1. rjhorn on January 22, 2004 12:28 PM writes...

I wonder how much of the hostility and dispute around Open Source would go away if the mechanism is rephrased as a "teaming agreement". Some open source licenses, for example the GPL, are more accurately described as a teaming agreement. In return for the value of obtaining the software and source, you agree to return the value of any improvements that you choose to distribute. When this makes financial sense, you join. When it does not, you use some other software.

A teaming agreement is not good for every purpose, but it is good for some purposes. The hardware vendors are a good example of a situation where this kind of teaming agreement works well.

The government has no significant role in most teaming agreements, and there is no obvious need for a role here. The one unusual component is the question of government participation in the teaming agreement. There are situations where it makes sense for the government to participate, such as scientific and research activities and perhaps some routine administrative functions would be more cost effective when done through a teaming agreement rather than a proprietary purchase.

2. Brad Hutchings on January 22, 2004 01:13 PM writes...

The article does not make a good distinction among open source licenses or the phiilosophies behind them, instead paying lip service to an organization that validates them. This is the detail where the devil is in open source software. Where you have BSD-style licenses that are true gifts, you see the most positive net economic benefit and the least contentious user/developer communities. Examples incliude Apache, PHP, Perl, PostgreSQL, etc. Where you have GPL licenses (with the "you must share your changes" terms), you see cry babies and sinkholes for money. Linux is a great example, and MySQL isn't far behind. And with both, you have a lot of movement hangers-on like Larry Lessig and EFF, who add value that is no different than what the BSA or RIAA do on the other side. Lessig will make a great villain when this comes full circle and people get tired of the militant open sourcers (i.e. the GPL people).

Don't get me wrong, I use, like, and have contributed to several open source projects (with BSD-style licenses). Source code availability is a tactic, but that's all it is. Making it into a religion or a movement is like, oh foget the analogy with potty training a dog.

The best thing that will happen to the software industry in the next year or so is that the GPL will be held in a US court to be an unenforceable license. Then the GPL militants can ask people to play their game but have no legal expectation that people will -- like they really do now anyway, try and enforce the GPL in Brazil. We'll all be thankful it was the GPLers and not the Realeans who garnered temporary mass appeal and we move on.

Oh and another gratuitous shot... You know how a lot of IT people and service sector people are upset that their jobs have been "outsourced to India". Expect IT people to begin to realize that their jobs are being GPL'd, and that the results are vaporware and crapware. In a strange twist of irony, the GPL will find itself an unpopular player in globalization. Tough to know who to root for.

-Brad

3. Chuck Bearden on January 24, 2004 01:20 AM writes...

Let me state up front that I'm reacting to the posting and comments, not to the article.

Why shouldn't I, as a matter of personal freedom, be entitled to write software and distribute it on terms of my choosing and under the license of my choosing? Why shouldn't I be able to choose to charge for it or give it away? No-one is compelled to use my software. Their choice to use it or not should be informed not only by the quality and purpose of my software, but also by the terms of use I impose on it. And if someone who chooses to charge for use of their software can dictate the terms on which it may be distributed, why may not someone who chooses to give it away?

In my mind the most fundamental issue is one of personal liberty, not of economics. Note that I oppose regulations that mandate that governments use (or not use) open-source software. People should be free to choose the software that, in all its aspects, best meets their needs.

Concerning the quote from James DeLong included in Dr. Kling's post above: if he is truly ascribing the desire to make all content free to all open-source advocates, then he is simply ignorant. I wonder if he has spoken with Eric Raymond? I suppose it's possible that Eric is some kind of crypto-socialist, but if so, he's given an Oscar-worthy performance so far. In my experience, the open-source community is more diverse than the DeLong quote suggests.

Mr. Hutchings is correct that the GPL has you must share your changes" terms, that applies only if you choose to use GPL'd software. When choosing software, always consider (1) function, (2) price, (3) quality, and (4) license terms! It's that simple. If you don't like the GPL, write your own software, or pay for someone else's! Who are the crybabies he is talking about? The Stallmanites? I haven't met any crybabies in the open-source world myself. Perhaps he means the people who whine about the GPL.

And I do hope he will elaborate on GPL'd stuff like Linux & MySQL being sinkholes for money. E.g. is MySQL (the Swedish company that makes the database) losing money? Let them fail if they can't make it work as a business. I love open-source software, and I have absolutely no ideological commitment to the GPL (or to BSDish licenses, for that matter). I just don't understand the fuss.

4. Brad Hutchings on January 24, 2004 01:31 PM writes...

Mr. Bearden asks several questiions. Doesn't he have the right to put whatever terms he wishes into a license? Sure, but that doesn't make the terms legal or enforceable. You can put a term in your license to require me to offer you indentured servitude of my firstborn in exchange for using your software. That would be an illegal contract. You could also require me to do 500 pushups each morning in exchange for using your software. Or, you could be in a predominantly Islamic country and require me to face East and pray 3 times a day in exchange for using your software. That would be unenforceable on a couple of grounds and if you were a corporation in the US, could very well lead to a discrimination suit against you. So let's acknowledge that just because you are free to do what you want, when it comes to contracts, they need to be legal and enforceable. Now we can consider the GPL.

Having worked and played with both engineers and attorneys, one thing I can tell you is that their logic is different. Engineer logic is very cut and dry, black and white, consistent. Attorney logic is different. An attorney could look at the GPL and say, its effects on the market for compiler software, and begin to ask questions about whether there is anti-competitive behavior going on among major contributors to the GCC toolchain. Not that they have, but they could. Anti-trust law and sentiment isn't just about oil cartels, AT&T, and Microsoft. And it's not just about price fixing. It's about choice as well. How does a Metrowerks (which has always delivered way better size/speed object code with its compilers) compete long term against free? Of your four criteria for choosing software, when the GPL is involved, only the 4th is "permanently non-negotiable" and extremely rigid. Strategically (and I mean long term), this is what will bring the downfall of GPL'd software. It's proven a great strategy to gain market and mind share, but will be a horrible strategy for keeping it as more people realize what a problem the GPL is.

You asked about money sinks. IBM has put a gigabuck into Linux. Not because IBM is so angelic and noble, but because with the GPL license, it was a quick way to gain market and mindshare and renew IBM's relevance. By contrast, Apple has not put a gigabuck into FreeBSD because it didn't need to, yet is still considered a good open source citizen. Apple, BTW, has a viable desktop operating system.

MySQL... Dual licensed. It's GPL for non-commercial purposes. And it's an armed hold-up for commercial purposes. Frankly, I do not see how the open source community gets all bent out of shape with SCO for its licensing program, yet is enthralled with MySQL. They both use exactly the same tactic. MySQL, AB, also heavily heavily VC'd (something I have direct experience with in the database server industry). While their sales tactic is very aggressive, the legal underpinnings of it could come into question with SCO v. IBM. Risky bet in my book.
-Brad

5. Randall Parker on January 28, 2004 08:20 PM writes...

I do not understand the hostility to the GPL. Look, nobody is sticking a gun to anyone's head to make them use it. Also, you can write very commercial proprietary apps and run them on a GPL'd operating system. The GPL is not an onerous burden. I think it is great that the people who want to develop and use software under the GPL should be able to do so.

If people want to give something away and that drives out commercial vendors then is there a harm to the economy? I do not see it. If that is harmful then should we also outlaw all forms of charity since it reduces the demand for purchased goods and services?

6. Brad Hutchings on January 29, 2004 12:45 PM writes...

Randall,

If developers want to give software away, why not use a license variant favored by the vast majority of open source projects that matter, namely a BSD license variant?

The GPL is a burden. It is intended to be a burden. I look at the GPL debate as similar to drug reimportation. Pharma companies want reimportation restricted so they can enforce differential pricing schemes and get marginal dollars from Canada. Such a pricing scheme depends on government having policies (however badly reasoned) that restrict reimportation. The GPL, comparatively speaking, depends on its own legitimacy and enforceability to work as a licensing mechanism. It hasn't been tested in US Courts. There is no copyleft version of the Berne Convention. I think over the next couple of years, the marketplace will look at GPL'd software and say "you really think you can enforce these terms, huh?".

Anyway, that's the hostility against the GPL. It's just such a charade.

-Brad