Brave statements. I imagine the open source old guard will puke over this one. I'm an open source programmer moonlighting by day at a large bank. I would love to get paid, twice, and not worry about whether the free software foundation is about to sue someone. Have they?

The license you choose for a project depends upon your aims for the project. For me the GPL works well. Others will prefer different licenses.

If you want to use Open Source/Free Software code, you must comply with the license. If you don't feel that you can comply with the license, you are free to write your own code, or find another package with a license that you prefer. Just like if you don't like the license that Microsoft, Oracle, Corel, Adobe, or Apple uses, you don't have to use their product either.

I hear complaints about the licenses picked for projects all the time. I've had complaints about my preference for the GPL. Too bad. Live with it. Just like you have to live with the license used by the commercial companies if you want to use their software.

A final note - I'm not involved with GNU/Linux. I don't use it. All of my software is written use with Windows (or DOS).

Wayne

Chris,

This is a bit strange to hear coming from you, because it sounds like a beginner's first opinion about GPL, and I would have thought you had more experience with it by now.

First, GPL does not prohibit commercial use, and if it did you would never have been able to use GPL software in the Novell system.

Second, most Open Source developers today are writing the code as part of their job. If you want to understand why, a good start might be my paper at http://perens.com/Articles/Economic.html

One of the reasons that GPL is used commercially is to facilitate a dual-licensing system, in which the software is sold to companies that don't want to participate in the share-and-share-alike terms of the GPL. MySQL is one such product.

When you use the BSD license, you don't really have that option, as anyone who wishes to make a derivative of your code without sharing their work can do so without paying you.

In general, when companies say they like the BSD license, that is because they are looking at it from the perspective of the entity receiving the license rather than the entity granting it. And of course it's the entity granting it that has put value into creating the software.

As an individual or small business, I would generally use BSD when I am paid for writing the software by a party that wants BSD, and would use GPL otherwise so that opportunities to sell other licenses remain open. This would maximize my revenue from the software.

Bruce

Your post is a a mess of confusion. I suspect it is willful, willful in the sense of not wanting to acknowledge reality.

You start with addressing how the *GPL* is slowing down Open Source,

"I think the GPL is beginning to slow down and hamper open source adoption for exactly the reason it was created. It’s time to change."

Sir, the GPL is not *Open Source* it is *Free Software*, just because some folks came along and created a name and a definition designed to encompass and subsume Free Software doesn't mean it or it's aims cease to exist, except in the minds of the intentionally ignorant.

You have been "a proponent of open source since 1997", I know you understand this. You may not agree with the aims of the Free Software movement, I don't agree with the aims of the Microsoft corporation, but what is constantly amazing to me is that people keep trying to deny the FSF's goals, their existence, even their right to exist.

*It*is*absurd*, imagine if I went around talking about how Microsoft's licenses were not in line with company X, Y, and Z's interests, *and*I*felt*justified*in*demanding*they*change*it*.

You would think me ridiculous, the common response would be “It's Microsoft's license if you don't like their terms don't use it”. However this simple conclusion doesn't get applied to the *FSF's* GPL, because there is no such thing as Free Software, only Open Source.

Nobody can figure out why the FSF keeps trying to apply their aims the OSI's GPL license, it's a big mystery, a shock, shocking, why do they keep trying to do that.

Because it's not the OSI's GPL, it's the FSF's GPL.

It wasn't created to advance Proprietary software businesses, it wasn't created to advance the aims of the OSI, it was created to give advantage to end users (by “end-users” I mean *everyone* that is not a proprietary software company). It was created to advance the aims of the *FSF*.

“The GPL effectively prohibits any sort of commercial use.”

What you mean is it prohibits any sort of commercial use based on closed code, or restrictions to the end users. Obviously RedHat, MySql, IBM, Sun, and many, many others are finding ways to grow their services business that don't depend on restricting the *end user*.

“The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code.”
This is as absurd as saying Microsoft “attempts to force people to pay them money if they want to use their code”. If I want to use their code I have to agree to their price.

Microsoft's price = bucket of money
GPL's price = bucket of code
BSD/MIT (non-copy left) price = nothing (allow anyone (esp. competitors) to use your code and provide nothing in return)

If someone doesn't like the price no one is “forcing” them to use the code.

“Okay, but that doesn’t mean it’s free. It’s free as in a puppy is free.”

*All* code is like a puppy, *all* code takes work to use or make into something, whether proprietary, Free or Open Source, it *all* takes work.

“If a closed-source company decides to use some GPL open-source code in its product, the company will do one of three things:
use the open-source code, shut up and lie…because of the restrictions
write their own code from scratch… because of the restrictions
“provide” it (download it yourself), but not integrate it with anything (arms length)…because of the restrictions
Is this really a productive way to move the open source community forward? It might have worked in the beginning with Linux but is it really necessary now? Don’t you think Linux (server and desktop) would grow exponentially faster without the GPL? Why spend so much time trying to cheat or get around the GPL?”

What you are really asking is “Is [the GPL] really a productive way to move [closed-source companies] forward?” The answer, obviously, is no. The GPL was designed to enable the opposite of closed source companies.
Ironically, one of Open Sources most stalwart advocates, Linus himself is a strong proponent of the share and share alike copy-left provision of the GPL.
There are many people that have articulated what you state here in this blog, it's almost like circulating talking points. It would be better if you actually delved into some deeper reasoning.
Obviously for a closed source company it is better if *other* developers use a BSD/MIT style license as you can use their work and give nothing (whatever you want) in return, but how does that provide value for the original developer?
Everyone keeps going on about how advantageous BSD/MIT licenses are for business, but the unspoken context is almost always advantageous for business that didn't write the original code.
The other argument for BSD/MIT style licenses is that for your own code you can develop parts of your application that are proprietary and monetize that, there are a couple classic problems with this argument.
First is the Microsoft problem, facing a much larger competitor that has decided it is time to eat your little corner of the software universe, thanks to your choice to use a BSD/MIT style license they get to start by taking your open base and, forking and closing it, adding proprietary extensions, bundling it with some other proprietary product or service, innumerable ways of unleveling the playing field.

Second is what happens when a GPL competitor appears. You assert that “Linux” would have grown faster if it were under a BSD/MIT style license. I would love to see *any* evidence, empirical or anecdotal, to support that. How long has BSD the operating system existed? Why isn't it the most popular if your reasoning is correct? Surely OpenSolaris with GNU userland on top will shortly become the next star right (rather than Sun dual GPL licensing)? The anecdotal evidence suggests that the GPL is more popular with *developers* and a great many companies that do not have their business based on closed source software, and there are compelling reasons why that is.

The anecdotal evidence, to me, suggests it is the copy-left provision itself that is responsible for the success of Free Software (and by OSI's definition Open Source as well). It is exactly the copy-left provision that gives so many developers companies and end users, the assurance that some proprietary, or “hybrid” software company won't come along and take unfair or uncompensated advantage of their hard work.

“Why spend so much time trying to cheat or get around the GPL” this is really the sentence that matters, the people so often calling for the use of BSD/MIT licenses want *you* to use these licenses so *they* can use *your* code in *their* product and give you neither code or money.
It's easier for them if you cheat yourself.

You wrote, "I think the GPL is beginning to slow down and hamper open source."

Well, an opinion like this is interesting to hear. Do you have any supporting arguments?

You wrote, "Don’t you think Linux (server and desktop) would grow exponentially faster without the GPL?"

Again, an interesting notion. Do you have supporting arguments?


You wrote, "The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code."

No, no. The GPL doesn't force anyone. The sequence is

Person 1 produces program A.

Person 1 makes program A available with GPL license.

Person 2 obtains program A (paying or not paying)

Person 2 has all kinds of rights: they can pass program A along to Persons 3,4,5,6 ad 7.

Person 4, for example, can then change program A, add a feature, and pass the whole thing on to Persons 8, 9, 10.

There is not much forcing involved here. For more details go here: http://tinyurl.com/3d8zgq or here, http://tinyurl.com/2r87jl

There are so many false statements and misguided assumptions in this essay for me to even bother critiquing it.

Needless to say, you've flipped the bozo bit for me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozo_bit

If you want to avoid all this hassle you can also generate a self-signed certificate. To do this you simply have to click "Create Self-Signed Certificate..." task in the "Certificates" feature. This will install a self-signed certificate into the local certificate store. Trial certificates as well as self-signed certificates have a problem however - they are not trusted by your web browser. Internet Explorer will warn and complain that the certificate is not from a trusted authority. For testing purposes you can ignore these warnings. Just click them away. If you want to run your web-site in production you should pay and get a real certificate though.

I have to say, the absolute ignorance of Open Source demonstrated in this post is a turn off to any potential customer who has any knowledge of Open Source. Especially one that is a proponent of it. You are now a partner of Adobe - an relatively open company. I'd refine your position as a lot of Adobe's customers are drawn to it because it is open and becoming more open all the time. They will be coming to you because of the OEM agreement. If they are like me, they will say "hey neat - CEO blog ... sounds like a transparent open company". And then they will read this post and they will be a bit perplexed.

The GPL attempts to force people and businesses to release their source code. That is fine and there is nothing wrong with that... except that I don't think it qualifies as "free software". I want anybody to be able to do anything they want with my programs and/or its source code. I have no reason to restrict their activities. A majority of companies have already decided that their product will be closed-source before they even started designing it. If a closed-source company decides it could use some open-source code in its product, it will do one of two things (if the code is licensed under the GPL):

1. Use the open-source code and not tell anybody
2. Write their own code from scratch

Problem: Filters cannot handle OR or AND logic. You can't, for example, state if the message does not contain X or Y. Solution: You can use a 'doesn't contain' filterv string of the form -{match string}. I put the following filter for the subject: -{string very unlikely to be matched fwop-fwop-fwop-fwop-}

I'm always puzzled when I see people use words like "force" and "coercion" with the GPL. Its a license, it sets terms for use. If you don't want to comply with them, or don't feel you can, then just don't use the software. If there is a game of soccer on, and one of the rules is "no playing with four-inch spikes", is that using force or coercion? No. The simple message is "if you want to play this game with us, abide by these rules". Its a take-it-or-leave-it situation.

Its depressing to see that in 2007, the same old, tired, hackneyed, boring, beaten-to-death claims are still being made against the GPL. By people who should know much better (and I suspect they do, its just more satisfying to stir things up).

What if I want to apply for a new loan. Do the banks that give SBA business loans check all the cash flow that you have in your company, including the money that you do not register as income?

I think that the bank will have to know everything about your financial situation before they will give you a new loan.

Well first of all it's free ... people who want free source code should "comply" with their demands i guess.

This is the world we live in ... it's all about the big money, and those who might think you are a threat to them will stop at nothing to bring you down. It's just logical.

hi there! Nice topic. Welcome to hallowen!

Thanks for stuff.I was looking at the material a long time.

350z body kit

Great post.