Re: [tlug] Yes! Another argument about the GPL! You knew you wanted it....

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@example.com>]

Lars Kotthoff writes:

 > > Basically, you're looking at good effects that might come out of
 > > using the GPL on a piece of software, and ignoring the bad
 > > effects that may also happen.
 > 
 > And you're doing exactly the same thing for a more permissible license.

No, I claim that bad effects of permissive licenses, as compared to
the GPL, are small.  The GPL has *no* incentive effect on
"give-backs".  The requirement is to "give forward".  So people who
give back to the community have some other reason for doing it, and
those reasons aren't going to change much if the license was
permissive.  See Curt's post for some detailed rationale.

 > > That means that the consumers are the real ones benefiting here;
 > > the company also benefiting is just a side effect.
 > 
 > It's also possible though that the company benefiting is the main
 > effect of them selling crap software that happens to be "industry
 > standard" or something like that.

Sure.  That doesn't change the value proposition, though.  The
contribution of all open source and free software developers in the
world is nanoscale compared to that of the Worst Software (ie, Windows
and Office) by the Nastiest Proprietor (Microsoft) in the world.

But, nevertheless, we won.  We are *all* now free to choose a
different operating system, and we always will be.  The GPL, then, has
done its job in creating a software ecology that embodies freedom, and
should be retired.  (As a default license, of course.  It's still an
excellent license for business use.)