IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New This has been bugging me.
I posted this in LinuxToday, [link|http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2005-08-05-012-26-NW-LL-DV-0012|http://linuxtoday.co...-26-NW-LL-DV-0012]
And it hasn't gotten an answer - does anybody here have any insight? Rebuttals? Please, give me some rebuttals...
"2 word reason never to use GPL3

at least as it's outlined now.

Web Services.

Until now, I've been able to counter the FUD that if you change source and don't redistribute the code in binary form, you aren't forced to give away your code (read: business advantage).

This will no longer be true with GPL3. If you change code on a server distributed under GPL3, and use that server to provide a 'web service', you are required to release your source code. THAT'S RIDICULOUS!

An illustration: You optimize MySQL to run even faster for specific queries; queries that your web service needs. Your copy of MySQL is never moved from it's server; you never redistribute it. Under GPL3, you would be REQUIRED to release the source code for your changes to MySQL! Any business advantage you might have achieved by actually using OSS (ie modifying the source and using the result, creating something superior to what your competitors are using) goes right out the window.

The GPL3, for the first time ever makes the GPL truly 'viral'; it truly IS anti-business. And that sucks. The GPL2 is one of the great devices for progress in software ever conceived, IMO. Now, I get the feeling it's all going to hell - because the GPL3 validates almost every FUD piece ever written about GPLed software.

Prove me wrong. Please. But you have to be able to back it up... Because if you can alleviate MY fears about this.. this.. "piece of work", then I'll have ammo to refute objections to GPLed software. "
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New It's the usual cack.
You're not forced to use anyone's code or product, and you're not forced to issue your own under any particular licence.

If you want to use Vendor X's stuff, but they've used GPL3 (and it has all the terrible implications in the post you quote, for the sake of discussion), then you're faced with a marvellous free choice: comply with the licence, or find something else.

Even in the onerous form outlined in your quote, it's not anti-business.

It's anti-"get something for nothing and profit from it", is what it is.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New Nonsense, Peter.
The choice you are faced with IS 'does it make sense to use the source in business' or NOT.

Like it or not, this IS anti-business. A major strength for the argument for business use of GPLed software is that the source is available, and modifiable to use to suit their needs. Until GPL3 is used that is; then there will be no advantage to modifying the software for themselves, to use for themselves. Any change they make, even if made to software they never distribute, will FORCE them to make their mods available to competitors.
"then you're faced with a marvellous free choice: comply with the licence, or find something else."

Nobody disputes this - but when the license is anti-business as the GPL is becoming with v3, don't be shocked when most business chooses something else. Sheesh.
"It's anti-"get something for nothing and profit from it", is what it is.
"

Horsecrap. It's the REMOVAL of a once valuable feature of GPLed software - the ability to modify it to suit your OWN needs. Sure, you could still make the mods, but when you are forced to distribute work you've done to all your competitors even if you never distribute the software you worked on, then the value of that feature is severely undercut, to say the least. You have NOT alleviated my fear that the GPLv3 is intended to become truly 'viral'. Hell, you haven't even given me any confidence that you bothered to think about the implications - so many others won't either.

If anything, you have managed to INCREASE my apprehension.


[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New I repeat.
Use something else. Do your due diligence when making your software selections, and decide what restrictions you can and cannot live with.

Whining about the licence is like whining about the fact they wrote it in C++, Pascal, or Object COBOL: pointless.

And, honestly, who cares what "business" chooses? If you're that bothered about "business", why are you trying to get something for nothing? Pay up, like a proper little consumer!

A point you MUST remember is that the FSF gives not a flying fuck what "business" wants or needs. They're about Free Software, for their definition of "Free".

The software landscape is a Darwinian place; if the GPLv3 is so disastrously restrictive that no-one wants to use it, then no-one will.

Sure, people will be around to go, "I told you so", but the FSF is equally likely to respond "And?".



Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New I care about this, Peter.
If the GPL's progress is imeded by developers just accepting this like sheep, then GPLed software will NOT be used in business. And business is where I use most software. Proprietary crap is what makes my life miserable; having crap changes forced on me by vendors with a marketing agenda, and NOT being able to fix problems with the software as I encounter them. GPL(v2) software offered a way out - v3 cuts off that hope. If my interpretation of it is correct, anyway, and being that you simply accept that interpretation, I must believe that it's a fair one.

Let's put it this way - I _DO_ do due diligence, and with GPL3, there is far less advantage to using GPLed software. The source becomes useless to business. Unless they want to be a software publisher - and, guess what? That ISN'T what most businesses want to do.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New I don't doubt that you care.
I do, however, doubt that the developer community at large will either (a) care or (b) understand. More likely, they'll be somewhere between (a) and (b).

If the only people using GPL3 software are the FSF, then the problem will cure itself; people will move to a more relaxed licence or will stick with GPL2, which will remain a valid licence.

Storm in a teacup, matey.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
Expand Edited by pwhysall Aug. 8, 2005, 02:44:15 PM EDT
New It's true that it may be less of a problem
than my paranoia screams, but if so, it will only be because of paragraph 9 re: successor licenses:
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

IOW, if you get old versions of the software with v2 in the license when v3 comes out, they will be 'forkable' to new projects using the good v2 licensing.

I truly hope that won't be necessary though - I'd prefer to see the 'web services' clause mitigated by the time the license is released.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New the fact that you dont distribute your software
and are still forced to give up the source code, that is cack, but how is it enforceable except in the case of disgruntled coders.Lets them walk out the door legally with their work product.
thanx,
bill
Just call me Mr. Lynch \\

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New disgruntled >>--> Whistleblower laws.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Also, looky here:
Apache: Apache Licence
X.org: X11 Licence (without the knobs on)
Perl: Artistic Licence
FreeBSD: BSD Licence
Python: PSF Licence
OpenSolaris 10: Just kidding.
et cetera, et cetera.

There's a world of free software out there that doesn't even have to involve the GPL.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New ICLRPD (new thread)
Created as new thread #218134 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218134|ICLRPD]
--
Steve
New Woo hoo.
So what. That HAS nothing to do with any of my concerns re: the future of the GPL and GPLed software. But you knew that, didn't you?
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Remember, existing GPLv2 software will remain GPLv2
You're free to fork and maintain under V2.

And that'll happen: just watch.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New ROFL - just posted that is a mitigating factor...
*GRIN*
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New He who controls the compiler...
...FSF knew early on that all software hinges on having a freely available compiler. There's not much call for tweaking it, but I would note that practically every piece of free software out there does use GCC. Now, if GNU were to start clamping down on use of GCC libraries and the use of it for generating code under other licenses...

But then, everyone would just start forking off the current compiler which operates under the currently more liberal license. Which is more likely what will happen if business starts to get nervous with GPLv3. Just take the current snapshot of the software and tweak it to your hearts content. GNU can choose any license they want. But having licensed the software under terms less than GPLv3, they'll find that they're going to have a hard time getting followers.

As in all things, those who write the software get to determine what license they want to use. Those who consume the software get to decide whether they want to use the software. By all means, GNU has the right to put future versions under any license they wish. What they don't have the right to do is revoke the software that has been issued under past licenses. Nor do they have a right to automatically have producers and consumers of free software automatically fall in line.
New How is it ridiculous?
One of the primarly goals of the GPL 3 is to close the loophole that you mention.

Think about it, under GPL 2 if you sell the software you have to provide the source code. But you can sell access to use the software as a 'web service' without making the code available to anybody. To the people that back the GPL, that is a huge loophole.

The GPL is not the end of all OSS liscenses, and it is certainly not the best liscense for buisness use. That is by design, it is intended as a liscense to drive open source, not one help buisness.

Jay
New Bravo.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New Guess you don't want to use application source
in the workplace. Not a programmer, are you though.

The GPLv2 has the potential to drive a renaissance in IT, IMO. The GPLv3 kills that dream.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Here is my grounds for poo-pooing your concern.
Think about this:
Darl McDLT, runs a business as an application service provider. Let us say that he has a potential customer that is having performance problem at the current provider they are using. They are using a CMS written in PHP and backended by MySQL, both released under the GPLv2. Pretty straight forward. Pretty much all the bells and whistles, just slow as hell, maybe becuase of not enough bandwidth to service the full load, or maybe just not enough processor umph for the job... in any case, said prospective customer says that if Darl can demo a faster system they'd switch in a heart beat.

Darl goes and does his stuff. Through his amazingly awesome programming skills, he, discovers a speedup for the SQL engine of MySQL. Solid, so solid in fact it reduces the time to start by half and speedsup SQL queries by a factor of 10. Muahahaha... nice coup there. Then Darl starts on the CMS. There he also discovers, just by removing a one line sanity check (that is prone to slow-down because of the massive amount of data it is checking against) in a file, and adding 3 quick-checks in 3 other files, doing the same thing but with constraints, gives him the same results and also significantly speeds up processing time by another factor of 4.

He then decides to rollout and deploy this customized-to-his-needs version. Does the Demo, lands the contract for the application providing. He makes lotsa money. All well and good. He has a huge competitive advantage.
Plain and simple explanation of events that happen all day long in Business, right? Right.

Followup questions for you:
  1. Is there any doubt he is well within the rights of the GPLv2?
  2. Is there any question that he is distributing the use of the CMS backended by MySQL?
  3. Is there any question, that he changed the code?
  4. Are you satisfied, that were you Darl's competitor, that he is using nearly identical hardware and bandwidth, that trounces your setup you pride yourself in being as "Good as it gets" in regards to tweaks and making the preoper optimizations for you platform?
  5. Yet Darl is using the same software and nearly the same hardware, yet his site is better than 20 times faster then yours and due to that can handle many more customers on that setup, stealing business away from you. Do this seem fair?
  6. Do you agree, that "technically" he *IS* distributing a binary usage, being used by hundreds (if not thousands) of people?
  7. If you do not think he is providing / selling / distributing / making-available-for-pay the Binaries of this CMS and MySQL, then what is he selling or providing?
  8. Based on you answer, please tell me how you can defend this? (yes I presumed you would not agree)
Based on this whole set of question's answers, I am going to pre-suppose you would rather keep the corporate welfare loophole, on a technicality, being proper.

What if both MySQL and the CMS were actually YOUR programs, that YOU copyrighted and released under the GNU GPLv2? What effect would that have on your stance? Would this affect your willingness to continue developing these programs, pro-bono?

You see, what Moglen and the FSF are trying to accomplish here, are trying to close those corporate welfare usage problems that are existing right now. There are companies using so heavily modified software packages (the actual source for these programs, not the "implemntation of them") that are selling them as a service. This is literally allowing the corporations to feed off the goodwill of the "FOSS Community". Look at Sun and how it is trying this same thing with Solaris, don't get me wrong, it is cool for them to try and grab a piece of the Free Developement available out there, but at what expense to other things?

I guess by now, you'll have ignored anything after the thrid numbered question. I am very upset, that you of all people don't get what this is calling for. It is NOT, ANTI-BUSINESS, just that it closes the loophole that has already been closed for the "distributors of binaries compiled from GPLv2 source", if it were so anti-business, why are so many businesses, starting to actually release source under the GPLv2, and more than likely will start using GPLv3, when the misunderstandings are worked out and everyone understands what "Web Services" really means.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New No. Wrong. And this is why
there is no 'loophole' to be closed.

1. Is there any doubt he is well within the rights of the GPLv2?

No. But under v3, he must publish his changes.

2. Is there any question that he is distributing the use of the CMS backended by MySQL?

Using a program is FAR different than distributing the program. Under this kind of sopistry, ALL multi-user programs are guilty of the 'loophole'.
3. Is there any question, that he changed the code?

Since that is posited, no doubt.

4. Are you satisfied, that were you Darl's competitor, that he is using nearly identical hardware and bandwidth, that trounces your setup you pride yourself in being as "Good as it gets" in regards to tweaks and making the preoper optimizations for you platform?

What competitors believe is irrelevant. You might believe that ANYTHING is 'as good as it gets'; so what? What gives you, as a competitor, the right to the efforts of your competition? Especially as the software HAS NOT been distributed in any way.

5. Yet Darl is using the same software and nearly the same hardware, yet his site is better than 20 times faster then yours and due to that can handle many more customers on that setup, stealing business away from you. Do this seem fair?

Darl is NOT using the same software - and as Darls competition, you have the right to optimize the software as well, so there is NOTHING 'unfair'.

6. Do you agree, that "technically" he *IS* distributing a binary usage, being used by hundreds (if not thousands) of people?

No. Not at all. Not in ANY WAY. This is sophistry, pure and simple. No binaries have been distributed; they are not running on the client's machine.

7. If you do not think he is providing / selling / distributing / making-available-for-pay the Binaries of this CMS and MySQL, then what is he selling or providing?

Use of his server. The binaries have never moved, they do NOT run on the client machines, not at ALL. THERE HAS BEEN NO DISTRIBUTION - except if you want to redefine 'distribution'. That IS the MO of your argument, no? In fact, you CAN'T redefine distribution like this - that's why the FSF feels this so-called 'loophole' has to be closed.

What if both MySQL and the CMS were actually YOUR programs, that YOU copyrighted and released under the GNU GPLv2? What effect would that have on your stance? Would this affect your willingness to continue developing these programs, pro-bono?

No effect. Under GPL2 I have no right to another's efforts unless the software is distributed. GPL3 effectively eliminates the availability of source code as a desireable feature for business, though.
and more than likely will start using GPLv3, when the misunderstandings are worked out and everyone understands what "Web Services" really means.

Fantasy. I've read the proposed license a dozen times, and I'm truly afraid I DO know what 'web services' means to the FSF.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Exactly the kind of response I expected.
You are missing the entire point.

If you profit from giving access to your modifications through a service charge, then you have distributed access to those binaries, though on your machine, you still are breaking the spirit of the GPLv2.

Therefore the GPLv3 is addressing it.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New Horsecrap.
The binaries have not gone anywhare; the SOFTWARE has not been distributed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New The binaries have not been distributed . . .
. . but the effect of Web services is as if binaries have been distributed. Many outside users are accessing those binaries which are modifications of GPL'd code without any benefit having been returned to the writers of the original code or to the community.

It is easy to see why the FSF considers this a loophole, especially given the increase expected in Web services, so I suspect this clause will be kept. Providers of Web services will need to find another way to achieve a return from their modifications than by keeping them secret. Those that figure out some other value will be key beneficiaries.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New And then GPL4.
Brett Glass was right.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Or most OSS used for web services won't be GPL3
New Another train of thought, I need to mention.
Let's suppose, again you are an application service provider. You develop a way to have the whole Microsoft Suite of Office type proggys offered through a webserver and work in the browser, Office and Visual Studio, we shall say.

Using one machine, you are able to service 500 users. All of them using every program at one time or another.

How do you think Microsoft would feel about this? (*1)

You aren't technically distributing or pirating the programs, so why would they even care?

Do you think they would just wave it off as an "bahhh who cares"?

I'd really be interested in your perspective on this.













*1 == I haven't read an MS eula in a long while, so I don't know what they cover anymore.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New question, using go-global
to a server using windows do I need to buy a license to write a word doc? I havnt looked at an MS license in a long time.
thanx,
bill
Just call me Mr. Lynch \\

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New I knowest not.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New Since MS software is licenced per user
Ths is a silly analogy, Greg.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New No... there is only one user.
The Machine itself.

Only one binary, for each software.
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New Again, ridiculous.
Tell me why we have to license software to users when using Citrix, then.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Excuse me. I am a programmer.
And I use application source code in the enterprise. My strong impression is that you're embarrassing yourself in public with your ignorance.

Volunteers do not owe you the right to try to make money via any particular business model. If they want to contribute software under terms that you don't want to accept, then don't accept them. Period.

If the prospect of them donating software under those terms scares you, then you're saying that there is some way for someone else to run a business that would eat yours alive. Figure out how to do that and you'll make a fortune. If you think that lots of people want to find terms that keep you from using their donation in the way that you want to use it, then you are admitting that you're taking advantage of their generosity.

Now it seems that somehow you think that it is a bad thing for people to be able to choose a copyright license that you don't like. I simply don't see that. If I want to donate my time and energy to giving away software, then I should be able to put whatever terms I want on said software.

Sincerely,
Ben

PS And remember that not all software will be released under this license. For instance when I look at the software that we use at work, all is either not GPLed (Perl, Apache, etc), or has non-GPLed free equivalents we could switch to (FreeBSD, vim).
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New there is a place for all kinds
large companies prefer to use vendors, I always carefully ask the vendors the license terms of all componants of their offering and ask how they are complying with whatever licensing scheme they use. I mostly use gpl in the support tools. When asked I frown upon usage in deployed apps unless the deployer clearly understands the license terms and has taken a run by the legal department prior to making it available to a customer.

Now since perl has permeated the enterprise to become the glue choice, does one have to make all the code available or just the perl scripts?
thanx,
bill
Just call me Mr. Lynch \\

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 49 years. meep
questions, help? [link|mailto:pappas@catholic.org|email pappas at catholic.org]
New Perl's licensing situation is interesting
Perl is available under a choice of the GPL or the Artistic License. I have it on good authority that the Artistic License was designed to be easy to drive a truck through.

Apparently there is a desire to tighten up Perl 6's licensing somewhat. But not too much - after all a number of key Perl people are big BSD fans who detest the GPL. Larry Wall doesn't want to drive them away.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Not at all, Ben.
Never did I say that people should be prevented from choosing whatever license they choose.

I DO believe that GPL3 (as outlined now) is a bad license. I also believe that people who don't care about the implications for business will use it. It DOES eliminate much of the utiliity of makng the source available. This could have a negative effect on business uptake - it makes software released under GPL3 little more than shrinkwrap software, as far as business is concerned. No more customisation for businesses, much of the promise of GPLed software is irrelevant if published under v3.
My strong impression is that you're embarrassing yourself in public with your ignorance.

I've been programming in the business world for the last 25 years, Ben. I know how business IT works; I've been in the thick of it for a LOOOONG time. My concerns over what I see as a possible bright future for GPLed software, and (in-house) IT is anything but an embarrasment. I don't think it will be the end of all things, but it will hinder/cripple the 'movement' if this thing doesn't undergo some bg changes.

Under v3, availability of source code becomes much less of a feature.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Perspective is all
Guess we could use the pirates creedo and say that my "improving" and "using" GPL code doesn't amount to theft - since the GPL code is still available to any and all. But that tends to not get us anywhere.

Just as people who write code should be "free" to issue their software under the stupidest license possible, isn't it obvious that we should be just as "free" to persuade them that some licenses are stoopid. Telling them the license sux, doesn't mean that we are knaves and thieves bent on stealing their precious out from under them.

Really, the pro-or-anti business argument is a tad misleading. Truth is that there are some major businesses (e.g. IBM) that commit an enormous amount of manpower and money to open source projects. They do this not out of the kindness of their hearts, but rather out of a conniving plot to make money (especially to keep MS at bay). It would probably be best not to chase these resources away. Not all GPL software is a bunch of kids in the garage trying to stroke their ego.
New Pirates?
Geez, man - that's like saying BSDed code is being stolen when it is not changed and not released.

As for stealing, well, I never said that either. It's quite simply that availabilty of source becomes far less attractive. Fewer programmers will use it in house. Because business wants to get return and advantage for their efforts. No advantage? No effort.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Pirate analogy is a different issue
It's a common argument against the idea of intellectual property. The argument says that if I "pirate" a copy of your software, I have not taken property away from you - you still have the software. In the same token, if I modify GPL software and start making money from it, I have not taken away the source code from you. My making money from your software does not amount to theft since you still have the source. You may not be able to take advantage of my improvements, but if I wasn't afforded the chance to make money, there'd be no improvements to be redistributed. Anyhow, such arguments don't cut much in the GNU world - which is always odd since they don't believe in IP rights. Anyhow, it's a dead end.

As for why business uses GPL software, the question is a bit more complicated. Some companies would like to make refinements to the software and sell those refinements. Other businesses are only in the business of changing the code for in-house use. And then there are some that try to blend these - ASP sorts of models - where the software is kept in-house but is sold as a service. Finally, some businesses participate fully in GPL software, giving back all modifications to the community - akin to a loss-leader strategy.

I would note that FSF has been vocally opposed to open source licenses that require those that modify the software to make their contributions publically available (even for in-house apps). The JCP being one they have argued against since it requires that you make all modifications available to Sun - Stallman has gone on record saying that this violates the concept of Free Software (though he has many other complaints about JCP that go beyond this one clause). Another license that's been criticized by FSF is the one attached to Squeak, which has a similar clause, though that project is not attached to a corporate entitity.

Personally, I think it's a balancing act that must be made. Lest FSF forget, the purpose of free software is not to prevent others from using or making money off of source code. The purpose is to make as much software available under the GNU terms as possible - and to make that free software as splendid as possible - and to make it as widely used as possible.
New I disagree

under the GNU terms as possible - and to make that free software as splendid as possible - and to make it as widely used as possible.


It is to allow other programmers to learn and build. Everything else is a side effect, not the pupose.
New The original instigation for FSF
arose from the experience with the Unix OS under Bell Labs. Programmers, such as Stallman, wanted access to the source code so that they could make improvements. They wanted to share those improvements with other such programmers. AT&T came in and restricted the redistribution of the source code because they owned the OS and all surrounding utilities.

Now how this translates into whose freedoms are being protected is a different issue. Does this mean that I have to make all modifications available to the community under all circumstances? Well, the GPL does not have that general level of a requirement, as it sought to hone in only on those that attempted to restrict access to source code when it was redistributed. The current question is not whether a programmer is forced to release modifications, but in what circumstances a trigger is met that software is being distributed.

The purpose of the FSF was to build a toolset (and subsequent OS) that was based on the free exchange of source. The goal is to make that toolset as useful as possible, such that one need not use software for which one does not have source. Use of that software in proprietary systems is not antithetical to the FSF, other than in the way it effects the quality of free software. Learning and building are but secondary goals to the overall goal of making a set of free software that can be used by users.

But all this is pure pedantry. The reasons why people contribute to free software is quite varied, as noted by Stallman's constant irritation of Linus' engineering indifference. One of the interesting questions in all this is whether Linux (excuse me, GNU/Linux) will go with a GPLv3 license. Remember that the goals of Linux are not necessarily in alignment with FSF. Sure, some distributions may use it, but there will also be many that don't. And most will simply distribute the various components under whatever license (incompatible or not) that happened to be attached.

MySQL, the other example cited, is much different than either FSF or Linux. It is issued under the GPL by a company that also sells a proprietary version. It is in their interest to prevent other companies from improving and selling MySQL services - since that's how they make some of their money. They'd just as well be the only ones making proprietary improvements - not exactly what you'd call the same goals as FSF. The authors of Jasper Reports is in the process of trying to use this same sort of business model.
New How is that a 'loophole' unless
Unless you are actively AGAINST business use of the source code.

Unless you are actively FOR making the GPL truly 'viral'.

It is ridiculous in the context that the FSF says (but apparently does not mean) that they have no problem with profitable use of the source - after all, what business will hire programmers to work on GPLv3 code when the get NO competitive advantage out of it? Aside from software publishers (a tiny minority of businesses), that is.

As I said earlier, it seems that GPLv3 is all about removing a valuable feature of GPLed code, but only for non-software publishers - the source code itself? I mean, what business would care about source code availability when they can't actually USE it to their advantage?

No, unless this is changed by the time it is released, watch for a HUGE licensing fork.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New It's a loophole for the FSF.
Current business models of closed-source code (and, indeed, pseudo-closed-source, like they claim web services to be) are counter to the stated ideals and intentions of the guardians of the GPL.

The virality or not of the GPL is incidental; if that's what it takes to ensure that the licence cannot be breached, then that is what they will do.

The interests of "business" are just not taken into account by the GPL; it's an ideology made flesh in the form of a legal instrument, and one that only gains its edge by subverting copyright law.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=21
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218168|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=218168]
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Your point?
The FSF don't care at all about that, and that is precisely the point I'm trying to convey.

You will NEVER sway the FSF with an argument about "business" or "the workplace".

It's a bit like trying to convince a Republican of the virtues of a rise in income tax in order to subsidise free healthcare for all.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New I started this
trying to get somebody to tell me where I was wrong.

The GPL is the FSF's, true.

The software is not.

I think v3 is a disaster that will wreck what could be a revolution in software development; and software has never been more important than it is now. If I can't sway the FSF (and you're right, I think I'd have more luck trying to talk the Hubble back into orbit), then I'll take my misgivings to forums, hoping to reach developers. If they all say "fuck you, and fuck business", then the code base will split, one for business, one for the FSF disciples, and the FSF will deserve both obscurity and curses.

I truly hope my paramism (pessanoia?) is misplaced, but I don't think so.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Business Interests
From where I sit, most businesses don't want or care to modify the source of the software. They don't really care to sink dollars into the development of such programs as MySQL or Apache. They do care, however, about the apps that ride on top of these packages.
New Most businesses...
...end up buying Oracle.

Not entirely facetious, I wot.


Peter
[link|http://www.ubuntulinux.org|Ubuntu Linux]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
New Same difference, if the apps are GPLed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New It's contrary to the spirit of the GPL
The basic spirit of the GPL is that if you take GPL software and modify it and then make that software available to others, for money or for free, then you must also make the source available.

The 'web services' ploy lets companies get around that, taking GPL software and making money off of it without making the code public. The GPL was intentionally designed (in part) to prevent exactly that because of the abuse the BSD liscense had suffered over the years.

Unless you are actively AGAINST business use of the source code.

The GPL is not anti-buisness. It is pro-personal freedom, even when that gets in the way of buisness profits.

Jay


New Except, of course
the BSD is working as designed. USE is all. Ask Brett Glass.

And if the GPLed software is not redistributed (and it is not, via web services) then there is no harm, no foul. Only if the profits being made are what is being resented is there a problem. Listening to the arguments here, I have to believe that's the case.

v3. Anti-business and designed that way.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Not anti-Buisness
The GPL is not anti-buisness. It is pro-end-user freedom. That this freedom gets in the way of buisness sometimes is a not so unfortunate side effect.

And in any case, if your really intent on being pro-buisness then you shouldn't support any OSS at all. The ability to download BSD gets in the way of Microsoft charging you for an OS after all.

I also think you are missing some serious considerations that mean even for buisness use the GPL has advantages. For instance, why would anybody ever release software under the BSD liscense? For a buisness all it is doing is lowering the entrance cost of competition, who will find it easier to get into the buisness if they don't have to write software from the ground up. And for a single developer, the GPL forces any company that builds on my work to pay me for my work by making their changes available also.

More over, even if a company never plans to modify software, there is an advantage to the GPL. By making the code available, you fight platform lock in and can see what the system actually does. Even if the vendor goes out of buisness, my companies ability to use that platform is not destroyed.

Jay
New *shrug* same as BSD
You've all managed to convince me that Brett Glass was right from the start. I am ashamed.

Mark my words, though, there will be a licensing fork to end all licensing forks if the GPLv3 is not changed.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Sorry Skip, you are lacking some significant clues
I don't know whether the GPL v3 will succeed in shutting off the web services loophole. But I guarantee you that the result that you describe is what they want to have happen.

As for your complaints about this ruining business, get a clue as to the history. Back when the GPL first came out, everyone said that no business would use it. They made arguments that were exactly analogous to your current argument. Remember, in the late 80s, shrinkwrap had a similar position to webservices today.

Ridicule about the GPL being a communistic pipe-dream started to sound hollow when companies like IBM started making billions off of GPLed software.

Now you're absolutely right that a GPL v3 will be anathema to companies like Amazon, eBay and Google. However you'd have been equally right back in 1992 to say that the GPL v2 was anathema to companies like Microsoft, Lotus and Corel. What you would have missed then, and are missing now, is that only a handful of highly visible companies care, and the potential community of programmers available from the ones to whom that is not an issue can outproduce the big players that you can readily think of.

Whether or not the FSF can get a new version of the GPL accepted and into widespread use is a good question. However the fact that the license is not liked by very visible big web services companies is not going to be a fatal flaw.

And your complaints about it being anti-capitalistic are exactly on par with Microsoft's FUD about the GPL v2 being anti-capitalist. Sure, it runs counter to someone's business model. That's life. Adapt or die. That is the essence of capitalism - you have the opportunity to try to make a profit. But nobody owes you the right to profit. If you can't, that is your problem.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New Ruining business?
No. Crippling the uptake of GPLed software.
only a handful of highly visible companies care, and the potential community of programmers available from the ones to whom that is not an issue can outproduce the big players that you can readily think of.

And the smaller companies that might have optimized/customised GPLed software will shrink signifigantly. GPLed software may make it into the workplace, but the availabilty of the source will be almost useless for (non-software house) small businesses. It might as well be shrinkwrap.

The potential the GPL has for revitalising IT is crippled by this thing, Ben. Development efforts by non-software houses, customising software for thier needs, will NOT be done. They will just use the software in the same way that they would shrinkwrapped stuff - as provided.
As for your complaints about this ruining business, get a clue as to the history. Back when the GPL first came out, everyone said that no business would use it. They made arguments that were exactly analogous to your current argument. Remember, in the late 80s, shrinkwrap had a similar position to webservices today.

And, back then, I was able to counter the FUD that smply modifying the code and using it did NOT require the release of code. It's no longer FUD under GPL3, though.

Finally, I never said it was anti-capitalistic, or communistic, or any of the straw-words you've thrown out here. It IS targeted against business use of the source code, though. Business may use the code, but customising it for business use? Why bother? A big feature. Gone.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New And you're still missing the point
Most people who use and develop software are working for businesses that aren't primarily about the software. The GPL v3 will not be a significant disincentive for them. And for those who find it a disincentive, there is plenty of free software under other licenses to consider.

As for anti-capitalistic vs anti-business, I apologize for misreading that. However you're still wrong. The GPL v3 is not anti-business. It is against some business models. It is not against lots of other business models.

Confusing being against some business models with being against all businesses is like accusing an effective anti-spyware bill of being anti-business because it will put some prominent spyware manufacturers out of business.

Anyways I don't expect that you're in a mood to listen very well at the moment. Therefore I'm going to suggest that you take a time-out from this thread. Whether or not you follow that advice, I will. I don't see that productive conversation is happening, so I'll take a break from this thread, and perhaps we can rejoin conversation at a later date.

Cheers,
Ben
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
New And that's what I did - I slept on it.
*smile*

However, I think my points still remain valid. No customisations will be done to GPL3ed software (exposed to customers, vendors, brokers, and other third parties) in-house. Especially in SMBs, where the bulk of IT toils. If v3 doesn't change (and it probably won't) what could be a renaissance for IT will probably be over before it starts. Depending on the uptake of the license, of course.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New I was going to say something smart-ass here,
but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

Sure I can.

JESUS WEPT MAN!

WTF is wrong with you?

How DARE you bitch about any restrictions on something given to you for free?

Especially when the restriction is the cornerstone of the reason it was given to you.

Someone worked hard on something. He/She/It/Whatever spent a huge amount of time and effort on it. HSIW has graciously allowed you to use it. You find a way to make it better, and you make money because it. HSIW required you to disclose what changes you made.

Done. Game over.

You don't like that business model, TFB!

You were expecting a free ride?

If that bit of change is the core deal breaker, then dammit, your company isn't that special and doesn't deserve to beat the "competition".

Either write the core software yourself, write your external modules in such a way that satisfies the license, create some value add that it is worth using you anyway, or get the F out of the business.

Why do I have to explain this to you?
New No. You are not listening. Just like the rest.
Bah. Am I attacking your religion then?

You plainly do not see use of the source code as a feature that users - business users - might want. Advantage over competition is being cut right out of this, it WILL make GPLed software less attractive to business.

End of line.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Re: No. You are not listening. Just like the rest.
Bah. Am I attacking your religion then?


Starting to seem like it, though.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New Religion?
Not at all.

I use a variety of GPLed and other licensed software, happily.

And sure, most of the stuff I use is Perl modules, via CPAN, of which most (all?)
use the same license as perl, ie: GPL or Artistic. And the Artistic is one of
the most wide open abusable licenses in the world.

I think to core difference is that as a software USER, the GPL gives incredible
freedom and usefulness. And as a corporate programmer, for inhouse applications
that we use to run our business, we get the same freedom and usefulness.

But for software publishers, they hate it, for a reason.
And now, if the GPL3 limits Wep facing apps in the same way, there will be the
same emnity.

BUT MOST PROGRAMMERS WORK FOR COMPANIES AND PRODUCE THE SOFTWARE FOR INTERNAL
CONSUMPTION.

This is the same argument, over again, just like the beginning of GPL.

We have different goals.

You want to tweak the app, make a competitive difference in the app, and resell
usage of the app. You won't be allowed. Sucks to be you.

I want to tweak the app, modify it for internal usage, and give my company better tools to produce the output that our customers pay for. I'm allowed. Life is good.

Different goals.

The goal of the GPL is to allow other programmers the ability to read and learn
from common code, and to not allow people to sell code at a profit without allowing
their customers and other people to have access to the code.

Now some people who release their code under the GPL feel that web apps is violating
what they believe is appropriate use. So they are clarifying it.

Which is having a possible financial impact on you. Please do NOT bother whining
about acceptance of GPL software in businesses and the harm you see coming.

Total crock of shit.

Just run the numbers of corporate vs web app programmers who have no value add,
and I'm sure you'll discover the huge difference in numbers.

If a particular corp does both (and most do), and find value in the GPL for
internal usage, great. If they see a GPL3 app they want to modify for web facing,
again, their choice. Either release the changes, or track down the copyright
holders and pay for a one-off license usage off it. Pay the author for the
right, don't whine about they are not giving it away.

If you really want it, possibly need it, and it is so difficult that you can't
recode it yourself in a cost effective manner, then you obviously feel it has
great value. Pay the man!

And if it a case of a true community effort, with many people contributing, and
you can't get them to release the software under a different license, well, then,
YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO GET ANY VALUE OUT
OF THEIR HARD CREATED SOFTWARE.

This is not religion, this is business. Yours, mine, and the GPL author's who now
is releasing something dual license. Or of the people who know exactly what they
are doing and do not want you using their software.
New Listen carefully, now.
Business will get along just fine without mods to software they use on their own machines, without using the feature of source availability. Just lke they do now.

Further, I do in house scripting and user hooks to a proprietary app. My ox is not gored by GPL3. I have no personal stake. True, I would love it if there was a usable insurance/reinsurance app released under the GPL. But it ain't likely in the near future, bubbi.

What I worry about, what I am disappointed in, is that OS/GPL software won't be taken up more widely because of this thing. Developer demand (in house) will not be affected by uptake of GPLed software. It will hinder what could have been a glorious renaissance for our trade. Perhaps it won't kill it entirely, maybe it will.

Say what you like, GPLed software will be less attractive to businesses - after all most work is done in these businesses. It's targeted against business, NOT because the software is being changed and released without publishing the changes (it's not beiing distributed after all), but BECAUSE companies making changes turn profits.

So, go ahead and say it, just like the rest. YOu beleve that using the binaries is the same thing as distributing them.

Go ahead and say it. Brett Glass was right all along. I won't agree, but that's what everyone here has been saying.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New A collective yawn
In a way, Brett Glass was correct, but he always managed to get frenzied on the subject. The truth is that there's really not a whole lot of money to be made by improving and packaging free software. The money to be made in selling improvements to open source software is pretty minimal. It's like trying to make money by selling programming languages - just not much of an economy there. And the ones that are in a position to use refinements to freely available software, are not necessarily the kind of companies that garner much sympathy (usually being monopolists and oligopolists).

Modifying MySQL to be faster isn't gonna make or break 99.9% of the web servicebased companies, especially not the starups. Most of the effort in web services must go into the domain specific applications. GPL software may be used in these instances, but it's unlikely that what makes money will ever see the light of day.

As a econ grad, I would note that most capitalists miss the point of free markets. Free markets don't exist for the purpose of allowing companies to make a profit. In the long term, all profits for any market are supposed to be zero. In that light, GPL software shouldn't be seen as anti-capitalist, but rather a response of one set of businesses to reduce their costs at the expense of another set of businesses to charge more for their product.
New Long term = 0
However, short term allows for equitable return on invested captial and risk...both essentially "stock in trade" of the internet/software business model.

And tell me that OS software returns are anywhere near zaro yet...I don't see Bill Gates standing in line to get a new Hyundai anytime soon.

All Imric is pointing out is that GPL under the 2nd license had a shot at migrating into corporate in a very large way. Seeing that has made the rabid anti-establishment folks bring up V3.

Those that are saying "tough titties" are redefining some terms to try and justify this and are rationalizing why anyone using GPL source in an enterprise to turn a profit are idiots.

Thats not his point as I read it.

His point is simply that the new version of the GPL eliminates a niche that it had carved itself in corporate America and that is a sad thing for those that would like to see closed source, monolithic corporate software development houses have some realistic competition from smaller players.

At least I think thats his point. And it has validity in my mind.

The other side that says it is well within the rights of the publisher to do this is equally correct...but that has nothing to do with Imric's dismay at the change and his reasons for said dismay.

My 2 cents.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New I don't think he's talking about selling mods . . .
. . to GPL'd software, but about Web services sites having competitive advantage by using proprietary mods on top of a GPL'd base.

The proposed GPLv3 specifically negates this advantage in favor of returning those mods to the community.

While he certainly has a point, that point is from a programmer's perspective, precisely the perspective that doomed the Dot.Com "economy". It really doesn't matter.

The success of a Web services business will depend on what it offers and how well it offers it. Coding is only peripheral because these are designer and marketing factors. The coding just has to be competent.

His fears are ghosts because design and presentation are everything. The guy with great presentation and so-so code will devestate the guy with poor presentation and wonderful code every time until Hell freezes over, and probably for a long time after.

If the guy with great design and presentation also has great code - he'll be a legend. Let the world download his code. Let him say, "Hey world, here's my code, secret of my success, come and get it!". It'll keep 'em from figuring out what he's really doing.

GPLv3 is not the end of the world.


[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Correct - reselling not the point.
The success of a Web services business will depend on what it offers and how well it offers it.

You make excellent points - however, I disagree with: "His fears are ghosts because design and presentation are everything". I've done most of my work for the last quarter-century modifying the guts of packages to customise things for SMBs. It's not just presentation. ANY mod made would have to be released.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New I think I understand where you're coming from.
I haven't read the v3 draft, so I only have this thread to go on.

I understand your point - businesses won't want to take code under GPL v3 and customize it for their business advantage. So there'll be less business use, and Free Software won't progress as far as it would under v2 or similar less restrictive licenses.

Right?

But that's not what GPL code is for, as I understand it. If you ignore Stallman's views that are often spun as anti-business, I think what he really wants is a free/Free base of software that everyone can build upon. It's about freedom for the user - everything else is secondary. If people aren't reinventing sorting routines (or whatever), then a richer set of software will be available sooner for everyone's benefit.

Similarly, in your example, if everyone buys into the Free aspects of the v3 license, then everyone will benefit by having faster database queries, etc. And the software will be more appealing to work on as it will have more users and a more vibrant developer community. So new features and other improvements will be added to it quicker. Thus the original company in your example will benefit from a richer developer community for the product. Everyone benefits.

Your criticism, it seems to me, could be applied to all GPL v2 software. Why would a large corporation work on GPL software when shipping it to [link|http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution|an offsite contractor] of the corporation would be redistribution and thus require releasing the source? Aren't they giving up their competitive advantage? No, the corporation recognizes the benefits of using available source code and accepts the restrictions/freedom imposed by the license.

You have a lot more experience with this issue than me. But I think Stallman and the FSF is just continuing with their view that software should be Free. If you take GPL code and modify it, then you need to give the improvements back.

I think it'll work out, or people will find ways around the restrictions (without breaking the license). If not, there will be a lot of forking and/or a lot of code that will stay GPL v2. Either way, Free software will continue to thrive. Nobody knows, at this point, whether a v3 license would slow or accelerate the rate of uptake. (A lot may depend on what MS does with Longhorn and the XBox 360.)

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Yeah. I think the 'coming fork' is a bad thing, though
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New I think this is where you are going wrong
You plainly do not see use of the source code as a feature that users - business users - might want. Advantage over competition is being cut right out of this, it WILL make GPLed software less attractive to business.

I'm pretty sure that everybody here understands that the right to use source code in any way they want is something that buisness want. What the rest of us feel is that the price of that is higher then the benefit.

The function of the GPL is to encourage the free sharing of code, by making code available to you at the price of making your changes to that code available to others. The Web Services loophole lets companies get around that. That loophole makes it more desirable to buisness at the expense of making it less desirable to the people that back the GPL.

Jay
New I am not missing this point.
I am fully aware of this point.

I choose to poo-poo it.

It really isn't a big deal.

I honestly think you are reading way too much into: Web Services

You'll see.

I see your point, can you see mine? And Why I feel that way?
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
New I see what you're saying
But it is false, Greg. Entirely false.

According to you [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218275|here] profit=distribution of binaries.

Your resentment, your reason that the 'spirit' of the GPL is being violated, is entirely anti-business.

You don't value the ability to change source as a feature of OSS, which, BTW, makes that feature about as useful as 'shared source'.

Running a binary is NOT distribution, unless said binary is downloaded and run locally.

As pointed out [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218397|here], even Richard Stallman USED to agree with me about this.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New BTW, this discussion should really be moved to (new thread)
Created as new thread #218422 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218422|BTW, this discussion should really be moved to]
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


New Several things

First, most everything that's important to "web services" is either a) under a non-GPL license, b) dual-licensed GPL and something else or c) GPL but pinned to GPLv2 and can't be relicensed without the permission of everyone who's ever contributed to it.

\r\n\r\n

Second, there are some big conceptual problems with trying to "close the web services loophole". What the heck is a "web service"? That could end up being even murkier than GPLv2's definition of linking. What's the difference between using GCC to transform C source code into an executable binary, and using, say, the PHP interpreter to transform PHP source code into a renderable web page? How could a license be written which doesn't force source distribution of the former but does force source distribution of the latter? What about a language like Ruby which is used both for system and web programming? Its interpreter is GPL; would proprietary software written in Ruby suddenly stop being proprietary if someone ran it through an interpreter embedded in a web server? How would that make sense? And if that's not how GPLv3 would work, if it would only apply when the CMS was GPL, then how does this matter? Google didn't start from a GPL search application, and neither did any other big web-services player that I know of; they all used open-source platforms, but they rolled their own services/frameworks/whatever.

\r\n\r\n

Third, throughout this thread you are arguing in entirely the wrong fashion if you want to accomplish anything. Millions of geeks could scream their heads off that this would be bad for business, and the FSF would not change its course because that's not a cause which matters to them. To get through to the FSF you must speak their language, which means you need to have a reason why GPLv3 would negatively impact user freedom.

--\r\nYou cooin' with my bird?
\r\n[link|http://www.shtuff.us/|shtuff]
New More good points (new thread)
Created as new thread #218338 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218338|More good points]
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
]
Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 


     This has been bugging me. - (imric) - (72)
         It's the usual cack. - (pwhysall) - (13)
             Nonsense, Peter. - (imric) - (12)
                 I repeat. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     I care about this, Peter. - (imric) - (2)
                         I don't doubt that you care. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             It's true that it may be less of a problem - (imric)
                 the fact that you dont distribute your software - (boxley) - (1)
                     disgruntled >>--> Whistleblower laws. -NT - (imric)
                 Also, looky here: - (pwhysall) - (5)
                     ICLRPD (new thread) - (Steve Lowe)
                     Woo hoo. - (imric) - (2)
                         Remember, existing GPLv2 software will remain GPLv2 - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             ROFL - just posted that is a mitigating factor... - (imric)
                     He who controls the compiler... - (ChrisR)
         How is it ridiculous? - (JayMehaffey) - (36)
             Bravo. -NT - (folkert) - (23)
                 Guess you don't want to use application source - (imric) - (22)
                     Here is my grounds for poo-pooing your concern. - (folkert) - (6)
                         No. Wrong. And this is why - (imric) - (5)
                             Exactly the kind of response I expected. - (folkert) - (4)
                                 Horsecrap. - (imric) - (3)
                                     The binaries have not been distributed . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                         And then GPL4. - (imric)
                                         Or most OSS used for web services won't be GPL3 -NT - (tonytib)
                     Another train of thought, I need to mention. - (folkert) - (5)
                         question, using go-global - (boxley) - (1)
                             I knowest not. -NT - (folkert)
                         Since MS software is licenced per user - (imric) - (2)
                             No... there is only one user. - (folkert) - (1)
                                 Again, ridiculous. - (imric)
                     Excuse me. I am a programmer. - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                         there is a place for all kinds - (boxley) - (1)
                             Perl's licensing situation is interesting - (ben_tilly)
                         Not at all, Ben. - (imric) - (5)
                             Perspective is all - (ChrisR) - (4)
                                 Pirates? - (imric) - (3)
                                     Pirate analogy is a different issue - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                         I disagree - (broomberg) - (1)
                                             The original instigation for FSF - (ChrisR)
             How is that a 'loophole' unless - (imric) - (11)
                 It's a loophole for the FSF. - (pwhysall) - (6)
                     http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=21 - (imric) - (2)
                         Your point? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             I started this - (imric)
                     Business Interests - (ChrisR) - (2)
                         Most businesses... - (pwhysall)
                         Same difference, if the apps are GPLed. -NT - (imric)
                 It's contrary to the spirit of the GPL - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                     Except, of course - (imric) - (2)
                         Not anti-Buisness - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                             *shrug* same as BSD - (imric)
         Sorry Skip, you are lacking some significant clues - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Ruining business? - (imric) - (2)
                 And you're still missing the point - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     And that's what I did - I slept on it. - (imric)
         I was going to say something smart-ass here, - (broomberg) - (14)
             No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (imric) - (13)
                 Re: No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (bepatient)
                 Religion? - (broomberg) - (5)
                     Listen carefully, now. - (imric) - (4)
                         A collective yawn - (ChrisR) - (3)
                             Long term = 0 - (bepatient)
                             I don't think he's talking about selling mods . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                 Correct - reselling not the point. - (imric)
                 I think I understand where you're coming from. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Yeah. I think the 'coming fork' is a bad thing, though -NT - (imric)
                 I think this is where you are going wrong - (JayMehaffey)
                 I am not missing this point. - (folkert) - (2)
                     I see what you're saying - (imric) - (1)
                         BTW, this discussion should really be moved to (new thread) - (imric)
         Several things - (ubernostrum) - (1)
             More good points (new thread) - (imric)

Meta-Admin Notice: You Sillies
402 ms