

The Economic Case Against the GPL - HSO
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=928

======
cduan
The basic error of this article is that it ignores the prisoner's dilemma
problem. The basic idea behind that problem, as a reminder, is that parties
acting in their best interest for themselves will, in certain situations,
select a suboptimal outcome.

Applied to open/closed source software, the prisoner's dilemma suggests that
parties acting in their own interest will opt for closed-source software,
because of the personal benefits (trade secrets, market power, etc.). Thus,
even if open-source software is more efficient as a general matter, everyone
will go for closed source, resulting in an inefficient outcome.

The solution to the prisoner's dilemma, of course, is contracts. By binding
the hands of the parties, you can force people to choose the more optimal
solution. The ideal contract adds a breach penalty that offsets whatever
selfish gain may be reaped from defecting, and thereby encourages cooperation.

This is, in effect, what the GPL does: it adds a penalty to closed source
software (namely, you can't use open-source with it). If open source is indeed
more efficient, then developers will be willing to forego the benefits of
closed source in order to take advantage of open source software.

I think that this generally summarizes what everyone else is saying ("nothing
would deter an unscrupulous company from stealing open source code," "economic
principle of free riders"). My own comment is offered as a general thought,
not a precise cost-benefit analysis. There is much more careful thinking on
this subject, much of it in the law review articles I read while in law
school.

------
TomOfTTB
This article is written in a confusing manner but his point is basically that
the GPL forces people who write software that derives from GPL licensed code
to open source their derivative software. By doing so it discourages people
from using GPL licensed software because some of those developers might want
to close their source code.

I see the point but I’m not sure I agree with it. He claims the open source
community “loses allies” when it enforces the GPL against companies who closed
their source. But if those people are taking GPL licensed code and violating
the terms than they are not allies at all. So his argument really boils down
to having the GPL but not enforcing it so you can keep allies that are allies
in name only.

There are more permissive open source licenses out there and if a developer
wants someone to be able to use their open source code in closed source
projects they can use one of those. But when people choose the GPL they are
doing so to further the ideal of completely open source code. Meaning allies
like the ones described above are counter-productive because they would
compromise that ideal by doing exactly what the GPL users are fighting
against.

~~~
davidw
Here's what he's getting at, perhaps: if you have some code that's more
"library like" in the sense that it's not a standalone product, people
including it in their own proprietary products isn't going to hurt you that
much, and if they're smart, they may even contribute back to the project,
especially if your code isn't really a competitive advantage for them. If your
code is GPL, you lose those potential contributors.

Case in point, I know a few people are using Hecl in commercial products, and
yet they have made some very nice contributions back to the project, something
that wouldn't have happened had it been under the GPL.

~~~
TomOfTTB
I get that. I'm just saying I think people who use the GPL do so because they
want the software industry to develop an open source culture. Their idealogues
in that way. They want to change the world in addition to creating software
which makes their aim different from someone who just throws their code open
for the heck of it.

So allowing people to use their code for closed source projects would be
working against their cause.

~~~
davidw
Some GPL users (RMS) are definitely like that. I think many others simply
"don't want to be ripped off", and like the license because it makes them feel
safe that way.

------
donaq
_we stand to lose not only Cisco as an ally, but any corporation that
estimates (rightly or wrongly) that their own potential exposure to an SFLC
lawsuit might be greater than their potential efficiency gains from open-
sourcing._

Why should that matter if we live in universe B and their estimates are
therefore wrong? The open source community, being more efficient, would just
build an alternative product that works better.

OTOH, if we did not have the GPL or refused to enforce it, nothing would deter
an unscrupulous company from stealing open source code and not contributing
their own improvements to it to the community. Any improvements to the
software from the open source community would quickly be incorporated into the
proprietary version, while any improvements made by the hypothetical
unscrupulous company would remain proprietary. Once a few of these companies
started enjoying success, every other profit-maximizing company would be
forced by the market to follow suit or perish, and we'd eventually have a
clusterfuck of companies stealing open source code while the open source
community dwindled to nothing because their products could never possibly
compete with the proprietary alternatives.

I think we live in universe C, where, without an enforceable GPL, the most
efficient method of software production would be to take what you can (from
the open source community), and give nothing back. YARR!

------
alain94040
Sorry, not a very good article, the arguments are simplistic and don't make
much sense to me.

There is a good discussion to be had about the GPL but this is not it.

------
ZeroGravitas
I find it somewhat amusing that none of the comments so far seem to
acknowledge that this is written by Eric S Raymond. I guess that shows how far
he's fallen into irrelevance.

Without wanting too engage with the actual content too much, he appears to be
arguing, despite the headline, that there is no economic benefit or cost to
the the GPL. The only impact is based on human (actually corporate) psychology
of not liking being sued.

~~~
bhiggins
who?

~~~
ZeroGravitas
Third guy in this comic strip:

<http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-code>

(thanks to whoever posted this in the other ESR thread, I'd searched for an
appropriate strip but hadn't gone back far enough to find this gem)

------
noaharc
I think it's a well-written article, but he fails to acknowledge the economic
principle of free-riders. I think it destroys his argument.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem>

~~~
davidw
One non-GPL solution is to have a very broad group of people who rapidly
develop the open version. Think Apache or Postgres. Sure, you could hire a
developer or two and make a closed version, but that person will end up
spending all their time merging in the open source changes, which will outpace
whatever value they can add to the closed product.

In theory, at least - and I think that sort of strategy works in practice too,
in _some_ situations. And therein is the key - there are no general answers -
some projects are better under a GPL style license where everyone knows that
no one is going to 'take the code and run', and others are not.

------
m_eiman
The author fails to take into account that many(?) open source developers
aren't dependent on or motivated by market forces. Regardless of its virtues
in a business setting, GPL will still live on.

~~~
ovi256
I disagree : they are motivated by what can be conceived as a market : a
social reputation system. They gain reputation by writing and publishing GPL
software. This reputation certainly is not money, but it serves the same
signalling purpose.

~~~
m_eiman
But if you stop writing open soure code in favour of closed source, you're no
longer part of that market. It's more like two different markets (one pays
with reputation, one with money or something like that) that are competing for
a limited resource - developer time.

So I'd say that there is a market, but it's on another level.

