

Has the GPL out-lived its usefulness? - r11t
http://blogs.computerworld.com/has_the_gpl_out_lived_its_usefulness

======
jrockway
_Has the GPL out-lived its usefulness?_

Definitely not. Consider the case of Linksys' WRT-54G. Initially, it ran
Linux, but Linksys didn't feel like releasing the source code it was using.
This made the device essentially useless (except as an average WAP). However,
when they were called on their GPL infringement, they released the code,
creating a great community around the WRT-54G. Now the thing can be an OpenVPN
endpoint, or a backup MX for quick mail server reboots, or anything you can
imagine. If Linux was BSD-licenced, the WRT-54G would probably still be a
closed device, which would be bad for the computing community in general. (I
think Linksys got a lot of sales because of the openness, and they certainly
didn't _lose_ any. But it's hard to convince big companies of this unless
their lawyers are forced to be involved -- and the GPL ensured that this
happened.)

Also, I like the GPL, "useful" or not. If you want to use my code, I want the
changes you make to it. It's only fair.

It's not a loss to me if you refuse to use my code because it's GPL'd. With
the GPL, you didn't use it and hence didn't give anything back to me. Without
the GPL, you would have used it and not given anything back. So the situation
is the same for me either way. (Sure, it's worse for you, but I code with my
own interests in mind.)

~~~
lbrandy
Eh. You should read the original, if you haven't:
<http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=928>

Your anecdote about linksys does not undermine ESR's central thesis, at all.
He argues that under the presumption open-source is more efficient, the market
will punish those who remained closed. That is not refuted by pointing out a
singular example of a company and their dalliances with various licenses. I
think that point is an interesting one to consider and needs a far more well
formulated response than simple anecdotes.

Your second point is more in line with the story, namely that the goal isn't
"efficiency" but "freedom". People who release their code as GPL'd code for
freedom and other philosophical reasons are fundamentally different than those
who release it for pragmatic reasons (that, in the end, open-sourced code is
better code).

> It's not a loss to me if you refuse to use my code because it's GPL'd.... So
> the situation is the same for me either way.

ESR addresses this directly. Yes, it is a loss to you. Just not maybe to the
function ("fairness") that you happen to be optimizing. If your goal was to
create the best XYZ library, you've lost mindshare, potential contributors,
and possibly created a competitor. This is true whether they are legitimately
scared or whether they are scared due to FUD.

> Without the GPL, you would have used it and not given anything back.

This is not necessarily true. I'll give you three examples.

1\. I could want to use your library as a monolithic piece and give back the
changes I made to that piece. You haven't allowed that. (ie, versus an LGPL
license).

2\. I could succumb to FUD and just not want to go down that path, despite the
fact that I would have been an otherwise good member of the community.

3\. I could enter into the relationship intending to withhold my changes,
eventually become dependent on having the best XYZ library in the world, and
eventually realize the most cost-efficient way to do that is to share my
changes and have them be incorporated into everyone else's (which we are
presuming is true, since we are presuming open source > closed source).

------
mdasen
In the ways that the article mentions, the GPL is as useful as it ever was.
Nothing has changed that changes the merits of the GPL. It still gives you the
freedoms that people want in open source software and it still guards against
other companies building proprietary things on top of GPL software. If those
protections are what you're looking for, the GPL still provides them as it
always has and the Apache license doesn't offer you those protections.

I'm not saying whether those protections are good, just that the Apache
license and the GPL haven't really changed their stances in a way that one is
just so much more 2009 than the other.

However, the GPL is outliving its usefulness in another area not mentioned by
the article. The GPL is great for software that gets distributed - like a
music player that you download or a web browser or whatnot. Once someone
distributes it, they have to abide by the license's terms. However, more and
more our software isn't being distributed. We're using cloud software which
isn't distributed to us. As such, even if someone is using modified GPL code,
we have no standing to request the code from them since it wasn't distributed
to us in binary form.

You might not agree with the free-software philosophy and that's fine, but it
is important to see how cloud computing is making it increasingly easy to turn
GPL software proprietary. As long as you don't distribute it, you can be as
closed source as you want with GPL'd code.

~~~
omouse
Which is why the Affero GPL exists:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affero_General_Public_License>

------
biohacker42
This and this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=585324>

Is why I think we should ban all computerworld.com articles form HN.

------
tptacek
A silly argument. For every argument about how the GPL retards open source
adoption, there's a counterargument for how the GPL enables open source
authorship. Maybe as much as a plurality of all corporate-owned/sponsored open
source software would never have been released if the only way to do so was to
allow your competitors to shrink-wrap it and sell it against you.

I see this as less of an intellectually honest argument against the GPL than
it is another futile bid for Eric Raymond to regain the spotlight by picking a
fight with RMS. But RMS has already won; the industry embraces and defends the
GPL now even as Stallman becomes more and more marginalized and caricatured.
There's no room for Raymond in the picture anymore.

And good riddance.

------
alain94040
Why not combine the 4 rights of the GPL, so dear to RMS's heart (the right to
view the source code, modify it and redistribute it) with the obligation to
pay the developers a small price.

This would create the best of both worlds: geeks can tweak and modify,
consumers pay for the product, so software developers can sustain themselves
and receive income for writing great code.

In effect, the license would make the software _libre_ , but not _free_.

For those who know me, more specifically I'm talking about combining the
Software Bill of Rights, which handles the question of how to share the
proceeds among a group of developers, with some form of GPL or Apache license.

~~~
tptacek
Because finding ways to pay groups of people a pittance for work they could do
billably for 120/hr isn't one of the industry's major problems?

------
Angostura
The main case against it in the article is that there are more "efficient"
licenses, in the economic sense of the word.

That may well be right, but the GPL was designed as tool to promote an
ideology, as opposed to a tool to maximize efficiency and productivity.

Therefore, even if it is not maximally efficient, that doesn't imply it has
outlived its usefulness.

------
octane
No. It hasn't.

