On 11/02/14 10:46, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
On 02/10/2014 05:31 PM, Simon Wise wrote:
On 11/02/14 04:40, Jonathan Wilkes wrote:
Unfortunately the open source definition was designed to subtly hide the
ethical reasons for doing open source development. The reasoning for this
was quite straightforward-- "share with your neighbor" doesn't attract
business dollars. So open source advocates focus on efficiency, like the
ability to plug a 3-clause BSD-licensed library into just about any device
you want, even a device that is locked down and requires the final app to be
proprietary.
If you consider attracting business dollars actually spent on ongoing
development of open source code then the GPL, explicitly stating its aims and
with strict copyleft terms has been quite successful (not denying that BSD,
Apache and similar have also, in many cases) ....
That's true, but an open source advocate could still reframe that in terms of
efficiency, cost-savings, etc., rather than freedom for the end user. An open
source advocate could even make the argument that the GPL actually gets in the
way even for the most successful projects that are licensed with it, creating
unnecessary bureaucracy and copyright sign-off requirements in what would
otherwise be a post-license digital utopia.
looking from a commercial perspective (since it is helpful to understand how
others may think, in this case the managers of business dollars) ... one fear
that some businesses have about open source is that they don't want to pay for
development that can then be used by other businesses chasing the same sales
revenue. An advantage of copyleft to them is that it is a two-way arrangement
... another such business is obliged to give their own improvements back in
return since selling a privatised, moderately improved version of a copyleft
work is not allowed.
I don't buy those arguments, but the point is that if there are enough voices
framing everything in those terms then fundamental principles about user freedom
get lost. I mean, if I'd never heard much about freedom of the press then who
knows if I'd find it reasonable to prosecute journalists who receive classified
information and "sell" it to their publishers in the form of news. Instead, that
sounds like tyranny to me. And that's more likely due to a long line of teachers
with the integrity to explain those principles than to living in a country
licensed under the Constitution. :)
indeed, I agree that the stronger GPL position is the better one in a world
entangled with dubious copyright laws, or even one which simply embraces trade
secrets and a market economy. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the
biggest software systems are beyond the capacity of even giant corporations to
maintain alone and collaboration is the only feasible way.
Simon
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
