Re: [seul-edu] free software / open source

["Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2001, Cameron Miller wrote:

> > Open source is good for encouraging peer review (which results in improved
> > performance, usability, stability and security), and, in many cases,
> > promoting standards. But, because the GPL license discourages many good
> > programmers from using the code, it sometimes stops the true sharing of
> > code (or ideas).

> My understanding is the opposite.  Source code under the GPL garuntees
> the ability to peer review and helps to keep open standards open.  All
> programmers, good or bad, have access to the code and thus the
> underlying ideas behind it.

Yes, everyone has access, but many companies can't use it because it will
taint their code.

Remember that many programmers and their families's livelihoods are based
on the money they make from their software code; if it was to have GPL'd
code integrated into it, then their software (by definition) would all be
open sourced. And lately, we have seen many software developing companies
trying to make money on just open source fail.

>  This is the reason for the GPL, to ensure
> the availability of the source code and to help ensure the sharing of
> it's ideas.

Yes, the GPL is good at making the code available. But it only helps with
the sharing of ideas to those who also will continue to make the code
available (which often limits many companies that restrict what they make
available).

>  If you wish to use code which is under the GPL for a
> commercial product then you also have to share.

More than just share, but the software that the GPL'd code was added to
must be fully made open source. So the commercial product loses its value
(although commercial support may continue for a while) and the company
loses money and many programmers may lose their jobs.

Of course, that is the sad goal of the GPL: "Low-paying organizations do
poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do
badly if the high-paying ones are banned." (From the GNU Manifesto.)

> In this case the GPL
> discourages those who would use available code to do things like embrace
> and extend open standards or simply steal someone elses work and pass it
> off as their own.

What is wrong with a commercial (without available source) software from
embracing open standards (such as the TCP/IP stack)?

Of course, stealing the code is wrong, but other licenses ask for the
copyright and disclaimers to be retained, but also allow the code to be
reused without any other limitations.

   Jeremy C. Reed

p.s. By the way, I use GPL'd code, public domain code, non-open source
software, commercial software, etc. And I freely provide my own open
source code, I maintain and code a commonly used GPL'd product (GPL'd
before I got to it) and I sell software (the source is not openly
available).