
story. Deal with it. Licensing it with the GPL will not give you magical
special powers over the code and prevent people from making evil money from
your lost nights of coding. It is a especially futile endeavor if you're
writing software that runs on servers.

It sounds like Zed Shaw is pissed because the entire RoR community used his
server and he didn't get any money from it, or any cool job, even. I, for one,
think Mongrel lacked a good deal of branding, and Zed's online personality
doesn't seem to have helped much. Compare Mongrel with Ruby Enterprise Edition
and Passenger. These guys are fucking geniuses coz they wrote awesome
opensource software and had an awesome business-y site to accompany it.

~~~
gjm11
" _I mean, what prevents people from actually going forward and using Zed
Shaw's GPL code in a startup?_ " Decency. It turns out that quite a lot of
people have some of that.

~~~
jgalvez
Sure. I just don't think it would have been all that much different if Zed had
licensed Mongrel with the GPL to start with. It would still have been a mostly
unmentioned piece of software atop many other unmentioned GPL-licensed
software startups still use. My point is that if you're looking for proper
recognition of your work, licensing it the GPL is not a totally effective path
to take, in all practicality. Or rather, it's not the /only/ thing you need to
do. Actually, it's surprising how many business-y people I know have no idea
about what the GPL really is and how BSD/MIT etc differ from it.

If the goal is to be properly /financially/ recognized, i.e., make money from
it, have a restrictive commercial license, like it's been done on all kinds of
other software for the past 20 years or so, 'open source' or not.

I understand Zed's motivation, I just think having it GPL is a futile effort
to prevent other people from abusing his work, coz even tho there's "quite a
lot" of decent people out there, there are also "quite a lot" of people who
simply. don't. give. a. shit.

fwiw, all the code I write is either BSD-licensed or Python-licensed. Let's
just be real.

~~~
dschobel
For individuals maybe it is a matter of decency, for companies on the other
hand it's all about liability and it's not as academic an issue as you are
purporting.

To put it simply, licensing matters for the same fundamental reason any other
legal contract matters and if you care about your company you'd be wise to pay
attention.

