Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: The GPL is not open source.
Author: Brett Glass Posted: 8/23/2000; 2:44:34 PM Topic: Next survey: Are you an open source developer? Msg #: 20001 (In response to 19985) Prev/Next: 20000 / 20002
I disagree with your alleged vindictiveness of either Richard Stallman or the GPL, but that's not really relevant.Intent matters a lot. For example, when you're reverse-engineering a piece of software (such as a virus), it helps to understand the programmer's intent. Often, it's only when you understand what the programmer is trying to do that they light bulb goes on and you say, "Aha!"
This is true also of the GPL, which operates very much like a virus. If you have ever seen Richard Stallman in a candid moment, he makes it abundantly clear that his activities are born of spite and vindictiveness. (For an account of the events that precipitated this deeply rooted malice, see Stephen Levy's book "Hackers," for which he interviewed Stallman at length.) Not long ago, a friend tells me, she attempted to introduce Stallman, over dinner, to a commercial developer who was considering releasing some of his source code. Unfortunately, the developer began his conversation with Richard by saying, "I'm a commercial developer, and...."
He got no farther. Stallman immediately began to harangue him, telling him that he was the epitome of evil. The developer left the table much wiser about Stallman's true intentions.
What's relevant is that the GPL has long been considered an open source license and was a large part in forming the Debian DFSG and the Open Source Definition.
Some of the people who were involved in the "open source" movement have vested business interests that involve GPLed code, and hence attempt to gloss over the fact that the GPL does not conform to the definition. These include Bruce Perens (author of the DFSG). Eric Raymond, likewise, is now on the board of VA Linux and has a legal duty to promote Linux, which is GPLed. These people are not unbiased and in fact have strong financial motivations to be hypocritical.
The plain and simple fact is that the GPL does not conform to the plain language of either the OSD or the DFSG. It does discriminate against a very important field of endeavor: the creation of commercial software. That's the business that I'm in, that Dave W. is in, and that makes this very discussion board possible.
--Brett Glass
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:11 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.