Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

Let me see if I can ramble about this even more...

Who does the GPL benefit?

Original author Alice writes some code, as does Xavier.

Alice releases it as GPL, Xavier as MIT.

Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her 
improvements as GPL as well.

Yvonne wants to improve Xavier's code. She can release her improvements as 
GPL, or as MIT, or as commercial software.

Say Yvonne builds some significant functionality that costs more money than 
Yvonne is willing to give away. Yvonne would like to spend one million 
dollars developing some software, then sell it for $10 each to 100,000 
people. Yvonne can do this. Betty can't.

(That's why commercial game companies, for example, don't use GPLed game 
libraries. It's cheaper to rewrite the libraries from scratch than to give 
away the game when you're done.)

Zacharia wants the functionality that Yvonne and Betty know how to create. 
Zacharia is willing to pay $10 for Yvonne's improvements, because it will 
save him $100 each month. He's not willing to spend $1M for Betty's 
improvements.

Charlie, however, is willing to forgo Yvonne's improvements because they're 
not "free" as in "libre". Charlie doesn't have the choice of getting Betty's 
improvements, because Betty never created them, because neither Betty nor 
anyone willing to hire Betty thought they were worth $1M.

Yvonne still has the choice, for any improvements she makes, of releasing 
them under GPL, MIT, or commercial licenses. Betty's choice is only to make 
the improvements that aren't so extensive that they cost her more than her 
spare time. Unless, of course, there's a company that (for example) sells 
hardware and can use the profits from selling hardware to pay for GPL 
software that provides similar functionality as other software that only 
runs on other hardware.

Who *does* the GPL benefit (compared to other free licenses)? It benefits 
not the person using the GPL software. It benefits not the person modifying 
the software. It benefits, instead, the person who gets the software after 
the second person has modified it. And it only benefits *that* person if 
they are a programmer or want a programmer to change it for them. So, in 
other words, the person best helped by the GPL is Charlie, and only if he's 
a programmer. In particular, it helps Charlie most when Charlie is also 
Alice, i.e., when the final customer of the changes to the software is the 
original author of the software. (Of course, it helps Doug when Charlie 
incorporates and improves his changes, and so on down the line, etc.)

This would seem to explain a fair amount.

It seems to explain why the best GPLed software is that which helps 
programmers create valuable for-fee services (or which has an exception 
letting you sell the results of using the software), like Linux, Apache, 
gcc, and the open source database engines.

It explains why there was no popular office suite before Sun and why there's 
still no good equivalent of SAP, TurboTax, PeachTree, and so on. These 
programs were too big to write as an open-source project just for kicks. 
They're not interesting enough to programmers to take to the level of 
completion needed to make them useful. Improvements to something like SAP 
isn't going to come back and make any programmer's life easier, so nobody 
feels the need to get others to try to contribute by making a version that 
can be GPLed.

Emacs and LaTeX is good enough for geeks, and those programs get steadily 
improved. Editing HTML by hand was good enough for "fancy" output, and it 
wasn't worth going much beyond that as an "office suite". Getting an office 
suite to the point where it would be useful to non-nerds is a large and 
significant undertaking, because you can't do it just a little bit. The 
"little bit" part is already done, in functionality like notepad, HTML, 
ispell, and so on. The big part is the boring part of putting it all 
together, making it deal with different file formats, getting it to conform 
to platform standards, writing the documentation and help screens, and all 
that other stuff the original author doesn't need.

Because, face it, if you're a nerd who also needed to do spreadsheets, you 
bought Excel or some other commercial product - it really wasn't worth 
spending a few years of your time to avoid using a commercial product. Or 
you wrote something specific to your need of the moment, which was useless 
to others.

It explains why the biggest successes - like Apache, Linux, MySql and 
PostgreSQL, gcc - are all targeted at creating and using non-GPLed software 
and services. Companies like Sun would write their own SPARC compiler of gcc 
switched to insisting all output from gcc fell under the GPL. Lots of 
companies use Apache, but few release the source to the scripts and database 
schemas their customers invoke under it. Other popular successes, like 
Firefox and Thunderbird, started out as closed-source commercial software, 
released when the companies were destroyed by competition.

I suspect large projects that aren't useful to individual programmers will 
very rarely be spontaneously developed under the GPL. There's going to be a 
large (and increasingly larger) class of programs that people want that just 
won't get developed for free, and the extent to which GPL software requires 
those programs to be given away is the extent to which GPL software won't be 
useful to the developers of those programs.

Comments welcome.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Software doesn't make choices. So software can't be "more free" or "less
> free". It can only affect the freedoms of people.

Doh!

> If I restrict the license to prevent you from doing certain things with the
> software I wrote, that doesn't make you more free. It makes you less free.

Yes, specially leechers just waiting for some free lunch for their products.

> It doesn't affect the software at all - the software is what it is and
> doesn't make choices.

But it *does* affect the software:  GPL'd software evolve at faster pace than
MIT-style software.  IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,
who may make it one better and not disclose the modifications?

The GPL levels the playing field, the playground where everyone are children.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> GPL was always a closed model of freedom.

Somehow, a "closed model of freedom" sounds like "less free" to me. :-) It 
certainly doesn't sound like "better for society" or "information wants to 
be free" sorts of slogans the FSF normally uses.

> evolution of GPL'd software at a faster
> pace than leecher-friendly "more free" models.

I believe this applies *at best* to software programmers use. Nothing 
prevents anyone from taking MIT code and releasing modifications to it as 
MIT code.  So you have free evolution *and* commercial evolution, while you 
have only free evolution with the GPL.

Mind explaining under what circumstances GPL software leads to faster 
evolution than MIT software?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs

Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and 
the name of the license?

All the stuff like OpenAL, Apache, etc that don't use the GPL?

> without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,

Why is that bad? The software is still getting improved.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > GPL was always a closed model of freedom.
>
> Somehow, a "closed model of freedom" sounds like "less free" to me. :-)

It's free for other free software.  Which is good enough in my book.

> certainly doesn't sound like "better for society" or "information wants to
> be free" sorts of slogans the FSF normally uses.

They are consistent in that they are pro free software, anti closed software and
they think free software is better for society.

> Mind explaining under what circumstances GPL software leads to faster
> evolution than MIT software?

Sure, you clipped it away from my previous post, so here you go again:

IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,
who may make it one better and not disclose the modifications?

The GPL levels the playing field, the playground where everyone are children.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
>
> Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and
> the name of the license?

Those are academia.  What about industry players?

> All the stuff like OpenAL, Apache, etc that don't use the GPL?

Yes, Apache and its wealth of web and java tools are popular too.  Even
Microsoft is contributing to them, as well as Sun and IBM.  Web tools are of
immediate usefulness to everyone, not just Linux or GNU.  And, as I understand
it, it powers many proprietary tools of those companies (so far, not from
Microsoft).

> > without fear of their good work ending up powering their competition products,
>
> Why is that bad? The software is still getting improved.

That's true when it's GPL'd and truly getting improved for everyone, not when
it's released under some promiscuous licensing, some competitor picks it up,
makes it better and power their product with the superior modification and
pisses and laughs on your face.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 11:09:17 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her
> improvements as GPL as well.

Minor nit, but Betty doesn't have to release her improvements at all.  
She can improve the code for her personal use and not release anything.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs
>> Well, MIT, and Berkeley, for example?  Hence the name of the software and
>> the name of the license?
> 
> Those are academia.  What about industry players?

OK, here's a question for you. Right now, you're saying
"""
GPL'd software evolve at faster pace than
MIT-style software.
"""

Since this is your assertion, I'll assume you actually know of some 
documented evidence for this fact?  Something that measures the evolution in 
some way of software under the two different licenses, in a way that's not 
subject to confirmation bias?

Because otherwise, we call that FUD.

>> All the stuff like OpenAL, Apache, etc that don't use the GPL?
> 
> Yes, Apache and its wealth of web and java tools are popular too.  Even
> Microsoft is contributing to them, as well as Sun and IBM.

So you don't need the GPL to make industry give back, see?

And the GPL doesn't make industry give back either. I don't see MapReduce or 
BigTable getting released by Google, for example.

>  Web tools are of
> immediate usefulness to everyone, not just Linux or GNU.  And, as I understand
> it, it powers many proprietary tools of those companies (so far, not from
> Microsoft).

You didn't actually read thru my entire screed, did you?

> That's true when it's GPL'd and truly getting improved for everyone, not when
> it's released under some promiscuous licensing, some competitor picks it up,
> makes it better and power their product with the superior modification and
> pisses and laughs on your face.

Name two. Really, I asked this before and got no answer. Name two 
MIT-licensed software packages that are no longer available because some 
commercial entity took it over.  Because, again, otherwise it's FUD.

I think there's also two kinds of "use" we're conflating here.

1) I write an entire OS from scratch, but I use your TCP stack. Or I write 
an entire video game, but I use your code to uncompress zips.

2) I take something like GNU and add an optimization, or I take something 
like MySql and improve the efficiency in some minor cases that are important 
to me.

While for (2) it might make sense about giving back the software, it doesn't 
make sense that it's that big a problem. If the efficiency hack is really 
worthwhile, someone else will do it for free. If it isn't, then it's worth 
the money being charged.

Thinking that (say) Microsoft should release their entire OS under the same 
terms as the BSD TCP stack is silly. They wouldn't have used it at all if 
that was the case.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> >  You're invoking an analogy using a *closed* model and realizing that
> > what the gcc folks are doing is the same - all the while being GPL.

Which means free for *use* by anyone and for *modifications or forming larger
works* by anyone willing to comply with the GPL, which says you shouldn't deny
other persons the same freedom given to you.

> Betty wants to improve Alice's code. Her only choice is to release her
> improvements as GPL as well.

Jim already commented on this one.

> Say Yvonne builds some significant functionality that costs more money than
> Yvonne is willing to give away. Yvonne would like to spend one million
> dollars developing some software, then sell it for $10 each to 100,000
> people. Yvonne can do this. Betty can't.

Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
are doing.

> (That's why commercial game companies, for example, don't use GPLed game
> libraries. It's cheaper to rewrite the libraries from scratch than to give
> away the game when you're done.)

I've always said rewriting from scratch is an option.  Those guys just do it
instead of whine endlessly on the GPL.

> I suspect large projects that aren't useful to individual programmers will
> very rarely be spontaneously developed under the GPL.

Well, if it pleases you, I don't feel an urge to write SAP from scratch be it
under GPL, MIT or a 1 million dollar contract.

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> GPL was always a closed model of freedom.
>> Somehow, a "closed model of freedom" sounds like "less free" to me. :-)
> 
> It's free for other free software.  Which is good enough in my book.

Well, if you're going to start redefining the meaning of the word "free" and 
not use FSF's definition, then it's going to make for a very confusing 
conversation.

If by "free software" you mean "software that's GPL-compatible", you're just 
begging the question.

> IBM, RedHat, Novell are all major contributors of GPL'd
> Linux-related software.  How many big enterprises contribute code to the *BSDs

I don't know. You tell me. It's your assertion.

As far as I can tell, much of the work in Linux was done by AT&T in 
designing the whole system, and BSD in setting up the APIs that make 
internet sockets work well, and commercial companies in donating time and 
effort to create IETF and W3C standards.

The actual code itself is pretty small stuff, easily reproduced.

How much did CERN contribute to WWW compared to, say, Mozilla? How much did 
MS contribute by inventing XMLHTTP, compared to the coders who implemented 
it in firefox?

> The GPL levels the playing field, the playground where everyone are children.

And by disregarding the players who aren't children, you're again begging 
the question.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message