I don't agree with this essay, but I thought it was worth posting here for discussion.
For my part, I recognize that the requirements of the GPL may drive some developers away, but that's a small price to pay for making sure the code stays free.
> that's a small price to pay for making sure the code stays free
This isn't about the code staying free, it's more about who's in control.
The GPL is only popular with businesses because it is irrelevant when you're not distributing source-code (as in web servers), or when you're offering services not products.
I have yet to hear about a BSD project that went under because of some company that refused to contribute back. I do however know of a couple of projects that thrived because of more liberal licenses.
We have large projects under both BSD and GPL. We have different motivations for each, and the different licenses suit our needs. I'm always astonished by the self-righteous tone on both sides of the debate (though I find BSD extremists far more annoying for some reason...maybe just because RMS has inoculated me to the most obnoxious bits of GPL extremism).
And, yes, it is about who's in control; I don't see what's bad about that. If I wrote the code, I can exert as much or as little control over that code as I want...including making it more difficult for businesses to fork the code and distribute it under their own brand without giving back.
I have yet to hear about a BSD project that went under because of some company that refused to contribute back. I do however know of a couple of projects that thrived because of more liberal licenses.
This is a specious argument. One can point to dozens of GPL projects that have thrived because of the GPL; and none that went under because of something some third party did or didn't do.
Linux is one example of thriving GPL code, while the BSD-licensed competitors are dramatically less popular. Could it be because the BSD world forked off into dozens of competing commercial and free versions in the early days? Maybe. Maybe not. I dunno. But, for every BSD success story you'd like to trot out, I can trot out an equal number of GPL success stories. And, again, I'm a developer on projects that "prove" that both licenses are effective.
I can also assure you that the BSD projects see far less giving back than the GPL project, relative to total number of corporate users. When I worked as an IT guy, I regularly came upon server "appliance" products that used our software with a custom theme and heavy modifications, and we'd never even spoken to the company in question; the BSD permits that, and we aren't offended by that usage. It certainly isn't going to kill the project. But, in the case where we wanted more control, and had a very strong interest in that never happening because it would seriously impact our ability to build the products we wanted to build, we opted for the GPL license.
> And, yes, it is about who's in control; I don't see what's bad about that.
I wasn't suggesting that there's something bad about it. I just get annoyed when people start talking about the freedom in GPL.
> Linux is one example of thriving GPL code, while the BSD-licensed competitors are dramatically less popular
In the case of Linux, I think we can all agree that a large part of its success is due to its creator that's a wonderful leader. 386BSD on the other hand had fewer contributions because of the strict development policies of its creators regarding external contributions.
Of course, I'm not saying that the GPL wasn't a component of its success, but I think people overestimate its role in all this. After all, BSD is a lot more popular than GNU Hurd.
From what I remember of what I read of the history of linux - it was the fact that BSD code was tied up in some kind of court case when linux was first introduced that allowed it to get a leg-up on the BSDs; because no one would risk basing anything on an OS that may not be available in the future.
"The GPL is only popular with businesses because it is irrelevant when you're not distributing source-code"
Well, the AGPL (Affero GPL) is becoming more popular these days, which counts public availability as distribution. First "serious" (ie, I am consdering using it) app I've seen which uses it is MongoDB.
And yet, those BSD-licensed projects now have users who cannot fix problems in the BSD-licensed code they use, because of this more liberal licensing. That is what I meant about the code remaining free. The user suffers under a less free regime.
That's just silly. Just because you don't want to work on your car yourself, doesn't mean you ought to choose one with the hood welded shut. It should be obvious that "can fix" is short-hand for "can caused to be fixed, either doing it yourself, or by cajoling or paying someone else to do it". Without the source, there is no option to fix it.
I'm not an Open Source or Free Software extremist, by any means, but there are real benefits to having the source code to important software for any user, even those who have never opened a text editor or seen a line of source code. It may not matter for video games and the software that runs your TV. But, there are a lot of areas where it should be the single most important factor in the decision-making process, even if the decision makers don't realize it. Government, for example, probably ought to exclusively run on Open Source software, or at least only buy from vendors that provide the source and a license that allows in-house fixes in the event the company goes under or is unable or unwilling to fix security vulnerabilities or interop problems. Many large companies insist on "dead man switch" arrangements wherein they get the source if the software vendor goes under. A free software license is just the logical conclusion.
I really don't understand the anti-GPL folks. I put them in the same mental category as the folk that get so upset by Wikipedia.
Yeah, wikipedia's not perfect, neither is the GPL, but they're here and they work, no-one's forcing you to use them so where does all this angst come from? Is it a generational thing? Is any of this reflected in the next generation of hackers or is the GPL just accepted as part of the environment?
For my part, I recognize that the requirements of the GPL may drive some developers away, but that's a small price to pay for making sure the code stays free.