GPL Infectiousness

[Ted Gould]

--=-W9Hzh0kK/rXi9wb/k249
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


> GPL is a lovely anarchist tool -- it is hardly surprising that it is host=
ile=20
> to capitalism.

I would hardly say that.  I think that you could easily argue that the
GPL is communist, but not anarchist, infact it puts a hell of alot of
order in the world.

The way that I look at the GPL is: I'm willing to give you access to my
work, but if you want to play with it, you'll have to give me access to
your work too.  Now you can look at this as me limiting your rights
(which is true) or you can look at it as me protecting my investment and
time.

The separation that I don't think you are making is that the GPL says
that if you want to change my work, you have to give back.  But if you
want to go and do something entirely on your own, have at it.  This is
much better than alot of commercial licenses where just by using it I
can't sue that company for patent infringement...

> Unfortunately, if you want economic progress greed is a better engine tha=
n=20
> mere pride, laziness, or impatience -- and altruism barely merits=20
> consideration.

Well, I think that we disagree on what human nature is.  I find your
view pessimistic.  I hope that you find what makes you happy, but
personally I like altruism.  I like volunteering, and contributing to
fun software projects.  I'd like to believe that others like my work.

As far as 'economic progress' is concerned, I would say that greed is a
great engine for that.  The GPL is not built for economic progress.  I
think that you are putting a square peg is a round hole.

If your worried about economic progress I would have to say that free
software is probably not where you want to be.  You need to find some
niche market that has a very specific set of requirements, then charge
them $20,000 a copy.  I've used tools that had licenses that cost $1M.=20
While Microsoft has done well at selling everyone a $100 piece of
software, I think that you'll find that business model failing in the
future.  In a commodity market (which PCs are) you'll find that every
cent is important.  Hardware manufacturers won't be able to afford an
extra $100 to make their hardware useful.  Just like you won't pay an
extra $10 for a TV set that has the extra resistors to have higher
quality video that you can't see.

So, you see that I've made a nice circular argument here :)  To
summarize, the GPL is not about making money.  It never was, it never
will be.  The GPL is about things being free, and making sure that they
stay that way.  Linux is a different case, Linux will be economically
successful in the commodity PC market as cost becomes the issue.  It
just happens that Linux is licensed under the GPL, but they are very
different entities.

		Have fun,
			Ted

--=-W9Hzh0kK/rXi9wb/k249
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iEYEABECAAYFAj2dOGYACgkQLE335pRPGp2lyQCgxDys6zj28XzgDQC+LETXvt73
aMUAoKGMpa0RLU89ajerXpSJxwCWuX9Y
=/OMO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-W9Hzh0kK/rXi9wb/k249--