Still no new license -- but draft text available

[John W. Stevens]

Grant Griffin wrote:
> 
> Piet van Oostrum wrote:
> >
> > Many people do m\not like GPL but if python had originally been released
> > under GPL, CNRI wouldn't have been able to change that, and all this fuss
> > wouldn't have been necessary.
> 
> But without its generous CWI license, many of the commercial uses of
> Python (which have undoubtedly contributed to its success) would not
> have been possible.

Really?  You are saying that there are a lot of companies that have
taken the Python source code, modified it, and are making money off of
it, and that they couldn't have done this under the L\GPL?

Who?  And why?

> I personally dislike the GPL because it has repeatedly left me unable to
> use technically-meritorious and free (!) software.

Seems that your dislike is based on a misunderstanding . . . why should
you get mad because the cost of the ticket is to agree to cooperate?

Don't want to cooperate?  Don't use GPL'ed code.  I don't want to
forfeit control over my data and systems, so I don't use code that isn't
at least open, and I don't release anything that isn't L\GPL'ed.

> So I then have to
> buy something, or, more often, have to write my own.  That just seems
> wasteful.

It is . . . and the same thing is true on the other side of the fence .
. . instead of being able to use your stuff (because of it's restrictive
license), people have to use something else or write their own.  Your
complaint is not specifc to the GPL, it applies to any license that has
restrictions.

> It amazes me that people who want to give away their work would want to
> place restrictions on its use.

GPL isn't about a "gift to anyone for any use", it is about "a gift to
the community", where the community is defined as those people who have
agreed to work together in cooperation towards the common goal of
creating the best possible system.

> If one has a "gift" mentality, the gift
> means more if given without strings.

If you are a member of the community, there are no strings attached.

If you aren't, then you are complaining about other's life style choices
. . . aren't we a little bit more civilized than that?

> But that being said, the *empirical* evidence seems to indicate that the
> open/free aspect of software is much more important than whether (or
> not) it is copylefted.

Nope.  The copyleft is very, very important, because it defines, and
helps to make cohesive, the community.

There have been suggestions of "forking" Python (IN THIS GROUP!) to fix
licensing issues.  In the GPL based world, this is less likely, because
the copy left defines the basic philosoply of the community:
cooperation.

Tell me . . . just how much work will have to be redone, if Python is
forked to fix licensing issues?  And what will be the final result . . .
two different versions of Python?  And what will happen after this
rework is done . . . a law suit is a definite possibiliy.

> If you consider the success of Python

Python's "success" is debatable . . . as is Perl's . . . at a recent
meeting, I asked everybody who uses Python to raise their hand.  Nobody
did.  I then asked everybody who used Perl to raise their hand . . .
about 40% did.  I then asked everybody who used "Perl 5" to keep their
hands up.  Everybody dropped their hand except for one person.

> (with its
> generous CWI license), Perl (with its generous Artistic License--and the
> Grinchly GPL available as an alternative), and the Linux Sysem (not
> "GNU/Linux System"--na-nya-nana-nay Mr. Stallman! ;-) available only in
> GPL, it all seems to add up to this: the presence or absence of copyleft
> probably just doesn't matter.

Comparing Linux to Perl or Python is a mistake.  Apples and Oranges.

Linux is well on its way to being the most widely adopted OS in the
world . . . precisely because of copy left, not "Open Source".  Copy
left makes it clear: you wanna play, you have to be cooperative, and it
has the teeth to protect the community from infringers.

> As evidence of the merit of the GPL, we hear the example of Next having
> to contribute Objective C so they could use the rest of the gcc
> compiler.

Which produced a number of positive results for NeXT, and continues to
be advantageous for the community.

> This example is notable for its singularity: I haven't heard
> others.

Linux.  Note, too, the prevalence of gcc on just about anything big
enough to run it . . . and emacs . . . and others.

> Also, notice that Objective C never really caught on.

That's debatable, considering it's the core language of the next
generation Mac OS.

> And Next
> itself is dead (I think).

Nope.  They were purchased by Apple, and Apple is anything but dead.
Note, too, that the publication of the OpenStep specification produced
the GNUstep project.

> So at best, there seems to be very little
> empirical evidence that copyleft thing actually accomplishes its goal of
> making otherwise closed/commercial software become open/free.

Straw man.  It is *NOT* the purpose of copy left to make "otherwise
closed/commercial software become open/free" . . . the purpose of copy
left is to provide a core philosophy and enforcable mechanism for
forming a cooperative community.

And at that, it has suceeded beyond anybodies wildest dream.

A *SIDE* effect of copyleft is that closed/commercial systems become
unable to compete (to much waste).

> If Open Source has intrinsic economic value, the copyleft concept isn't
> needed;

Copy left provides the basis for "economic justice"  (See: the protests
against the WTO and the World Bank for more about economic justice, but
please filter out the nonsense).

Open Source projects that do not, in some other fashion, engender a
sense of cooperation, are doomed to fail.

Guido and Larry have managed to make this happen without the GPL, but
lacking an enforcement mechanism makes situations like the Python
licensing thing almost inevitable, *ESPECIALLY* as the system starts to
become something people can make money on.

> if it doesn't, copyleft won't be enough to make Open Source a
> force.

Obviously, to be adopted, the *SYSTEM* must have some intrinsic economic
value . . . and the GPL provides this through cooperation.

> In other words, you don't need to require people to make their
> improvements to software open/free if the openness and freeness of those
> improvements is truly economically beneficial to them

Competition drives evolution, and evolution is nearly a universal aspect
of systems . . . copyleft makes competition more efficient and
effective, making the GPL a more economically viable system than "let's
all spend money and time re-inventing the same wheel, instead of
improving on it".

> --they'll do that
> without being forced; likewise, if you _try_ to force them but they find
> no advanatage in it, it probably won't work; they'll just go elsewhere,
> as I have done many times.

There is no "force" in the acceptance of the GPL.  It, like any other
license, is accepted or rejected by each individual, and acceptance is
entirely voluntary.  The simple fact that you chose to go "elsewhere"
proves this.

> Likewise, one can find no obvious correlation between the copyleftness
> of a license and the amount of contributions a given package receive.

Sorry, but again, not true.  Compare the percentage basis of
contributions between Linux . . . and Windows.

> Python is a good example of Open Source software that receives
> considerable contributions without a copylefted license.  Ditto Perl.

Yes.  That's because, up to now, a great many contributors believed that
the Python license gave every advantage that the L\GPL did, with less
restrictions . . . we may be witnessing proof that this was a mistake.

It will be interesting to watch, and see if the license issues get
resolved without scaring off some conributors.

> Personally, I think of the whole copyleft thing as being primarily a
> clever marketing gimmick (whether or not Richard Stallman realizes it.)
> It definitely has a strong appeal to a certain segment of the
> population--especially young people.  But then again, it turns off
> another segment.  So, from strictly a marketing point of view, it's a
> tradeoff.

It isn't a marketing gimmick . . . if "rogues" (from the communities
stand point) get "scared off", that isn't a loss, it's a gain.

> Notice, though, that copyleft seems to thrive primarily in cases where
> somebody is *re-implementing* an existing system--most noticably the
> GNU/Linux System

And since *EVERY* system is a "re-implementation" . . . copyleft is
superior.

> (OK, it's probably about time I threw His Royal Root of
> All Square Meanness a bone ;-).  Specifically, the appeal of a
> re-implemented free system is primarily that it is _free_.  (Or, as
> Linus Torvalds has said, the problem with UNIX was that it was "so
> expensive".)

The appeal of copyleft is it's *EFFICIENCY*.  Reducing the amount of
unneccessary cost is a pure win.  And that is what the copyleft does . .
. it eliminates the totally unneccessary cost of fixing a bug, of
optimizing a routine, of writing this or that tool, again and again and
again . . .

> But if you're trying to popularize a _new_ system (as Guido and Larry
> Wall once were--and still are to an extent), it makes a lot more sense
> not to limit the ecologies that your system can live in

Nope.  It makes more sense to include new members into a group, than to
encourage the creation of a bunch of mutually exclusive groups. 
Cooperation leverages the most powerful aspect of humanity: our
gregariousness.  Copy left is the wall, the border that defines the
difference between those who are willing to cooperate, and those who are
not.

> (by putting in
> license terms that discourage commercial uses);

The GPL does not discourage commercial use: proof of this lies in the
steady adoption of Linux by the commercial world.

> broad usage terms give
> it a better chance of thriving and prospering.

Broad usage terms that allow for a product to be fragmented into a
number of different, incompatible versions, reduces the chance of a
system thriving.

As I said, this does not absolutely require the GPL, but without some
enforcement mechanism, the community is vulnerable to "rogues" and
"criminals", in exactly the same way as a community that has laws, but
no law enforcment, can be peaceful and happy . . . for a while.

> Put another way,
> packages which have a copyleft license restriction are at a competitive
> disadvantage compared to those who don't.

No they are not.  This is clearly not true, from the simple fact of the
adoption of so many copylefted systems.

> (Even within the world of
> free/open software, competition is the rule.)

Yes . . . but copyleft makes competition more efficient.

> But I think that the success of a re-implemented system like GNU/Linux
> can be entirely explained by the fact that it is free, open, and very
> high quality--in other words, by the merits of the product itself.

It is free, open, and of very high quality partially because of the GPL.

> The
> fact that it is copylefted is incidental

Nope.  Copy left has allowed the Linux community to avoid fragmentation,
avoid unneccessary repetition, and greatly increased the number of
"ecological" niches that Linux can occupy (from running on a
*WRISTWATCH*, to being the basis for a low-level super computer).

No other system has been as successful by that measure.

> --except that perhaps Richard
> Stallman would never have applied his considerable drive and technical
> talents to helping create it if he wasn't able to create a legal
> mechanism to enforce his strange obsession with making it difficult for
> people to make money on the work he "gives" away.

It's not difficult to make money on GPL'ed systems.

> (which-reminds-me:-i-bet-that-red-hat-ipo-thing-last-year-must-have
>    -really-burned-his-butt-<wink>)-ly y'rs,

Nope.  Please read some of RMS's writings before posting again.

RMS isn't against "making money", he's against *WASTE* (as any good
engineer would be).

-- 

If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!

John Stevens
jstevens at basho.fc.hp.com