# The Failure of the GPL



## DutchDaemon (Sep 2, 2009)

Interesting article:

The Failure of the GPL

There's a bit about Yahoo!/FreeBSD in there too.


----------



## saxon3049 (Sep 2, 2009)

I have a dislike of the GPL, it is anti business not every company can afford to build a product linked to a GPL library or use code from another project that is under the GPL if it intends to keep the source closed or at least delaid. 

The BSD licence hasn't really got this issue and to be frank with my own oppinion the only reason the BSD's are not ruling the free OS world is all the hype about Linux back in the .com bubble. I know if you look at the Linux world there seems to be a vast growth of wealth to be honest there is but as a service provider like a web host they will have way more Linux boxes than windows box's to there net benefit but very few companies really make a profit from GPL licensed software.

Just my opinion on the matter.


----------



## jrick (Sep 3, 2009)

I don't really see the GPL as anti-business or anti-capitalism because you can still provide services for the code (look at Red Hat for example). However, it certainly does not encourage business with its socialist-like terms. On the other hand, the BSD license is very pro-business and doesn't take a more neutral stance on using it for profits or not.


----------



## Eponasoft (Sep 3, 2009)

I find that the only people who are in love with the GPL are Linux zealots. Normal UNIX programmers, as well as the majority of Windows programmers, tend to shun the GPL in favor of either a BSD or zlib type license, or they close the source altogether with a proprietary license (more common with Windows programmers, of course). I detest the GPL personally.


----------



## vermaden (Sep 3, 2009)

Interesting quote from that article:


> _Even the Free Software Foundation can't manage to get it right.
> *Version 3 of the LGPL, for example, is incompatible with version
> 2 of the GPL.* This has caused a problem recently for a few GNU
> library projects that wanted to move to LGPLv3 but were used
> ...


----------



## Eponasoft (Sep 3, 2009)

There is a silver lining to the whole GPL issue though: enforcement. Like any license, its power is only legitimate when it can be enforced. When you get a license to drive a car, for example, the police enforce this rule. Here in PR though, thousands of people drive without a license, and it would only be known when someone is pulled over by the police and asked to produce their license, which in this case wouldn't exist. The police then have to enforce this "license abuse". The same scenario exists with GPLed programs. Who is there to enforce the license? And furthermore, how do you even prove that someone has violated the GPL? All you usually have is speculation and circumstantial evidence. One great example of the ineffectiveness of the GPL is the PySol project, which was unashamedly ripped from its author by several companies who claimed it to be their own, despite being "protected" by the GPL.

Furthermore, the GPL was, is, and always will be self-righteous. People actually believe that it will stop huge companies like Microsoft from using their work, as if they actually have something to fear..."my code is so great! I don't want Microsoft stealing it! I'll tack the GPL on it so they can't!" Which is yet another issue...the GPL gives developers a false sense of security. You include that pretty little license file in your distribution and you think you're all set, right? Think again. Anyone can simply delete that license file, change around your code just a little bit, rebuild it, and distribute the modified binary without source code and there's not a thing in the world you can do about it. A large company, who has more money than you ever will, can even steal your program, copyright it themselves using legal methods, and then turn around and sue YOU for copyright infringement on your own program.

Look up "GPL lawsuit" on Google and see how many unique items you find...recycled stories over and over again, mainly regarding the Monsoon suit a couple of years ago...amazing that it wasn't until almost two decades later that an actual case went to court regarding the license. Effective? May the Linux zealots continue to believe that...


----------



## DutchDaemon (Sep 3, 2009)

[ thread split off, and posts merged ]


----------



## DutchDaemon (Dec 24, 2009)

All GPLed Code Removed From MonoDevelop

Yeah, progress means removing GPL


----------



## fonz (Dec 24, 2009)

DutchDaemon said:
			
		

> All GPLed Code Removed From MonoDevelop
> 
> Yeah, progress means removing GPL


Whoa, nice bump :e

I do sometimes wonder what the software world would look like if everyone just used PHK's beerware license 

Alphons


----------



## oldduffer (Dec 24, 2009)

Hehe, people are finally catching on to this dilemma? 

About 12 years ago, Mr. Stallman and I had a very lengthy discussion about the GPL and what constitutes 'free'.  While I respect the mans intelligence...I have to say I've never really found the GPL to be 'free' in what I consider that term to mean.

I'm not saying what Mr. Stallman has advocated is 'bad' or 'wrong'.  That's not really material.  What is material, however, is how the GPL is structured and the limitations it imposes on the free software world (as discussed in that article).


----------



## oliverh (Dec 25, 2009)

fonz said:
			
		

> Whoa, nice bump :e
> 
> I do sometimes wonder what the software world would look like if everyone just used PHK's beerware license
> 
> Alphons



Lots of drunk developers?


----------



## Alt (Dec 25, 2009)

> /*
> * ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> * "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42):
> * <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you
> ...


Whahaha thats software muuch free than gpl is)))


----------



## monty_hall (Dec 25, 2009)

If I could associate a song(s) w/ GPL it would be "kumbaya" as sung by Joan Baez or "Get together" by the Young Bloods.  In this context, Ubuntu seems an apt name.  

The license is one of the main reasons that I use FreeBSD.


----------



## fronclynne (Dec 26, 2009)

monty_hall said:
			
		

> If I could associate a song(s) w/ GPL it would be "kumbaya" as sung by Joan Baez or "Get together" by the Young Bloods.  In this context, Ubuntu seems an apt name.
> 
> The license is one of the main reasons that I use FreeBSD.



I was thinking more like "Revolution" by the Ring^H^H^H^HBeatles: 





> But if you go carryin' pictures of Chairman Mao,
> You ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow.


----------



## Eponasoft (Dec 27, 2009)

You wanna know what the real failure of the GPL is? The fact that it's written in wordy, eloquence-wannabe legalese that very few laypeople can actually read and understand. The vast majority of people who use the GPL or obtain GPL-licensed software don't even understand the license because it's written for lawyers. A license that isn't understandable is a useless license.


----------



## dennylin93 (Dec 27, 2009)

Eponasoft said:
			
		

> You wanna know what the real failure of the GPL is? The fact that it's written in wordy, eloquence-wannabe legalese that very few laypeople can actually read and understand. The vast majority of people who use the GPL or obtain GPL-licensed software don't even understand the license because it's written for lawyers. A license that isn't understandable is a useless license.



+1

I first saw the MIT license. It was quite short and easy to understand. The same went for the BSD license. After that, I saw the GPL. My head just went dizzy.


----------



## Deleted member 9563 (Dec 27, 2009)

The GPL does seem to reflect the mirror image of the old proprietary model quite well. Isn't that what it set out to do? Copy left and right are part of the same game - joined at the hip. Personally I think that putting any restrictions on distributed software is just plain rude. 

I did read the article however, and noted that the author had to use quite a lot of contortion in order to make his point - sometimes even ignoring the obvious in the process.

BTW, is anybody here aware of any good points about the GPL? If there are any good points to copy-right then I would guess that a related situation would exist with copy-left.


----------



## Alt (Dec 27, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> BTW, is anybody here aware of any good points about the GPL?


Sure: good corporations must share their develops when gpl inolved. When they do, it gives 'backport' of new features to 'parent' project. But i guess they dont


----------



## fronclynne (Dec 27, 2009)

OJ said:
			
		

> is anybody here aware of any good points about the GPL?



It keeps those Evil Corporations (Who Are Only Doing IT For The Oil, Money, Power, Profit Margins, Rapacity, Board Of Directors, Cabal of Illuminatis, Tri-Lateral Commission, Habsburg DeBeers Clown Party in Sweden Feeding After Midnight (& don't get them wet)) from Stealing Stallman's Software.

If only we had had the GPL in 1895 when that patent troll Selden took over the automobile industry.  Thank goodness Stallman was here to keep Microsoft from dominating the computer industry.


----------



## phatfish (Dec 27, 2009)

There should always be a full spectrum of opinions in any society, the Liberals keep check on the Conservatives, and vice-versa. Most people lie in the middle somewhere (where i guess i do too), but i thank the nut jobs at each end of the spectrum for for a sane middle ground.

Now i'm not necessarily saying that Stallman is a nut job p), but i do thank him for standing on the free software (beer & speech) end of the scales and balancing it out for us against the corporations, which -- lets face it -- would be happy to screw us over if it made them more money.

Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, RedHat etc. still put out software and make money doing so, many using GPL'ed software themselves.

BSD feels like a middle ground to me.


----------



## roddierod (Dec 28, 2009)

Until I get the bugs worked out of my program to bring world peace, I don't really worry about these software license wars but in regards to the GPL, I always had the feeling that some lawyer could argue that all GPL'd software belonged to GNU Project/Free Software Foundation and that all proceeds should revert to them...don't know why but that what I got from reading it the first time.


----------



## Eponasoft (Jan 4, 2010)

fronclynne said:
			
		

> It keeps those Evil Corporations (Who Are Only Doing IT For The Oil, Money, Power, Profit Margins, Rapacity, Board Of Directors, Cabal of Illuminatis, Tri-Lateral Commission, Habsburg DeBeers Clown Party in Sweden Feeding After Midnight (& don't get them wet)) from Stealing Stallman's Software.
> 
> If only we had had the GPL in 1895 when that patent troll Selden took over the automobile industry.  Thank goodness Stallman was here to keep Microsoft from dominating the computer industry.


This post is made of pure win.:beergrin


----------

