The Sprint contract locks GPLed code out of contract programming; that's all. And it shows a serious problem with the GPL. As one of the people who commented on Slashdot said: "Good, let 'em try to live without that software.... hopefully all the Unix guys will rid their workstations of every single piece of software that violates the contract. I have a feeling the Unix guys ill have a lot of free time on their hands since they won't be able to get their work done."In short, many people already see that GPLed software is becoming indispensable for work under UNIX. Which is scary; it means there truly is NO CHOICE. The GPL has overrun that market.
>And you have steadfastly refused to deal with the >arguments of people who say >that there are many people using LInux who do not >agree with the open-source >absolutism that you impute to the GPL.I have indeed dealt with them. (I can't help it, of course, if you refuse to listen.) As I've pointed out before, the GPL is a MECHANISM. It makes no difference whether or not those who adopt it agree with its aims or support what it does. Superficially, it seems to give them something for nothing, so it appears very tempting. But what it is REALLY doing is destroying choice and livelihoods.>By refusing to acknowledge the wide diversity of >opinions held by LInux users and instead reducing it to the demented equation >Linux=GPL=Stallman=BAD BAD BAD >you wind up CONSTANTLY attacking a straw man.I don't "reduce" things in any such way. I've made it clear that Linux itself is not inherently bad, but rather furthers a bad thing (the GPL "virus") because it is licensed under it. Likewise, I see Stallman as scheming, fanatical, and misguided, but not inherently evil -- any more than Mary Shelley's Dr. Frankenstein or the apprentice who charms the sorcerer's broom to fetch water. Nonetheless, his ideas ARE dangerous, as is the GPL.
In his essay "Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding," Stallman rationalizes software piracy and the theft of intellectual property as follows . . .This is followed by quote where Richard Stallman suggests "piracy" is a loaded term for prohibited copying, and could be replaced with terms such as "prohibited copying" or "unauthorized copying."
Nick does display a strong bias toward Linux, which may be a consequence of being editorial director of IDG's LinuxWorld online magazine. If Linux does well, Nick's prestige and career opportunities are enhanced -- and, very likely, his bottom line (though he claims he's not making much from that work right now). He's usually a bit more civil about it than the majority of flamers on the InfoWorld forums, but sometimes does descend to the level of ad hominem argument and personal attacks. (I left the InfoWorld forums for good when Nick began to do this.)[snip]
I agree. Also, it is important to distinguish between advocacy of the GPL and appreciation of the good points of Linux. Folks will (or should) notice that I do not "trash" Linux. I think it has some excellent technical points, though I believe that FreeBSD is more consistent, has a sounder development model, and is overall a better product. I find the fact that Linux is licensed under the GPL to be an unfortunate historical accident, and advocate that the licensing be changed.
The real danger -- and the reason why I speak up in these forums -- is the GPL. While individuals may have different reasons for having licensed their code under it, the fact is that it is a mechanism designed to achieve a specific end. It works toward that end no matter what the intentions of the programmer who uses it on his or her code. My goal in posting here is to create awareness of how that mechanism works, and to debunk the rhetoric that hides its true aims and effects.
What's more, you have steadfastly put on your blinders and refused to acknowledge the grave harm that the GPL stands to do to consumers. This is scarier still -- someone in a position of power, influence, and responsibility should not pooh-pooh or refuse to acknowledge such a problem.
Why single out the GPL? Because Richard Stallman advocated its use in this way in his essay, "What is Copyleft." Because Stallman believes that copyrights, patents, and licensing software for a profit are fundamentally wrong, one of the uses he envisioned for the GPL was to force companies that pay for the development of software to publish the result for free, even if they had made a substantial investment in it. In his essay, Stallman wrote:"People who write improvements in free software often work for companies or universities that would do almost anything to get money. A programmer may want to contribute her changes to the community, but her employer may 'see green' and insist on turning the changes into a commercial product."
Unfortunately, the effect of the GPL is the same no matter who uses it.
>And many of the most notable non-GPL competitors to >Microsoft have released free Linux versions of the >products, Oracle and Corel for example.As I've explained in earlier messages, these companies are short-sighted. By supporting GPLed software outside their product categories, they indirectly invite the invasion and ultimate destruction of their own markets by GPLed software.
>Does that mean we have no choice if the only >products avilable are GPL? No, it means we don't >have to pay as much for the choices.If the only products available are GPL, you don't have to pay ANYTHING for them. And this will drive out commercial options.
> (My apologies to everyone else for giving Brett more > to reply to, but I felt that he needed a little bit of > education about GPL)I get the feeling that I understand the GPL better than you do. You may wish to review its intent by reading the documents at http://www.gnu.org -- in particular, one called "The GNU Manifesto" and another called "Why All Software Should Be Free." Another good essay which reveals the propaganda- like aspects of the GPL is called "Confusing Terms That Should Be Avoided" on the same site. They're all very educational. You may also want to investigate the history of the GPL and Richard Stallman's "GNU" movement -- including the events that touched it off. (Hint: A certain computer company that spun off from MIT's AI Lab caused RMS to become resentful. He didn't believe that a for-profit company should ever benefit from university research. The company is gone, but the spiteful attitude, alas, remains.)
>Brett, maybe you can create a web page setting out you views. >I would be happy to provide a link to it from the CPT page on >alternative operating systems. I do not have a problem with >you expressing your views, but I do think there is an issue > regarding the amount of bandwidth any one member of the list > should command.
I think there's also an issue with the amount of bandwidth that any one alternative to Microsoft should command. Pushing any one defeats the purpose. That's why it disappoints me so much to see you mention only one. You even injected a Linux "slant" into the information I sent to you in the hope of providing balance!
And herein lies the problem. If you start by posting so much extremely unbalanced material to the list, it takes lots of bandwidth even to begin to tip the scale a little ways back.
The GPL creates software that's free to our customers but not to us as developers. That's what's so pernicious about it.
I think it's worth noting that the domain "installfest.com" belongs to the same Linux users' group which is excluding users of non-open source OSes from its "Windows Refund Day" event. The group shows the name "Linux" front and center at the top of the page and does not offer information about any other operating system. The group further shows its bias against commercial alternative OSes by offering host names in that domain ONLY to groups promoting open source OSes.Given that the name "installfest" doesn't specifically imply that an OS must be open source, and that it really is a promotional site for Linux, it appears that this group is using the domain in a way that should not be encouraged. I don't think it's appropriate to direct readers to this site.
KDE is a fine product technically. However, because it is is licensed under the GNU Public License, I will not recommend it. I would welcome the release of a version of KDE under the BSD or Artistic License.
Sure. There can be open or closed cartels. Here the cartel consists of developers and disk vendors who are seeking to run commercial OS makers out of business.
Red Hat may not obtain monopoly power over Linux, but Linux could obtain monopoly power in the OS market.
Ah, but then we fall into another problem I've discussed elsewhere. Since the software is available to *users* for free, a licensee is in the perverse position of paying money to reproduce something whose market value is zero to users. That's a sucker bet.In any event, since people have expressed some concern about all of this GPL talk, I'll make a pledge: Unless GPLed software has been mentioned in a thread, I won't bring it up. I think it's fair, though, that I be able to respond if it *is* brought up -- especially as a putative solution to the Microsoft problem.
Gasee', alas, has made more than one serious blunder in his career -- and supporting Linux, or any GPLed software, may be fatal for his company.
I think that I live in a "big picture" reality, whereas most or all advocates of the GPL do not see the big, or long term, picture.[snip]
You will not be able to realize YOUR visions, either, if the GPL takes hold.
[snip]
The GPL destroys opportunities for independent programmers, as has already been seen in the market for compilers and as is starting to be seen in the OS market. When Be -- a superior independent effort -- dies not as a result of Microsoft but as a result of the GPL, it will be a sign that the GPL has precluded advancement or competition in this market too.
Actually, the case against the GPL is more clear. We have Stallman's document -- plus countless other comments from developers of GPLed software -- to the effect that their goal is to put businesses out of business. This is evidence of intentionaly predatory pricing and unfair competition. There are no subtleties of memos to debate; the intent is clearly stated.This violates the laws of many states as well as Federal law. The time is actually quite ripe for lawsuits.
Well, who do you think you are -- Mr. "Consumer Advocate" -- to tell me what sort of job I am or am not allowed to have? Or what businesses I may or may not go into? Or what kind of software I can buy? How dare you promote the destruction of my livelihood and the annihilation of consumer choice and then tell me you're doing it for my (or consumers') benefit?[snip]
..you can bet your life I'll fight tooth and nail these attempts to sabotage markets, wreck livelihoods, and ensure that consumers have no choice.
>The GPL may be growing, but I still think its growth will >slow down long before it takes over the industry.Right now, not only is it growing, but the second derivative is also positive -- in other words, the RATE of growth is also increasing.
>Your comments about cross-support >notwithstanding, I still think that programmers will >prove sufficiently intelligent not to run themselves out > of business.Many won't. They'll say, as some others have in this forum, "Oh, the GPL won't bite ME." Or, "My software is good; I have nothing to worry about." Then a "good enough" GPLed product -- not nearly as good as what they're selling -- will come along and steamroller them.They won't know what hit them.
It's the Stallman's "GNU Manifesto," and the GPL (its implementation), that say what programmers' aspirations should be. Or, rather, attempt to set a ceiling on them. . . . the GPL may create a "glass ceiling." Not just for Brett Glass, but for anyone who seeks to rise beyond the status of line worker.[snip]
Sorry, but the GPL is dropping an atomic bomb on that landscape. And even the programmers with workaday jobs, like the ones you mention above, would not be safe if they worked for software firms.
[snip]
No, but if GPLed software takes over, consumers will no longer have choice, and THAT is not good.
When a work is published under the GPL, it is NOT freely usable by anyone. Commercial software developers can't use it -- legally, that is -- unless they clean-room it (a very awkward process that big guys like Microsoft can afford but little guys can't).What's more, by making the code free to users but not to developers, they make it insane for developers to license it for money. The code has ZERO worth to users, because it can get that functionality for free.... So the developer must pay for something for which he can get nothing. . .
The fact that GPLed software is free is not a natural consequence of market forces. It is the result of a concerted, deliberate effort to undermine commercial software vendors.
It [the GPL] was designed as a weapon against that which Richard Stallman considered evil: ALL intellectual property and ALL companies that profit from ownership of the rights to their hard work.It is true that not all programmers who license their code under the GPL do not believe, as Stallman does, that all intellectual property is evil. But most seem to hold one or more of Stallman's erroneous views: That using publicly available code as the foundation of one's own work is "taking" it (imagine if scientists felt this way -- we'd still be working with slide rules by candle light!); that Microsoft must be stopped at all costs, so the strongest available weapon must be used regardless of what harm it does; or that the GPL is the only effective way to develop a library of publicly available or open source software. In addition, they may fail to see the network effects, tipping effects, and positive feedback effects that would cause the GPL, if widely embraced, to extinguish ALL opportunities for mass market commercial software -- not just, say, operating systems.
That's why it's so important to discuss this. Microsoft's power should be limited and its monopolistic and destructive business tactics should be curtailed; that is what this forum is about. But if we say that the GPL is just another "interesting and useful mechanism for the free software movement" without recognizing where it will lead, we're as guilty as if we were pressing the button to launch those nukes at Iraq. We're advocating a radically warlike scorched earth policy that will create more problems than it solves...
Of the arguments which I've seen here that claim the GPL is NOT dangerous, most say, "Well, what has happened already doesn't convince me." They point, for example, to niche players in the compiler market, saying, "Look! Look! There are still one or two left! That proves that the GCC hasn't destroyed the market!" But these arguments are akin to Microsoft's arguments, in the DoJ trial, that there is "robust" competition when in fact it has utterly monopolized the desktop. Yes, there will always be one or two small competitors that are not snuffed out -- either because they're in it for the love of it rather than the money or because they've found a tiny, safe niche. But, the fact that there's still a cockroach or two left after the mushroom cloud has cleared does not mean that there has not been devastating, irreparable destruction.
I'm not asking anyone to place blind faith in what I say when I sound the alarm about the GPL's destructive potential. Instead, I'm asking them to apply foresight and vision based on what we now are beginning to understand about the effects of cheap networking and information-driven markets. Like John Adams in the musical "1776," I may not be able to stimulate effective action on my own, because I am considered to be "obnoxious and disliked" after having harped on the subject for so long. But, like Adams, I have what I think is the correct vision of what's to come and what's to do about it. Please set personality issues aside and really think through this! It's vitally important.