On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 07:30:20PM -0400, Robert Ammerman wrote:
> > If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think
> > using the GPL is not the right approach.  The GPL does force source of any
> > software that is derived from it to be open.  However to many that
> > restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code.  In the end the
> > goal
> > of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as
> > well as it could have been.
> 
> Amen, amen, and again I say amen!
> 
> GPL and similar licenses are, in the long run, inhibitory. They prevent the
> development and distribution of much useful software.
> 
> Example:
> 
> I am a company and I want to develop a really cool program that does "X". My
> business model/planning tells me that the only way I can make money off this
> program is to keep it closed (which, IMNSHO is _very_ often the case).

It certainly is.

> 
> Now there very conveniently already exists GPLed code that does 90% of X, so
> I can develop my product for Z dollars and sell each copy for (Z/100)
> dollars. Except of course, I can't use this route because an open source
> distribution model just won't work.

It won't work if you cannot use an open source distribution model.

> On the other hand, I could develop the whole product from scratch for 10Z
> dollars, but now I'd have to sell it for $Z/10 dollars, 10 times as much. Of
> course, the market won't support that price because end-users can get a 90%
> solution for 1/10 the price.

Missed point. In addition the end-users get 90% of the solution for free
along with the right to modify and redistribute.

> So, as a result I don't build the product, and the end-users' lose the
> ability to get a better solution to their problem at a reasonable cost. And
> of course, I lose out on the opportunity to make a reasonable profit
> building and selling the product.

But since 90% of the solution is already out there, and there's a community
of users that have access to that code, they can either develop the new 10%
themselves, or (get this) pay you to develop the additional 10% of the code
from some price <Z and freely release your product.

The point that's missed is that if someone really wants that 10%, 90%
already exists, and it's under an open source license that facilitates
developement, that 10% will get developed.

Now let's flip the script and allow what you want, which licenses like the
BSD allow. You implement the extra, useful 10% and start selling it. The
community with 90% functionality that's open now faces challenges:

- Because your source is not open, any bug fixes in your 10% requires you,
  and only you to fix it. Since your time is valuable, it'll probably
  require a fee to do so.

- Because your source is not open, but 90% of the underlaying
  infrastructure is, any interaction issues will probably be directed to
  the original community, which cannot help because they don't have access.

- You disappear or stop answering E-mail. Now what?

- And the most insidious part to the original community: Your extra 10% now
  causes a fork in the codebase. If it's really useful, the community will
  simply take the time to reimplement it anyway as free source. Now the
  work, the codebases, and the support effort is now doubled.

The point missed is that the original 90% of the code is a public trust. So
additions to the code also need to be a public trust.

A couple of final points. One is that another model is to work with the
community, get it worked out for Z/5 with their help, package the product
and sell it along with the source. You get help in development, the
community get open source for the product, and you can still sell the
results. Not everyone is going to be so inclined to want to pull the source
and compile it up themselves. Plus you can share the support burden too
because now the entire community has access to the entire codebase.

Finally in a lot of ways, the whole thing is a straw man argument because
if the original 90% is infrastructure like an OS or a significant library,
then it's not going to be under the GPL anyway. It will be under the LGPL
where you as a developer can use that infrastructure without having to
release your code, but changes to the actual LGPL codebase must be released
for everyone to share. The C library isn't going to encumber your code.

But a developer thinking that it's OK to take 90% of something for free,
adding to it, and selling back the result without any contribution to the
community that created the original 90% is exactly the reason why Stallman,
the zealot that he is, wants all code under the GPL. I don't agree with his
stance, but I certainly do understand it.

BAJ
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist