Dan Gilmore's article: NOT well done - but, burnt! (Score 1)

I found Dan Gilmore's discussion on Jim Allchin's comments most insidious. Lost in all this discussion, it seems, is the fact that the software is publicly funded. He somewhat flippantly regard the funding issue as irrelevant:

"I have no problem with Allchin's call for public projects to use code that's not subject to the GPL's restrictions and to adopt licenses they view as less threatening to innovation. That's up to developers."

The developers are being paid. It is not their project. It is the taxpayers' project (as intermediated by Congress.) In private industry, where I work as a developer, is it my choice to choose the licensing model for the software I build? I think not.

In the public world, only restrictive use of public works prevents the taxpayers from being co-opted by private industry. Too often, the taxpayers get co-opted; and, to that end, GPL is a solution here. No other licensing would be restrictive enough to prevent companies like Microsoft from manipulating Congress to do their bidding. GPL makes it very difficult to profit EXCLUSIVELY from the results of public works.

It may be politically correct in technical circles to assume that the choice of licensing model for public software is a "developer's choice"; but, it is sloppy thinking. The taxpayers should be protected from those who would use taxpayer money for individual gain. GPL is most likely the only way to do it...