Morosoph's Journal: The GNU GPL is Efficient

If you code under the GNU GPL, you're doing the economy more good than if you use a BSD-style license.

How can this be? After all, surely it's a question of circumstance, after all, sometimes you need to use others' code which might mandate the GPL or other license, whereas other times it depends upon business strategy [eg.] or other factors, and this is true, but I am arguing about the economy at large rather than one's own interests (which would vary according to one's values), and at some point, I'm taking averages, for there's bounds to be unforseen "butterfly effects" that could prove me wrong when dealing with specifics ;-)

A clue for how this can be is given in my use of the DNA symbol for this article: the efficiency comes from reuse and mixing of code, in particular in the induced speciation between proprietry and free software, as each class of software is viral, promoting the persistence of that class.

So what happens when "non-viral" free software is produced? Here, both free and proprietry derivatives result, but free software has not gained over proprietry software in aggregate. Why does this matter? Resources have gone into the production of free software, and yet the species of free software has gained no advantage from this. This means that the free-software development model is not promoting itself with the production of free software (in this case), and thus will not be selected for over proprietry software, even if it is a more efficient mode of production. This diseconomy is clear, for effort has gone unrewarded when considering free software in aggregate, although this is not the case when proprietry software is produced.

Perhaps the solution is to consider BSD-style licenses semi-free for the purposes of economically rational behaviour. It could perhaps be deduced that the government should produce software under BSD-style licenses without GPL-incompatable clauses (favouring neither mode of production) unless is has reasons to believe that there are flaws in the market to correct, such as the value (in general) of the availability of source code as a teaching aid.

Update [30th March 2007]:
Examples often aid clarity, so I'm linking this post, which I believe makes the symmetry between copyleft and proprietry licenses somewhat clearer.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:some people just don't understand

[Morosoph]

I don't think they'll ever understand by being told. They have to figure it out for themselves.

Maybe so, but I think that this efficiency argument is a factor (quite apart from 'copyright' arguments) that hasn't been considered or understood, especially when this kind of argument [slashdot.org] is being brought to bear.

"Why don't you be properly generous?" and "the GPL is evil, being viral" are 'arguments' that need a ripost, lest they take in especially those who today find that the GPL is inhibiting them from usi

I'm sorry

[EnglishTim]

That was the most bullshit I've read in some time.

And remember, this is from someone who reads Slashdot.

Really?

[Morosoph]

I expect it's my "fancy language", so let me explain it in 'plainer' English.

The trade-off with a 'viral' license is that you can use others' work, but then you have to release your own work. If this is a good deal for you, you advance open source when it is efficient for it to be advanced, just as if closed source is a good deal for you, you advance it similarly.

If you code free software without a 'viral' license, it can be used in both closed and open source products, but closed source cannot be used