On 2/27/07, Mike Miller <mbmiller at taxa.epi.umn.edu> wrote: > I don't think the problem is that the GPL is hard to understand, I think > the problem is that many people haven't tried to understand it. I > The fact that we can't even agree whether or not the rest of the software that runs a microwave needs to be released if they use any GPL software in the microwave makes the hard-to-understand part clear to me. > Clarification: Did IBM say that they would not have been interested in > your code if it had been released under the GPL? IBM has been very > supportive of Linux (GPL), so I don't think that would kill their > interest. It all depends on which market you are in - Obviously, if they are looking to build on something, and sell it as a product, they can't use GPL. This is why the eclipse foundation does not use GPL - IBM builds tons of expensive products on top of it - and they are bound very tightly into the Eclipse base code. > Do you have a reference on that? I can't find anything about a license > for ODF. Are you sure you aren't thinking of a specific program that > implements ODF? Well, I just jumped out to the OpenOffice website, and noted that they use the LGPL. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that that also covers their specification. Perhaps it doesn't. My poorly researched point was supposed to be that if the standard was released under GPL, and that required implementing software to also be GPL, then there could never be commercial software which implements the standard. In hindsight, I don't know how GPL applies to standards, as opposed to source code. > > Apache and Eclipse are two very large and growing software ecosystems. > > You know why? No GPL! Ton's of commercial companies use their > > software! And many of those commercial companies have people that spend > > time fixing bugs in that same software. Like me, for one. > > That is another peculiar and unsupportable claim. Why would you think > that Apache is successful because it is not under the GPL? I think it is > because Apache is a nice program. Many nice programs are distributed > under the GPL and they are successful. I was thinking more of the Apache organization as a whole, not the httpd server project. The Apache project includes tons of software this is used and well maintained by a lot of people working in companies that release commercial software built on top of these tools. If I go looking for java utilities, there is hardly anything out there under the GPL. Almost all of the useful stuff is under Apache Jakarta, or some other "more free" license which allows them to be used in commercial software. > > GPL is not about free. Its about an impossible to achieve pipe dream. > > That's a peculiar statement. Really, some of you guys say the craziest > things. GPL (as compared to BSDL) is about encouraging people to help a > project to grow. If I write some code, distribute it under the GPL, and > someone sends me a patch or some additional code to be incorporated under > the GPL, then it has succeeded and the GPL has made my dream come true. > The GPL offers more encouragement for future development than does the > BSDL. You might call it a "viral quality" of the GPL that the BSDL lacks. You see the viral quality as giving you more patches from more users. I see the viral quality as preventing day-to-day software developement professionals that work for a company that sells software from ever touching your code. So you get less exposure, and less growth. > > There is, and always will be a place for commercial software. > > Irrelevant. No, not really. Once software developers graduate from college, suddenly, someone needs to pay them, so they can make a living. No one is going to pay them if their competitors can use their work for free. > What requires "massive amounts of money to develop?" Can you give an > example. I can't envision a software project that is not doable under the > GPL. Are you willing to shell out the money it would require to hire the professionals that you would need to decipher the US tax code? Do you really think that people who make their living studying the US tax code are willing to work for free? The money has to come from somewhere. >It might take more time, of course. Also, the fact that something >is GPL doesn't mean it can't have massive amounts of money behind it. >For example, governments can produce GPL software. I can write a grant to >NIH and get hundreds of thousands of dollars to support software >development. You could, but why would the NIH want to prevent companies from being able to build something even better on top of what they have paid for? As a matter of fact, much of the work that I did at Mayo was funded by NIH contracts, and the contract specifically required that the end result be open source - and not GPL. > It would be possible for federal and state governments to provide tax > software under GPL or compatible license. They might not do it because of > the proprietary lobby, but it doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. Agreed - but if they did provide this software, why should people be prevented from improving it even further, and charging for their work? In reference to your work - choosing GPL over other licenses basically gives you a different set of potential contributers. GPL gives you folks that also believe that anything that touches your code (where touches can't even be defined without lawyers and judges) should also be free. But, a more free license would also give you these same people. GPL cuts you off from anyone working on a commercial product, and you lose the potential of having all of those professional people sending you bug fixes and improvements.