Do you agree with this view on the GPL?

[laxmanb]

http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=3459

This is an old news item about Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz's views on the GPL... Sun may have done a u-turn on their GPL strategy since then, but I do agree that to developing countries IP is very important...

what are your views about IP and GPL in this context??

[saulgoode]

Let's compare the two...

Commercial Proprietary License - users

People in developing countries must pay money to use the software and are forbidden to modify it in any way (say, for example, they wished to translate the menus into their own language).

GNU Public License - users

People in developing countries can use the software without paying anything and are free to make whatever changes they wish to the software.

Commercial Proprietary License - programmers

Programmers in developing countries are free to market their software however they wish. They will have to pay money if their software wishes to use code from others.

GPL - programmers

Programmers in developing countries are free to market their software however they wish (the GPL does not prevent them from doing so). HOWEVER, if they decide they could benefit from using some GPLed code in their project, they are not forced to pay any money; they just have to extend those same benefits to others.

----

Programmers who release their code under the GPL have just as much right to demand compensation for their "intellectual property" as those who write "CPL" software. GPL offers an option whereby that compensation does not have to be in dollars (or lira, or rupees, or zotls). Seems to me that GPL code would be a perfect fit for countries which have vast human resources yet are not monetarily wealthy.

GPL software is not public domain. But nor does the licensing impose any restriction on those who would not use it. It actually doesn't impose any restriction on those who would use it; the only restrictions are upon those who would "market" it as their own. How can such a thing be considered a threat to anyone but those who wish to steal the "intellectual property" of the GPL programmers?

[Tomosaur]

I find this bit hilarious:

He took a swipe at the GPL's creators, implying they are more interested in social economic ideals than "intellectual property models".

I'm not a GPL creator - but I am proud of the fact that I'm more interested in social economic ideals than "intellectual property models". If that's the best criticism he can come up with, then I think the GPL has won the battle already.

Money is immensely boring - I find it much more interesting to help people improve their knowledge, their quality of life, and to ingrain the idea of freedom and sharing into the human mind.

[laxmanb]

I live in India, which I consider a developing country... I don't see a lot of ways in which free software has achieved those socio-economic ideals..

Every person I know who had a computer with Linux preinstalled got a pirated copy of MS Windows instead... The skill set required to geta job as a secretary still involve MS Office(that's pirated too... unless you're a largish corporation). When you hear about the poor getting free computers here, it's still some large company giving away free computers with MS Windows/Office installed...

In the end, it is the corporate world that uses GPLed code for profit...

The benefit IBM, Oracle & Red Hat get from Linux is really much larger than the way GPLed software benefits poorer people... Translations is do agree with, but I do find the GPL's view on software patents a bit TOO strong... I was reading the FSF's comments about CDDL today:



Also unfortunate in the CDDL is its use of the term "intellectual property".

why is it unfortunate??

and yes, Money may be boring to you, but it makes the world go round, and I'm sure programmers in developing countries would love to get paid for their code... I know I would...

[Tomosaur]

I live in India, which I consider a developing country... I don't see a lot of ways in which free software has achieved those socio-economic ideals..

Every person I know who had a computer with Linux preinstalled got a pirated copy of MS Windows instead... The skill set required to geta job as a secretary still involve MS Office(that's pirated too... unless you're a largish corporation). When you hear about the poor getting free computers here, it's still some large company giving away free computers with MS Windows/Office installed...

In the end, it is the corporate world that uses GPLed code for profit...

The benefit IBM, Oracle & Red Hat get from Linux is really much larger than the way GPLed software benefits poorer people... Translations is do agree with, but I do find the GPL's view on software patents a bit TOO strong... I was reading the FSF's comments about CDDL today:



why is it unfortunate??

and yes, Money may be boring to you, but it makes the world go round, and I'm sure programmers in developing countries would love to get paid for their code... I know I would...

Money makes the world go round yes, but I would prefer a world where this wasn't the case. You don't get anywhere by just accepting something and saying 'ho hum', do you? The reason you don't see a change (yet) is because, as you say, big corporations are still ruling the roost. FOSS is still relatively new - capitalism has been ingrained into the human 'way of things' for hundreds and hundreds of years. I don't want to live in a world with a post code lottery, as it were. I don't accept for one minute that someone who lives in India, for example, should have less oppurtunities or less services, or a lower quality of life, or whatever - just because, by sheer chance, they won't born into a wealthy family in a wealthy nation. I'm not 'against' money, but I am definately against the current system - where if you're born in a poor country, then you will invariably have less oppurtunities to follow your interests - or where you're not allowed to develop a new and revolutionary product because it makes use a component from some already existing, patented product. The world we live in right now is absolutely ridiculous, unfair, and slanted towards a very, very small proportion of the global population. Doesn't that strike you as odd?

[laxmanb]

It is odd... but hey, that's life...

and hey, it isn't like socialism/communism are/were huge successes either...

And you could draw an analogy between communism & GPL... both have similar ideals, but really the only benefit goes to the big fat dictator at the top and his cronies...

[Tomosaur]

It is odd... but hey, that's life...

and hey, it isn't like socialism/communism are/were huge successes either...

That's my point: I don't think it SHOULD be life. I'm not prepared to accept it. If you're happy to, then that's your choice.

Communism has never really 'existed', so that argument goes out the window. When you think of say, Russia, or China - you're not thinking of communism. You're thinking of very strict suppression, nationalism, fascism. That is not communism. Communist societies don't currently work well - because communism requires every single nation on earth to be communist (and also for countries and boundaries to cease existing). You can't have a communist society which depends on outside influence, it's all or nothing. It would be impossible for a single nation to exist as a communist one and to enjoy all of the benefits and technology that capitalist nations currently do - because no one country on earth has all of the resources necessary to do so. A successful communist nation (if we're defining success as the ability to develop new technology and to improve living conditions etc etc) needs to encompass the entire planet - to have access to the resources such things require. If a communist nation is isolated - then it needs to seek outside help to develop, and this will always lead to failure, because capitalism and communism are incompatible.

As for socialism - I don't see how it hasn't been successful. Socialism is not an economic theory - it is, well, a social one. If anything, socialism has been very successful. It is inhibited and distorted by capitalism, which socialism doesn't really attempt to change, or even have a theory about. The treatment of other people in a humane and dignified way has nothing to do with making money. Capitalism is AFFECTED by Socialism, and vice versa, but Socialism does not seek to destroy capitalism. Capitlism engenders a need for socialism - because capitalism requires a heirarchy of wealth and oppurtunities - those at the lower end of the pyramid have less oppurtunities and a lower standard of life than those at the top. Socialism is about regulating the balance - to ensure that the standards at the bottom are humane enough to not harm the people at that level physically or mentally. There's nothing 'anti-capitalist' about that - it's just basic human decency. Socalism doesn't seek to make rich people poor, or to grant poor people all of the benefits of the rich. It's purpose is to make sure that the poorest people aren't being treated in a bad way, and to ensure that the ladders towards the top of the pyramid are accessible to all humans, regardless of race or creed. It's not an economic theory.

EDIT: As to your GPL/Communism comparison - don't be ridiculous. The GPL does not seek, at all, to stop people making money. It is quite possible to create propietary software using the GPL - it stipulates that the source code must be distributed with the binary, or at least available in the same manner. This does not mean that the source code is available to all and sundry. If you don't want to give your code to people who don't buy your software - then that is your choice. You MUST give the people who DO buy your software, free reign to modify it to suit their needs. The GPL is about end user freedom rather than giving stuff away. To compare it to communism is pathetic. I don't see Linus Torvalds or Richard Stallman swanning about in clothes made of silk, living in houses made of gold, and eating caviar from the beak of a swan, do you? Exactly who are the big fat dictators? Big companies can use the GPL - and they shouldn't be chastised for doing so. As long as they keep to the requirements of the licence, then there's no problem. Very few people concern themselves with companies 'stealing code'. As long as they keep the code they use open, then everybody's happy. The cases where a company steals GPLd code and locks it away are very, very few.

[laxmanb]

Well... Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman between their talks around the world ( for which they are paid handsomely, i suppose... ) have earned a lot of money. Linus Torvalds is really the most overpaid kernel programmer in the world...

And hey, i don't see Kim Jong II swanning about in clothes made of silk, living in houses made of gold, and eating caviar from the beak of a swan either...

and really, the comparision is exaggerated and I guess it's just my view... but big companies are really the ones getting maximum profit from GPL...

[prizrak]

I disagree because GPL works both ways. Developing countries can use GPL'ed technology from developed countries as well. Basically it equalizes the inequalities.

[Tomosaur]

Well... Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman between their talks around the world ( for which they are paid handsomely, i suppose... ) have earned a lot of money. Linus Torvalds is really the most overpaid kernel programmer in the world...

RMS and Torvalds have actually done a vast amount of work and development - it's not like they're sitting around getting credit of other's work. RMS wrote a lot of the original GNU stuff entirely on his own before the GPL even existed - while Linus wrote the very first version of the kernel on his own too, before other people started jumping on board. You've picked two very poor examples here - both of these guys have done a lot of hard work, and they're highly respected people within the GNU\Linux and general FOSS world. They get paid because people want to hear them - they're very intelligent and knowledgeable people, they're very well known, and they can answer many of the questions put to them. It sounds like you have an objection to public speaking, rather than to the GPL. Both of them would be highly respected people if the GPL didn't even exist.




And hey, i don't see Kim Jong II swanning about in clothes made of silk, living in houses made of gold, and eating caviar from the beak of a swan either...
Kim Jong Il is a fascist dictator who oppresses the people and enjoys the luxuries of capitalist countries while extolling the virtues of capitalism and murdering, or otherwise harming, the people who dare to point out his hypocrisy. I would say that is close enough to the example.



and really, the comparision is exaggerated and I guess it's just my view... but big companies are really the one's getting maximum profit from GPL...

I guess you're non-existant then, as are the millions of people who don't work for big companies, but enjoy the benefits of the GPL? There's nothing wrong with big companies making money - that is more or less the point of being a company. They profit, mostly, by selling support and services - not by taking advantage of the GPL. Very few of the well known 'open-source' companies sell products. They sell services. This is not taking advantage of the developers. If you're so insistent on arguing that companies are taking advantage of GPL developers, you could at least provide some examples. Those companies which do use GPL code in their products are putting as much as they take (and in many cases, more) back in to the loop. A greater range of products and software is beneficial, regardless of who actually wrote the code. If I write a piece of software - I can choose to include some GPL code. As long as I put my new product back into the GPL pool, then what's the problem? I'm not losing out, nor are the GPL developers - because to use the GPL, you need to AGREE with it. Nobody is going to slap a licence on their code if they don't agree with it, are they? The cases where a company takes GPL code and locks it away are, as I've already said, very, very few. It is POSSIBLE that it is widespread - but because it's closed source software, it's very difficult to prove. It is as much about trust as it is money. You don't put your code under the GPL if you don't want someone else to use it - it's just as simple as that.

[laxmanb]

A. The comments about Richard Stallman and Linus Torvlads were there because you specifically mentioned them...

B. Yeah, Kim Jong Il is bad... no debates needed about that

C. Really... my problem isn't again FOSS in general, I love FOSS... it's just that the FSF seem to have a very strong aversion to words like 'intellectual property' ... I really don't know why and it just seems like stupid...

[Tomosaur]

A. The comments about Richard Stallman and Linus Torvlads were there because you specifically mentioned them...

Yes, to point out that they're not making immense wealth through the hard work of others. You said 'they get lots of money from public speaking' - to which I pointed out that the reason they are requested to guest at these talks is because they are widely respected, regardless of the GPL. The GPL has increased popularity of the two, yes - but without the GPL, they would STILL be very experienced people, and they would STILL have done great things for open-source. GNU software, and the Linux Kernel, existed before the GPL. Both men were well known within their respective areas, before the GPL came along. They would STILL be getting paid to give talks about GNU software, or the Linux kernel development, regardless of whether the GPL existed or not. The frequency of these talks, and thus the money they may or may not earn from them, has improved because the GPL is so successful - but to say that they're profiting from the work of others is to miss the point completely.



B. Yeah, Kim Jong Il is bad... no debates needed about that

Good :P



C. Really... my problem isn't again FOSS in general, I love FOSS... it's just that the FSF seem to have a very strong aversion to words like 'intellectual property' ... I really don't know why and it just seems like stupid...

As I've explained earlier - many proponents of FOSS are against things like intellectual property and patents because they skew the balance of wealth and power towards the already wealthy and powerful, and because they stop 'the little guy' from ever improving his lot in life. It has very little do with software, it is about principle, fairness, and human decency. If you hold a patent - you receive royalties on work you didn't have direct input into. People are reluctant to innovate, because it means paying a third party for indirect input. If two people exchange an idea, then they each have two ideas - but if two people exchange apples, then they each still have one apple. Intellectual property takes ideas and converts them into apples, and this is, in the opinion of many FOSS proponents, absolutely wrong, and it shouldn't be allowed. Software just happens to be an area where ideas and apples are more or less one and the same. By locking away source code, you're locking away ideas, not products. If you bake a cake, are you really going to tell me 'you can never use the ingredients that I used to make this cake, without paying me'. What if I don't want your particular cake, but I want a cake which uses some of the same ingredients? I can never make any cake, because they have common components! That is an absolutely ridiculous approach to anything, but that is what is happening to software, and that is what the GPL, and the whole open-source philosophy, is trying to change. Closed source software is incompatible with other closed source software - but GPL software is compatible with everything - because nobody is going to sue you for using drop down menus in your interface, just as nobody is going to sue you for using flour in your cake.

[laxmanb]

Thanks Tomosaur... it makes *some* sense to me now... It's always good to take the viewpoints of others when you don't have all the facts... it's 1 am here and I am extremely sleepy anywayz...

[Tomosaur]

Thanks Tomosaur... it makes *some* sense to me now... It's always good to take the viewpoints of others when you don't have all the facts... it's 1 am here and I am extremely sleepy anywayz...

Haha no worries - I wasn't trying to annoy you or anything, I just like talking about this kind of thing (possibly too much? :popcorn: :) ). Have a good sleep anyway :)

[deanlinkous]

I find it much more interesting to help people improve their knowledge, their quality of life, and to ingrain the idea of freedom and sharing into the human mind.
NICE! TRUE progress!

I think 'money' is the dumbest thing/idea we have ever came up with. Just the fact that so many cannot get beyond ALWAYS thinking in terms of money has to be proof of that.