

When freedom isn't free (software) - bitdiddle
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10293886-16.html

======
ZeroGravitas
I find Matt Assay's columns pretty weird. This one, like many others, comes
close to being stream of consciousness yet I always feel there is some
coherent, yet alien to me, worldview in which it all makes sense.

I mean it's all very well to say that the licence isn't everything and
achieving your goals of "freedom" requires a more holistic approach, but to
follow that up with using Microsoft as an example of someone who can attract
developers? It's a mind-bogglingly obtuse _non sequitur_.

His closing line:

"So long as it's the customer that takes center stage in the debate, I'm
convinced we won't go wrong."

The key word here is "customer".

~~~
Herring
I think I get it. He's not a dev & he's working with "cloud" apps so he very
understandably doesn't care about source code availability. To him
freedom/openness/etc is windows app development vs iphone app development. And
something about more features means you're more free to do what you want.

------
bitdiddle
I post this not to fan the recent flames but rather to point out that there is
often a lot of press about FSF extremism and ideology that is somewhat
overstated. I was recently referred to "why the GPL rocketed Linux to success"
( <http://www.dwheeler.com/blog/2006/09/01/#gpl-bsd> ), that makes a plausible
argument that Linux would not be successful were it not for the GPL.

How many programmers are attracted to more "liberal" licenses because they
hope to profit from their efforts in some commercial setting and find those
licenses more conducive to that? In fact I believe the GPL bests protects the
interests of programmers/hackers. For example anyone who invests time and
energy learning and hacking Linux can be assured of finding employment doing
that precisely because it it GPL code. It creates a level playing field for
all.

Freedom is never free, it always has costs. Linus Torvalds can smugly opine
and comment about not being so anti-MS and so forth, yet he chose GPL for
Linux and did so again for Git. He made the right choice.

~~~
hvs
I don't think the article was saying that the GPL is the wrong choice, but
that focusing completely on the license misses the point. The article was more
about the dogmatic stand that certain people within the free software
community have taken. Is identi.ca "better" because it uses the GPL but has a
closed platform while Twitter uses closed source but has an open platform?

~~~
bitdiddle
I see your point. I'm not familiar with identi.ca, presumably a Twitter
competitor, but I'd say the answer is no if by open platform one means the
ability for programmers to interact with the service and build value on it. I
don't think the GPL had this usage in mind when it was written.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
"I don't think the GPL had this usage in mind when it was written."

I think that's the author's point: freedom and openness are not the same
thing. The GPL makes software _free_ in the sense that any programmer can see,
use and modify the code and must also make their own use free as well.

Twitter, by contrast, makes its application _open_ in that it offers a simple,
powerful and permissive API to third party developers. They understand the
positive network externality in allowing others to enhance and build on their
own product, which makes it more valuable to everyone.

That openness is also a kind of freedom, but it's not the freedom that
Stallman has in mind. Of course, as Torvalds has shown with his shepherding of
the Linux project, freedom and openness can certainly coexist and reinforce
each other.

