Does GPL v3 Alienate Developers? 430
An anonymous reader writes "Via Wired, a blog post in which BMC Software's Whurley and Google's Greg Stein agree that the GPL v3 is currently on a path that will alienate developers. Stein has an interesting theory called 'license pressure' which is similar to 'pricing pressure'. 'Due to pressure from developers, all software is moving towards permissive licensing" translation, the GPL and developers are moving in opposite directions ... Developers care about the licenses on the software they use and incorporate into their projects, they like permissive licenses, and they will increasingly demand permissive licenses.'"
The plural of anecdote? (Score:5, Interesting)
FUD from a Microsoft shill (Score:0, Interesting)
I've read thousands of GPL3-related comments on Slashdot, and it is apparent to me that for the most part, the people who don't like GPL3 are people who already didn't like GPL2 -- people who either liken it to cancer or communism, or people who only like BSD-style licenses because they think that when code is freely given to them it means they should be entitled to re-use it in a proprietary product against the wishes of the original developer (and then claim that the GPL is stealing the food off their children's tables).
This is just FUD.
Developers are affected by licenses too... (Score:3, Interesting)
That's true only as long as you don't link to any other libraries or use any other programs as part of your work. As soon as you link your software to other software on the system, you are affected by the licenses on the other software. So, unless you're developing truly standalone software (like assembly code for an embedded device), you are affected by other licenses.
As a hobbyist developer, I see problems with GPL v3 in the sense that it is not compatible with GPL v2. Therefore, if I wanted to release code under GPL v2, I could not link to any libraries or programs that ware licensed under v3. That's not too much of an issue now (since the license has not been released) but it could turn into an issue if adoption of v3 becomes widespread.
Re:Projection (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Nope (Score:3, Interesting)
I know good intentions are made to protect the user, but in reality if the other side gets screwed then the other side will do something else. It is like Taxing the Rich if you tax them to much then they will just move out of that high Tax area and the poor people in that area will get poorer because the services and jobs that the rich people own will no longer be there, and less tax revenue means less money for social services to help them out. But not Taxing the rich or Taxing them at the same rate as the poorer people will not overly benefit the poor because the rich will get get richer from the extra stored income. So there needs to be a good balance where Taxes are high enough for the service they need to get paid for but low enough to keep them there. The Same with GPL Developers need some rights to protect their use of their work and to have some protection from other code they may use so their product is used in a way they attend it to be used, but open enough for the user community to use the product the way they want to use it.
Most Free zealots that I know never read GPL2 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Impression (Score:3, Interesting)
1 - Community writes one million lines of code and release them publicly: everyone benefits.
2 - Corporate developer writes 100 lines of code, adds them to the community work and releses a closed product, actually taking credit and money, for a work consisting of mostly open source.
This is exactly why you see around many wifi routers and firewalls using Linux plus some closed source wifi card driver whose producer gives nothing back to the community that helped them to enter the market, while the community still needs reverse engineering to write open source drivers for the same wifi chipset.
The GPL is like a lock keeping closed a drawer containing a pair of handcuffs. It's somewhat a restrictive license, but what happens if we remove that restriction?
GPL = non starter for me (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand, we do occasionally use MIT or BSD licensed projects. When working with those we put in a lot of QA time (something most open source projects are severely lacking in!) and we put in some engineering time as well to fix problems we find or extend the project to do things it currently doesn't. That means my employer devotes manpower (and hence $$$) towards these projects.
It's not good, it's not bad, but it's something you should consider when choosing a license, especially software libraries.
Re:Nope (Score:4, Interesting)
I haven't noticed many users posting blog articles or sending letters to the U.S. Congress complaining about a software license. It appears to me that the GPL, due to its popularity and the massive amount of code released under it, has generated rants, propoganda campaigns, and even a letter from a CEO to the U.S. Congress explaining how it will be the end of the free world [groklaw.net], and why? Before the arguement was always that it wasn't as free as it should be, at least in this latest rant the truth is used, because its not as permissive for businesses and software developers who would like to take the GPLed code, use it, and not have to give anything back.
I agree, developers are in control, and far from being idiots choosing a license under peer pressure and in dire need of direction from lawyers, CEOs, or even Congress, we use a license because it serves our needs.
Re:Impression (Score:1, Interesting)
For almost every major project out there, someone somewhere is making money off of it. Would you stop contributing to the linux kernel because you know there are a bazillion vendors out there using that code to make money on their product?
I don't care what people use my code for. What I do care about is if that code is improved or fixed - I would like those changes. But if they don't want to contribute back, thats their choice. People who don't give back in that context don't get the full benefits, because they aren't working to improve the very code they're using.
The lines arent as clear as one might think - see my other post [slashdot.org] for an explanation.
New day, same old stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
So what possible interest could this large multi-national software company have in GPL software? "Boo hoo, we can't steal code from the internet."
Their assertion that the GPL is unfavorable to developers is questionable at best. Unfair to their developers because they have to write the code instead of stealing it? Or is it unfair to other developers because - I don't know, some other reason that you have to drink the MS kool aid to understand.
Really, now - a company that makes monitoring and management software for several Windows versions - and Linux - issues a release in which they speak of "developers!" and spread FUD about the GPL. Coincidence?
Re:Impression (Score:3, Interesting)
I think General George Patton said it best "Software licenses are a monument to the stupidity of man!" or at least he would have. I think the main purpose of the GPLv3 is to keep RMS and company in the public limelight and perhaps weed out the non-believers. Tivoization is just a smoke screen.
What I can't understand is how 'GPLv2 or later' gets translated into 'GPLv2 unless GPLv3'. IANAL, thank god, but seems to me that those are not equivalent statements.
You need to examine developer motivations (Score:2, Interesting)
If this had been under the GPL, it would *not* have been deployed as widely. [Given that this software was developed in 1991, the GPL was not really a serious contender at the time]. I don't get any income under either the GPL or the BSD-like license, so that is a wash. What I do get, from wider deployment, is a bigger ego boost. This is important to me.
Why I Rolled My Own (Score:4, Interesting)
The GPL would have been nice, but it's a bit too politically-intensive. And the problem with BSD-style licences is that (unless you remove the second clause, to permit distribution only in Source Code form; which is actually fine for stuff written in interpreted languages) it doesn't guarantee to preserve Freedoms One and Three (I know I'm borrowing these terms from GNU; I happen to agree with their manifesto, I'm just not convinced that a notice of permission for acts above and beyond the Fair Dealing provisions of copyright law needs to reproduce a political manifesto) for posterity. I know that's just me being lazy -- I could always get off my backside and write my own Free competitor if some upstart tried to make a non-Free fork -- but I figured that said non-Free competitor would be just as guilty of "just being lazy" by using my hard work (which I intended to be for the benefit of all of humankind) for their non-Free project rather than writing their own from scratch.
I did at one stage have a section restricting translation of the program to other languages (the English text permitting translation was to be replaced with a section forbidding further translations when the program was translated; the intention being to preserve the integrity of the program and its documentation by guarding against multiple translations) but dropped this requirement as being unworkable and possibly non-DFSG.
COPYRIGHT
0. This program is copyright $DATE $AUTHOR. You are authorised to copy and distribute this program, and create Derivative Works based upon this program (in respect of which you will hold copyright on the portions you have modified), strictly in accordance with the terms of this licence and on the understanding that the same terms will be imposed upon the recipients. This licence originates from the copyright holders, not necessarily the person from whom you have obtained the program. Nothing in this licence is intended to be construed as prejudicing your Statutory Rights, which may include a limited right to make copies ("fair dealing" or "fair use") for certain purposes.
TERMS OF DISTRIBUTION
1. Any distribution in Source Code form (the preferred form for making modifications to the program) must include this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you).
2. Any distribution in binary executable form must include the complete Source Code, the necessary instructions to render the Source Code into executable form ("Build Instructions"), and this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you). If the program is made available for electronic download, the executable and Source Code + Build Instructions need not be included in the same archive file as long as both are available for download from the same place.
3. Any distribution pre-loaded into an appliance must include the complete Source Code and Build Instructions, the necessary instructions to replace the version of the program within the appliance with a modified version ("Modification Instructions"), any applicable warnings regarding cessation of warranty protection and/or regulatory approval as a consequence of modification, and this licence and warranty disclaimer (or at your option, a warranty underwritten by you).
DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY
4. We warrant that this program, when run unmodified on a computer which is operating properly, will do what the source code says it will do. NO OTHER WARRANTY IS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PROGRAM, NOT EVEN OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. If you are in any doubt about the suitability of this program for a particular application, you are advised to consult with a programmer who is familiar with the language in which this program is written and whom you trust before proceeding.
As far as I can see, it guarantees to preserve Free
Re:Impression (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the key is, the GPLv3 isn't alienating developers in purpose but it is becoming a side effect.
Re:Yes. (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Closed source software is evil. There isn't one model that will fit for every program. FOSS has yet to produce a good 3D cad program equal to SolidWorks, PRO/E, or Autocad as examples. I doubt that will ever happen because the economics don't support it. I want FOSS to have a chance to compete in any segment so I oppose things like DRM and the DMCA but not the idea of copyrighted material.
2. Ungrateful end user FOSS zealots. I see this all the time on Slashdot. Somebody creates a FOSS program and some idiot hates it because it doesn't have this feature or that feature or doesn't use the license that they think is free enough. Of course these people have never written a line of code in their life or donated a penny to any project but they will complain until the cows come home.
That is one reason I am thinking about adopting this project. I am sure the old maintainer got sick of it or got too busy with life. It is useful to people I know. And it is a way I can give back.
My selection of the BSD is for a few reasons. It already has all the BSD comments and a form of protest to the zealots. I am not in love with the BSD license but yes GPLv3 and the rants of RMS tick me off so BSD it is. As so many people have said it is my code and I will choose the question is does GPLV3 alienate developers. So in my case the answer is yes. Makes me sorry that I contributed code to a GNU project in the past.
Re:Impression (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it's about my freedom, as a user of GPL software. As a user, I am utterly free--I don't even have to agree to the GPL to use the software!
However, preserving my freedoms requires restricting your freedom to take my freedoms away from me.
Re:Impression (Score:4, Interesting)
Nobody is forced to use GPLv3 software. If your current GPLv2 software does everything you need, just continue using it. There's no termination (unless you violate GPLv2, of course). Of course should you want to have some of the features future GPLv3ed versions offer, then you'll have to decide if you change to the new GPLv3 version, or if you dislike the GPLv3 so much that you don't use that new version anyway. But it's your choice (you could even decide to make a GPLv2 fork by implementing those features yourself into the GPLv2 version).