7 ms·

The Economic Case Against the GPL

13 points by HSO 17y ago

alain94040 17y ago
Sorry, not a very good article, the arguments are simplistic and don't make much sense to me. There is a good discussion to be had about the GPL but this is not it.
noaharc 17y ago
I think it's a well-written article, but he fails to acknowledge the economic principle of free-riders. I think it destroys his argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem
- davidw 17y ago
  One non-GPL solution is to have a very broad group of people who rapidly develop the open version. Think Apache or Postgres. Sure, you could hire a developer or two and make a closed version, but that person will end up spending all their time merging in the open source changes, which will outpace whatever value they can add to the closed product. In theory, at least - and I think that sort of strategy works in practice too, in some situations. And therein is the key - there are no general answers - some projects are better under a GPL style license where everyone knows that no one is going to 'take the code and run', and others are not.
TomOfTTB 17y ago
This article is written in a confusing manner but his point is basically that the GPL forces people who write software that derives from GPL licensed code to open source their derivative software. By doing so it discourages people from using GPL licensed software because some of those developers might want to close their source code. I see the point but I’m not sure I agree with it. He claims the open source community “loses allies” when it enforces the GPL against companies who closed their source. But if those people are taking GPL licensed code and violating the terms than they are not allies at all. So his argument really boils down to having the GPL but not enforcing it so you can keep allies that are allies in name only. There are more permissive open source licenses out there and if a developer wants someone to be able to use their open source code in closed source projects they can use one of those. But when people choose the GPL they are doing so to further the ideal of completely open source code. Meaning allies like the ones described above are counter-productive because they would compromise that ideal by doing exactly what the GPL users are fighting against.
- davidw 17y ago
  Here's what he's getting at, perhaps: if you have some code that's more "library like" in the sense that it's not a standalone product, people including it in their own proprietary products isn't going to hurt you that much, and if they're smart, they may even contribute back to the project, especially if your code isn't really a competitive advantage for them. If your code is GPL, you lose those potential contributors. Case in point, I know a few people are using Hecl in commercial products, and yet they have made some very nice contributions back to the project, something that wouldn't have happened had it been under the GPL.
  - TomOfTTB 17y ago
    I get that. I'm just saying I think people who use the GPL do so because they want the software industry to develop an open source culture. Their idealogues in that way. They want to change the world in addition to creating software which makes their aim different from someone who just throws their code open for the heck of it. So allowing people to use their code for closed source projects would be working against their cause.
    - davidw 17y ago
      Some GPL users (RMS) are definitely like that. I think many others simply "don't want to be ripped off", and like the license because it makes them feel safe that way.
donaq 17y ago
we stand to lose not only Cisco as an ally, but any corporation that estimates (rightly or wrongly) that their own potential exposure to an SFLC lawsuit might be greater than their potential efficiency gains from open-sourcing. Why should that matter if we live in universe B and their estimates are therefore wrong? The open source community, being more efficient, would just build an alternative product that works better. OTOH, if we did not have the GPL or refused to enforce it, nothing would deter an unscrupulous company from stealing open source code and not contributing their own improvements to it to the community. Any improvements to the software from the open source community would quickly be incorporated into the proprietary version, while any improvements made by the hypothetical unscrupulous company would remain proprietary. Once a few of these companies started enjoying success, every other profit-maximizing company would be forced by the market to follow suit or perish, and we'd eventually have a clusterfuck of companies stealing open source code while the open source community dwindled to nothing because their products could never possibly compete with the proprietary alternatives. I think we live in universe C, where, without an enforceable GPL, the most efficient method of software production would be to take what you can (from the open source community), and give nothing back. YARR!
cduan 17y ago
The basic error of this article is that it ignores the prisoner's dilemma problem. The basic idea behind that problem, as a reminder, is that parties acting in their best interest for themselves will, in certain situations, select a suboptimal outcome. Applied to open/closed source software, the prisoner's dilemma suggests that parties acting in their own interest will opt for closed-source software, because of the personal benefits (trade secrets, market power, etc.). Thus, even if open-source software is more efficient as a general matter, everyone will go for closed source, resulting in an inefficient outcome. The solution to the prisoner's dilemma, of course, is contracts. By binding the hands of the parties, you can force people to choose the more optimal solution. The ideal contract adds a breach penalty that offsets whatever selfish gain may be reaped from defecting, and thereby encourages cooperation. This is, in effect, what the GPL does: it adds a penalty to closed source software (namely, you can't use open-source with it). If open source is indeed more efficient, then developers will be willing to forego the benefits of closed source in order to take advantage of open source software. I think that this generally summarizes what everyone else is saying ("nothing would deter an unscrupulous company from stealing open source code," "economic principle of free riders"). My own comment is offered as a general thought, not a precise cost-benefit analysis. There is much more careful thinking on this subject, much of it in the law review articles I read while in law school.
m_eiman 17y ago
The author fails to take into account that many(?) open source developers aren't dependent on or motivated by market forces. Regardless of its virtues in a business setting, GPL will still live on.
- ovi256 17y ago
  I disagree : they are motivated by what can be conceived as a market : a social reputation system. They gain reputation by writing and publishing GPL software. This reputation certainly is not money, but it serves the same signalling purpose.
  - eru 17y ago
    And this reputation (or the signal) can sometimes be converted into money. Open-source portfolios help in getting a job, I am told.
  - m_eiman 17y ago
    But if you stop writing open soure code in favour of closed source, you're no longer part of that market. It's more like two different markets (one pays with reputation, one with money or something like that) that are competing for a limited resource - developer time. So I'd say that there is a market, but it's on another level.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
I find it somewhat amusing that none of the comments so far seem to acknowledge that this is written by Eric S Raymond. I guess that shows how far he's fallen into irrelevance. Without wanting too engage with the actual content too much, he appears to be arguing, despite the headline, that there is no economic benefit or cost to the the GPL. The only impact is based on human (actually corporate) psychology of not liking being sued.
- bhiggins 17y ago
  who?
  - ZeroGravitas 17y ago
    Third guy in this comic strip: http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-code http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-code (thanks to whoever posted this in the other ESR thread, I'd searched for an appropriate strip but hadn't gone back far enough to find this gem)

13 points by HSO 17y ago

Sorry, not a very good article, the arguments are simplistic and don't make much sense to me. There is a good discussion to be had about the GPL but this is not it.

noaharc 17y ago

I think it's a well-written article, but he fails to acknowledge the economic principle of free-riders. I think it destroys his argument. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem

davidw 17y ago
One non-GPL solution is to have a very broad group of people who rapidly develop the open version. Think Apache or Postgres. Sure, you could hire a developer or two and make a closed version, but that person will end up spending all their time merging in the open source changes, which will outpace whatever value they can add to the closed product. In theory, at least - and I think that sort of strategy works in practice too, in some situations. And therein is the key - there are no general answers - some projects are better under a GPL style license where everyone knows that no one is going to 'take the code and run', and others are not.

TomOfTTB 17y ago

This article is written in a confusing manner but his point is basically that the GPL forces people who write software that derives from GPL licensed code to open source their derivative software. By doing so it discourages people from using GPL licensed software because some of those developers might want to close their source code. I see the point but I’m not sure I agree with it. He claims the open source community “loses allies” when it enforces the GPL against companies who closed their source. But if those people are taking GPL licensed code and violating the terms than they are not allies at all. So his argument really boils down to having the GPL but not enforcing it so you can keep allies that are allies in name only. There are more permissive open source licenses out there and if a developer wants someone to be able to use their open source code in closed source projects they can use one of those. But when people choose the GPL they are doing so to further the ideal of completely open source code. Meaning allies like the ones described above are counter-productive because they would compromise that ideal by doing exactly what the GPL users are fighting against.

davidw 17y ago
Here's what he's getting at, perhaps: if you have some code that's more "library like" in the sense that it's not a standalone product, people including it in their own proprietary products isn't going to hurt you that much, and if they're smart, they may even contribute back to the project, especially if your code isn't really a competitive advantage for them. If your code is GPL, you lose those potential contributors. Case in point, I know a few people are using Hecl in commercial products, and yet they have made some very nice contributions back to the project, something that wouldn't have happened had it been under the GPL.
- TomOfTTB 17y ago
  I get that. I'm just saying I think people who use the GPL do so because they want the software industry to develop an open source culture. Their idealogues in that way. They want to change the world in addition to creating software which makes their aim different from someone who just throws their code open for the heck of it. So allowing people to use their code for closed source projects would be working against their cause.
  - davidw 17y ago
    Some GPL users (RMS) are definitely like that. I think many others simply "don't want to be ripped off", and like the license because it makes them feel safe that way.

donaq 17y ago

we stand to lose not only Cisco as an ally, but any corporation that estimates (rightly or wrongly) that their own potential exposure to an SFLC lawsuit might be greater than their potential efficiency gains from open-sourcing. Why should that matter if we live in universe B and their estimates are therefore wrong? The open source community, being more efficient, would just build an alternative product that works better. OTOH, if we did not have the GPL or refused to enforce it, nothing would deter an unscrupulous company from stealing open source code and not contributing their own improvements to it to the community. Any improvements to the software from the open source community would quickly be incorporated into the proprietary version, while any improvements made by the hypothetical unscrupulous company would remain proprietary. Once a few of these companies started enjoying success, every other profit-maximizing company would be forced by the market to follow suit or perish, and we'd eventually have a clusterfuck of companies stealing open source code while the open source community dwindled to nothing because their products could never possibly compete with the proprietary alternatives. I think we live in universe C, where, without an enforceable GPL, the most efficient method of software production would be to take what you can (from the open source community), and give nothing back. YARR!

cduan 17y ago

The basic error of this article is that it ignores the prisoner's dilemma problem. The basic idea behind that problem, as a reminder, is that parties acting in their best interest for themselves will, in certain situations, select a suboptimal outcome. Applied to open/closed source software, the prisoner's dilemma suggests that parties acting in their own interest will opt for closed-source software, because of the personal benefits (trade secrets, market power, etc.). Thus, even if open-source software is more efficient as a general matter, everyone will go for closed source, resulting in an inefficient outcome. The solution to the prisoner's dilemma, of course, is contracts. By binding the hands of the parties, you can force people to choose the more optimal solution. The ideal contract adds a breach penalty that offsets whatever selfish gain may be reaped from defecting, and thereby encourages cooperation. This is, in effect, what the GPL does: it adds a penalty to closed source software (namely, you can't use open-source with it). If open source is indeed more efficient, then developers will be willing to forego the benefits of closed source in order to take advantage of open source software. I think that this generally summarizes what everyone else is saying ("nothing would deter an unscrupulous company from stealing open source code," "economic principle of free riders"). My own comment is offered as a general thought, not a precise cost-benefit analysis. There is much more careful thinking on this subject, much of it in the law review articles I read while in law school.

m_eiman 17y ago

The author fails to take into account that many(?) open source developers aren't dependent on or motivated by market forces. Regardless of its virtues in a business setting, GPL will still live on.

ovi256 17y ago
I disagree : they are motivated by what can be conceived as a market : a social reputation system. They gain reputation by writing and publishing GPL software. This reputation certainly is not money, but it serves the same signalling purpose.
- eru 17y ago
  And this reputation (or the signal) can sometimes be converted into money. Open-source portfolios help in getting a job, I am told.
- m_eiman 17y ago
  But if you stop writing open soure code in favour of closed source, you're no longer part of that market. It's more like two different markets (one pays with reputation, one with money or something like that) that are competing for a limited resource - developer time. So I'd say that there is a market, but it's on another level.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

I find it somewhat amusing that none of the comments so far seem to acknowledge that this is written by Eric S Raymond. I guess that shows how far he's fallen into irrelevance. Without wanting too engage with the actual content too much, he appears to be arguing, despite the headline, that there is no economic benefit or cost to the the GPL. The only impact is based on human (actually corporate) psychology of not liking being sued.

bhiggins 17y ago
who?
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Third guy in this comic strip: http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-code http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/archive/show-them-the-code (thanks to whoever posted this in the other ESR thread, I'd searched for an appropriate strip but hadn't gone back far enough to find this gem)