iPhone restricts users, GPLv3 frees them

[Charlton Wilbur]

On Jul 2, 2007, at 11:00 PM, LuKreme wrote:

> On 2-Jul-2007, at 06:52, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>> It is impossible to profit from GPL-licensed software directly;
>
> That's pretty much the entire ethos of the GPL.
>
>> you can sell the first copy for as much as you like, but the  
>> purchaser can turn around and *give* the software away, completely  
>> legally.  It is *designed* to do this, and it's foolish to pretend  
>> otherwise.
>
> Who's pretending otherwise?  It's the people who are claiming that  
> the BSD license is "just like GPL, only better" that are pretending.

The people, including the one to whom I replied, who are trying to  
claim that the GPL makes any kind of sense for profit-seeking  
capitalists.

>> Wise people who want to profit from their code directly (and not  
>> from support contracts for their code) don't release it under an  
>> open source license in the first place, or produce a legal hedge  
>> such as MySQL's approach, where the GPL doesn't apply if it's for  
>> commercial redistribution.
>
> Not everyone feels the need to profit from their code.  There are  
> plenty of ways to make money with OSS, it just happens that coding  
> is not, directly, one of them.

This is not in dispute; that's why I included the restrictive clause  
"who want to profit from their code directly."  And it doesn't "just  
happen" that the GPL destroyed the practical ability to sell  
software; that was part of the intent, and as you note, "pretty much  
the entire ethos of the GPL."

On the other hand, and on-topic for this list, Apple makes a great  
deal of money from OSS.  Just not GPL'd OSS.

>> If you want to maintain control over your code, you don't release  
>> it under any open source licence.  Once it's released, you retain  
>> just as much control over the IP with the BSD or MIT license,
>
> That patently false, because the BSD license allows someone to  
> package your code and SELL IT.

Where the GPL somehow prevents this?  I can package GPL code any way  
I like and ask for any price I want for it.  I could, without  
violating the GPL, burn CDs of Fedora Core Linux and sell them for  
$1,500 on eBay.  Nothing prevents me from doing this, or from some  
idiot out there from buying it.  If I include the source code and a  
copy of the GPL, I'm covered.

Of course, it would take a real idiot to *pay* $1500 for a copy of  
Fedora Core Linux when he can download it for the cost of bandwidth  
or buy it on a CD for the cost of the media, but that's beside the  
point.

Also, that aspect of the BSD license is considered a *feature* by its  
proponents -- much the same way that the viral nature of the GPL is  
considered a feature by its proponents.   The demonstration was  
provided by someone else in this thread, and runs like this:

Suppose Joe produces a chunk of code to do something useful, and  
releases it under the BSD license.  Megacorp Inc. takes that code,  
spends a couple thousand dollars of programmer-time to put a pretty  
UI on it, and releases it as an app for $100.

If Joe's code is the valuable part in the eyes of the buyer, and  
Megacorp Inc. hasn't added anything of value, then people can get his  
code for free.  (Nothing Megacorp Inc. did made Joe's original code  
any less free.)

If the UI or the packaging and redistribution is the valuable part in  
the eyes of the buyer, then Megacorp is making the money from it, as  
it should for having done the valuable work.  And had it been  
licensed under the GPL, which intentionally destroys the practial  
ability to sell software, there's no way for Megacorp to recoup the  
money it spent on development, and so Joe's code, had it been GPL'd,  
would have languished in relative obscurity.

There's a direct relationship between licensing terms and the  
difference in usability between OS X and Linux.

>> and the choice of licenses determines how much you control over  
>> other people's IP in the form of works derivative to yours.  The  
>> fact that the FSF has managed to redefine "free" in such a way  
>> that the GPL, with all its restrictions on how subsequent users  
>> may use the licensed code, is considered more "free" than the BSD  
>> or MIT license is a triumph of propaganda over clear thought.
>
> It's because with the GPL it is the CODE that is free, with the BSD/ 
> MIT licenses it is the CODER who is free. The GPL is designed to  
> ensure that the code is always free once designated as free.  It's  
> the only license that does that.  It also ensures that changes tot  
> he code are also FREE and freely available.
>
> It's a huge difference.  Personally, I think I prefer free CODE to  
> free CODERS.

Non-coders frequently do, because it means they get something for  
nothing.  Coders, on the other hand, frequently find that the GPL  
reduces their value to precisely what they can sell their code for.   
My viewpoint on GPL vs. BSD changed when I left college and had to  
support myself from my work.  Without coders, you have no code.

Frankly, this whole thread isn't about whether the GPL or the BSD is  
clearly better.  I don't care whether you like the GPL more; for  
anyone who isn't a coder, and who's happy with the level of usability  
and polish offered by the Linux desktop (or who optimistically  
believes that, contrary to every "year of the Linux desktop" in the  
past decade, *this* will be the year that Linux gets its act together  
and produces a usable desktop), supporting the GPL is a no-brainer.

But I do care about historical revisionism ("the GPL was the first  
open source license"), historical fantasizing ("without the GPL, we'd  
have no open source licenses or open source software today"), and  
outright nuttery (referring to using BSD-licensed code as "theft").   
The historical record does not support the first two assertions, and  
the last assertion doesn't support itself; it *is* possible to be a  
GPL advocate without rewriting history or redefining "theft" and  
"freedom" in GPL-specific terms.

Charlton


-- 
Charlton Wilbur
cwilbur at gmail.com
cwilbur at chromatico.net