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

[Manuel Gutierrez Algaba <algaba@gmx.net>]

El Mar 18 Dic 2001 20:15, escri
bió:
> 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.

That's not right. A program is not a code, a program may be made of several 
modules that run in different executables/processes, and that are, in fact, 
independent programs linked by sockets or by CORBA. A program is a 
superior unit to code. 

You can take a piece of GNU program and wrap it with  a sockets interface or 
a CORBA Interface, and make the rest of your "program" to interact with it, 
and the rest of the program may be closed source.

>
> 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.

We have seen many software companies fail, even serious companies like IBM 
make lots of money by consulting, which is a different activity from selling 
soft.

>
> 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).


In fact, most of the times  GPL sucks from a technical point of view.  GPL 
has been useful to make useful programs, but it's not rare to find projects 
that need a heavy rewriting after a couple of years, or that are simply bad 
written. So the sharing of ideas is limited. The ones with good ideas will 
comunicate them in their programs. The ones with bad programming practice 
will spread poor ideas and programming practices. 


>
> >  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.

I'm a programmer , the key question about GPL is that we have two options, 
and only two options:
- To rely on a couple of big companies to supply all  the software and pay 
them as much as they want.  Because every single succesful company has eaten 
a bunch of small companies and have extended beyond common sense: Microsoft, 
Oracle,  IBM, Yahoo .... Once one of these ones begin to succeed, they get 
huge share of specific markets.

- To have a wide range of tools supplied by different vendors. And this is 
made when people do lots of tools , and that is what is happening:
Zope, Mysql, Postgres, ... There're so many and so complex that an extra 
effort to understand them all is required, and thus an income by consulting. 


GPL is a real attack to big companies, not to small ones. Think about 
Microsoft or Oracle,... Only IBM is standing the upheaval,... perhaps because 
they're old in the business and they've accostumed to live in whatever 
environment, and this environment harms the other big companies badly. 


>
> 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)?

The problem is making the strong companies stronger, no mercy with them, no 
mercy with the mercyless. 

>
> 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).

Anyway, I think that these issues, that must have been discussed a hundreds 
of time here and in other places, should have been accessable from 
www.seul.org  and schoolforge.net , I think. 


---
MGA