3 ms·

Anybody who believes the GPL was invented to coerce users into sending patches ought to have their head examined.

j_baker 17y ago
I might not agree with the GPL, but I'm pretty sure that the intent behind it is to encourage people to contribute back to the open source community (even if not by directly sending patches).
- Herring 17y ago
  No. Look, it's right there in the preamble. First two sentences...
- blasdel 17y ago
  The intent is to require source contribution downstream. Any encouraging of upstream communication comes from the difficulty of keeping up with a fork and the knowledge that most code is a liability not an asset. The GPL only pushes you that way indirectly.
  - dagw 17y ago
    Not just source contribution, but also the contribution of new GPL applications. I've written a couple of apps which are licensed under the GPL, not because I necessarily thought it was the best license for me, but simply because I wanted to use a GPL library. Had the library I wanted to use been some other license, my app might have been some other license. But it wasn't and now there is one more GPL app. Of course there is the other side of the coin where I haven't used a library I really wanted to use because I couldn't GPL my app.
tentonova 17y ago
The GPL was invented to leverage network effects to win in the market place, ensuring an exceptionally high entry barrier to non-GPL market entrants (a natural monopoly) should the GPL be successful in this goal. It hasn't won in the market place -- and it won't -- primarily due to the fact that the coupling between funding and licensing is so indirect -- it's very difficult to earn a high margin on writing GPL licensed code, and most revenue models require an indirect and complex approach to earning money from the software without charging directly for the software itself. (Yes, you can charge for GPL software. No, that's not a sustainable business model. No, RedHat is not a counter-example. RedHat charges for support and their trademarks, not the software itself, and in doing so appeals to a very specific niche enterprise market.)
- tptacek 17y ago
  Not a sustainable business model according to who? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736 Red Hat is a cop-out example. Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro? These are all companies that sell software, GPL their code, and are (or were, before lucrative aquisition) extremely successful. SourceFire IPO'd off their GPL package; the company's name comes from the fact that they're open source.
  - tentonova 17y ago
    Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro All selling services and products around a very specific type of software, selling to a very specific market niche, leveraging both trademarks and non-GPL licensing to do so. They're not selling the GPL software itself. Take your Sourcefire example. They fund development by selling proprietary hardware and proprietary licensed IDS rulesets under trademarked names to an enterprise market niche.
    - tptacek 17y ago
      Who isn't selling specific software to specific niches? Your choice of license isn't going to make you any more successful with a new word processor. It's also not true that all successful open-source companies sell to enterprises. Tenable sells Nessus to consultants. Sleepycat sold Berkeley DB to OEMs and developers. Automattic certainly doesn't sell Wordpress to enterprises.
      - tentonova 17y ago
        You're introducing a logical non-sequitur. That there is a niche isn't the issue, it's what the niche is. Enterprise services. The fact that they're also not actually selling GPL software (ie, an indirect business model), this all doesn't really disprove my point -- or the original authors.
        deleted 17y ago

I might not agree with the GPL, but I'm pretty sure that the intent behind it is to encourage people to contribute back to the open source community (even if not by directly sending patches).

Herring 17y ago
No. Look, it's right there in the preamble. First two sentences...
blasdel 17y ago
The intent is to require source contribution downstream. Any encouraging of upstream communication comes from the difficulty of keeping up with a fork and the knowledge that most code is a liability not an asset. The GPL only pushes you that way indirectly.
- dagw 17y ago
  Not just source contribution, but also the contribution of new GPL applications. I've written a couple of apps which are licensed under the GPL, not because I necessarily thought it was the best license for me, but simply because I wanted to use a GPL library. Had the library I wanted to use been some other license, my app might have been some other license. But it wasn't and now there is one more GPL app. Of course there is the other side of the coin where I haven't used a library I really wanted to use because I couldn't GPL my app.

tentonova 17y ago

The GPL was invented to leverage network effects to win in the market place, ensuring an exceptionally high entry barrier to non-GPL market entrants (a natural monopoly) should the GPL be successful in this goal. It hasn't won in the market place -- and it won't -- primarily due to the fact that the coupling between funding and licensing is so indirect -- it's very difficult to earn a high margin on writing GPL licensed code, and most revenue models require an indirect and complex approach to earning money from the software without charging directly for the software itself. (Yes, you can charge for GPL software. No, that's not a sustainable business model. No, RedHat is not a counter-example. RedHat charges for support and their trademarks, not the software itself, and in doing so appeals to a very specific niche enterprise market.)

tptacek 17y ago
Not a sustainable business model according to who? http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=211736 Red Hat is a cop-out example. Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro? These are all companies that sell software, GPL their code, and are (or were, before lucrative aquisition) extremely successful. SourceFire IPO'd off their GPL package; the company's name comes from the fact that they're open source.
- tentonova 17y ago
  Why not talk about SourceFire, Sleepycat, Splunk, Hyperic, Zimbra, and Astaro All selling services and products around a very specific type of software, selling to a very specific market niche, leveraging both trademarks and non-GPL licensing to do so. They're not selling the GPL software itself. Take your Sourcefire example. They fund development by selling proprietary hardware and proprietary licensed IDS rulesets under trademarked names to an enterprise market niche.
  - tptacek 17y ago
    Who isn't selling specific software to specific niches? Your choice of license isn't going to make you any more successful with a new word processor. It's also not true that all successful open-source companies sell to enterprises. Tenable sells Nessus to consultants. Sleepycat sold Berkeley DB to OEMs and developers. Automattic certainly doesn't sell Wordpress to enterprises.
    - tentonova 17y ago
      You're introducing a logical non-sequitur. That there is a niche isn't the issue, it's what the niche is. Enterprise services. The fact that they're also not actually selling GPL software (ie, an indirect business model), this all doesn't really disprove my point -- or the original authors.
      - deleted 17y ago