Gates hates the GPL, fails to understand it

[vexorian]

So, what do you know? I actually tried posting this in recurring discussions, anyways thought people might find it interesting:


“there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”

Open source, he said, creates a license “so that nobody can ever improve the software,” he claimed, bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and business. (Yes, Linux fans, we’re aware of how distorted this definition is.) He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: “I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them,” he said, adding with a shrug: “That may seem radical.”
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/bill-gates-what.html

[bobbybobington]

I don't blame him, he used to the more established way of development before the internet. A lot of it probably has to do with the fact that we don't know exactly how open-source and closed-source fit in the big picture and how they interact with each other.

[kamaboko]

God forbid anyone wanting to make a living from their hard work.

[jrusso2]

Personally I think there is room for both. And the sooner Linux distros realize this the better it will be for all.

I agree with Linus who said something like Open Source is just a better way of making software, its not the only way.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

Damn, I never thought I would have a real reason to think of Mr. Gates as the one directly harming the software infrastructure. I've been blaming it on Balmer to this point, but I guess this proves otherwise.

Anyway, way off base. Off base to the point of 'he must be using Internet Explorer and Windows One Care, crashing every five minutes and thus unable to actually parse information at even the level of a guinea pig'.

I think the existence of a public library is an interesting analogy here. That idea of a publically funded source of what ammounts to free books for the masses works because books are, like computer software, simply information. Indeed, when in action, the information becomes very deep and useful, but the information in its raw state is simple to duplicate. In the case of a library, the books are obviously not duplicated, but the information is as different people borrow them. The analogy there actually can be directly compared to downloading computer programs, except with a very very slow Internet connection.
That is why libraries work and how software can work. The business style rudely adopted by Microsoft is suited to chainsaws and lawnmowers.

Being that he is one who deals with drug companies, it baffles me that Bill does not see the benefit of an open source license. Something neat happening with software is that reliance is being distributed. Every open source vendor depends on every open source vendor, so one cannot become a single monopolistic ruler of all information here. (Assuming the same restrictions as that a single government on Earth will not one day move its entire population to settle Mars; I doubt a single company will recreate the whole open source stack any time soon).
Drug companies tend to keep their data very secret, and they become reliant on their own secrecy. In essence, that "interoperability" Microsoft is touting right now is clearly crap, given that Gates himself is allowing the drug companies to continue in their uselessly introverted ways.

Having said that, WikiDrugs would be a very, very bad idea.

[Dekkon]

I actually agree with Bill on this. **Hides in corner while being flamed**

I honestly don't understand how a full time open source developer can make a living when he is selling everything he does for free. I like open source but I think there should be a medium between closed source and open source. Some things just fit into the closed source picture.

I could careless if my drivers are closed source, aslong as they work; 90% of the people won't care. If my proticals for my applications like mail server are open and usable then its fits and everybody is happy.

[smartboyathome]

I actually agree with Bill on this. **Hides in corner while being flamed**

I honestly don't understand how a full time open source developer can make a living when he is selling everything he does for free. I like open source but I think there should be a medium between closed source and open source. Some things just fit into the closed source picture.

I could careless if my drivers are closed source, aslong as they work; 90% of the people won't care. If my proticals for my applications like mail server are open and usable then its fits and everybody is happy.

You can sell services, and you can sell binaries of your program. I find that licensing programs as open source is better for small companies or individuals who will probably not keep up their software for a long while. Someone else could take the program and improve it, make it better, by adding to the source code. By contrast, proprietary code requires that only one company develop it, and that company has to add your feature, or else switch to a different program and hope it is easy to learn and does everything you want. While drivers don't matter as much whether they are open or closed, when it comes to sftware it does help. If one wants to make money off their software, you can offer services with the software (which is what Novell and Red Hat do, by the way), or proprietary "add ons" which you can sell.

EDIT: I am not surprised that Bill doesn't get it. He has had a rough history with the hobbyist movement. Watch the movie "Revolution OS" sometime (at least the beginning). It reveals a letter Bill writes himself.

[swoll1980]

Personally I think there is room for both. And the sooner Linux distros realize this the better it will be for all.

I agree with Linus who said something like Open Source is just a better way of making software, its not the only way.

+1

[lancest]

If you read Richard Stallman you will see that he does not object to developers charging money to sell software. However he believes developers are responsible for opening the code at the same time and allowing changes to it.
People and companies who write free software have a lot to gain by doing so. For instance they can take credit for their work and offer customized versions. Skilled Open Source developers won't starve giving away software because they are already likely employed. Also there is no rule that should guarantee anyone a job in software development just because they can write code.
For instance a French doctor wrote drivers for hundreds of Chinese Webcams. Waiters, Hotel workers, and others can write code too if they have the interest.

[swoll1980]

I actually agree with Bill on this. **Hides in corner while being flamed**

I honestly don't understand how a full time open source developer can make a living when he is selling everything he does for free. I like open source but I think there should be a medium between closed source and open source. Some things just fit into the closed source picture.

I could careless if my drivers are closed source, aslong as they work; 90% of the people won't care. If my proticals for my applications like mail server are open and usable then its fits and everybody is happy.

they get paid the same way the MS Devs do.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I actually agree with Bill on this. **Hides in corner while being flamed**

I honestly don't understand how a full time open source developer can make a living when he is selling everything he does for free. I like open source but I think there should be a medium between closed source and open source. Some things just fit into the closed source picture.

I could careless if my drivers are closed source, aslong as they work; 90% of the people won't care. If my proticals for my applications like mail server are open and usable then its fits and everybody is happy.

People like Bill should look around before jumping to conclusions on that. Open source developers earn money on things that are not strictly duplicated information. Online services, the actual creation of information, support (not just "how may I help you today" tech support, but for example creating templates for customers), supporting media, are all possible cash flows. Some earn money off add-on media, and others on less important extra software like games or "fun things".

Lots of legacy software in Linux has benefited from being open source. Actually, you'll notice there is hardly any legacy software anyway, even though a lot of projects are now in entirely different hands than before. (Tintin++, as a quick example from the top of my head, was originally created a long time ago and continues to be built upon by a different maintainer; I added it to DSLinux a while ago and it is still being magically built to fit with its kernel changes). Indeed, that is because projects move hands instead of disappearing.

Open source is important for a software platform, but after that it is definitely fair game, with whether it's beneficial being a per-case thing. (Commercial support services for games? No).
Why do it? Because good software needs a good platform. Red Hat is extremely profitable and builds that platform; they are a business; they sell a Linux distro and they make money from it. Defeating those is not what open source or even the GPL is about. The reason people believe businesses can work differently (and well) here is because businesses on this landscape can never be black boxes. Dependencies form between them as they naturally work off each-other's work, which with open source has given us a surprising result: This is not an endless battle as people are used to seeing with Microsoft or Electronic Arts. Though all the connections would try to suggest otherwise, there is not a cold war, because every link matters in this equation. If existing software developed under a different company can be used for something, there is a good chance it will be used, even if some small modifications are needed. If it is useless for that task, something new will be built, and it will not directly compete because that objective is known.


Edit:
Oh no, it's a monster! Sorry for the incoherent jumble of words up there. I should really clean that up, but I am already in my pajamas...

[SoulinEther]

Edit:
Oh no, it's a monster! Sorry for the incoherent jumble of words up there. I should really clean that up, but I am already in my pajamas...
So far I agree with everything you have said... and if thats a monster, what does that make my 3-page-in-OO.org post I made a few hours ago... a planet on collision course? :)

[jespdj]

God forbid anyone wanting to make a living from their hard work.
And that's exactly what the GPL is not about - if you think it is, then you fail to understand the GPL in the exact same way as mr. Gates.

The GPL does not say that you can't make any money by writing software.

[SuperSon!c]

So, what do you know? I actually tried posting this in recurring discussions, anyways thought people might find it interesting:


http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/bill-gates-what.html

can you point out where Bill "hates" the GPL? not finding it.

[klange]

And that's exactly what the GPL is not about - if you think it is, then you fail to understand the GPL in the exact same way as mr. Gates.

The GPL does not say that you can't make any money by writing software.
Indeed. Hell, GNU encourages you to sell your GPL'd programs for cash.

[vexorian]

can you point out where Bill "hates" the GPL? not finding it.

It's implicit.

--
Perhaps Bill is just in denial and he'll rather not believe things like the Mozilla foundation exist.

[amar]

Open source, he said, creates a license "so that nobody can ever improve the software

When was the last time a microsoft licence let anyone improve their software?

[aimran]

Give free software, get free software.

[Washer]

You guys horribly underestimate him. He's very smart & has had years to get up to speed. Someone of his intelligence looking at some linux vendor for 1 month will get it. He's just FUDing.

[Blue Heron]

Bill is out of office.

Bill takes care of African children with illnesses.

[Sporkman]

Bill Gates:

One of the most influential men in the history of computing. Built a company that brought usable home computers to the masses. Became the worlds richest man. Retired to a life of leisure and philanthropy. Will be remembered for ages in the history books.

Game over. Winner: Bill Gates. :)

[SuperSon!c]

It's implicit.

--
Perhaps Bill is just in denial and he'll rather not believe things like the Mozilla foundation exist.

it's not even that.

[vexorian]

You guys horribly underestimate him. He's very smart & has had years to get up to speed. Someone of his intelligence looking at some linux vendor for 1 month will get it. He's just FUDing.

Never attribute to malice what...

[Kernel Sanders]

Make no mistake, Bill understands the GPL *VERY* well. In that example he is deliberately spreading fud.

You don't get to where he has by being a bit "slow".

[vexorian]

I actually agree with Bill on this. **Hides in corner while being flamed**


I honestly don't understand how a full time open source developer can make a living when he is selling everything he does for free. I like open source but I think there should be a medium between closed source and open source. Some things just fit into the closed source picture.

Some developers are paid with money by big companies like red hat , some aren't . What drives these developers to contributing to FOSS , is not that they are being forced into starvation by evil open source people that doesn't want to pay them, it is not charity either. They just code and give the code to the public, why could it be?

- Some are actually users as well, so if they get this bug they are also improving their own software tool set.
- Some devs would do it for learning purposes, they want to submit patches as practice.
- Some just want to prove their ideas in real life scenarios.
- Some were checking the code out of curiosity and couldn't stand a bug they saw, they just fixed

Anyways, a lot of times it is case #1, you are a company or individual interested in using this certain software that comes free of cost, unfortunately for you, it doesn't fulfill all your needs. Though making your own from scratch would be a huge waste of resources. It is easier to just modify the one available. Things like the GPL are there to ensure that if someone exploits this benefit he shares it to the rest and thus you get what apparently looks like developers working for free.

That's the reason behind developers doing patches and joining projects for free, but what about the guy who makes the software, why would he use a FOSS license? As a matter of fact, I did multiple times, here are my reasons:

1. For the above mentioned reasons, if you are lucky enough someone else will do improvements and fixes to your own project and save you time.
2. I think that if I lose my project or drop it, it will still be possible for other people to support it and continue it.
3. It makes finding hosting very easy :)




I could careless if my drivers are closed source, aslong as they work; 90% of the people won't care.
90% of the people are not pragmatic enough to seeing the dangers of proprietary freebies then.

[drascus]

wow no wonder why Microsoft is the way it is. He is totally clueless when it comes to innovation and the importance of community.

[Washer]

Open source, he said, creates a license 'so that nobody can ever improve the software'This isn't cluelessness. This is contempt for your audience. He thinks the PHBs are so stupid he can say a blatant lie & get away with it.

He's probably right.

[karellen]

Personally I think there is room for both. And the sooner Linux distros realize this the better it will be for all.

I agree with Linus who said something like Open Source is just a better way of making software, its not the only way.

+2

[klange]

The reason Bill is saying that the GPL does not allow users to improve software is because the only thing he considers improvement is refusing to release the source code and forcing everyone to pay money for it.

[akiratheoni]

Guys, let's chant together:

Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.
Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.
Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.
Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.
Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.
Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.
Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.
Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.

[Washer]

The reason Bill is saying that the GPL does not allow users to improve software is because the only thing he considers improvement is refusing to release the source code and forcing everyone to pay money for it.

Even if that's what he meant -and it's a stretch- .... you couldn't make a proprietary modification of windows either if you had the source, which you don't.

[ubuntu-freak]

If GPL software doesn't improve, why is it improving? Why is ext3 better than NTFS? Why did IE take so long to adopt tabbed browsing? Why do MS try to hinder GPL if GPL is no threat to them?

Nathan

[SuperSon!c]

Why did IE take so long to adopt tabbed browsing?


that has zero to do with open source. firefox did not come up with the idea for tabs in a browser.

[lancest]

Further smugness:

Steve Wozniak "Those Open Source guys are trying to take away what we built".

[Mr. Picklesworth]

It's not a far stretch to put open source into a crazy analogy with the Robin Hood idea; thieving from the rich for the sake of the poor. Here's a brain-scratcher: Given the growing presence of "the poor" at the moment, how is that a bad thing? That plan always seemed sustainable to me; once the rich are driven back far enough, the poor have enough stuff to balance it all out. With the rich no longer plundering them, everything works out happily in the end. Ideally.

Darn, I didn't know Woz said something like that. Ah well, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Don't ruin it for me :P

Back to Bill, I like some of the thoughts here. His success in computers was entirely thanks to a clever and well executed business strategy, with innovation being something not really driven by Microsoft per se, but by the independent software developers they have been clever enough to eat. With that in mind, I think it is pretty amazing that Bill can call another unique and successful business strategy completely unlike his own 'not innovative'. The real "innovation" of Microsoft boils down to a battle plan, just like that of open source software. In terms of the platform, the only major innovations have been open standards (the Interwebs) and from completely independent sources (Google). Anything else has been platform growth, similar in innovative qualities to the universe. (Important, but obvious).

On the thought of business strategies, though, I think we can agree that Microsoft's is very different than that of an open source software vendor, so I see no thievery going on.

[LightB]

Free and Open source does NOT mean free of price. You can still charge for it.

Exactly, not that most open source users really care. The free price is a huge plus. And honestly, I wouldn't consider it their responsibility to care. The commercial software market complaining about open source is a whiny, ridiculous, spoiled rich kid tantrum. Nothing more. The quality of the product will speak for itself, blaming an outside source for their failure to deliver (or to fleece a dumb public) is loathsome.

[ubuntu-freak]

that has zero to do with open source. firefox did not come up with the idea for tabs in a browser.


It has to do with the "improvements" arguement. Also, I didn't even mention Firefox.

Think before you make pointless negative posts.

Nathan

[grannyw]

I actually agree with Bill on this. **Hides in corner while being flamed**

I honestly don't understand how a full time open source developer can make a living when he is selling everything he does for free. I like open source but I think there should be a medium between closed source and open source. Some things just fit into the closed source picture.

I could careless if my drivers are closed source, aslong as they work; 90% of the people won't care. If my proticals for my applications like mail server are open and usable then its fits and everybody is happy.

+1

[SuperSon!c]

It has to do with the "improvements" arguement. Also, I didn't even mention Firefox.

Think before you make pointless negative posts.

Nathan

yes, improvements comparing closed and open source. tabs have nothing to do with anything then. think before you include irrelevant material.

[grannyw]

i've seen website where ubuntu was for sale!!!

[ubuntu-freak]

yes, improvements comparing closed and open source. tabs have nothing to do with anything then.


<snip>

[SuperSon!c]

name calling. how mature of you.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

I could careless if my drivers are closed source, aslong as they work; 90% of the people won't care.Ah, so you are amongst the 10% who care slightly, then?

In other words, you probably mean "I could not care less". The former will be presenting the opposite of your intended opinion.

/phonetically spelled cliche police


Edit:
Whoah, bad timing. Don't let this thread spin into oblivion! Back on topic! Aargh, pull up!

[ubuntu-freak]

name calling. how mature of you.


You started an arguement over nothing and your arguement is faulty.

I'm not responding to your flamebaiting any longer.

Nathan

[cardinals_fan]

yes, improvements comparing closed and open source. tabs have nothing to do with anything then. think before you include irrelevant material.
His point was that Firefox evolved to take advantage of tabs much faster than the largest closed-source browser, IE.

[Mateo]

His point was that Firefox evolved to take advantage of tabs much faster than the largest closed-source browser, IE.

not always the case though. sometimes open source projects can evolve much slower due to dogma. dogma is much less a concern in closed source environment where profit is all that matters.

[Sporkman]

However, consider this: Even closed-source code is open source within the software organization, i.e. any MS engineer can take code from one place in their code base, modify it & use it elsewhere in the code base... So the bigger the organization, the more it approaches the open source model (at least in terms of code access for a group of interested engineers).

Discuss.

[Mateo]

However, consider this: Even closed-source code is open source within the software organization, i.e. any MS engineer can take code from one place in their code base, modify it & use it elsewhere in the code base... So the bigger the organization, the more it approaches the open source model (at least in terms of code access for a group of interested engineers).

Discuss.

you sure about that? i don't own a multi-billion dollar software company, but if i did I probably wouldn't have my code available to all employees. office code available to office coders. ie code to ie coders. except in the instances where the apps need to communicate.

[Sporkman]

you sure about that? i don't own a multi-billion dollar software company, but if i did I probably wouldn't have my code available to all employees. office code available to office coders. ie code to ie coders. except in the instances where the apps need to communicate.

I don't see why they'd purpousely segregate them codewise. The only case of such segregation I've heard of is when two parts of a software group consult with other companies that are competitors (& hence have conflicting opposing NDAs), for example a company that makes EDA software consulting with competing chip companies, such that the EDA product does design tasks for both competing products.

[Mateo]

few people in the know = less chance at leaks. in a business where the element of surprise is so important (don't want your competitors to know the "killer new app" you're working on), i'd definitely segregate my coders.

[vexorian]

not always the case though. sometimes open source projects can evolve much slower due to dogma. dogma is much less a concern in closed source environment where profit is all that matters.

If profit is all that matters to them, then it is a dogma to them.

I have never seen a case in which what you call 'dogma' has prevented open source to evolve, if anything it is the opposite, that FOSS is so much into FOSS is the cause it actually works and it's alive.

It is interesting to know that most of the IT world has already stepped in to open source, including apple which you would see taking advantage of cups and webkit, it is interesting to see how MS, the currently least innovating company is also the most closed one, makes you think if innovation by secrets and closed doors, really works. I would say that making more people see what you are doing on early stages will mean more feedback and the project will evolve better, but hey, that's just my crazy theory.

[LightB]

You know what else besides closed software development is driven by making money? Throwing around the absurd argument that closed source progresses better than open source.

Certainly it depends on the teams and companies behind it, but there's no such thing as a guarantee that closed software is going to be better, with windows being the poster child for that fact.

[SuperSon!c]

His point was that Firefox evolved to take advantage of tabs much faster than the largest closed-source browser, IE.

actually opera did that.

[vexorian]

actually opera did that.

So, opera is netcaptor/InternetWorks now?

[karellen]

So, opera is netcaptor/InternetWorks now?

it just means that opera had tabs before firefox, not a value judgment. it's so hard to accept a fact?...:confused:

[SuperSon!c]

So, opera is netcaptor/InternetWorks now?

+1 for the fanclub.