GPL3 used as club to coerce customers toward commercial licensing
RogerV
Stallman. As far as I'm concerned he's a whacko extremist that seeks
to balkanize and politicize. Plus, like all zealots he's self-
righteous and full of conceit. I don't consider his approach to be
anything about respect of human freedom and/or fundamental rights.
Richard Stallman and GNU - political extremist
http://humbleblogger.blogspot.com/2005/06/richard-stallman-and-gnu-political.html
So I must report, what is obvious to anyone that spends a moment of
contemplation, what I find to be a delicious irony that proves my
point.
Many in the Java community are no doubt aware of the recent
SpringSource Application Platform announcement. This new offering will
be under a dual licensing. The free version will be under GPL3, while
a commercial offering with subscription-based support will be under
something else.
What's going on here is that GPL3 lends the appearance that
SpringSource is continuing to offer free, open source software.
However, prior to now, Spring Framework and related Spring components
have been offered under the Apache Software License Version 2.0. The
new OSGi-based Application Platform offering breaks with that - why?
If you're going to do a dual license approach, then GPL3 is the way to
go, because GPL2/3 are poison pills to corporations when it comes to
potential inclusion of open source Java library components.
For instance my company is an ISV - we'd never include a Java library
in our application mix that is GPL3. Sure, we could download and play
around with SpringSource Application Platform, but if we ever wanted
to seriously consider using it for our apps, we'd be compelled to get
on the support contract in order to switch to the other licensing.
The GNU GPL3 has become used as a club to beat corporations over the
head in order to steer them into using commercial software.
I have no problem with what SpringSource is doing here. They're in
business to make money off of their endeavors as software developers.
I find it deliciously ironic, however that the GNU GPL3 has become the
"weapon" of choice for compelling consumers of software products into
use of commercially licensed software. Richard Stallman's idiotic
fanaticism is now resulting in exactly the opposite of the ostensible
goal of GNU. It just doesn't get any funnier that this.
Christian Catchpole
get you hooked and then jack up the price. :)
On May 15, 4:30 pm, RogerV <rog...@qwest.net> wrote:
> Let me state outright that I am not at all an admirer of Richard
> Stallman. As far as I'm concerned he's a whacko extremist that seeks
> to balkanize and politicize. Plus, like all zealots he's self-
> righteous and full of conceit. I don't consider his approach to be
> anything about respect of human freedom and/or fundamental rights.
>
Dave Patterson
Don't confuse the ethics of switching license with the intent of the
license used, a license which plenty of folks like just fine.
Dave Patterson.
On May 15, 7:30 am, RogerV <rog...@qwest.net> wrote:
> Let me state outright that I am not at all an admirer of Richard
> Stallman. As far as I'm concerned he's a whacko extremist that seeks
> to balkanize and politicize. Plus, like all zealots he's self-
> righteous and full of conceit. I don't consider his approach to be
> anything about respect of human freedom and/or fundamental rights.
>
Weiqi Gao
>
> If you're going to do a dual license approach, then GPL3 is the way to
> go, because GPL2/3 are poison pills to corporations when it comes to
> potential inclusion of open source Java library components.
That's the whole point of the GPL, whether 1 or 2 or 3. Call it viral
or poison pill if you like, but that's exactly what they intended. And
the GPL has been vastly successful.
> For instance my company is an ISV - we'd never include a Java library
> in our application mix that is GPL3. Sure, we could download and play
> around with SpringSource Application Platform, but if we ever wanted
> to seriously consider using it for our apps, we'd be compelled to get
> on the support contract in order to switch to the other licensing.
What's wrong with that?
You are selling your software for profit. And you want to include
someone else's software in your package. And you don't want to pay him
his fair share of the profit?
> The GNU GPL3 has become used as a club to beat corporations over the
> head in order to steer them into using commercial software.
I understand that parts of the SpringSource Application Platform will be
non-Open Source. See here for Rod Johnson's direct answer to that question:
So there will be parts of the stack that you cannot get as open source,
therefore is proprietary. But that part by definition is not licensed
under the GPL. You can't get it any other way.
The parts that are licensed under the GPL3 is Free Software (Open
Source) by definition. You are welcome to use it under the Free
Software license or a proprietary license. The choice is yours. Nobody
is beating nobody on the head to force nobody to do nothing that they
are not willing to do.
> I have no problem with what SpringSource is doing here. They're in
> business to make money off of their endeavors as software developers.
They are heading towards the acquisition target direction, which I think
is great. It's their product. They can do whatever they want.
> I find it deliciously ironic, however that the GNU GPL3 has become the
> "weapon" of choice for compelling consumers of software products into
> use of commercially licensed software. Richard Stallman's idiotic
> fanaticism is now resulting in exactly the opposite of the ostensible
> goal of GNU. It just doesn't get any funnier that this.
Don't be so quick in making your conclusions. Let's do a thought
experiment:
Imagine you are given the power to wave a wand to make all GPL'ed
software stop working. And you do that. What would the software world
be? No Linux, No Mac OS X (it's all compiled with GCC), No Solaris 10,
No Java, No Apache (they need GPL'ed compilers), No Internet. Everyone
would be using Windows developing software with Microsoft C that costs
$5000/year to license.
RMS is not stupid.
--
Weiqi Gao
weiq...@speakeasy.net
http://www.weiqigao.com/blog/
Andres Almiray
> Imagine you are given the power to wave a wand to make all GPL'ed
> software stop working. And you do that. What would the software world
> be? No Linux, No Mac OS X (it's all compiled with GCC), No Solaris 10,
> No Java, No Apache (they need GPL'ed compilers), No Internet. Everyone
> would be using Windows developing software with Microsoft C that costs
> $5000/year to license.
>
are the only ones that become true ;-)
PS: sorry, couldn't help it
Peter Becker
[...]
Don't be so quick in making your conclusions. Let's do a thought
experiment:
Imagine you are given the power to wave a wand to make all GPL'ed
software stop working. And you do that. What would the software world
be? No Linux, No Mac OS X (it's all compiled with GCC), No Solaris 10,
No Java, No Apache (they need GPL'ed compilers), No Internet. Everyone
would be using Windows developing software with Microsoft C that costs
$5000/year to license.
While reluctant to jump in on a GPL vs. the rest of the world debate I just have to call BS on this one. The fact that good software exists written under some licence does not mean the licence is good -- I'm pretty sure if the GPL wouldn't be there, Linux would have had some other OSS licence or maybe even be in the public domain. It would still be working, though.
Of course you can argue that the GPL was part of the success story of all these products (something I'd rather not argue for or against), but please don't confuse products and their licences.
There are probably other flaws to find, e.g. I would expect that Java or Apache did ever rely on a GPLed compiler -- after all the commercial UNIX systems had their own compilers for a long time. And the Internet ain't GPLed either. You seem to miss the whole BSD story, too.
Peter
Luc Trudeau
There are probably other flaws to find, e.g. I would expect that Java or Apache did ever rely on a GPLed compiler -- after all the commercial UNIX systems had their own compilers for a long time. And the Internet ain't GPLed either. You seem to miss the whole BSD story, too.
IMHO The reason why Linux surpassed BSD is because the GPL is the glue that forced everybody to play together. Contrary to Unices(plural of unix?) where everybody was open source but the version where so different that merging the sources back together would prove impossible.
For instance my company is an ISV - we'd never include a Java library
in our application mix that is GPL3.
Call me a zealot but there is nothing wrong with using GPL code in a commercial setting if you also license your code has GPL. It's perfectly normal selling GPL code that's how Stallman started out.
what I find to be a delicious irony that proves my point.
I'm sorry I don't see your Irony, yes GPL does remove your right to keep everything you develop using SpringSource to yourself and making money off a framework you did'nt write. At the profit of sharing your application with other people who themselves are not allowed to develop something using what you made and keeping the profits for themselves.
To me GPL is the good old "Do not do unto others what you would not want them do unto you."
One last thing using a blog that violates Godwin's law has a reference is not very credible. People like Torvalds and RMS and many other have sacrificed a lot so that we can have the free desktop we have today.
Luc Trudeau
Ecole de Technologie Superieure
Weiqi Gao
>
> On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Weiqi Gao <weiq...@gmail.com
> <mailto:weiq...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Don't be so quick in making your conclusions. Let's do a thought
> experiment:
>
> Imagine you are given the power to wave a wand to make all GPL'ed
> software stop working. And you do that. What would the software world
> be? No Linux, No Mac OS X (it's all compiled with GCC), No Solaris 10,
> No Java, No Apache (they need GPL'ed compilers), No Internet. Everyone
> would be using Windows developing software with Microsoft C that costs
> $5000/year to license.
>
>
> While reluctant to jump in on a GPL vs. the rest of the world debate I
> just have to call BS on this one.
It's just a little thought experiment. Nothing serious. It has a lot
of holes in it. But it's worth spend a few brain cycles on it.
> The fact that good software exists
> written under some licence does not mean the licence is good -- I'm
> pretty sure if the GPL wouldn't be there, Linux would have had some
> other OSS licence or maybe even be in the public domain. It would still
> be working, though.
My point is not to prove that the GPL is good. I just want to point out
the success of the GPL and the brilliancy of RSM's strategies. To
counter the idiocy tag that Roger was trying to put on him.
> Of course you can argue that the GPL was part of the success story of
> all these products (something I'd rather not argue for or against), but
> please don't confuse products and their licences.
>
> There are probably other flaws to find, e.g. I would expect that Java or
> Apache did ever rely on a GPLed compiler -- after all the commercial
> UNIX systems had their own compilers for a long time. And the Internet
> ain't GPLed either. You seem to miss the whole BSD story, too.
If I take all GPLed code away from BSD, do I still have a functioning
BSD? (This is a genuine question. I don't know the answer as I'm not a
BSD user.)
We are getting way off topic for the Java Posse. I'll take the next
round of darts without throwing them back.
Peter Becker
If I take all GPLed code away from BSD, do I still have a functioning
> Of course you can argue that the GPL was part of the success story of
> all these products (something I'd rather not argue for or against), but
> please don't confuse products and their licences.
>
> There are probably other flaws to find, e.g. I would expect that Java or
> Apache did ever rely on a GPLed compiler -- after all the commercial
> UNIX systems had their own compilers for a long time. And the Internet
> ain't GPLed either. You seem to miss the whole BSD story, too.
BSD? (This is a genuine question. I don't know the answer as I'm not a
BSD user.)
To be honest: I'm not sure either. But a quick bit of research places the start of the BSD timeline around 1977, while GCC's first public release seems to be 1987. Currently at least some BSD folks seem to think it is worthwhile replacing GCC:
http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/369/
But I don't really know much (it's all just Google results) and I don't have a very strong opinion on the topic either. I know what I like to use for my projects, but I have worked on OSS projects with different licences and it doesn't worry me too much.
We are getting way off topic for the Java Posse. I'll take the next
round of darts without throwing them back.
Agreed. And I hope I didn't throw any further darts.
Peter
Vince O'Sullivan
> Imagine you are given the power to wave a wand to make all GPL'ed
> software stop working. And you do that. What would the software world
> be? No Linux, No Mac OS X (it's all compiled with GCC), No Solaris 10,
> No Java, No Apache (they need GPL'ed compilers), No Internet. Everyone
> would be using Windows developing software with Microsoft C that costs
> $5000/year to license.
V.