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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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.

Sure. But we're talking about giving back and/or improving society. If the 
code isn't redistributed, there's no advantage or disadvantage of MIT 
license over the GPL license.

But thanks for the note.

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

Ask the people who write video games and are put out of business because 90% 
of the games are pirated.

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

Sure. As do I. But I'm talking about the GPL, and whether it improves or 
hurts the software development system. I'm not whining. I'm trying to have a 
rational discussion. By labeling it as whining, you're simply trying an ad 
homeniem attack, indicating you don't actually have an answer to it.

Yes. They rewrite from scratch. An excellent victory for improving software 
via the GPL. Thanks for showing that.

> 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.

No, but some people obviously do. By dismissing them as unworthy to play in 
your playground, you beg 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

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
> > Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
> > are doing.
>
> Ask the people who write video games and are put out of business because 90%
> of the games are pirated.

Piracy is a problem in Windows environments, as far as I can tell.  How this has
anything to do with this conversation is really beyond me.

> They rewrite from scratch. An excellent victory for improving software
> via the GPL.

GPL can't improve software if it's not chosen in the first place, but it's their
option.

> > 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.
>
> No, but some people obviously do.

Where are they?

> By dismissing them as unworthy to play in
> your playground, you beg the question.

I don't think the GPL would be against a SAP-alike project.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> 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?

No, sorry.  It's just from my point of view.  Linux seems to offers a more
"slick" experience for a desktop user than something as FreeBSD, but of course
this could be due to FreeBSD's main target as a server system.  Or perhaps
simply because there are far more developers behind Linux than FreeBSD or
OpenBSD, despite all the high praises these systems get from a technical
standpoint.  Which begs the question of why.

I assumed it was because the GPL levels the field to the point where people do
not fear their code being used for anything more than free GPL'd software.  But
you may disagree with my point of view.

> > 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?

Indeed.  Of course, we could also speculate how much worse or better, or faster
or slower development would be in the Apache camp had they opted for GPL.
Since you enjoy long-winded speculation, I'll leave that for you as a thought
experiment... :P

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

Funny.  You know that's because MapReduce and BigTable were not GPL'd in the
first place.  They are Google properties, period.

> > 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.

It's not the case of being no longer available, but of being developed on a far
slower pace than GPL'd software.  But I'm really just pulling it out from my
ass.  Just mild speculation from a free desktop user.

> 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.

Fine.  What was the arguing again?

Post a reply to this message

nemesis wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> Why not?  AFAIK, it's exactly what RedHat, Novell and other Linux-based firms
>>> are doing.
>> Ask the people who write video games and are put out of business because 90%
>> of the games are pirated.
> 
> Piracy is a problem in Windows environments, as far as I can tell.  How this has
> anything to do with this conversation is really beyond me.

You asked why someone GPLing their software can't spend $1M on it and sell 
100,000 copies for $10 each like someone using proprietary licenses. Even 
with illegal copying, companies go out of business before making the money 
back they spent, let alone if the license requires them to give it away.

>>> 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.
>> No, but some people obviously do.
> 
> Where are they?

www.sap.com

>> By dismissing them as unworthy to play in
>> your playground, you beg the question.
> 
> I don't think the GPL would be against a SAP-alike project.

No, but it won't happen, because there's not enough revenue in it when you 
spread it around to everyone who will freeload off it.  GPL doesn't prevent 
leeching. It only prevents leeching the *code*.

-- 
   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:
> No, sorry.  It's just from my point of view. 

Actually, that's kind of a shame. I'd think such a study would be valuable 
to society.

I honestly think the GPL is probably a good approach for some types of 
software. I expect something like emacs (as one extreme example) would 
evolve very slowly if people weren't encouraged to give back repeatedly. 
Stuff that programmers and sysadmins use to do their work is ideal for this 
sort of stuff, because the GPL probably helps there. Especially with large 
projects (like compilers and editors and embeddable scripting languages) 
rather than small libraries that just help out the main program.


On the other hand, open-source tax preparation software is unlikely to ever 
go GPL, methinks. People are unlikely to want to use tax software that has 
no sort of warranty, an unbranded tax software is as suspicious to 
authorities as doing it yourself[1], the cost of building your own tax prep 
software compared to understanding someone else's is (I'm guessing) pretty 
equivalent, the user interface is going to be very important (which means 
actual usability tests and such), and it's a cash cow - you can sell the 
same software every year with relatively few changes.


In the third category is stuff like big CAD software (by which I mean stuff 
that'll perhaps even simulate the physics of the car you're driving and so 
on), maybe some kinds of scientific software libraries (protein folding or 
some such), etc. The sort of thing where some company or lab or whatever 
might write the software as part of research, then release it in PD, where 
it can grow with everyone's needs. Like Blender, for example - our output is 
movies, but our tools we can release free, so our future movies benefit from 
others improving our tools. OpenOffice kind of falls into this same 
category, except with a different initial goal. I think in this category 
you're going to see continued competition between GPL software and 
proprietary commercial software, because there's just too many features 
people will want and just too much UI and such. The commercial software will 
have architectures for plug-ins and such so others can output their favorite 
formats or drive their favorite machine tools, and the GPL software will 
continue to have exceptions allowing the result of using the tools to be 
commercially viable.


Of course, good free software can drive commercial software out of business 
(just like pirating commercial software can), but I've never heard of the 
opposite happening. So chances are it's only going to get "more free" as 
time goes on. I already see that it's very difficult to start a new small 
project in an existing environment and make any money on it. I suspect that 
few of the things you see on an iPod (in the apple store) making money would 
make any money on a desktop machine, for example, because the market is so 
saturated. If you expect to make money, you need to be associated with some 
giant company with a huge barrier to entry or risk having people with too 
much time on their hands take your designs and ideas and do just the code 
part and then give it away.



[1] I'm guessing that the IRS is more likely suspicious of individuals doing 
their own tax forms than tax forms coming from large tax preparation 
companies with reputations and deep pockets to protect.
-- 
   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:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> Let's look at a couple of scenarios:
> 
> You're an evil man. ;)

Another couple of thoughts, on the way in which having plug-ins tied to GCC 
output seems strange...

For one: I can hire you to write a plug-in for me, never distribute the 
plug-in, but distribute executable code produced by the plug-in. I can't, 
however, find that you've already anticipated my need, created a proprietary 
plug-in, buy it from you, and distribute the executable output. I actually 
have to hire you *before* you write the plug-in to do that.

For two: I could write a plug-in that does source transformations of various 
kinds, write my source code using that plug-in, compile it, distribute the 
executables *and* source but not the plug-in. I'd be complying with all the 
terms of the licenses, but you'd still not be able to compile the code and 
come up with the executable.

Both of these are predicated on the fact that I can GPL my code and still 
never distribute it if I don't want to. I'm pretty sure that works out.

-- 
   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