[nycbug-talk] lame...real lame Andy

[Marc Spitzer]

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 09:47:37 -0500 (EST), Dru <dlavigne6 at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> 
> Bruce then goes on to explain the intent and ramifications of the BSD and
> GPL licenses. The intent of the GPL is to prevent open source code from
> becoming commercialized (www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html). This
> is the part that confused me, seeing all of the big software interests are
> embracing GPL code left write and center. Whereas, the BSD license doesn't
> place restrictions on what happens to the code i.e. it can stay open
> source or end up in a commercial entity.

The gpl, IMO, is anti innovation as far as software goes.  Explain
this to the VC/shareholders:

1: you used a gpled library in your commercial app.
2: one of your customers figures it out
3: said customer demands all your code, using a lawyer
4: puts it up on sourceforge, along with his own compiled windows binaries
5: it is your only product and sales have droped off by +90%


> 
> Bruce then explains how history is repeating itself: "The GPL is well
> suited for use as a commercial marketing weapon, particularly by hardware or
> service companies which, similar to IBM in the late 1950s and 1960s, profit if
> the cost of software is driven to zero...zero-cost software can be used to
> undermine the software of a competitor and can contribute to monopolistic
> behaviour. It can drive software companies out of business. It is unclear if
> the current generation of open source software will have this effect or not".
> 

the gpl is designed to destroy the value of software and it does a
very good job of doing it.

> If this is the case, it is certainly ironic that Stallman's vision of the
> ideal license is being used to promote the commercial entities he is so
> strongly opposed to.

If you look at RMS's ideal world he was a comunist, you own nothing.  

marc