[Tfug] GPL Worthless?

[Bexley Hall]

Hi Zack,

--- On Sat, 9/8/12, Zack Breckenridge <zbrdge at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think much of this boils down to some basic social
> issues. Ignore the "technical" question of what
> license X does for you and think about these (very cynical)
> statements:
> 1) Most people in our modern, global society are motivated purely
> by profit

Yes.  Though there are shades of grey in terms of how *immediate*
the profit needs to be for different people/organizations.  My
arguments for a non-copyleft license on *my* works tries to
acknowledge that "need" of potential adopters/licensors.

> 2) Most people don't want to share their
> "intellectual property". They want the power and
> profit that comes from controlling it (kinda the same as
> number one I guess)

I've dealt with a lot of Ma&Pa shops over the years.  They
tend to have this "I paid for it, it's MINE" attitude.
Which is understandable.

But, (as I suggested in my previous reply to Harry re: FOSS
and having to *pay* someone to recreate that functionality)
they also are extremely sensitive to the bite on *their*
wallet (since, in a Ma&Pa shop, it really *is* THEIR MONEY
that is being spent... not The Corporation's) when it comes
to owning/controlling that IP.

E.g., I try to retain copyright on most of the generic code
that I write -- leaving the application specific bits for the
client to own.  Again, when they complain about this ("Why
should someone else be able to benefit from the code *I* am
paying you to write?"), I remind them that *they* are benefiting
from the code that I wrote for clients before them.  Since *I*
own that code (libraries, etc.), do they want to buy it from me?
Do they want me to recreate it from scratch?  Or, would they
prefer to just *use* it (along with the design experience, etc.
that I have gained from previous clients) "free"?

> 3) Most people (and corporations) are lazy and least
> effort is the rule rather than the exception. In fact, it is
> a *goal*.

Agreed.  I use this philosophy throughout my designs.  E.g.,
to encourage folks to write code in a manner compatible with
the existing code base, put mechanisms in place that make it
easier for them to do it my way than to have to invent their
own approach, etc.

> In other words, it's mostly a "people
> problem", albeit one that might be solvable with
> Mathematics and Algorithms... It just *hasn't* yet, that
> I know of anyway, and if it has, that solution certainly is
> not being sold to consumers.
> 
> Your examples of hiding code in reprogrammable firmware
> and honoring a license only in spirit is, as you said,
> *20th* century developed and now *21st* century commonplace.
> (Note: Ken Thompson's "Reflections on Trusting
> Trust" -- 1984)
> 
> Yes in an absolute sense, the GPL (and every other free
> software license too) is indeed worthless today, and for
> that matter so is the money you pay company X to secure your
> copy of product Y.

"Free" only works (IMO) when everyone in the chain is singing
from the same songbook.  And, unfortunately, if the Market rewards
someone who breaks the rules (because most consumers aren't smart
enough to realize these behind-the-scenes issues), then they
are emboldened to repeat the process.

[Note that some followup products initially developed with FOSS
saw their subsequent revisions move to "closed" solutions:
"OK, if we have to publish this code, then we'll just find
some functionally equivalent software package and base our
product on *that*!"]

> In terms of both security and quality, I think the future
> of both "free" and commercial software (and
> hardware) is basically this:
> If you want the job done right, do it yourself. Oh, and
> good luck with that.

<grin>  That's the policy I've adopted for tools as well as
"components" that I incorporate into products.  Grab a release
that looks close enough to what you want -- then *support* it
yourself until some other release tempts you away.

But, this adds a lot of effort to any task (though much less
than rolling your own from scratch -- especially since you can 
eavesdrop on HEAD and see what others are finding as problems).
And, of course, requires you to have the right skillset(s) to
take it on!  (e.g., I'm not keen on learning the language du jour
just because someone wanted to write an application in something
"odd".  And, of course, many "solutions" won't fit in the fixed
resource constraints that I typically live with  :< ).

> Now I'm going to going to turn my frown upside down
> pull some weeds too :) Hopefully I'll get rained on.

No such luck, here.  But, thankfully, considerably cooler than
yesterday (though just as humid!).  Damn mosquitoes!  :-/

--don