[Fsf-friends] Re: ? Is the GPL completely misunderstood?

[Frederick Noronha (FN)]

SUCH views only further the ideology of proprietorial software, while 
confusing the subject and furthering the man-works-for-money-alone idea. 
It also flies in the face of thousands of excellent programmers chosing 
the GPL as their licence of choice.  Perhaps someone needs to be 
countering this. FN

> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 23:07:00 -0800 (PST)
> From: Sukrit D <sd_root@yahoo.com>
> To: little_league@yahoogroups.com
> Cc: Kanhaiya Dalmia <dalmiag@vsnl.net>,
>    Chennai ILUG <ilugc@aero.iitm.ernet.in>
> Subject: [Ilugc] Is the GPL completely misunderstood?
> 
> Is the GPL completely misunderstood? 
> 
> What is the GPL? 
> 
> The GPL, GNU General Public License, is a license
> boilerplate that the FSF, Free Software Foundation,
> has put forward to be adopted by software developers
> that are creating software. The GPL has some
> fundamental flaws that may actually make one wonder if
> people using the GPL license really understand the
> license. 
> 
> First, one must understand that the ideals behind the
> GPL are that software should be 'free', meaning that
> you should be able to buy it, modify it, redistribute
> it, support it, etc. Many people, myself included,
> didn't really understand the license agreement and it
> is obvious that the FSF must get dozens of questions
> like that because they hide behind a boilerplate link
> to a page on their site. 
> 
> Therein lies one major hurdle. Another problem is that
> many people are under the impression that if it is
> GPL, the software should carry no cost. The FSF says
> that nothing could be further from the truth, however,
> the GPL ingeniously assures this because of its
> distribution clause. The first person to buy an
> application is generously allowed to distribute the
> code and the source, removing any financial incentive
> from original software author. 
> 
> Even the FSF has no idea how to build a business
> around software that is released GPL. I posed that
> question, and their response was fuzzy and vague. It
> was suggested that I run a different division to fund
> the software development division. As a business
> owner, why run a division that is a cost center if it
> isn't needed. 
> 
> With that in mind, lets consider a few scenarios
> dealing with GPL software. The FSF clearly states that
> someone can charge whatever amount they want for
> software and the source code. So, you take a contract
> with a company to develop software, do the right thing
> and release it GPL. You sell it to your client for
> $500, thinking, I spent dozens of hours writing this,
> I'll put a reasonable cost on there so that I can
> resell hundreds of them. 
> 
> Fair enough. 
> 
> But, what happens if I, as a client, buy your software
> along with the source and decide, hey, this is good
> stuff, let me sell it for $100 and flood the market.
> What happens to your income? It is gone. Someone else
> is making the money off your product -- your efforts.
> Even better, I can decide to distribute the software
> at no cost. And what you have to show for it is a
> license that allows your clients to do precisely that.
> Freedom. 
> 
> Lets analyze the flip side. Lets say that you decide
> to write the software and charge the client for every
> minute of your work. The client ends up with a
> software product that cost them $40000. Now, you
> decide that you want to resell that software. What
> price do you put on it knowing that your next client
> could decide to distribute it? If you cut the price
> too much, the client that paid you to do the
> development won't rehire you since you have given his
> competitor the tools to compete more easily. Companies
> generally dislike funding software development for
> their competitors. 
> 
> How about an idea you have that will revolutionize the
> world. Don't release that under GPL, there is no
> intellectual property protection. Have some secret way
> of doing something that is better than the way it is
> currently being done? Might as well just get rid of
> your competitive edge because the GPL will strip you
> of any rights you might have to that. 
> 
> See, the GPL in its Marxist form is a fine thought,
> but what does it really do? 
> 
> The GPL creates hundreds of software products that are
> mimic's of their commercial counterpart, many of which
> are poor imitations. Yes, I know, the market is new
> and there are years of existing software development
> to catch up with. But, most of these software
> developers have a job and do this as a hobby or are
> paid by a company to write software released under the
> GPL. But what have we done? We've turned over
> development to armchair developers. This isn't to say
> that there aren't good software projects developed
> under GPL, but they are in the minority. 
> 
> Without singling out any application, there is a
> software package that makes it truly evident that the
> programmers have no concept what the finished product
> is supposed to do or what the program they are
> mimicing actually does. It appears as if they have
> gotten together to develop a product to mimic a
> Microsoft product, pushed all of the buttons to see
> what the results are, and tried to imitate the
> actions. Push a button and see no visible result? Who
> knows how that button is supposed to work. We'll leave
> it in, but there's no code behind it. There is a lot
> of software that mimic's Microsoft, and yet, time
> after time, these are the same people that complain
> about Microsoft and what they do wrong. Then, to top
> it off, since they released it GPL, they ask for
> donations. Wait? Can't Freedom have a price? 
> 
> These authors don't know that they can charge money
> for their software and still release it GPL. Of
> course, after the first client, it will get
> redistributed at some nominal cost or free. Imagine,
> the first person that needs a program will buy it and
> then post it on the net for people to get without
> cost. Almost no different than the Commercial software
> market as it exists today. Ok, chalk up one licensed
> user that paid for the software. Authors ask for
> donations or have service contracts. Some applications
> are decidedly cryptic just so you have to buy the
> service contract or installation help. Why? Because
> the author needs to make some money for their efforts
> and have a financial reward that justifies the
> continued development of the project. 
> 
> Most of the people writing GPL software probably have
> never read the license. How can you expect them to?
> Everyone is told to slap the boilerplate agreement at
> the top because 'GPL good, other license bad,' but how
> many people that use the license have actually read
> it? 
> 
> The GPL has created a dearth of poorly conceived,
> poorly maintained, poorly written software. There are
> also quite a few good GPL applications. Suffice it to
> say, that most of the applications that are good and
> are GPL usually have corporate roots. I surmise that
> most of the companies releasing software under the GPL
> are not releasing their code under the GPL for the
> right reasons. 
> 
> The people that slam Microsoft for all that it is are
> the same ones mimicing Microsoft's applications.
> Certain applications are designed specifically to look
> like Microsoft, which is the sincerest form of
> flattery. Yet, people slam Microsoft because they
> don't innovate. Well, look at most of the GPL software
> that mimic's what is out there already? Where is the
> innovation in that? That's what I thought. 
> 
> I don't have a problem with the GPL -- it just doesn't
> happen to be my license of choice. I evaluated the
> licenses and felt that the GPL didn't protect me or my
> clients well enough. Most of the code my company
> produces is released under an Open Source license.
> Open Source I don't mind. Draconian terms and
> conditions that sacrifice my rights as an author, or
> my clients rights, or make it easy for people to avoid
> compensating me for my efforts is where I have a
> problem. 
> 
> <Sarcasm>
> Unlike most GPL software authors, I am not
> independently wealthy. I don't have a trust fund
> handing me money every month. I don't have a rich
> family writing a check to keep me locked away in a
> basement churning out code. I don't have a fellowship
> with an educational institution or sponsorship from a
> big corporation so that I jet around the world
> espousing the ideals, writing and releasing code under
> the GPL.
> </Sarcasm> 
> 
> If you develop software that allows someone to make
> millions of dollars from your efforts, why should you
> not be entitled to some of that money? What if you
> write the next killer ap, distribute it, someone else
> finds a VC, gets capital, goes public, gets rich --
> all on your idea? Notoriety is fine, but your bank
> doesn't accept that when you are paying your mortgage.
> 
> 
> In short, I don't believe the GPL serves the software
> development community in the best possible manner. By
> virtue, it eliminates financial motivation from those
> writing software and drives those development costs on
> existing industry. You may volunteer your time, but
> your employer ultimately finances your ability to have
> the time to write that code. Who really carries the
> true development cost of the software? 
> 
> If you want the dream of Linux on the desktop to take
> off more quickly, take the time to explain how a
> company developing GPL software can protect itself and
> earn money to pay its programmers and support staff.
> If you work for a company writing GPL software, take
> some time to think where your salary ultimately comes
> from. Help develop a business plan to allow companies
> to develop software and release the products under an
> Open Source license that ensures the viability of the
> company. If you want 
> 
> Next time you write an application, give some thought
> to your licensing. A good place to start reading the
> different licenses is Open Source.Org. 
> 
> --Chris 
> 
> http://daviesinc.com/gpl.rxml
> 
> __________________________________________________
> 

-- 
Frederick Noronha    : http://www.fredericknoronha.net  : When we speak of free
Freelance Journalist : http://www.bytesforall.org       : software we refer to
Ph 0091.832.2409490  : Cell 0 9822 122436               : freedom, not price.