6 ms·

On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL

36 points by bensummers 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago
I got this far: If someone buys an exception to embed a program in a larger proprietary program, he's doing something wrong (namely, making proprietary software). Does it follow that the developer that sold the exception is doing something wrong too? Then shrugged and kinda gave up. :) Initially some great points were made but after that paragraph it seemed to turn more into a postulation that GNU GPL was more ethical (his words) than other licenses.
- Deestan 17y ago
  I recommend reading on; he goes on to argue how it is generally a Good Thing.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Yes I finished it off; the bit where he lays out the FSF's stance was good.
- shin_lao 17y ago
  I agree. What matters is to write great software, how you finance it is irrelevant to the end user. Open source makes reverse engineering easier. Users don't care about reverse engineering your software. They care about great software. My point of view is that great software comes from great engineers, not from a license.
  - lutorm 17y ago
    What matters is to write great software I disagree. This is what I think of as the "Apple stance". Don't worry -- we write great apps and you will like them. However, no software is bug-free or suits everyone. People here are probably not typical end-users, and I can certainly think of the times when I've been forced to use software that didn't quite do what I wanted or that had some bug the vendor could not be bothered to fix. And because it was proprietary, I could not fix it regardless of my motivation to do so. If you say you're going to cater to everyone's needs and write perfect software, then maybe you're right. But if you're more realistic and aim at making the majority of your users happy and do a cost-benefit analysis of whether it's worth your time to make the minority happy, you will not be producing great software in their eyes. And I'd bet you they'd be happier if they could just patch it themselves.
    - shin_lao 17y ago
      If I know nothing about computers and software engineering and I have a problem with an open source software, I will have to pay someone to fix the bug (business) or rely on the goodwill of someone else to do it (charity).
      - sokoloff 17y ago
        Still, YOU having that choice is strictly better for you as a user than having the choice be dictated by the original author with you having no alternative, right? In the GPL case, if it's important enough to you and you alone, as defined by being worth you trading some resource you have (time and talent, or money) in exchange for the work, you can get the software modified. In a closed source case, it must be important enough to you to make the case and convince someone else as well.
      - NikkiA 17y ago
        You can pay someone other than the original developer, which is a HUGE difference. If you want some specific core feature in MS Office, you need to petition MS and hope they'll add it someday. If you want the same core feature in OpenOffice.org, there are experts in the OOo codebase that could do it all around the world, you could pay someone at Sun, someone at IBM, or someone that is freelance, it's your choice, and you have a free market to find who will make the change at the lowest price.
        shin_lao 17y ago
        Sorry, no. Adding a feature in MS Office is extremely easy without the source code thanks to the powerful macros and plugins. There are companies making a living of this. It's much much easier to extend MS office than OOO.
  - DougBTX 17y ago
    great software comes from great engineers Tautological, but fair enough. Could the choice of license affect which engineers work on your product?
  - davidw 17y ago
    > I agree. What matters is to write great software, how you finance it is irrelevant to the end user. Well, yes and no. If, for instance, you have proprietary software, and your users depend on it and have no source code, and you go out of business, they are up a creek. Or, if you have released some open source software that people like and find useful, and you can't find a way to fund more than sporadic development, that may be a problem too: in an ideal world you'd spend more time working on it.
    - axod 17y ago
      Come on. That's a silly theoritical argument. Dump 10MB of source code on the users and see if they bother to fix it or just move on to something else. If your customers are also programmers who don't mind going through other peoples code, then possibly.
      - davidw 17y ago
        The first scenario happens quite regularly. As for the second scenario, it happens quite often too, just that it's less visible: the software is still there, people use it, just that it doesn't get all the work it could because the main developer(s) have to make ends meet in other ways. Nothing 'theoretical' about it, it's something many open source developers face, and is, in part, why there's such a big hullabaloo around Mysql: Monty doesn't think it's possible to pay for (enough?) developers if they don't sell GPL exceptions. Of course he's angling to get back control of the project too, for free, using the European Union as his hit man, but that's another topic. In any case, paying for open source development is absolutely not a solved problem.
  - doki_pen 17y ago
    Again, the FSF never claims that GPL creates better software. RMS has said time and time again that user freedom is more important to him then high-quality software. And that if someone were to prove that proprietary software was over higher quality then copyleft software, it would make no difference to him.
- cemerick 17y ago
  I gave up at that point, too, but I don't think I shrugged. More like, got pissed about, yet again, being tarred as unethical by the FSF. Then I shrugged. :-) Bring on the downmods.
lutorm 17y ago
This only makes sense for libraries, it seems, because it relies on embedding. For end-user software, I wonder if you could do the opposite, charge extra for a GPL version of the software? I know there would be times where I'd pay more for that. The vendor would of course run the risk that I'd then start shrink-wrapping and selling it, so maybe you'd have to modify the license slightly to include distribution only as patches, not full source code. That way people could share code but would still need to buy initial access from the vendor. Edit: The responses miss my point: I know it won't be copyleft / totally free software with such restrictions. But if such restrictions would convince someone to change distribution terms from shrink-wrap to partially open-source, I think many of the strongest reasons for advocating free software would be accommodated. That is, you could modify the printer driver (or whatever RMS's initial reason was). Or if Photoshop doesn't have the functionality you want, you can pay extra to get the source and patch it. And you could even share such improvements with other users, provided they have the full source.
- tptacek 17y ago
  No, you can't charge extra for a copyleft-licensed version of software. Any licensing change you made to try to do that would make you not copyleft.
  - mseebach 17y ago
    As I understand it, you can in fact charge for GPL software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html What you can't do, is to refuse to provide sources and to prevent your customer to stick that source on GitHub for everyone to do whatever they like with (including selling).
    - statictype 17y ago
      You can charge for GPL software but as I understand it, you can't charge something extra for the privilege of a GPL'd version of your program. If you structured your licensing in such a way as to require this, it probably violates the GPL.
10ren 17y ago
I've always called this "dual licensing" and I'm very surprised that Stallman is in favour of it. I seem to remember him being against it. The arguments he uses now make sense, though they also made sense in the past.
jbellis 17y ago
So proprietary is bad, unless someone pays a GPL IP owner for it? Seriously? Come on rms, it wouldn't kill you to admit that sometimes non-GPL licenses are ok.
- doki_pen 17y ago
  I think it is very clear that he is saying, some software wouldn't be free at all if not for dual licensing. So if dual licensing allows more software to be free, then it is good.
- cschwarm 17y ago
  Quite the contrary [1]: The assumption that proprietary software is "immoral", "unethical" and "evil" is very much the heart and soul of the Free Software Movement. To say it's not, sometimes, would contradict this assumption and make it invalid. So, it would indeed kill him. [1] Strickly speaking, he's OK with non-GPL software as long as it's "free" according to his definition of "free".
- brlewis 17y ago
  The central point of the article is that non-GPL licenses are not wrong, and a GPL exception is no worse than a non-GPL license. I think this point is very clearly spelled out.
axod 17y ago
I don't know if this is a unique view, but I'll put it out there: I don't use MySQL because it's open source. I couldn't care less if it's open source or not. I use it because it's free, in active development, and pretty much works well in the main. I expect the fact it's open source means that the odd bug gets fixed that wouldn't otherwise get fixed, simply because there are more eyes looking at code (Although I do wonder how many people actively go through open source projects looking at code). Open source is sort of nice n'all, but I don't think it's the reason things are successful or not. If MySQL changed to closed source I don't think it'd change much apart from for open source zealots like the author.
- doki_pen 17y ago
  rms has always been of the opinion that the quality of software is less important then the freedom of software. He has admitted that open source software _may_ lead to better quality, but it doesn't matter. His ideal is freedom for the users of the software.
  - axod 17y ago
    >> "His ideal is freedom for the users of the software." sure. But I think 99.9% of people just don't care if they're "free" by his definition of free. If I buy a laptop, I consider myself free, even though I don't have the schematics, the moulds used to make the plastic, the development details etc. But what if the laptop co goes out of business, and my laptop case gets a chip! How will I make a replacement case if I don't have access to the moulding details etc! Well, I don't really care that much. It's just an odd thing to strive for IMHO. I think one of the problems with open source is that it assumes anyone can just 'take over' some source code and fix bugs etc. The reality however is that it's not that simple. Just like giving me plastic moulds is nice in theory, but pretty useless in practice.
    - doki_pen 17y ago
      Often times, when I must use proprietary software in the course of my employment, I run into some issue with the software that is incredibly annoying. I'm sure there are many other users who feel the same was as I do about a particular piece of proprietary software. I feel frustrated that I can't fix what is seemingly a simple issue, or even see why it's happening because it is proprietary. When I use copyleft software, this rarely happens. I can only assume it's because some other user has experienced the same annoyance and fixed it already. But when I do run into something that's broken, I am able to look at the source, make a patch, and submitted it back upstream. This is usually with software that has a smaller user base. I value this freedom and am glad that RMS and others have worked so hard to spread it.
Hoff 17y ago
Standard GPL license discussions in three, two, one... Nothing to see. Move along.
- Hoff 17y ago
  Am I wrong? This is the same series of overlapping monologues that arises each time the subject of GPL licensing is broached. Each time time this horse gets dragged out of its casket. Same stuff. Same blather. License your package the way you want, and move on.

36 points by bensummers 17y ago

I got this far: If someone buys an exception to embed a program in a larger proprietary program, he's doing something wrong (namely, making proprietary software). Does it follow that the developer that sold the exception is doing something wrong too? Then shrugged and kinda gave up. :) Initially some great points were made but after that paragraph it seemed to turn more into a postulation that GNU GPL was more ethical (his words) than other licenses.

Deestan 17y ago
I recommend reading on; he goes on to argue how it is generally a Good Thing.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Yes I finished it off; the bit where he lays out the FSF's stance was good.
shin_lao 17y ago
I agree. What matters is to write great software, how you finance it is irrelevant to the end user. Open source makes reverse engineering easier. Users don't care about reverse engineering your software. They care about great software. My point of view is that great software comes from great engineers, not from a license.
- lutorm 17y ago
  What matters is to write great software I disagree. This is what I think of as the "Apple stance". Don't worry -- we write great apps and you will like them. However, no software is bug-free or suits everyone. People here are probably not typical end-users, and I can certainly think of the times when I've been forced to use software that didn't quite do what I wanted or that had some bug the vendor could not be bothered to fix. And because it was proprietary, I could not fix it regardless of my motivation to do so. If you say you're going to cater to everyone's needs and write perfect software, then maybe you're right. But if you're more realistic and aim at making the majority of your users happy and do a cost-benefit analysis of whether it's worth your time to make the minority happy, you will not be producing great software in their eyes. And I'd bet you they'd be happier if they could just patch it themselves.
  - shin_lao 17y ago
    If I know nothing about computers and software engineering and I have a problem with an open source software, I will have to pay someone to fix the bug (business) or rely on the goodwill of someone else to do it (charity).
    - sokoloff 17y ago
      Still, YOU having that choice is strictly better for you as a user than having the choice be dictated by the original author with you having no alternative, right? In the GPL case, if it's important enough to you and you alone, as defined by being worth you trading some resource you have (time and talent, or money) in exchange for the work, you can get the software modified. In a closed source case, it must be important enough to you to make the case and convince someone else as well.
    - NikkiA 17y ago
      You can pay someone other than the original developer, which is a HUGE difference. If you want some specific core feature in MS Office, you need to petition MS and hope they'll add it someday. If you want the same core feature in OpenOffice.org, there are experts in the OOo codebase that could do it all around the world, you could pay someone at Sun, someone at IBM, or someone that is freelance, it's your choice, and you have a free market to find who will make the change at the lowest price.
      - shin_lao 17y ago
        Sorry, no. Adding a feature in MS Office is extremely easy without the source code thanks to the powerful macros and plugins. There are companies making a living of this. It's much much easier to extend MS office than OOO.
- DougBTX 17y ago
  great software comes from great engineers Tautological, but fair enough. Could the choice of license affect which engineers work on your product?
- davidw 17y ago
  > I agree. What matters is to write great software, how you finance it is irrelevant to the end user. Well, yes and no. If, for instance, you have proprietary software, and your users depend on it and have no source code, and you go out of business, they are up a creek. Or, if you have released some open source software that people like and find useful, and you can't find a way to fund more than sporadic development, that may be a problem too: in an ideal world you'd spend more time working on it.
  - axod 17y ago
    Come on. That's a silly theoritical argument. Dump 10MB of source code on the users and see if they bother to fix it or just move on to something else. If your customers are also programmers who don't mind going through other peoples code, then possibly.
    - davidw 17y ago
      The first scenario happens quite regularly. As for the second scenario, it happens quite often too, just that it's less visible: the software is still there, people use it, just that it doesn't get all the work it could because the main developer(s) have to make ends meet in other ways. Nothing 'theoretical' about it, it's something many open source developers face, and is, in part, why there's such a big hullabaloo around Mysql: Monty doesn't think it's possible to pay for (enough?) developers if they don't sell GPL exceptions. Of course he's angling to get back control of the project too, for free, using the European Union as his hit man, but that's another topic. In any case, paying for open source development is absolutely not a solved problem.
- doki_pen 17y ago
  Again, the FSF never claims that GPL creates better software. RMS has said time and time again that user freedom is more important to him then high-quality software. And that if someone were to prove that proprietary software was over higher quality then copyleft software, it would make no difference to him.
cemerick 17y ago
I gave up at that point, too, but I don't think I shrugged. More like, got pissed about, yet again, being tarred as unethical by the FSF. Then I shrugged. :-) Bring on the downmods.

lutorm 17y ago

This only makes sense for libraries, it seems, because it relies on embedding. For end-user software, I wonder if you could do the opposite, charge extra for a GPL version of the software? I know there would be times where I'd pay more for that. The vendor would of course run the risk that I'd then start shrink-wrapping and selling it, so maybe you'd have to modify the license slightly to include distribution only as patches, not full source code. That way people could share code but would still need to buy initial access from the vendor. Edit: The responses miss my point: I know it won't be copyleft / totally free software with such restrictions. But if such restrictions would convince someone to change distribution terms from shrink-wrap to partially open-source, I think many of the strongest reasons for advocating free software would be accommodated. That is, you could modify the printer driver (or whatever RMS's initial reason was). Or if Photoshop doesn't have the functionality you want, you can pay extra to get the source and patch it. And you could even share such improvements with other users, provided they have the full source.

tptacek 17y ago
No, you can't charge extra for a copyleft-licensed version of software. Any licensing change you made to try to do that would make you not copyleft.
- mseebach 17y ago
  As I understand it, you can in fact charge for GPL software. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html What you can't do, is to refuse to provide sources and to prevent your customer to stick that source on GitHub for everyone to do whatever they like with (including selling).
  - statictype 17y ago
    You can charge for GPL software but as I understand it, you can't charge something extra for the privilege of a GPL'd version of your program. If you structured your licensing in such a way as to require this, it probably violates the GPL.

10ren 17y ago

I've always called this "dual licensing" and I'm very surprised that Stallman is in favour of it. I seem to remember him being against it. The arguments he uses now make sense, though they also made sense in the past.

jbellis 17y ago

So proprietary is bad, unless someone pays a GPL IP owner for it? Seriously? Come on rms, it wouldn't kill you to admit that sometimes non-GPL licenses are ok.

doki_pen 17y ago
I think it is very clear that he is saying, some software wouldn't be free at all if not for dual licensing. So if dual licensing allows more software to be free, then it is good.
cschwarm 17y ago
Quite the contrary [1]: The assumption that proprietary software is "immoral", "unethical" and "evil" is very much the heart and soul of the Free Software Movement. To say it's not, sometimes, would contradict this assumption and make it invalid. So, it would indeed kill him. [1] Strickly speaking, he's OK with non-GPL software as long as it's "free" according to his definition of "free".
brlewis 17y ago
The central point of the article is that non-GPL licenses are not wrong, and a GPL exception is no worse than a non-GPL license. I think this point is very clearly spelled out.

axod 17y ago

I don't know if this is a unique view, but I'll put it out there: I don't use MySQL because it's open source. I couldn't care less if it's open source or not. I use it because it's free, in active development, and pretty much works well in the main. I expect the fact it's open source means that the odd bug gets fixed that wouldn't otherwise get fixed, simply because there are more eyes looking at code (Although I do wonder how many people actively go through open source projects looking at code). Open source is sort of nice n'all, but I don't think it's the reason things are successful or not. If MySQL changed to closed source I don't think it'd change much apart from for open source zealots like the author.

doki_pen 17y ago
rms has always been of the opinion that the quality of software is less important then the freedom of software. He has admitted that open source software _may_ lead to better quality, but it doesn't matter. His ideal is freedom for the users of the software.
- axod 17y ago
  >> "His ideal is freedom for the users of the software." sure. But I think 99.9% of people just don't care if they're "free" by his definition of free. If I buy a laptop, I consider myself free, even though I don't have the schematics, the moulds used to make the plastic, the development details etc. But what if the laptop co goes out of business, and my laptop case gets a chip! How will I make a replacement case if I don't have access to the moulding details etc! Well, I don't really care that much. It's just an odd thing to strive for IMHO. I think one of the problems with open source is that it assumes anyone can just 'take over' some source code and fix bugs etc. The reality however is that it's not that simple. Just like giving me plastic moulds is nice in theory, but pretty useless in practice.
  - doki_pen 17y ago
    Often times, when I must use proprietary software in the course of my employment, I run into some issue with the software that is incredibly annoying. I'm sure there are many other users who feel the same was as I do about a particular piece of proprietary software. I feel frustrated that I can't fix what is seemingly a simple issue, or even see why it's happening because it is proprietary. When I use copyleft software, this rarely happens. I can only assume it's because some other user has experienced the same annoyance and fixed it already. But when I do run into something that's broken, I am able to look at the source, make a patch, and submitted it back upstream. This is usually with software that has a smaller user base. I value this freedom and am glad that RMS and others have worked so hard to spread it.

Hoff 17y ago

Standard GPL license discussions in three, two, one... Nothing to see. Move along.

Hoff 17y ago
Am I wrong? This is the same series of overlapping monologues that arises each time the subject of GPL licensing is broached. Each time time this horse gets dragged out of its casket. Same stuff. Same blather. License your package the way you want, and move on.