iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[Chad Leigh]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 1:39 AM, Anthony Morton wrote:

>
>> You totally misunderstood my point.  This is not "open source"  
>> versus "proprietary", this is GPL versus more free OSS licenses.
>
> Actually, I'm pretty agnostic about OSS licences in general.  What  
> I was responding to was the idea that the GPL has no right to exist  
> at all and that people who release software under the GPL are  
> somehow 'communist' compared with those who use other OSS  
> licences.  So I pointed out that in a world without the GPL, it's  
> conceivable that some open-source versus closed-source decisions  
> for what is now open-source software might have come down in favour  
> of closed-source instead.

In no case is this true.  Other style licenses cannot compel the  
original project to go closed source if someone uses it or  
incorporates it into another project, whether open or closed source.

>
>>> So a GPL-style licence works as a kind of patent, that allows  
>>> others to benefit from your stuff while you retain control over  
>>> your IP.
>>
>> No you don't. They can fork it and do with it whatever they want.   
>> They have to make the result GPL but you don't have control over it.
>
> You have control in the sense that you can always take their  
> improved code and merge it back into your project.

That is not control.  It could be helpful, but is not control.

>
>> Some people find a great advantage to contributing source code,  
>> others rather keep it proprietary.  That is their prerogative.
>
> Of course.  But the GPL offers one more option to those who are of  
> a mind to keep their code proprietary but might experiment with  
> open-source if they can retain some control.

I am not advocating governmental abolishment of the GPL.  I am just  
saying that the GPL is not an ideal license and is not about freedom  
but rather control.  It encourages the planned economy style of project.

>
>> The GPL is "communistic" in that it tries to exert control over MY  
>> IP if I happen to build on other's shoulders (who submitted their  
>> work to be used by others, not stolen).
>
> But if the alternative is that those others don't publish their  
> code at all, it's a moot point.  You don't have any work by others  
> on which to base your IP, and you'll have to develop it from  
> scratch, in which case you can do what you like with it.

Does not change the GPL

>
>> True free software licenses don't do that.   GPL us RMS's wet  
>> dream come true for his control freak ideology while others work  
>> on truly free software like the BSD licensed stuff.
>
> I'm reluctant to buy into arguments about what is and isn't 'free  
> software', and I can see that BSD licensed software is 'free' in  
> ways that GPL software isn't and vice versa.  And I don't  
> necessarily see any merit in the FSF-vs-iPhone stuff.  At the same  
> time, if the FSF had operated as a closed shop instead of  
> publishing all their code they could hardly be less control- 
> freakish than they are,

I am sorry to be so dense but this last sentence I don't grok.  Must  
be the late hours.

> and yet they'd just be behaving like a typical software company.
>

And behaving like a typical software company is bad, how?  Most of  
the software most of us use came from one or more "typical software  
company."


> And of course, if I were a commercial developer looking for code on  
> which to base my own software project I'd be much happier if it  
> were BSD licensed than GPL'd.  But ultimately it's the original  
> developer's right to choose which licence to use.

Never said it wasn't.

My point is not to crusade against the GPL and get the government to  
outlaw it.  It is merely to say that the GPL is not what people think  
it is in terms of fostering innovation and improvement.  Lots of good  
software out there came out under the GPL.  Lots of good software  
came out under BSD or other more-free license.   But history I think  
shows that the software that is not GPL but some other license has  
lead to more innovation and user choice than has the GPL as it has  
inspired others to do new things, to build upon the shoulders of  
those who came before, and give us new and better SW that the GPL has  
not.  OS X is a good example.  Most users of software don't give a  
flying flip about having access to the source code and making changes  
to it.  Some do, but most don't.  They just want the SW to provide  
solutions to their problems.

This is because the non GPL software is more friendly to people  
making a buck off of it which motivates people to do things in ways  
that the GPL, which relies on mostly altruistic behavior, does not.   
Some big companies who provide complete solutions [IBM etc] and/or  
service contracts and some service oriented companies make a buck  
with GPL software by providing complete solutions (sell their HW or  
services) or by providing service/maintenance contracts.  And these  
companies have contributed greatly to GPLed projects like Linux  
(think jfs and xfs from IBM and SGI?).  But these guys are providing  
complete Linux based solutions and have the $ motivation; a path that  
most software developers cannot afford to go down. But in general  
lots of people who could bring out new and wonderful software cannot  
because their base is GPLed.  Again, witness the Linux desktop versus  
OS X.

best
Chad

>
> Tony M.
>