Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 23:21:07 -0700 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> Cc: Gregory Sutter <gsutter@pobox.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: GPL *again* (was: New CODA release) Message-ID: <4.1.19990207230639.009284c0@mail.lariat.org> In-Reply-To: <19990208125530.X86778@freebie.lemis.com> References: <36BE3DEC.433E8A2E@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> <199902071900.LAA09317@kithrup.com> <36BE1B25.653A5341@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> <19990207162848.L27505@orcrist.mediacity.com> <36BE3DEC.433E8A2E@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:55 PM 2/8/99 +1030, Greg Lehey wrote: >> - From an economical point of view, the GPL has a negative effect over >> capitalism, and will eventually have some effect on employment (I'm not >> kidding, I'll have to write a dissertation about this, but I haven't >> found the time). The BSD license doesn't have this effect. > >Why not? In each case, it's free software. And people are making >more money out of GPL software than Berkeley Licence software. They're not making money from the software itself. They're making money by providing services RELATED TO the software, such as books, CDs with the software pressed onto them, etc. As the Net becomes ubiquitous and very fast, the market for CD-ROMs of free software will dry up. (Who needs the CD when you can download instantly and for free?) The markets for support, consulting, and books won't (You'll still make money from FreeBSD books), but they won't make people rich, either. As for why the GPL is bad for business: it treats business unfairly. Users can use GPLed software to serve THEIR needs, but commercial software companies can't use it to fulfill THEIRS. That's the intent: to drive commercial software companies out of business. One way it does this is to drive the market value of a product with a given feature set to zero, while keeping its cost to commercial software vendors (either in development or licensing costs) high. Free software can and does take away business opportunities. But the BSD license, unlike the GPL, "gives back" by allowing commercial software companies to build on the code and add value without forfeiting the money they could make from their labor. >Why do so many people blow this GPL issue out of proportion? I guess it's a matter of your sense of proportion, Greg. I see the concern as very justified. In fact, I think that even MORE concern is justified than we see expressed. >There's so much FUD about it that you'd think somebody has a hidden >agenda. Well, you might say that the GPL has a "hidden" agenda, in that its purpose is to destroy commercial software. While it's true that many who place their code under the GPL do not share this goal, this is its effect. (It's sort of like a virus. You don't have to MEAN to get the next person sick to do so.) We're still at the beginning of the learning curve, so we haven't seen the full impact yet. But the phenomenon is about to pass the "tipping point" -- the point where the effects are tough to reverse even though they're just beginning to be felt. I realize that not everyone agrees with this prediction, but to me at least the pattern is striking and extremely clear. I think that it's very important that we resist the GPL -- born of spite and popularized by sheer accident -- before we REALLY start to see negative effects. --Brett Glass "Rules? This is the Internet." -- Dan Gillmor To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990207230639.009284c0>