stefan.waidele.info

This is my anwser to Eric S. Raymond ONLamp.com: ESR: “We Don’t Need the GPL Anymore”. No, I am not vain enough to think RMS needs my help or ESR will read this. But it has to be said. And I need to say it, even if nobody reads it.

Eric Lafoon has also said so in a
OfB.biz: very nice article.

Free Software is Strong!

“People who do what the GPL tries to prevent (e.g., closed source forks of open source projects) wind up injuring only themselves. They trap themselves unto competing with a small in-house development group against the much larger one in the parent open source project, and failing.� (ESR)

While I also believe in the strength of free software, I see problems where those modifications do not change the main structure of the software package. If they simply add functionality without changing the programming interface, they can continue to grab the latest free version, re-add the functionality with only little cost and always have a “better� version available.

While it could be argued that Netscape failed doing this by adding proprietary features to the free Mozilla-Suite, one failure does not prove a plan to be completely invalid. It depends on the value that is added and how that value is protected. If the new modules are heavily protected, and yet add much value (killer-application) to the mix, then the closed competition would have an advantage. (I could think of a closed Xine-fork with DVD-Decryption, or a crippled version of a free Office-suite that adds support for a patented file-format while taking export-possibilities. These examples are not perfect, but somebody smarter than I will might come up with something more ruthless…) Some of these schemes are already possible with the GPL, but without it, there would be no barrier at all.

GPL assures Payment

A “small in-house development group� might be no competition to THE community. But GPL is not only about forks. It is about distribution. If you visit http://gpl-violations.org/, you can see that most GPL-violations are not “somebody took my code and modified it�. There are more to the effect: “Somebody took my code, makes money with it, but does not respect my terms of distribution�.

There are many companies who configure a PC with Linux, add some GPL-apps and sell a nice Firewall, Department-fileserver, workgroup-mailserver, whatever. If the PCs are reasonably small we have embedded devices.

One of the major incentives of free-software-developement is fame and appreciation by peers. Both is not available in these cases. Abiding to the terms of whatever license a software comes with shows respect for the creator of that software.

If not GPL, what else?

Yes, there are many high-profile projects that use other free licenses. ERS still needs to tell us how free software should be licensed. If the GPL was to be dumped, what license should be used for software? Today’s legal system forces us to have terms of distribution. The extremes range from “No License� all the way through “Public Domain�.

While “Public Domain� is actually giving people the possibility to copyright things others have created (and thus lacking incentive for the creators), “No License� completely forbids redistribution. Author’s if “No License� Software might choose not to fight for their rights. But as a redistributor, I would not count on that. We can see what can happen after copyright has been transfered a few times. Just look as SCO vs. IBM and you recognise that it can be very dangerous to distribut software without permission.

So, licenses are permissions to do something with software. Use, modify, distribute, whatever.
There have been many licenses available to developers. GPL is just one of them. Those who do not like its virality, may choose BSD, Apache, or whatever they like. Nobody is forced to use the GPL. But a quick count on sourceforge shows that it clearly is the most popular.

If ESR provides a better choice, developers will choose his alternative. Just like users choose free software because it is superior, developers will chose the superior license. Sometimes quality needs time to get recognized, but time will surely tell how long the GPL will still be needed. My guess that it will be around for quite some time…

“Yes, many people will view this as heresy. Fine–it’s part of my job to speak heresy in ways other people might feel afraid to do. If there is any better use for being famous and respected than using that status to question orthodoxy, I haven’t found it yet.� (ESR)

I don’t consider Eric’s statements as heresy. If they cause a discussion that advances the free software community and leads to a “better license�, then he shall be the hero who tipped it all off. But for that to happen, we need suggenstions on what we need. Now we know that ESR thinks the GPL is obsolete, and in that interview he also stated why he came to that conclusion. I am really curious what he thinks should be the replacement.

— Stefan Waidele jun. 2005/07/04 22:05