Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
A new public license
Author: David Adams Posted: 8/25/2000; 8:24:09 AM Topic: Next survey: Are you an open source developer? Msg #: 20180 (In response to 20164) Prev/Next: 20179 / 20181
The GPL is analogous to saying that if you learn something from a library book and use that information to make money, you must give all of that money to the library.The GPL is an attempt to turn the "library" of freely available code, which is a good thing if it is ethically licensed, into a nasty and unethical weapon against commercial programmers and their livelihoods.
Okay, aside from arguments about Stallman's intent and the political reasoning behind the GPL and the GNU Manifesto, I don't see what's unethical about a programmer desiring to release code he developed under the GPL. For this argument, let's say that there was another license out there, without the political statements, let's call it Dave's Wacky Public License (DWPL) that said, in essence: "You can use this code, give it away, or modify it, but only if you make your changes available under these same terms or get my permission to do otherwise."
So now, legally, code released under the GPL or the DWPL will have the same standing, but DWPLed code won't be associated with RMS or the FSF. How's that?
Now, tell me what is unethical about me, as copyright holder of my code, saying that "Here's some code I want everyone to be able to see and use freely. However, I don't want anyone to take my code and make money from my efforts, without my explicit permission."?
In what way am I being unethical if I want to let others freely see, use, and learn from the work I have created, the work I have sweated and toiled over for years of my life, but I don't want Microsoft or Sun or Oracle to take my code and make money off it and extend their power over the software market?
Aren't other artists allowed to dictate who can use and make money from their works? Shouldn't a musician be able to say, "Here's my latest song, I don't care if you download it and share it with your friends, I'm not asking for compensation." And if so, shouldn't that artist also be able to decide whether or not the Dust Brothers can create a remix of that song and then attempt to sell it on their next album? Surely that decision is up to the artist. Does the fact that some artists release free music onto the Internet make the value of all music go to zero?
Or am I wrong to compare software and music? Maybe it's different, and source code is more akin to sheet music. I can almost see where it would be. Well, what about books then? Is it unethical to write something, and publish it in a freely available location, and then to expect that other people won't change a few words and republish it? Do I, as an author, have the right to say what I want done with my work? If so, how is that different than a software developer who wishes to release their code under the DWPL?
Is my fictional DWPL more ethical than the GPL or the same? Why or why not? Compare and contrast. :)
-dave
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:15 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.