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

[Doug Loss <drloss@suscom.net>]

-------- Original Message --------

From: "Kyle Hutson" <smyle@rockcreek.k12.ks.us>
To: seul-edu@seul.org
Subject: Re: [seul-edu] free software  / open source

On 18 Dec 2001 at 11:15, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:
> 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.

Actually, many more programmers are employed for "in-house" staff 
than for programming commercial software.

In this case, the company may use the GPL'd software, make 
modifications, and still not distribute the source (so long as they 
don't release binaries).  However, the company MAY have an interest 
in contributing their changes back to the project, to save re-
retrofitting (I think I just invented a new word) a newer version of 
the software.

> >  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).

1) If the changes are trivial, they will get made by somebody who 
will release their changes under the GPL
2) If the changes are non-trivial, they can start with their own code 
base and not copy the works of others
3) Many programmers are willing to release their software under more 
than one license, so contact them if you want to use their GPL'd code 
and see if they'll license it to you under other terms (but don't 
expect it to be free/gratis)

> >  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.

See #1 and #2 above.

Also, note that if you're looking out for programmers jobs, many (if 
not most) GPL programmers would be happy to sign a contract to 
implement feature X for $Y.  The whole point of open source is to 
keep from reinventing the wheel.

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

Nothing.  If you want to release your code with a BSD-style licencse, 
go ahead.  Even the FSF doesn't complain about this (though they 
would obviously prefer you to GPL it).

The bottom line is that the copyright holder gets to determine the 
license.  If you don't like it, you don't have to use it.  But 
remember, that's also why many people don't use closed-source 
software when there is an open alternative.

> Of course, stealing the code is wrong,

First of all I really dislike the word "stealing", since I'm not 
depriving you of the original.  It's "copying", but I digress.

What you're arguing for would necessarily be "stealing the code" in 
your terms.  You didn't write it, but you are creating a derivative 
work from it.

>                                      but other licenses ask for the
> copyright and disclaimers to be retained, but also allow the code to be
> reused without any other limitations.
> 
> 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).

Don't get me wrong, I'm as capitalist they come.  But I also firmly 
believe in "my code, my license".  People don't release code under 
the GPL to make lots of money, they do it to 
1) sell their hardware or service, (RedHat, Hardware manufacturers)
2) "scratch an itch" (Linux, OpenOffice, Mozilla), or
3) improve themselves and their future employment opportunities (90% 
of SourceForge, along with #2)

I haven't heard anybody proclaiming that you should never release 
closed-source software (not even RMS, IIRC), but if you choose to do 
so, you should be aware that you may have found the next itch that 
needs to be scratched, and that your window of making money from your 
efforts may be limited.
--
Kyle Hutson /  Director of Technology  / Rock Creek Schools:  USD323
smyle@rockcreek.k12.ks.us                               785-494-8591
Actually I am a laboratory mouse posing as an engineer as part of an
               elaborate plot to take over the world