
Getting Pretty Lonely (an anti-GPL essay) - inklesspen
http://www.red-sweater.com/blog/825/getting-pretty-lonely
======
inklesspen
I don't agree with this essay, but I thought it was worth posting here for
discussion.

For my part, I recognize that the requirements of the GPL may drive some
developers away, but that's a small price to pay for making sure the code
stays free.

~~~
bad_user
> _that's a small price to pay for making sure the code stays free_

This isn't about the code staying free, it's more about who's in control.

The GPL is only popular with businesses because it is irrelevant when you're
not distributing source-code (as in web servers), or when you're offering
services not products.

I have yet to hear about a BSD project that went under because of some company
that refused to contribute back. I do however know of a couple of projects
that thrived because of more liberal licenses.

~~~
SwellJoe
We have large projects under both BSD and GPL. We have different motivations
for each, and the different licenses suit our needs. I'm always astonished by
the self-righteous tone on both sides of the debate (though I find BSD
extremists far more annoying for some reason...maybe just because RMS has
inoculated me to the most obnoxious bits of GPL extremism).

And, yes, it _is_ about who's in control; I don't see what's bad about that.
If I wrote the code, I can exert as much or as little control over that code
as I want...including making it more difficult for businesses to fork the code
and distribute it under their own brand without giving back.

 _I have yet to hear about a BSD project that went under because of some
company that refused to contribute back. I do however know of a couple of
projects that thrived because of more liberal licenses._

This is a specious argument. One can point to dozens of GPL projects that have
thrived because of the GPL; and none that went under because of something some
third party did or didn't do.

Linux is one example of thriving GPL code, while the BSD-licensed competitors
are dramatically less popular. Could it be because the BSD world forked off
into dozens of competing commercial and free versions in the early days?
Maybe. Maybe not. I dunno. But, for every BSD success story you'd like to trot
out, I can trot out an equal number of GPL success stories. And, again, I'm a
developer on projects that "prove" that both licenses are effective.

I can also assure you that the BSD projects see far less giving back than the
GPL project, relative to total number of corporate users. When I worked as an
IT guy, I regularly came upon server "appliance" products that used our
software with a custom theme and heavy modifications, and we'd never even
spoken to the company in question; the BSD permits that, and we aren't
offended by that usage. It certainly isn't going to kill the project. _But_ ,
in the case where we wanted more control, and had a very strong interest in
that _never_ happening because it would seriously impact our ability to build
the products we wanted to build, we opted for the GPL license.

~~~
bad_user
> _And, yes, it is about who's in control; I don't see what's bad about that._

I wasn't suggesting that there's something bad about it. I just get annoyed
when people start talking about the freedom in GPL.

> _Linux is one example of thriving GPL code, while the BSD-licensed
> competitors are dramatically less popular_

In the case of Linux, I think we can all agree that a large part of its
success is due to its creator that's a wonderful leader. 386BSD on the other
hand had fewer contributions because of the strict development policies of its
creators regarding external contributions.

Of course, I'm not saying that the GPL wasn't a component of its success, but
I think people overestimate its role in all this. After all, BSD is a lot more
popular than GNU Hurd.

~~~
billswift
From what I remember of what I read of the history of linux - it was the fact
that BSD code was tied up in some kind of court case when linux was first
introduced that allowed it to get a leg-up on the BSDs; because no one would
risk basing anything on an OS that may not be available in the future.

------
ZeroGravitas
I really don't understand the anti-GPL folks. I put them in the same mental
category as the folk that get so upset by Wikipedia.

Yeah, wikipedia's not perfect, neither is the GPL, but they're here and they
work, no-one's forcing you to use them so where does all this angst come from?
Is it a generational thing? Is any of this reflected in the next generation of
hackers or is the GPL just accepted as part of the environment?

