GPL vs. BSD

[mick_towe]

This post is for the geeks out there in the free/open software movement. I have to say that the movement itself seems to be coming over the hill at this point and with the gains in the server  and mobile phones markets plus the usability of the systems it seems only a matter of time before free/open software becomes the dominant force in the industry.

 

I know that in a free society IP will be different than it is now, but we have to work with what we've got now.

 

I was hugely inspired by Richard Stallman as I was getting into Gnu/Linux about 8 years ago. I really appreciate the effort he put into trying to provide free software to the world. When I started out I was sure that all of my work would be GPL, but as I get more into the business I can see that the BSD license philosophy has a very convincing counterpoint to the GPL.

 

The question I have is, which license is more free? The one that ensure's the user's freedom? Or the one that ensure's the freedom of the redistributors?

 

 

[Prairie]

The question I have is, which license is more free?

One requires use of the state to be enforced and is thus backed by violence, while the other is only necessary because the state has made copyright the default for any code written.

[mick_towe]

One requires use of the state to be enforced and is thus backed by violence, while the other is only necessary because the state has made copyright the default for any code written.

 

I assume you mean that the GPL requires the state to enforce it?

[Prairie]

Sorry I was vague before. The GPL relies on the state for enforcement. If the state were to disappear, all code would effectively become BSD-"licensed", where anyone was free to modify/distribute it however they pleased, including making private improvements to public code but not releasing the changes, and selling programs built from this private code.

[mick_towe]

Thank you for that. I had not thought of it that way before. Wow.

 

I just recently switched over from developing on Gnu/Linux platforms to BSD, and felt guilty about liking it better (because it is!) Now  I can tell the RMS in my head that although I respect his contribution to free software, I can not support the initiation of the use of force.

[cynicist]

Thank you for that. I had not thought of it that way before. Wow.

 

I just recently switched over from developing on Gnu/Linux platforms to BSD, and felt guilty about liking it better (because it is!) Now  I can tell the RMS in my head that although I respect his contribution to free software, I can not support the initiation of the use of force.

 

It's not that simple. In a free society you would be able to have contracts that prevent turning open code into proprietary products. We have no alternative to the legal system at the moment because the state prevents one from forming, so I don't think you can criticize Stallman for that.

 

Neither approach is more free, but I prefer control of the code to be in the hands of the user rather than companies because that allows you to fix or improve what you own even after that company is gone or drops support for their products. If someone takes the code you worked on and makes a successful product from it they have helped a lot of people, but if you want them to share those changes I think there should be a legal way for you to do that. (It's like a condition for using your code, just like you have conditions on renting an apartment for example)

 

Either way why feel guilty? I value the openness of Ubuntu for practical reasons of security and the feeling of community and trust that derives from it, and if BSD does that for you I think that's great. 

[Prairie]

I've been torn about the GPL for years now, because I found the GPL to be a clever hack of the copyright system. Something that was made to allow monopoly on distribution so that the supplier can jack up the price is turned inside-out, so that it instead gives everyone access and keeps contributors' work from being used in programs that don't make their source available to anyone. It also prevents the effective monopoly a closed-source author has over users, who can either go to him for fixes/improvements, or abandon the software.I see the purpose of the GPL as keeping the "pool" of all GPL code from helping closed-source developers. This helps GPL programs relative to closed-source ones so that someone going by functionality alone will be more likely to choose the GPL program, and thus give less money to closed-source developers and more feedback to GPL projects. If people already shunned closed-source programs, the GPL wouldn't matter much because most things would be open-source.

In a free society you would be able to have contracts that prevent turning open code into proprietary products.

Unless a third-party which didn't sign the contract comes into possession of the code (see The Contractual Approach part way down the page).

It's like a condition for using your code, just like you have conditions on renting an apartment for example

When you're renting an apartment the owner is giving up the ability to have others rent it, and your use can damage it. Neither applies to someone's code.

[mick_towe]

The BSD license (and there are several so this is a generalization) is similar to GPL except that you are not required to share back your changes in most cases. You can if you want to, and there is a strong case to be made why a company might want to share back their changes.

 

Say you've built something that runs on BSD and you had to pay prorgammers to build it. If you close source the code, then anytime BSD updates break your code, you have to hire people back to fix it up. If you share it back (and it is a useful feature) then there is a good chance it will be maintained by the community.

 

My issues with GPL are for example with website building. I don't do much of that myself, but I did work with a small company that did for awhile. They built very complex websites for businesses, sites with huge custom interactive databases that took much more time and energy to develop than your average site. A ton of legwork and meetings, and planning and a lot of invesment on the sales end. And it seemed without fail each client would hire them to get the site built, and then as soon as it was up and running, the client would dump them (because they weren't cheap, and the work they did was complex) demand a copy of the code and hire some guy working out of his basement to take it from there. It was a double loss in the sense that not only were they losing a client, but they were essentially being forced to teach their competition how to do what they do.

[cynicist]

I see the purpose of the GPL as keeping the "pool" of all GPL code from helping closed-source developers. This helps GPL programs relative to closed-source ones so that someone going by functionality alone will be more likely to choose the GPL program, and thus give less money to closed-source developers and more feedback to GPL projects. If people already shunned closed-source programs, the GPL wouldn't matter much because most things would be open-source.

 

The purpose is not to keep GPL code from helping closed source developers. Many game developers use Ogg Vorbis (which is an open audio format and library) to encode assets for their proprietary games. The point is to keep people from taking GPL code and making it closed-source. Part of the reason there are many companies willing to contribute code to the Linux kernel is that they know it is illegal for their competitors to take their contributions while keeping their own private in order to make their product superior. 

 

Unless a third-party which didn't sign the contract comes into possession of the code (see The Contractual Approach part way down the page).

 

Edit: I've changed my mind. I realize that after a certain level of momentum it's going to be really difficult to compete with open-source anyway so this stuff probably won't be necessary.

 

When you're renting an apartment the owner is giving up the ability to have others rent it, and your use can damage it. Neither applies to someone's code. 

 

I get the scarcity argument around property, and maybe enough people will donate that it won't matter much in the future, but otherwise I could definitely see some sort of a creative contractual arrangement. (Like refusing access to particular content provider services if you share that content with those outside of that network, though I'm not sure about code)

 

Edit: I've changed my mind and I think you are right. You can claim ownership over the original but you can't do anything about the copies. The only solution really is to pay the author in order to encourage more original works that everyone can copy. The above situation will work to some limited degree for certain types of works but it's not a good model.

 

My issues with GPL are for example with website building. I don't do much of that myself, but I did work with a small company that did for awhile. They built very complex websites for businesses, sites with huge custom interactive databases that took much more time and energy to develop than your average site. A ton of legwork and meetings, and planning and a lot of invesment on the sales end. And it seemed without fail each client would hire them to get the site built, and then as soon as it was up and running, the client would dump them (because they weren't cheap, and the work they did was complex) demand a copy of the code and hire some guy working out of his basement to take it from there. It was a double loss in the sense that not only were they losing a client, but they were essentially being forced to teach their competition how to do what they do.

 

That's why you setup contracts to get payment once the site is complete. You can't hide web code very well because it's interpreted rather than compiled. That's not really a GPL issue imo. I mean in that it's not an ongoing community effort, once they pay for the site you can charge them for maintaining it as well and if they choose to go with a guy working out of his basement they may suffer from lower quality code.

[mick_towe]

Not to be nitpicky, but we did compile our php, it runs faster, and is more secure that way.

[cynicist]

Not to be nitpicky, but we did compile our php, it runs faster, and is more secure that way.

 

Haha touche, valid point for PHP. 

[Lians]

All the code I release is licensed under BSD because it's as close as it gets to no strings attached, free to use software. I prefer to rely on reciprocity instead of legal binding.