9 ms·

The Failure of the GPL

19 points by edw519 17y ago

wheels 17y ago
Bleh. This is like those people who call Yahoo a failure. The GPL radically changed the IT landscape in the last decade. Whether or not it achieved all of its initial goals (as interpreted by the author of this post) doesn't mean that it hasn't been a massive, disruptive force in the IT world.
- greendestiny 17y ago
  Either way it's still a good argument to prefer other licenses over the GPL today.
- antonovka 17y ago
  Has it really been such a massive disruptive force, or merely an entirely secondary factor in the open source software world? I honestly don't mean to troll, but Apple, for example, has built an entire business on open source (but primarily not GPL) software components. They used GCC insofar as it met their needs, and then switched to something else when the GPL became an obstacle. Likewise, most companies use Linux because it's a pragmatic choice, not because of the license. I think it's overreaching to claim that the GPL has changed the landscape. Liberal open source existed before the GPL, and will continue to exist if the GPL where to somehow disappear.
  - michaelneale 17y ago
    but had the GPL not existed when it did - would the foundations still have existed that make open source of any licence as mainstream and commercially acceptable (in some cases preferable) as they are today?
    - antonovka 17y ago
      There is a very long history of commercially acceptable non-GPL open source software. Here's some widely corporate-used software that played an integral role in both commercial products and early internet/network services: * BSD-derivative Operating Systems (code available with first releases since in 1977) * Sendmail (1983) * Apache HTTPD (1995) * Qmail (1997) * MIT Kerberos (late 1980s) * UMich LDAP (now OpenLDAP) (1995) Modern examples are considerably more numerous, ranging from Apache Project's Java projects, to LLVM. The places where the FSF and GPL have really succeeded are where there was usually a strong network effect (compilers and operating systems are large individual undertakings, for instance) and limited downside to the use of the GPL. [Edit] I realize that some fringe downvoting GPL proponents take offense at the idea that the GPL isn't single-handedly responsible for mass adoption of open source, but come on guys, there's a long and rich history of commercial open source adoption outside of the GPL.
  - wheels 17y ago
    That open source has been disruptive I consider indisputable. The question then becomes, "Were the BSDs poised to lead the way to the current world of commoditized software infrastructure?" But that's a different question. Whether by dogma or community forces, something about the FSF and the GPL transformed open source from a licensing scheme to a movement that produced the mass of software that we have today. Whether or not the BSDs could have done that is a separate question -- they in fact did not, and the massive disruption that we've seen has been an outgrowth of GPLed projects.
    - antonovka 17y ago
      That open source has been disruptive I consider indisputable. The question then becomes, "Were the BSDs poised to lead the way to the current world of commoditized software infrastructure?" But that's a different question. Speaking only in terms of operating systems, the AT&T lawsuit caused the BSD derivatives to stumble just as they started, and at the same time Linux was beginning to enter its stride. The GPL/FSF didn't (through dogma or community forces) drive this, but rather, circumstances and a general hobbiest interest in open source operating system development. Whether by dogma or community forces, something about the FSF and the GPL transformed open source from a licensing scheme to a movement that produced the mass of software that we have today. Whether or not the BSDs could have done that is a separate question -- they in fact did not, and the massive disruption that we've seen has been an outgrowth of GPLed projects. That's vastly overstating the reach of the GPL projects. Everything from Apache HTTPD to PHP to Perl was (and is) liberally licensed.
keyist 17y ago
Trollish article and sensational headline. Foss code licensed under GPL and variants thereof is more common than every other license combined: http://license-info.appspot.com/ http://license-info.appspot.com/ . The plural of anecdote is not data -- N examples of individuals/companies who choose not to go the GPL route cannot refute the fact that it has spearheaded free software. His example of Apple's use of LLVM as evidence that "you don't necessarily get good results from forcing people to do things" is purely confirmation bias. If he really went looking, he'd realize that Apple also used WebKit/KHTML despite being 'forced' to release their contributions to that library. It is also telling that they stop contributing back the moment the LGPL allows them to. What about his point that the GPL causes harm: "A few people in different companies have recently told me something that leads me to believe that the GPL actually does cause harm.. [they use bsd due to compliance worries]" Oh noes!!! A few people in different companies told him they use BSD instead of GPL! This is the real smoking gun against the GPL, folks! How will it ever survive now?
- antonovka 17y ago
  Like nearly all corporations (who are the primary sponsors of a vast majority of major project's open source development), Apple's use of GPL/LGPL software is a pragmatic one based on the value of the software, not the license. If the license becomes too onerous (which it now has, with the FSF's push for GPLv3 and desire for broad adoption of virally licensed GPL software), Apple has -- and will continue to -- move away from GPL software. In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with business goals.
  - keyist 17y ago
    Like the author of that article, you seem to be fixated on contributions being the measure of the GPL's success. Preserving the four freedoms is the goal of the GPL. Requiring people to contribute back is the means.
    - antonovka 17y ago
      The point is that the minute the "four freedoms" conflicts with "business priorities", we drop the GPL software like a hot potato. That is to say, the GPL hasn't really succeeded at protecting the "four freedoms", it's merely done so as a side effect of the success of GPL'd software. GCC sat on the top of the hill for a long time due to the fact that the GPL's restrictions were an acceptable cost. However, when it came time for a library-linkable compiler, look at what Apple did -- they didn't GPL their software to allow linking against GCC -- instead, they decided to sponsor development of a new compiler.
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
Scramblejams 17y ago
I've seen an effect that is quite the opposite of what the author claimed. Netatalk (primarily an Apple File Protocol server for Mac clients) didn't get much love from developers because it was BSD-licensed and companies selling storage boxes would use it and fix many of its problems, but without contributing changes back. This was sufficiently demotivating that many good developers said to me, in so many words, that they didn't want to contribute if companies were benefiting from the project but not giving back. The license was changed to the GPL (with the advertising clause retained) and community participation took off like a shot and its been a healthy project ever since. Take that, InformIT.
- antonovka 17y ago
  Netatalk was primarily authored, maintained, and ultimately abandoned by the University of Michigan -- all under a BSD license. During this process, how many improvements were contributed by corporations/individuals who would not have done so had it not been BSD licensed, or who simply didn't care what the license was? The resurgence in interest coincided with the interest and engagement with new, GPL-proponent developers. It's hardly a non-biased piece of anecdote.
  - Scramblejams 17y ago
    Of course not, because a core of developers who wanted the project to move forward recognized that multibillion dollar companies were benefiting but not contributing, and a change to the GPL motivated their involvement and brought the project back to life. Did companies contribute under the BSD license? Of course, some did. But not enough to keep the project from entering a coma. And nobody wanted to fork it if no one was going to contribute. It's not a trivial anecdote when you can say that the GPL brought a project back to life, because that's what it did.
    - antonovka 17y ago
      It's not a trivial anecdote when you can say that the GPL brought a project back to life, because that's what it did. New, active, non-umich developers -- who also happened to favor the GPL for personal/political reasons -- brought the project back to life. Not the GPL. The project stagnated because AppleTalk ceased to be used, and AFP over TCP was generally replaced in most corporate installations by Windows Fileshares or WebDAV, and UMich didn't need it anymore -- not because corporate interests were stealing contributor's labor. It's presumptuous to take a product that was entirely and successfully developed for years under the BSD license and then claim it as a GPL success story because the new maintainers had a moral imperative to relicense. You wouldn't claim it a success story for their coding style if they also decided to switch to 4 character tabs and newlines before braces.
jsz0 17y ago
I feel like the GPL's overly political nature is basically a type of political DRM. If you try hard enough you can skirt the restrictions. If you're an end user you have to deal with the fallout which trickles down in a variety of ways but can generally be summarized as "making things harder than they really need to be" The NVIDIA example is a good one. It would be hard to argue that the GPL has benefited users in this case. It's been an annoyance to NVIDIA and a huge headache to end users.
- antonovka 17y ago
  I think your observation is astute -- for a literal example, see the 'GPLONLY' implementation in the Linux kernel. Unless your module explicitly declares itself as GPL licensed, Linux will refuse to vend (new) symbols to your module.
- Scramblejams 17y ago
  Nvidia's the annoying exception, and I say that as an owner of an 8800GT who has to recompile the module for each Debian kernel upgrade. But when I think of all the other hardware in my machine which runs without a hitch under GPL'd drivers because the manufacturers were forced to contribute the code, I like the tradeoff.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Yes, it's like a DRM that ensures that you can always copy, edit, remix, and share the files that it protects. So maybe that's not a great analogy.
  - jsz0 17y ago
    DRM purely in the sense that political goals supersedes usability.
GeneralMaximus 17y ago
Whether the GPL is harmful or not is a debatable issue, but it does cause a lot of problems to other FOSS projects that want to use GPL code. Lookie here: http://www.freelists.org/post/haiku-development/INPUT-VOTE-includegpladdons http://www.freelists.org/post/haiku-development/INPUT-VOTE-i... For desktop apps and standalone tools, the GPL is fine. But if you're writing a compiler, interpreter, library or even an operating system, choosing the GPL will be a bloody stupid decision.
- agazso 17y ago
  Reality seems to contradict your opinion. GCC, Linux and thousands of quality libraries are written under GPL license. Releasing software as open source dows not mean giving it away for free. With GPL it literally means that you give it for freedom. As a developer of a commercial program, the GPL (with dual licensing) is the best choice if you want to release your source code and have control over it. Your users get it for free, but your competitors cannot modify it legally to take advantage over you. It's a win-win situation. Furthermore you have always the freedom to not to use GPL libraries if you think it causes more harm than good.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
“The food is terrible—and such small portions!” You can't seriously argue both that the GPL is too onerous and too easy to circumvent. The GPL rubs many developers and proprietary software houses up the wrong way as it takes away their power over their customers. This is illustrated nicely by this very article with Apple wanting to include compiler stuff in their software without putting it all under the GPL and how Google had no issue with the GPL as it didn't interfere with their business model even though their unique selling point is software based, just server based software. Similar applies to the 99% of businesses that use software, and even create it, but don't need to sell it.

19 points by edw519 17y ago

Bleh. This is like those people who call Yahoo a failure. The GPL radically changed the IT landscape in the last decade. Whether or not it achieved all of its initial goals (as interpreted by the author of this post) doesn't mean that it hasn't been a massive, disruptive force in the IT world.

greendestiny 17y ago
Either way it's still a good argument to prefer other licenses over the GPL today.
antonovka 17y ago
Has it really been such a massive disruptive force, or merely an entirely secondary factor in the open source software world? I honestly don't mean to troll, but Apple, for example, has built an entire business on open source (but primarily not GPL) software components. They used GCC insofar as it met their needs, and then switched to something else when the GPL became an obstacle. Likewise, most companies use Linux because it's a pragmatic choice, not because of the license. I think it's overreaching to claim that the GPL has changed the landscape. Liberal open source existed before the GPL, and will continue to exist if the GPL where to somehow disappear.
- michaelneale 17y ago
  but had the GPL not existed when it did - would the foundations still have existed that make open source of any licence as mainstream and commercially acceptable (in some cases preferable) as they are today?
  - antonovka 17y ago
    There is a very long history of commercially acceptable non-GPL open source software. Here's some widely corporate-used software that played an integral role in both commercial products and early internet/network services: * BSD-derivative Operating Systems (code available with first releases since in 1977) * Sendmail (1983) * Apache HTTPD (1995) * Qmail (1997) * MIT Kerberos (late 1980s) * UMich LDAP (now OpenLDAP) (1995) Modern examples are considerably more numerous, ranging from Apache Project's Java projects, to LLVM. The places where the FSF and GPL have really succeeded are where there was usually a strong network effect (compilers and operating systems are large individual undertakings, for instance) and limited downside to the use of the GPL. [Edit] I realize that some fringe downvoting GPL proponents take offense at the idea that the GPL isn't single-handedly responsible for mass adoption of open source, but come on guys, there's a long and rich history of commercial open source adoption outside of the GPL.
- wheels 17y ago
  That open source has been disruptive I consider indisputable. The question then becomes, "Were the BSDs poised to lead the way to the current world of commoditized software infrastructure?" But that's a different question. Whether by dogma or community forces, something about the FSF and the GPL transformed open source from a licensing scheme to a movement that produced the mass of software that we have today. Whether or not the BSDs could have done that is a separate question -- they in fact did not, and the massive disruption that we've seen has been an outgrowth of GPLed projects.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    That open source has been disruptive I consider indisputable. The question then becomes, "Were the BSDs poised to lead the way to the current world of commoditized software infrastructure?" But that's a different question. Speaking only in terms of operating systems, the AT&T lawsuit caused the BSD derivatives to stumble just as they started, and at the same time Linux was beginning to enter its stride. The GPL/FSF didn't (through dogma or community forces) drive this, but rather, circumstances and a general hobbiest interest in open source operating system development. Whether by dogma or community forces, something about the FSF and the GPL transformed open source from a licensing scheme to a movement that produced the mass of software that we have today. Whether or not the BSDs could have done that is a separate question -- they in fact did not, and the massive disruption that we've seen has been an outgrowth of GPLed projects. That's vastly overstating the reach of the GPL projects. Everything from Apache HTTPD to PHP to Perl was (and is) liberally licensed.

keyist 17y ago

Trollish article and sensational headline. Foss code licensed under GPL and variants thereof is more common than every other license combined: http://license-info.appspot.com/ http://license-info.appspot.com/ . The plural of anecdote is not data -- N examples of individuals/companies who choose not to go the GPL route cannot refute the fact that it has spearheaded free software. His example of Apple's use of LLVM as evidence that "you don't necessarily get good results from forcing people to do things" is purely confirmation bias. If he really went looking, he'd realize that Apple also used WebKit/KHTML despite being 'forced' to release their contributions to that library. It is also telling that they stop contributing back the moment the LGPL allows them to. What about his point that the GPL causes harm: "A few people in different companies have recently told me something that leads me to believe that the GPL actually does cause harm.. [they use bsd due to compliance worries]" Oh noes!!! A few people in different companies told him they use BSD instead of GPL! This is the real smoking gun against the GPL, folks! How will it ever survive now?

antonovka 17y ago
Like nearly all corporations (who are the primary sponsors of a vast majority of major project's open source development), Apple's use of GPL/LGPL software is a pragmatic one based on the value of the software, not the license. If the license becomes too onerous (which it now has, with the FSF's push for GPLv3 and desire for broad adoption of virally licensed GPL software), Apple has -- and will continue to -- move away from GPL software. In other words, the GPL is something that is tolerated insofar as it doesn't conflict with business goals.
- keyist 17y ago
  Like the author of that article, you seem to be fixated on contributions being the measure of the GPL's success. Preserving the four freedoms is the goal of the GPL. Requiring people to contribute back is the means.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    The point is that the minute the "four freedoms" conflicts with "business priorities", we drop the GPL software like a hot potato. That is to say, the GPL hasn't really succeeded at protecting the "four freedoms", it's merely done so as a side effect of the success of GPL'd software. GCC sat on the top of the hill for a long time due to the fact that the GPL's restrictions were an acceptable cost. However, when it came time for a library-linkable compiler, look at what Apple did -- they didn't GPL their software to allow linking against GCC -- instead, they decided to sponsor development of a new compiler.

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

Scramblejams 17y ago

I've seen an effect that is quite the opposite of what the author claimed. Netatalk (primarily an Apple File Protocol server for Mac clients) didn't get much love from developers because it was BSD-licensed and companies selling storage boxes would use it and fix many of its problems, but without contributing changes back. This was sufficiently demotivating that many good developers said to me, in so many words, that they didn't want to contribute if companies were benefiting from the project but not giving back. The license was changed to the GPL (with the advertising clause retained) and community participation took off like a shot and its been a healthy project ever since. Take that, InformIT.

antonovka 17y ago
Netatalk was primarily authored, maintained, and ultimately abandoned by the University of Michigan -- all under a BSD license. During this process, how many improvements were contributed by corporations/individuals who would not have done so had it not been BSD licensed, or who simply didn't care what the license was? The resurgence in interest coincided with the interest and engagement with new, GPL-proponent developers. It's hardly a non-biased piece of anecdote.
- Scramblejams 17y ago
  Of course not, because a core of developers who wanted the project to move forward recognized that multibillion dollar companies were benefiting but not contributing, and a change to the GPL motivated their involvement and brought the project back to life. Did companies contribute under the BSD license? Of course, some did. But not enough to keep the project from entering a coma. And nobody wanted to fork it if no one was going to contribute. It's not a trivial anecdote when you can say that the GPL brought a project back to life, because that's what it did.
  - antonovka 17y ago
    It's not a trivial anecdote when you can say that the GPL brought a project back to life, because that's what it did. New, active, non-umich developers -- who also happened to favor the GPL for personal/political reasons -- brought the project back to life. Not the GPL. The project stagnated because AppleTalk ceased to be used, and AFP over TCP was generally replaced in most corporate installations by Windows Fileshares or WebDAV, and UMich didn't need it anymore -- not because corporate interests were stealing contributor's labor. It's presumptuous to take a product that was entirely and successfully developed for years under the BSD license and then claim it as a GPL success story because the new maintainers had a moral imperative to relicense. You wouldn't claim it a success story for their coding style if they also decided to switch to 4 character tabs and newlines before braces.

jsz0 17y ago

I feel like the GPL's overly political nature is basically a type of political DRM. If you try hard enough you can skirt the restrictions. If you're an end user you have to deal with the fallout which trickles down in a variety of ways but can generally be summarized as "making things harder than they really need to be" The NVIDIA example is a good one. It would be hard to argue that the GPL has benefited users in this case. It's been an annoyance to NVIDIA and a huge headache to end users.

antonovka 17y ago
I think your observation is astute -- for a literal example, see the 'GPLONLY' implementation in the Linux kernel. Unless your module explicitly declares itself as GPL licensed, Linux will refuse to vend (new) symbols to your module.
Scramblejams 17y ago
Nvidia's the annoying exception, and I say that as an owner of an 8800GT who has to recompile the module for each Debian kernel upgrade. But when I think of all the other hardware in my machine which runs without a hitch under GPL'd drivers because the manufacturers were forced to contribute the code, I like the tradeoff.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Yes, it's like a DRM that ensures that you can always copy, edit, remix, and share the files that it protects. So maybe that's not a great analogy.
- jsz0 17y ago
  DRM purely in the sense that political goals supersedes usability.

GeneralMaximus 17y ago

Whether the GPL is harmful or not is a debatable issue, but it does cause a lot of problems to other FOSS projects that want to use GPL code. Lookie here: http://www.freelists.org/post/haiku-development/INPUT-VOTE-includegpladdons http://www.freelists.org/post/haiku-development/INPUT-VOTE-i... For desktop apps and standalone tools, the GPL is fine. But if you're writing a compiler, interpreter, library or even an operating system, choosing the GPL will be a bloody stupid decision.

agazso 17y ago
Reality seems to contradict your opinion. GCC, Linux and thousands of quality libraries are written under GPL license. Releasing software as open source dows not mean giving it away for free. With GPL it literally means that you give it for freedom. As a developer of a commercial program, the GPL (with dual licensing) is the best choice if you want to release your source code and have control over it. Your users get it for free, but your competitors cannot modify it legally to take advantage over you. It's a win-win situation. Furthermore you have always the freedom to not to use GPL libraries if you think it causes more harm than good.

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

“The food is terrible—and such small portions!” You can't seriously argue both that the GPL is too onerous and too easy to circumvent. The GPL rubs many developers and proprietary software houses up the wrong way as it takes away their power over their customers. This is illustrated nicely by this very article with Apple wanting to include compiler stuff in their software without putting it all under the GPL and how Google had no issue with the GPL as it didn't interfere with their business model even though their unique selling point is software based, just server based software. Similar applies to the 99% of businesses that use software, and even create it, but don't need to sell it.