Interesting, and like a red flag to a bull (or, in more recent times,
like a country full of oil to a president of a western nation ;-)
>>>>> "Sudhir" == Sudhir Gandotra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is the GPL completely misunderstood?
>> What is the GPL?
>> The GPL, GNU General Public License, is a license boilerplate
>> that the FSF, Free Software Foundation, has put forward to be
>> adopted by software developers that are creating software. The
>> GPL has some fundamental flaws that may actually make one
>> wonder if people using the GPL license really understand the
>> license.
>> First, one must understand that the ideals behind the GPL are
>> that software should be 'free', meaning that you should be able
>> to buy it, modify it, redistribute it, support it, etc. Many
>> people, myself included, didn't really understand the license
>> agreement and it is obvious that the FSF must get dozens of
>> questions like that because they hide behind a boilerplate link
>> to a page on their site.
Actually there's a detailed FAQ about the GPL, which the original
author could have looked at to increase his/her understanding. The
fact that s/he didn't shows that s/he was either too lazy to find
answers or, more likely, didn't want facts coming in the way of
his/her arguments. (I'm using `her' from now on to be politically and
sexistically correct; and yes, I have known girls named Chris).
>> Therein lies one major hurdle. Another problem is that many
>> people are under the impression that if it is GPL, the software
>> should carry no cost. The FSF says that nothing could be
>> further from the truth, however, the GPL ingeniously assures
>> this because of its distribution clause. The first person to
>> buy an application is generously allowed to distribute the code
>> and the source, removing any financial incentive from original
>> software author.
>> Even the FSF has no idea how to build a business around
>> software that is released GPL. I posed that question, and their
>> response was fuzzy and vague. It was suggested that I run a
>> different division to fund the software development
>> division. As a business owner, why run a division that is a
>> cost center if it isn't needed.
Firstly, no one says that you MUST build a business around software.
That's a bit like saying, ``I like to spend most of my day standing on
my head, and I must be paid for it since that's what I like to do and
that's what I'm good at.'' Just because you happen to know
programming doesn't mean that the world has an obligation to fill your
belly by buying your programs. If programmers can't make money
programming they will find another, more marketable skill and use that
to make money.
Second comes the whole question of motivation. Most of the good
programmers I've met program first because they like programming.
Programming is a creative act, and just as you sing in your bath
because you like it, I program because I like to. No one pays you to
sing, and I'd be happy writing programs if no one paid me. I do too.
As do some other programmers I can think of, including Naba Kumar,
Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, RMS, Miguel de Icaza, Theo de Raadt, to name
a few.
Finally, there ARE ways to make money out of free (as in freedom)
software. I'd recommend The Magic Cauldron to Chris for a number of
ideas on how to write free software and still make money. Too bad she
apparently restricted her search to a subset of www.gnu.org as the
basis for her article.
>> [snip]
>> See, the GPL in its Marxist form is a fine thought, but what
>> does it really do?
Chris shows her extreme (wilful?) ignorance of the ideas behind free
software here.
The central thesis of Marxism is that (physical) property belongs to
the state and the state controls it and rations it out in a fair
manner to individuals depending on their needs.
The central thesis of free software is that software belongs to
humanity, and each person should have access to whatever software s/he
needs, to use, share, modify, enhance and redistribute. Free software
rejects the idea of control and ownership of software by any entity,
whether an individual, a corporation or the state.
In other words, Marxism deals with Physical Property, which does not
increase by sharing. Free software deals with Software, which DOES
increase through sharing. Marxism advocates control while free
software is against control altogether.
For a different argument, do see the excellent article on how free
software conforms to the basic principles of capitalism by Ganesh
Prasad: How Does the Capitalist View Open Source?
http://www.osopinion.com/perl/story/?id=9748.
>> The GPL creates hundreds of software products that are mimic's
>> of their commercial counterpart, many of which are poor
>> imitations. Yes, I know, the market is new and there are years
>> of existing software development to catch up with. But, most of
>> these software developers have a job and do this as a hobby or
>> are paid by a company to write software released under the
>> GPL. But what have we done? We've turned over development to
>> armchair developers. This isn't to say that there aren't good
>> software projects developed under GPL, but they are in the
>> minority.
>> Without singling out any application, there is a software
>> package that makes it truly evident that the programmers have
>> no concept what the finished product is supposed to do or what
>> the program they are mimicing actually does. It appears as if
>> they have gotten together to develop a product to mimic a
>> Microsoft product, pushed all of the buttons to see what the
>> results are, and tried to imitate the actions. Push a button
>> and see no visible result? Who knows how that button is
>> supposed to work. We'll leave it in, but there's no code behind
>> it. There is a lot of software that mimic's Microsoft, and yet,
>> time after time, these are the same people that complain about
>> Microsoft and what they do wrong. Then, to top it off, since
>> they released it GPL, they ask for donations. Wait? Can't
>> Freedom have a price?
Again, the author has obviously never heard of Linux, Apache, the Ogg
standard, Sendmail, BIND, Perl, PostgreSQL... she seems to have used
a couple of free desktop applications and generalised for the whole
world from that.
>> These authors don't know that they can charge money for their
>> software and still release it GPL. Of course, after the first
>> client, it will get redistributed at some nominal cost or
>> free. Imagine, the first person that needs a program will buy
>> it and then post it on the net for people to get without
>> cost. Almost no different than the Commercial software market
>> as it exists today. Ok, chalk up one licensed user that paid
>> for the software. Authors ask for donations or have service
>> contracts. Some applications are decidedly cryptic just so you
>> have to buy the service contract or installation help. Why?
>> Because the author needs to make some money for their efforts
>> and have a financial reward that justifies the continued
>> development of the project.
>> Most of the people writing GPL software probably have never
>> read the license. How can you expect them to? Everyone is told
>> to slap the boilerplate agreement at the top because 'GPL good,
>> other license bad,' but how many people that use the license
>> have actually read it?
I'd answer, `Chris is one who patently hasn't read it' ;) Anyone here
who writes GPL software and hasn't read the GPL?
>> The GPL has created a dearth of poorly conceived, poorly
>> maintained, poorly written software. There are also quite a few
>> good GPL applications. Suffice it to say, that most of the
>> applications that are good and are GPL usually have corporate
>> roots. I surmise that most of the companies releasing software
>> under the GPL are not releasing their code under the GPL for
>> the right reasons.
Uh, am I reading this right? ``The GPL has created a dearth of poorly
conceived, poorly maintained, poorly written software.''? Last I
checked, ``dearth'' meant shortage, so I guess the GPL has done a good
job of ridding the world of this bad software; thanks for the vote of
confidence, Chris :)
Even if we assume that for a moment that Chris means ``excess'' when
she uses ``dearth'', that statement remains just an opinion with no
data to back it up at all. If free software were all that bad Fortune
500 companies and the top sites on the Internet wouldn't be using it,
would they? Or is she trying to say that these companies like
Unilever and Google can't afford proprietary software and are
compromising their core businesses by using free software because of
the price factor? It's a joke, right?
>> [snip]
>> <Sarcasm> Unlike most GPL software authors, I am not
>> independently wealthy. I don't have a trust fund handing me
>> money every month. I don't have a rich family writing a check
>> to keep me locked away in a basement churning out code. I don't
>> have a fellowship with an educational institution or
>> sponsorship from a big corporation so that I jet around the
>> world espousing the ideals, writing and releasing code under
>> the GPL. </Sarcasm>
Chris completely misses the point about free software authors'
motivation here. To imply that only people who have lots of money
from other sources write free software is blatantly incorrect. Again,
a mishmash opinion without any facts backing it up.
>> [snip]
>> In short, I don't believe the GPL serves the software
>> development community in the best possible manner. By virtue,
>> it eliminates financial motivation from those writing software
>> and drives those development costs on existing industry. You
>> may volunteer your time, but your employer ultimately finances
>> your ability to have the time to write that code. Who really
>> carries the true development cost of the software?
>> If you want the dream of Linux on the desktop to take off more
>> quickly, take the time to explain how a company developing GPL
>> software can protect itself and earn money to pay its
>> programmers and support staff. If you work for a company
>> writing GPL software, take some time to think where your salary
>> ultimately comes from. Help develop a business plan to allow
>> companies to develop software and release the products under an
>> Open Source license that ensures the viability of the
>> company. If you want
No thanks. Linux and GNU have got to where they are without having
proprietary products as core applications, and despite Chris'
pessimistic outlook will continue to thrive as free software. In my
opinion anyone who thinks that Linux needs proprietary software in
order to grow is completely blind to the history of Linux and free
software, and unwilling to see the basic paradigm shift that has
begun; this same paradigm shift is the one that is making proprietary
software superfluous, and will soon kill it off completely except in
niche areas.
>> [snip]
Regards,
-- Raju
--
Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/
It is the mind that moves
P.S. This entire message has been composed under the blanketing sound
of `Low spark of the high-heeled boys', `Light up or leave me alone'
and `Rock and roll stew' (Traffic) played at high volume, so any
errors you see are the product of your own marijuana-demented
imagination ;)
P.P.S. The original content in this article is available for use under
the Free Documentation License.
================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header.
Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
