Free Speech, Free Beer, and Free Software

News.com ^ | August 20th, 2002 | Simon Phipps

[ShadowAce]

Penguin Ping

[ShadowAce]

FYI Ping

[DrDavid]

It's not about free stuff; it's about enfranchising every user and development community member.

[ShadowAce]

Exactly. But some people here just can't see that.

[Logophile]

Open source is not without cost. Someone has to underwrite the community. Developers have to donate their time and expertise.

This bears repeating. There is no such thing as a free lunch, or free software either, if by "free" one means without cost. Ultimately, someone has to pay.

[eno_]

Except that it is about cost, too. There is no way I would pay to put a Windows 2000 Server license on an old 300Mhz machine just to serve up my blog on my DSL line. The thousands of dollars it would cost to run a commercial solution do, in fact, merit the use of an incremental few hours of my time learning how to install Debian and Slashcode. It isn't right for everyone to follow this path, but it is incorrect to think cost and value-for-money don't enter into it. It is even more incorrect to make the a priori assumption that since Windows XP is a marvelously easy to install and use desktop system that Windows server systems have the same ease-of-setup and operation advantages versus Linux.

[Bush2000]

I have no problem with open source and free software. But I DO have a problem with the GPL. If you're going to make something free, then make it free ... as in, no strings attached.

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Want on or off? Just holla!

[B Knotts]

There are no strings attached. You can use GPLd software however you like.

You just can't attach your own strings, which seems fair. Why should you be able to take what someone else has decided to freely release, and proprietarize it against his wishes?

The GPL also protects companies that release source code, so that competitors cannot pull a closed-source "embrace-and-extend" on them.

[B Knotts]

And, of course, you're free to use GPLd code for proprietary projects in house. You just can't redistribute modified binaries without the accompanying source code.

[ThinkDifferent]

But I DO have a problem with the GPL.

Why? You obviously have no problem with proprietary software which is far more restrictive of users' rights than the GPL. The GPL is actually less restrictive than just sticking "Copyright Foobar Inc." on your software; standard copyright prohibits any redistribution, while the GPL allows it as long as you fulfill certain conditions.

My personal software uses the BSD license, but I understand and respect the decisions of others to use the GPL.

[Knitebane]

I have no problem with open source and free software. But I DO have a problem with the GPL. If you're going to make something free, then make it free ... as in, no strings attached.

HA HA HA HA

You're just upset about the GPL because your master runs terrible risks if it steals GPL code and includes it in the next version of Windows.

If they get caught, they'd have to GPL the Windows source code.

Microsoft loves free code, it means that they can sell more software with out paying for it themselves. See the TCP/IP stack, the FTP and TELNET client, their DNS and DHCP servers and the core of Active Directory, Kerberos.

Go away, wannbe thief. The GPL is there precisely to keep the Microsofts of the world from getting a free ride off of someone else's work.

Instead of whining about not being able to steal code due to the GPL, they should just write their own quality software.

But then, they've shown how good they are at that, right?

One more time for those people that have only heard the Microsoft lie and haven't actually read the text of the GNU Public license.

The GPL states that if you use GPL code in your product you have to release your code under the GPL. If you don't like that, don't use the GPL code. You are free to write your own under any license you want.

[dheretic]

I have no problem with open source and free software. But I DO have a problem with the GPL. If you're going to make something free, then make it free ... as in, no strings attached.

Figures you would take such a stance. You see no evil in Microsoft's EULA, but see plenty in the GPL. Such hypocrisy. If Microsoft can conduct it's little "shared source" program with all of the restrictions that go with it, why can't developers choose to restrict your right to make a profit off of their labor? No one is stopping them from dual licensing. Mozilla is dual licensed under the MPL and GPL. QT is under the QPL and GPL.

You just want a free lunch. The GPL doesn't stop the copyright holder from dual licensing. The only reason why large projects like the Linux kernel cannot be dual licensed is because there are thousands of copyright holders. But again, there is nothing stopping dual licensing. Oracle could release its products under the GPL on a "use at your own risk" basis and sell licenses under their existing EULAs that give bonuses like free support, training, manuals and priority access to updates (ie something more robust than existing support ideas).

[Bush2000]

You're just upset about the GPL because your master runs terrible risks if it steals GPL code and includes it in the next version of Windows. If they get caught, they'd have to GPL the Windows source code. Microsoft loves free code, it means that they can sell more software with out paying for it themselves.

Here's the root of the problem. GPL is a license which is specifically intended to thwart the commercialization of free software. In that sense, it is hardly free. It's intended to turn the software industry into a Berkeley hippy commune.

[Bush2000]

You just want a free lunch.

Well, if software developers are truly doing this out of some kind of altruistic intention, then they shouldn't care whether somebody else uses the software commercially. But we both know that that's a load of crap. It's intended solely to thwart combination with protected intellectual property.

[TechJunkYard]

GPL is a license which is specifically intended to thwart the commercialization of free software. In that sense, it is hardly free.

You're making no sense. GPL makes sure you can't just take someone else's intellectual property and make money from it. You're so concerned about the piracy of commercialized code but you can't see that misappropriating GPL code is also piracy? As has been pointed out, you don't have to use GPL'd code -- write your own.

[Bush2000]

You're making no sense. GPL makes sure you can't just take someone else's intellectual property and make money from it.

I agree with your assessment. We are merely looking at it from different angles. I don't quite understand what the opposition is to making money with software. If you give it away for free, what do you care whether someone makes a profit with it?

You're so concerned about the piracy of commercialized code but you can't see that misappropriating GPL code is also piracy?

It is only piracy if you violate the terms of the license.

As has been pointed out, you don't have to use GPL'd code -- write your own.

Agreed. Nobody is being forced to use GPL'd code. But we're just discussing the issue. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in some developers saying that they want software to be free -- and yet oppose commercial use of that same software. There's nothing stopping anybody from releasing software for public use and improving it regardless of whether it is eventually commercialized.

[TechJunkYard]

If you give it away for free, what do you care whether someone makes a profit with it?

As I see it, there are several issues.

• The concept of "giving back to the community" in order to help struggling newbies in the same spirit that the community had once helped you. Someone takes your "gift" and tries to re-sell it to a pawnshop? Would that not make you feel "used"?
• Freely sharing ideas and concepts with your peer programmers for training and enlightenment without fear that someone will patent this stuff under your nose and keep everybody from using it.
• The "I am my kids mom/dad" concept of "ownership" of the code... It's a wierd idea that I've heard expressed recently.. how would you like your daughter running off with a "boyfriend" who turns out to be a pimp?

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy in some developers saying that they want software to be free -- and yet oppose commercial use of that same software.

"Commercial Use" has several connotations... some devs do have a problem with their code being used in a commercial setting -- where money is made through the use of the code. Charging for the code itself is another issue that virtually the entire Open Source community is united on -- code that WAS free should REMAIN free.

There's nothing stopping anybody from releasing software for public use and improving it regardless of whether it is eventually commercialized.

That goes to the concept of improving the code base. If someone wants to charge money for improving a program, they'll want to maximize their return by taking the program out of the free code base. Part of the joy of Open Source is that any average joe who wants to put up a web server can do it without severely crimping his wallet. It's the old Power To The People concept without the socialism.

The selfish corporate-types who want to take free code and then stir in some secret ingredients and NOT give it all back are the socialists.

[Bush2000]

• The concept of "giving back to the community" in order to help struggling newbies in the same spirit that the community had once helped you. Someone takes your "gift" and tries to re-sell it to a pawnshop? Would that not make you feel "used"?

You can still give back to the community regardless of its commercial uses. You're standing on weak ground on this point.

• Freely sharing ideas and concepts with your peer programmers for training and enlightenment without fear that someone will patent this stuff under your nose and keep everybody from using it.

That isn't a realistic fear since it can easily be shown to be prior art.

• The "I am my kids mom/dad" concept of "ownership" of the code... It's a wierd idea that I've heard expressed recently.. how would you like your daughter running off with a "boyfriend" who turns out to be a pimp?

You can still own whatever code you donate. You can improve it as much as you like -- or solicit other like-minded people to contribute. You don't lose control of that possibility by allowing others to commercialize it.

Commercial Use" has several connotations... some devs do have a problem with their code being used in a commercial setting -- where money is made through the use of the code. Charging for the code itself is another issue that virtually the entire Open Source community is united on -- code that WAS free should REMAIN free.

In other words, it ain't really free. Because anybody that picks it up can't use it that way.

That goes to the concept of improving the code base. If someone wants to charge money for improving a program, they'll want to maximize their return by taking the program out of the free code base. Part of the joy of Open Source is that any average joe who wants to put up a web server can do it without severely crimping his wallet. It's the old Power To The People concept without the socialism.

No, it's anti-capitalistic. It seems to avoid commercial exploitation at all costs.