First of all, there is no way Microsoft can enforce conditions upon the implementation of a standard (read: "standard"). Entering into a contract requires, well, that you enter into a contract.
Secondly, this is a -- if not the -- prime example of what's wrong with the "intellectual property" faction of anti-GPL types. The GPL in no way inhibits intellectual property. It is simply a software license that imposes contractual conditions on the use of software. It is only unusual in that it does not require payment.
Here's the argument that Microsoft and other anti-GPL nutballs are making: "You're not making any money off this, so we want to steal your intellectual property, violate the hell out of your license, and make money from our criminal activities." The underlying, unstated argument is, of course, that unless you're in it for profit, you have no intellectual property rights. This is utter bullshit, of course, and serves only to show what basically unethical and indecent people we're dealing with.
This would be exactly parallel to a clothing manufacturer telling people that they have established a pattern for shirts with two sleeves, and you are therefore not allowed to make shirts with two sleeves unless you promise not to donate your old shirts to the poor.
It's a pity that certain political factions like to lionize Microsoft as bastions of capitalism when Microsoft is itself devoted to strangling the free market at every turn. If Microsoft is as good as they say they are, why are they so afraid of competing in an open and fair market? Why have they adopted such a deeply un-American stance towards the fundamental values of political and economic liberty? Ballmer can spew all he wants about the GPL being communist, but as near as I can tell, it is Microsoft that is seeking to create a command economy.
First of all, there is no way Microsoft can enforce conditions upon the implementation of a standard (read: "standard"). Entering into a contract requires, well, that you enter into a contract.
The above sentence is meaningless. First of all what do you mean by "standard"? A defacto standard like Flash, a standard ratified by a standards body, an industry standard (like Java), or something else? Secondly, regardless of what you meant if MSFT has patents on technology they are well within their rights to license it however they see fit.
Here's the argument that Microsoft and other anti-GPL nutballs are making: "You're not making any money off this, so we want to steal your intellectual property, violate the hell out of your license, and make money from our criminal activities." The underlying, unstated argument is, of course, that unless you're in it for profit, you have no intellectual property rights. This is utter bullshit, of course, and serves only to show what basically unethical and indecent people we're dealing with.
Interesting, I am curious as to what MSFT literature you read that made you come to that conclusion. From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL. They see nothing wrong with altruistically giving away code (which is what the BSD license and its ilk are about) but licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software are anathema to such people. The GPL drives the cost of software to 0 or at worst the cost of distribution media (just take a look at
Cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com] for a living example of this).
This means that any entity that produces GPL software most augment their income in some way be it through moonlighting, consulting, support, selling hardware, etc.
This is not a mere side-effect but was an explicit goal of the GPL which can be garnered by reading Richard Stallman's early writings especially the gunk about software developers should work as waiters so that we can afford to give our software away [google.com].
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business, it is unsurprising that the world's largest software company would be wary of doing
anything that encouraged the spread of this meme. What is surprising is that most observers find
it difficult to realize this and instead of applying Occam's Razor, resort to conspiracy theories
about how MSFT wants to steal their code. Then again this is the same website where people bitch about Slashdot's responsibility to slashdotted webservers and how The Great Slashdot Whine Out will strike a blow for Freedom so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised after all.
Disclaimer:This post reflects my opinions and does not reflect the opinions, strategies, thoughts, plans or intentions of my employer
Then again this is the same website where people bitch about Slashdot's responsibility to slashdotted webservers and how The Great Slashdot Whine Out will strike a blow for Freedom so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised after all.
Stop your god damn whining! What are ya from New Jersey or ya just dunt get laid?
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business, it is unsurprising that the world's largest software company would be wary of doing
anything that encouraged the spread of this meme.
This is one of the goals too. A SW company must support it's code. If it's only producing it, then it's no good for anyone.
(We're talking about big software projects, not some dinky cout code).
resort to conspiracy theories
about how MSFT wants to steal their code
But this is exactly how it is. Maybe my code is not one MS would steal, but someone other's is. By stealing I mean merely using it without _contributing_ all the fixes/features back.
One of the main features (for me) of GPL is feeding all the code back to the pool.
They don't want to STEAL your code. They write their own code, thank you.
They want to be able to say:
"*ahem* Your program is taking too much of our marketshare. Now, when you agreed to our shared source license, you agreed that you've seen our IP, and further agreed that you have no right to our IP, and further agreed that any patents you may have cannot be used to defend yourself against us. Therefore, kill your program."
"You heard us. Kill your program. Take it off the market or we sue for infringement of our intellectual property, using the admissions you have already made in assenting to our license."
Why should they steal your code when they can deep-six it just so long as you have been, at some time, exposed to 'Shared Source'?
The value of software comes from its scarcity. Copyright protects this scarcity and in turn protects the copyright holder.
Source code isn't software. It's the blueprints to make software. It's the binaries that are important to users, not the source.
For-hire custom development is expensive and slow because the systems that must exist for easy development of custom apps simply doesn't exist and isn't guaranteed to exist. Commercial software exists because it is efficient and it provides the user with a close enough satisfaction of their needs at a low price.
Are you a troll? Well, in any case, into the abyss.
From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL.
... a fine reason to dislike RMS personally, perhaps, but a foolish reason to dislike the GPL itself. An interesting footnote to this was the message in which Linus said he specifically wanted the kernel to be licensed at v2 and not "any later version," because, while he liked the GPL v2, he didn't trust the FSF not to go haywire with future releases.
They see nothing wrong with altruistically giving away code (which is what the BSD license and its ilk are about) but licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software are anathema to such people. The GPL drives the cost of software to 0 or at worst the cost of distribution media (just take a look at Cheapbytes for a living example of this). This means that any entity that produces GPL software most augment their income in some way be it through moonlighting, consulting, support, selling hardware, etc.
If everyone were the kind of perfectly efficient weenie tightwad this argument assumes, then yes. I see no evidence of this in the real world, though. People do buy GPLed software in boxes in stores (I'm one of them.) CD sales were booming while Napster was in its prime. And every day, free sample trays in supermarkets sit peacefully on their little tables, the shoppers around them miraculously resisting the urge to maximize their profit by gorging themselves instantly. And I've never heard of anyone buying anything from Cheapbytes.
This is not a mere side-effect but was an explicit goal of the GPL which can be garnered by reading Richard Stallman's early writings especially the gunk about software developers should work as waiters so that we can afford to give our software away.
Interesting. I believe this tall tale to be attributable to this [gnu.org]:
So I looked for another alternative [to writing proprietary software], and there was an obvious one. I
could leave the software field, and do something else. Now I had no other
special noteworthy skills, but I'm sure I could have become a
waiter. [Laughter] Not at a fancy restaurant, they wouldn't hire
me, [Laughter] but I could be a waiter somewhere. And many programmers,
they say to me "the people who hire programmers demand this, this and
this -- If I don't do those things, I'll starve." It's literally the word
they use. Well, you know, as a waiter, you're not going to
starve. [Laughter] So, really their [sic] in no danger. But -- and this is
important, you see -- because sometimes you can justify doing something
that hurts other people by saying "otherwise something worse is going to
happen to me." You know, if you were really going to starve, you'd be
justified in writing proprietary software. [Laughter] If somebody's
pointing a gun at you, then I would say it's forgivable. [Laughter] But,
I had found a way that I could survive without doing something unethical,
so that excuse was not available. So, I realized though that being a
waiter would be no fun for me, and it would be wasting my skills as an
operating system developer. It would avoid misusing my skills.
Developing proprietary software would be misusing my skills.
Encouraging other people to live in the world of proprietary software
would be misusing my skills. So it's better to waste them than
misuse them, but it's still not really good.
There are, of course, provisions [gnu.org] in the GPL that protect your right to resell GPL software at any price.
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business,
I'm not [sleepycat.com] convinced [trolltech.com] that licensing your own code under the GPL means that you can't make a profit selling the stuff. Asserting that the mere existence of GPLed software makes it near impossible etc. etc. is basically complaining about the existence of competition ("Yer honor, they can't sell it that low! I'll go out of business!")
... it is unsurprising that the world's largest software company would be wary of doing anything that encouraged the spread of this meme. What is surprising is that most observers find it difficult to realize this and instead of applying Occam's Razor, resort to conspiracy theories about how MSFT wants to steal their code.
Hehe. That bit was very nicely done. That google search seems to indicate that some people take this kind of rhetoric seriously, though...
Sleepycat Software makes Berkeley DB available for download over the
World-Wide Web at no charge. The package includes complete source code,
documentation, and support for building the library on a large number
of operating systems and hardware platforms.
You're wrong... except that you're not making a point I can discern. Read this interview [winterspeak.com] with Sleepycat software about how they make money with a GPL license.
And with Qt... only the X11 version is released under both the QPL and the GPL
Qt Free Edition for X11 runs on *ntel PCs (through FreeBSD, Linux, Cygwin, or WeirdX) and Macs (through rootless X on Aqua). And if you want to, the GPL lets you port it so that it will run natively on any other windowing system. Precisely what more could you ask for?
I'm not really sure what point you're refuting, but what I said was:
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business,
I'm not convinced that licensing your own code under the GPL means that you can't make a profit selling the stuff.
Trolltech and Sleepycat both license big chunks of their codebase under the GPL (among other licenses.) In both cases, their core business is producing and selling software. I know Sleepycat is profitable, and I think Trolltech is.
And with Qt... only the X11 version is released under both the QPL and the GPL... the other stuff require purchase or it's crippleware. Nice try.
Indeed. I hadn't known that. I may have to start using MySQL AB or Redhat as my second example...
Pedantia: Sleepycat actually licenses their stuff under a home-rolled GPL-style license, not the GPL.
When Microsoft made IE free, they were abusing their monopoly (as they were when they used their Windows monopoly to pressure OEMs into not offering Netscape when their customers preferred it.) That's a crime, because it's bad for the marketplace. Two federal courts said so. It'll take quite a bit to convince me that their rulings were in error.
When people release GPLed software, which then competes with proprietary software, they are demonstrating a more efficient production process. Rarely if ever do they even obtain a monopoly to abuse.
There are, of course, provisions [gnu.org] in the GPL that protect your right to resell GPL software at any price.
Completely irrelevant. If there were no law to the contrary, I could "take" paperclips from my employer and resell them for a ten bucks apiece. But I would earn just as money doing that as I would selling free software.
The real price of a product is not what's on the price sticker, but instead intimately connected to the price the buyer is willing to pay.
Completely irrelevant. If there were no law to the contrary, I could "take" paperclips from my employer and resell them for a ten bucks apiece. But I would earn just as money doing that as I would selling free software.
Okay, so you think that it's impossible to make money selling GPLed software. People are laying serious cash into businesses like Redhat, Mandrake, and Suse, though -- indicating that not everyone thinks that this is a settled issue. The marketplace will of course eventually decide, but this hasn't happened yet. Note that book publishers do continue to sell copyright-expired books whose text is available on Gutenberg [promo.net].
Regardless of whether or not they are doomed to failure, the GPL protects these guys' right to attempt to make a buck selling free software. It didn't have to be this way; many pre-GPL freeish licenses prohibit distribution for profit, but the GPL specifically allows it. So claiming, as the original poster did, that the GPL was designed to harm software companies is misleading.
As a footnote, I've made money selling free software. A buddy of mine paid me $15 to download and burn all the GNU utilities I thought he'd find useful under Solaris, with the understanding that I'd help him install them if he had trouble (he didn't.) Not a living, of course, but it is more than Microsoft's ever done for me.
People are laying serious cash into businesses like Redhat, Mandrake, and Suse, though
Yes, but they aren't paying for the software. Oh, I'm sure there's some pointy headed bosses out there willing to pay for it, and unscupulous distros willing to profit off their ignorance, but the fact is that Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE are not making any money selling software.
Redhat is making some money by selling service and support. Mandrake is making some money by soliciting donations. SuSE is making money by prepackaging software and providing manuals. These are very different things from selling the software.
Let me put it another way. If you sent a check off to Redhat for $50, and then received a letter from them saying that you needed to download the ISO images from their ftp site, you would be pissed. For that $50 you expect a nice shrink-wrapped box, nice printed manual, stickers for your computer, and professionally pressed CDs. If you don't get that stuff, you might as well send $2 off to Cheapbytes instead.
As a footnote, I've made money selling free software. A buddy of mine paid me $15 to download and burn all the GNU utilities I thought he'd find useful...
Sounds like you made zero dollars selling the software, and $15 dollars selling *convenience*.
I didn't say that. Your argument is that you can make money selling free software. I'm only pointing out that no one has been able to do it successfully yet. That does not invalidate other forms of revenue generation.
If you argue that the cost will inevitably drop because the people you sell it to can give it away... well, no license guarantees that you'll successfully make money.
Remember also that Microsoft has used the same tactic. It gave IE away to drive the cost of web browsers to zero and thus shut down other commercial developments in the field. It can hardly complain.
"licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software"
The cost of software is virtually nothing. The VALUE however can be high. Microsoft wants to DEVALUE GPL/LGPL software so that it can maintain it's own COST, so it can make MONEY. Why is this so HARD to UNDERSTAND?
They see nothing wrong with altruistically giving away code (which is what the BSD license and its ilk are about) but licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software are anathema to such people. The GPL drives the cost of software to 0 or at worst the cost of distribution media (just take a look at Cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com] for a living example of this). This means that any entity that produces GPL software most augment their income in some way be it through moonlighting, consulting, support, selling hardware, etc. This is not a mere side-effect but was an explicit goal of the GPL [...]
/me snaps jaws together.
Being altruistic means giving away something without expecting anything in return. In that sense the GPL isn't altruistic.
Now consider why people generally want to be altruistic and especially to whom they want to be altruistic to.
The reason is either out of belief one becomes a better person (true altruism) or because others will perceive one as a better person. For this the BSD license will do, except that it's not like a designers badge on a luxury car, no-one will see on the outside what you as a programmer acomplished when it's integrated into a propriety piece of software. With the GPL you have at least the certainty that your peers will be able to give you mental credit for your work.
On the second point, most people like to be altruistic for the benefit of those in society that aren't so well off to begin with. There is little reward in being altruistic to a [bm]illionaire. You want people to benefit from what you did, and although people using propriety software may benefit from what you made through propriety software the satisfaction you will get is usually perceived as being a lot less than when the poor benefit off of it for nothing.
Now for a seperate train of thought: most people writing GPLed software are not being altruistic. They do want something in return for their hard work. In this case it isn't money, not even recognition, they want the work of others to build on their own so they can in turn profit off of that work. I contribute my work to the community, let the community damn well contribute back. The BSD license doesn't provide for this kind of motive.
All in all I think it a faux pas on your part to defend Microsoft's will to profit off of others. This licensing scheme isn't protecting any god- or lawgiven rights, it's meant to deprive others of their rights to do their own thing. In that sense it feels like rape to me. It disallows any other motive than money to write software. How can this be good in any way?
Now please go crawl back under the rock you came from because your mind-set is not so much a capitalist one as you a free-loading one. God knows we have free-loaders enough without you.
MICROSOFT is AGRESSIVELY trying to get people to not like the GPL. It is a propaganda campaign, and a strategic campaign. What do you think about that?
On one side, there is a miniature dictatorship, a company, that regularly uses anti-competitive measures while hiding behind capitalist rhetoric (which itself RELIES ON competition).
On the other, a huge federation of Free developers giving away their code for free, acceoted on the condition that modifications to that code are also made free (& Free).
It seems pretty clear to me which side are the "good guys" and which side are the "bad guys", especially when Microsoft has a proven history of unethical actions (such as in court and in marketting propaganda) and anti-competitive practices.
I don't understand why you are taking the wrong side here.
Do you support power to the elite (aristocracy), or power to the people (democracy)?
Judging by your rhetoric ("Welcome to the Real World", which I am interpreting here as "Welcome to dog-eat-dog unjust cruelty, which I am about to defend"), it seems pretty clear to me that you hold aristocratic notions of how people are to be manipulated and governed, rather than democratic notions of equity and Freedom.
And as for your talk about the dangers of 0-cost software, I repeat the sentiment of another [scornful!] slashdot poster: "Yer honer, they can't sell it *that* low! I'll go out of business!"
It seems to me that the only software vendors that can be harmed by the GPL are those making software that a bunch of hackers, cost-sharing companies, or community-minded individuals would be _willing_ to make for free.
Why should we keep paying for what some or all of us really would make--and already have made--for free?
From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL
How about the comment about GPL being viral? BSD allows for copy and paste. If MS can't do that, then the license sucks, right?
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business
Yeah, you may have heard of a little company called Red Hat? How about Mandrake? SuSE? All making money selling OSS - read PROFITABLE.
Next, for the billionth time: RMS != OSS. And I have yet to hear ANYTHING from MS against RMS, they ignore him. But I don't blame you for trying to detract from the main point of the posts here. Other than detracting from the central topic, your post has little going for it...
If you don't like/., then why come back? You come in, write some nonsense like this, bitch about/. and the readers and leave. Your sound/look like an id10t and aren't earning respect. If anything your mod points reflect a lack of common sense on the part of the mods...
...not only that, but also making money also selling proprietary stuff that sits ontop of, unencumbered by (except to use) all that L/GPL viral biohazard software.
How about the comment about GPL being viral? BSD allows for copy and paste. If MS can't do that, then the license sucks, right?
The GPL is viral by nature. It's goal is to constantly increase the pool of Free Software while negating the need for proprietary software. Granted the word "viral" has negative conotations while the phrase "increase the pool" has positive connotations but the meaning is the same.
Seconly, we at MSFT (at least on my team) are uninterested in cutting & pasting Open Source code and in fact wouldn't mind giving away source. In fact, this claim is even more ludicrous when one examines exactly how much BSDL source MSFT has ever used (mostly command line utils that a 3rd year college student can write) versus how much source the company has distributed via Shared Source.
Yeah, you may have heard of a little company called Red Hat? How about Mandrake? SuSE? All making money selling OSS - read PROFITABLE
Red Hat has shown only Pro Forma profits which means they're profitable only via the use of accounting tricks. Mandrake is in desperate straits as can be seen by the recent Mandrake club fiasco and a recent statment on their website that claims they are "cash flow positive" for the first time this quarter primarily due to user donations/subscriptions. As for SuSe, I have not looked at closely and thus can rebut so I'll simply assume you have information about their financials that can back up your claims.
Next, for the billionth time: RMS != OSS. And I have yet to hear ANYTHING from MS against RMS, they ignore him. But I don't blame you for trying to detract from the main point of the posts here. Other than detracting from the central topic, your post has little going for it...
MSFT has not made comments against Open Source, they have specifically targetted the GPL. The GPL was authored by RMS and reflects his political and philosphical views. I'm sure you can connect the dots from there. If you can't then that reflects rather poorly on your comprehension skills.
Disclaimer:This post is my opinion and does not reflect the opinions, intentions, strategies or plans of my employer
Red Hat has shown only Pro Forma profits which means they're profitable only via the use of accounting tricks. Mandrake is in desperate straits as can be seen by the recent Mandrake blah blah blah
Fine then, how about Cobalt before it was bought by Sun? Cobalt systems are still around. How about IBM? They are effectively using Linux to help sell hardware. HP and Dell (although they are certianly more quiet about it) are more and more using Linux to help sell HW and services. As for the pure Linux companies, the competition is fierce, but they're making progress. Finally, Pro Forma or not, Red Hat is profitable. MSFT has had its accounting practices questioned as well, so you may want to be carefull there...
MSFT has not made comments against Open Source, they have specifically targetted the GPL. The GPL was authored by RMS... I'm sure you can connect the dots from there
First off, RMS didn't suthor it. It was a law professor at some Ivy school (I want to say Princeton), although he supported it. From there, you're making an invalid inferrence. RMS supports it, so does Linus Torvalds, does that mean MS is going after Torvalds as well? So does IBM. Does that mean that...
The GPL is the GPL, it's not RMS, it's not Torvalds, it's not Linux. It's the GPL. There are many GPL supporters who do not see eye-to-eye (do you really think RMS, Linus and IBM see the GPL the same way?) and use it for whatever reason they please. You can't "connect the dots from there" in the way you would like. I don't think my "comprehension skills" are the issue here...
What about the GPL drives the cost of software to 0?
Yes, I can look at cheapbytes, etc. but I still don't get it...
I can make a modification to GPL software, or put software under GPL, and sell it -- and I am then obligated to pass certain rights to the buyer. The buyer must have the source, and must have the right to redistribute as the buyer sees fit. Now, if the buyer has a stake in ME (say, to provide upgrades and service), the buyer will NOT use those rights.
Example: I sell a modified GNU tool chain for an embedded process for 10,000. Now, the customer wants me to continue the support. That customer certainly has the RIGHT to do ANYTHING the GPL allows with the code, but can be convinced not to (so they don't loose the business advantage that the code gave them). The customer is PROTECTED in case I go out of business, but as long as we have a relationship, everything works.
Of course the product cannot be a commodity. If it is, then I must sell service instead. Microsoft's main code base is commodity level, and most GPL software is as well (eg. Windows, Linux, MS Office, KOffice, etc.). I think the GPL is VERY painful to MS, simply because they don't have a service model. And they don't want to open up their products to allow the addition of specific, valuable utility.
If you want to sell your software, DON'T USE THE F**KING GPL! It's not that hard, it just requires you to write your own code, or (shudder) buy it (you may find some GPL authors would be happy to sell you a closed license).
The GPL DOES NOT MEAN YOUR CODE HAS TO BE FREE. It means YOU CANNOT USE THE GPL CODE. There is lots of code you cannot use. Deal with it.
Many schools have MicroSoft's source code. But they are not allowed to use it in commercial products due to the NDA. Why aren't you complaining about this. IT IS THE SAME THING
Write your own code and stop being such an asshole.
"An organization dries up if you don't challenge it with growth."
-- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments
Unenforceable, self-contradictory, and stupid (Score:1, Insightful)
Secondly, this is a -- if not the -- prime example of what's wrong with the "intellectual property" faction of anti-GPL types. The GPL in no way inhibits intellectual property. It is simply a software license that imposes contractual conditions on the use of software. It is only unusual in that it does not require payment.
Here's the argument that Microsoft and other anti-GPL nutballs are making: "You're not making any money off this, so we want to steal your intellectual property, violate the hell out of your license, and make money from our criminal activities." The underlying, unstated argument is, of course, that unless you're in it for profit, you have no intellectual property rights. This is utter bullshit, of course, and serves only to show what basically unethical and indecent people we're dealing with.
This would be exactly parallel to a clothing manufacturer telling people that they have established a pattern for shirts with two sleeves, and you are therefore not allowed to make shirts with two sleeves unless you promise not to donate your old shirts to the poor.
It's a pity that certain political factions like to lionize Microsoft as bastions of capitalism when Microsoft is itself devoted to strangling the free market at every turn. If Microsoft is as good as they say they are, why are they so afraid of competing in an open and fair market? Why have they adopted such a deeply un-American stance towards the fundamental values of political and economic liberty? Ballmer can spew all he wants about the GPL being communist, but as near as I can tell, it is Microsoft that is seeking to create a command economy.
Welcome To The Real World. (Score:4, Interesting)
The above sentence is meaningless. First of all what do you mean by "standard"? A defacto standard like Flash, a standard ratified by a standards body, an industry standard (like Java), or something else? Secondly, regardless of what you meant if MSFT has patents on technology they are well within their rights to license it however they see fit.
Here's the argument that Microsoft and other anti-GPL nutballs are making: "You're not making any money off this, so we want to steal your intellectual property, violate the hell out of your license, and make money from our criminal activities." The underlying, unstated argument is, of course, that unless you're in it for profit, you have no intellectual property rights. This is utter bullshit, of course, and serves only to show what basically unethical and indecent people we're dealing with.
Interesting, I am curious as to what MSFT literature you read that made you come to that conclusion. From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL. They see nothing wrong with altruistically giving away code (which is what the BSD license and its ilk are about) but licenses like the GPL that attempt to devalue the cost of software are anathema to such people. The GPL drives the cost of software to 0 or at worst the cost of distribution media (just take a look at Cheapbytes [cheapbytes.com] for a living example of this). This means that any entity that produces GPL software most augment their income in some way be it through moonlighting, consulting, support, selling hardware, etc. This is not a mere side-effect but was an explicit goal of the GPL which can be garnered by reading Richard Stallman's early writings especially the gunk about software developers should work as waiters so that we can afford to give our software away [google.com].
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business, it is unsurprising that the world's largest software company would be wary of doing anything that encouraged the spread of this meme. What is surprising is that most observers find it difficult to realize this and instead of applying Occam's Razor, resort to conspiracy theories about how MSFT wants to steal their code. Then again this is the same website where people bitch about Slashdot's responsibility to slashdotted webservers and how The Great Slashdot Whine Out will strike a blow for Freedom so maybe I shouldn't be so surprised after all.
Disclaimer:This post reflects my opinions and does not reflect the opinions, strategies, thoughts, plans or intentions of my employer
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1, Flamebait)
Stop your god damn whining! What are ya from New Jersey or ya just dunt get laid?
Disclaimer STFUYDSMFPOWS
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1, Offtopic)
This is one of the goals too. A SW company must support it's code. If it's only producing it, then it's no good for anyone.
(We're talking about big software projects, not some dinky cout code).
resort to conspiracy theories about how MSFT wants to steal their code
But this is exactly how it is. Maybe my code is not one MS would steal, but someone other's is. By stealing I mean merely using it without _contributing_ all the fixes/features back.
One of the main features (for me) of GPL is feeding all the code back to the pool.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:3, Interesting)
They want to be able to say: "*ahem* Your program is taking too much of our marketshare. Now, when you agreed to our shared source license, you agreed that you've seen our IP, and further agreed that you have no right to our IP, and further agreed that any patents you may have cannot be used to defend yourself against us. Therefore, kill your program."
"You heard us. Kill your program. Take it off the market or we sue for infringement of our intellectual property, using the admissions you have already made in assenting to our license."
Why should they steal your code when they can deep-six it just so long as you have been, at some time, exposed to 'Shared Source'?
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1, Insightful)
The value of software comes from its scarcity. Copyright protects this scarcity and in turn protects the copyright holder.
Source code isn't software. It's the blueprints to make software. It's the binaries that are important to users, not the source.
For-hire custom development is expensive and slow because the systems that must exist for easy development of custom apps simply doesn't exist and isn't guaranteed to exist. Commercial software exists because it is efficient and it provides the user with a close enough satisfaction of their needs at a low price.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. I believe this tall tale to be attributable to this [gnu.org]: There are, of course, provisions [gnu.org] in the GPL that protect your right to resell GPL software at any price.
I'm not [sleepycat.com] convinced [trolltech.com] that licensing your own code under the GPL means that you can't make a profit selling the stuff. Asserting that the mere existence of GPLed software makes it near impossible etc. etc. is basically complaining about the existence of competition ("Yer honor, they can't sell it that low! I'll go out of business!") Hehe. That bit was very nicely done. That google search seems to indicate that some people take this kind of rhetoric seriously, though...
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
Sleepycat Software makes Berkeley DB available for download over the World-Wide Web at no charge. The package includes complete source code, documentation, and support for building the library on a large number of operating systems and hardware platforms.
"Like the software? Buy the book! Order the Berkeley DB book on Amazon.com [amazon.com]"
And with Qt ... only the X11 version is released under both the QPL and the GPL ... the other stuff require purchase or it's crippleware.
Nice try.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
Want Qt Free on non-X11 machines? Port it! (Score:1)
And with Qt ... only the X11 version is released under both the QPL and the GPL
Qt Free Edition for X11 runs on *ntel PCs (through FreeBSD, Linux, Cygwin, or WeirdX) and Macs (through rootless X on Aqua). And if you want to, the GPL lets you port it so that it will run natively on any other windowing system. Precisely what more could you ask for?
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
Pedantia: Sleepycat actually licenses their stuff under a home-rolled GPL-style license, not the GPL.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
When people release GPLed software, which then competes with proprietary software, they are demonstrating a more efficient production process. Rarely if ever do they even obtain a monopoly to abuse.
See the difference?
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
Completely irrelevant. If there were no law to the contrary, I could "take" paperclips from my employer and resell them for a ten bucks apiece. But I would earn just as money doing that as I would selling free software.
The real price of a product is not what's on the price sticker, but instead intimately connected to the price the buyer is willing to pay.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
Okay, so you think that it's impossible to make money selling GPLed software. People are laying serious cash into businesses like Redhat, Mandrake, and Suse, though -- indicating that not everyone thinks that this is a settled issue. The marketplace will of course eventually decide, but this hasn't happened yet. Note that book publishers do continue to sell copyright-expired books whose text is available on Gutenberg [promo.net].
Regardless of whether or not they are doomed to failure, the GPL protects these guys' right to attempt to make a buck selling free software. It didn't have to be this way; many pre-GPL freeish licenses prohibit distribution for profit, but the GPL specifically allows it. So claiming, as the original poster did, that the GPL was designed to harm software companies is misleading.
As a footnote, I've made money selling free software. A buddy of mine paid me $15 to download and burn all the GNU utilities I thought he'd find useful under Solaris, with the understanding that I'd help him install them if he had trouble (he didn't.) Not a living, of course, but it is more than Microsoft's ever done for me.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
Yes, but they aren't paying for the software. Oh, I'm sure there's some pointy headed bosses out there willing to pay for it, and unscupulous distros willing to profit off their ignorance, but the fact is that Redhat, Mandrake, and SuSE are not making any money selling software.
Redhat is making some money by selling service and support. Mandrake is making some money by soliciting donations. SuSE is making money by prepackaging software and providing manuals. These are very different things from selling the software.
Let me put it another way. If you sent a check off to Redhat for $50, and then received a letter from them saying that you needed to download the ISO images from their ftp site, you would be pissed. For that $50 you expect a nice shrink-wrapped box, nice printed manual, stickers for your computer, and professionally pressed CDs. If you don't get that stuff, you might as well send $2 off to Cheapbytes instead.
As a footnote, I've made money selling free software. A buddy of mine paid me $15 to download and burn all the GNU utilities I thought he'd find useful...
Sounds like you made zero dollars selling the software, and $15 dollars selling *convenience*.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
I do not agree.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
I've purchased three versions of Slackware from Cheapbytes.
Mighty good customer service, too, I might add: when one CD came with a defect on it, they mailed me a replacement copy the next day.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
If you argue that the cost will inevitably drop because the people you sell it to can give it away... well, no license guarantees that you'll successfully make money.
Remember also that Microsoft has used the same tactic. It gave IE away to drive the cost of web browsers to zero and thus shut down other commercial developments in the field. It can hardly complain.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
The cost of software is virtually nothing. The VALUE however can be high. Microsoft wants to DEVALUE GPL/LGPL software so that it can maintain it's own COST, so it can make MONEY. Why is this so HARD to UNDERSTAND?
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
/me snaps jaws together.
Being altruistic means giving away something without expecting anything in return. In that sense the GPL isn't altruistic.
Now consider why people generally want to be altruistic and especially to whom they want to be altruistic to.
The reason is either out of belief one becomes a better person (true altruism) or because others will perceive one as a better person. For this the BSD license will do, except that it's not like a designers badge on a luxury car, no-one will see on the outside what you as a programmer acomplished when it's integrated into a propriety piece of software. With the GPL you have at least the certainty that your peers will be able to give you mental credit for your work.
On the second point, most people like to be altruistic for the benefit of those in society that aren't so well off to begin with. There is little reward in being altruistic to a [bm]illionaire. You want people to benefit from what you did, and although people using propriety software may benefit from what you made through propriety software the satisfaction you will get is usually perceived as being a lot less than when the poor benefit off of it for nothing.
Now for a seperate train of thought: most people writing GPLed software are not being altruistic. They do want something in return for their hard work. In this case it isn't money, not even recognition, they want the work of others to build on their own so they can in turn profit off of that work. I contribute my work to the community, let the community damn well contribute back. The BSD license doesn't provide for this kind of motive.
All in all I think it a faux pas on your part to defend Microsoft's will to profit off of others. This licensing scheme isn't protecting any god- or lawgiven rights, it's meant to deprive others of their rights to do their own thing. In that sense it feels like rape to me. It disallows any other motive than money to write software. How can this be good in any way?
Now please go crawl back under the rock you came from because your mind-set is not so much a capitalist one as you a free-loading one. God knows we have free-loaders enough without you.
-----
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
MICROSOFT is AGRESSIVELY trying to get people to not like the GPL. It is a propaganda campaign, and a strategic campaign. What do you think about that?
On one side, there is a miniature dictatorship, a company, that regularly uses anti-competitive measures while hiding behind capitalist rhetoric (which itself RELIES ON competition).
On the other, a huge federation of Free developers giving away their code for free, acceoted on the condition that modifications to that code are also made free (& Free).
It seems pretty clear to me which side are the "good guys" and which side are the "bad guys", especially when Microsoft has a proven history of unethical actions (such as in court and in marketting propaganda) and anti-competitive practices.
I don't understand why you are taking the wrong side here.
Do you support power to the elite (aristocracy), or power to the people (democracy)?
Judging by your rhetoric ("Welcome to the Real World", which I am interpreting here as "Welcome to dog-eat-dog unjust cruelty, which I am about to defend"), it seems pretty clear to me that you hold aristocratic notions of how people are to be manipulated and governed, rather than democratic notions of equity and Freedom.
And as for your talk about the dangers of 0-cost software, I repeat the sentiment of another [scornful!] slashdot poster: "Yer honer, they can't sell it *that* low! I'll go out of business!"
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
Didn't you know? Carnage4Life is a MS employee (no big secret, right C4L?). So it isn't the "wrong side" for him, just for the rest of us
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
(no big secret, right C4L?)
I'm afraid this goes a little deeper than just that..!
{;D}=
GPL Drives Cost of Software to Zero: Silly (Score:1)
Why should we keep paying for what some or all of us really would make--and already have made--for free?
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
From what I've seen of the anti-GPL rhetoric that has come out of MSFT, they are primarily against Richard Stallman's political agenda that comes with the GPL
How about the comment about GPL being viral? BSD allows for copy and paste. If MS can't do that, then the license sucks, right?
Since the GPL makes it near impossible for an entity to simply produce and sell software as its core business
Yeah, you may have heard of a little company called Red Hat? How about Mandrake? SuSE? All making money selling OSS - read PROFITABLE.
Next, for the billionth time: RMS != OSS. And I have yet to hear ANYTHING from MS against RMS, they ignore him. But I don't blame you for trying to detract from the main point of the posts here. Other than detracting from the central topic, your post has little going for it...
If you don't like /., then why come back? You come in, write some nonsense like this, bitch about /. and the readers and leave. Your sound/look like an id10t and aren't earning respect. If anything your mod points reflect a lack of common sense on the part of the mods...
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
The GPL is viral by nature. It's goal is to constantly increase the pool of Free Software while negating the need for proprietary software. Granted the word "viral" has negative conotations while the phrase "increase the pool" has positive connotations but the meaning is the same.
Seconly, we at MSFT (at least on my team) are uninterested in cutting & pasting Open Source code and in fact wouldn't mind giving away source. In fact, this claim is even more ludicrous when one examines exactly how much BSDL source MSFT has ever used (mostly command line utils that a 3rd year college student can write) versus how much source the company has distributed via Shared Source.
Yeah, you may have heard of a little company called Red Hat? How about Mandrake? SuSE? All making money selling OSS - read PROFITABLE
Red Hat has shown only Pro Forma profits which means they're profitable only via the use of accounting tricks. Mandrake is in desperate straits as can be seen by the recent Mandrake club fiasco and a recent statment on their website that claims they are "cash flow positive" for the first time this quarter primarily due to user donations/subscriptions. As for SuSe, I have not looked at closely and thus can rebut so I'll simply assume you have information about their financials that can back up your claims.
Next, for the billionth time: RMS != OSS. And I have yet to hear ANYTHING from MS against RMS, they ignore him. But I don't blame you for trying to detract from the main point of the posts here. Other than detracting from the central topic, your post has little going for it...
MSFT has not made comments against Open Source, they have specifically targetted the GPL. The GPL was authored by RMS and reflects his political and philosphical views. I'm sure you can connect the dots from there. If you can't then that reflects rather poorly on your comprehension skills.
Disclaimer:This post is my opinion and does not reflect the opinions, intentions, strategies or plans of my employer
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
Fine then, how about Cobalt before it was bought by Sun? Cobalt systems are still around. How about IBM? They are effectively using Linux to help sell hardware. HP and Dell (although they are certianly more quiet about it) are more and more using Linux to help sell HW and services. As for the pure Linux companies, the competition is fierce, but they're making progress. Finally, Pro Forma or not, Red Hat is profitable. MSFT has had its accounting practices questioned as well, so you may want to be carefull there...
MSFT has not made comments against Open Source, they have specifically targetted the GPL. The GPL was authored by RMS ... I'm sure you can connect the dots from there
First off, RMS didn't suthor it. It was a law professor at some Ivy school (I want to say Princeton), although he supported it. From there, you're making an invalid inferrence. RMS supports it, so does Linus Torvalds, does that mean MS is going after Torvalds as well? So does IBM. Does that mean that...
The GPL is the GPL, it's not RMS, it's not Torvalds, it's not Linux. It's the GPL. There are many GPL supporters who do not see eye-to-eye (do you really think RMS, Linus and IBM see the GPL the same way?) and use it for whatever reason they please. You can't "connect the dots from there" in the way you would like. I don't think my "comprehension skills" are the issue here...
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:1)
to 0?
Yes, I can look at cheapbytes, etc. but I still
don't get it...
I can make a modification to GPL software,
or put software under GPL, and sell it -- and
I am then obligated to pass certain rights
to the buyer. The buyer must have the source,
and must have the right to redistribute as the
buyer sees fit. Now, if the buyer has a stake
in ME (say, to provide upgrades and service),
the buyer will NOT use those rights.
Example: I sell a modified GNU tool chain
for an embedded process for 10,000. Now, the
customer wants me to continue the support.
That customer certainly has the RIGHT to
do ANYTHING the GPL allows with the code, but
can be convinced not to (so they don't loose
the business advantage that the code gave them).
The customer is PROTECTED in case I go out
of business, but as long as we have a
relationship, everything works.
Of course the product cannot be a commodity.
If it is, then I must sell service instead.
Microsoft's main code base is commodity level,
and most GPL software is as well (eg. Windows,
Linux, MS Office, KOffice, etc.). I think the
GPL is VERY painful to MS, simply because they
don't have a service model. And they don't want
to open up their products to allow the addition
of specific, valuable utility.
Ratboy.
Re:Welcome To The Real World. (Score:2)
If you want to sell your software, DON'T USE THE F**KING GPL! It's not that hard, it just requires you to write your own code, or (shudder) buy it (you may find some GPL authors would be happy to sell you a closed license).
The GPL DOES NOT MEAN YOUR CODE HAS TO BE FREE. It means YOU CANNOT USE THE GPL CODE. There is lots of code you cannot use. Deal with it.
Many schools have MicroSoft's source code. But they are not allowed to use it in commercial products due to the NDA. Why aren't you complaining about this. IT IS THE SAME THING
Write your own code and stop being such an asshole.