What is free software? [Re: Licenses and Open Source don't conflict.]

[Paul Rubin]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen at xemacs.org> writes:
> And the (rms-deprecated!) LGPL is surely good enough for anybody who
> only cares about freedom of their own code.  So the GPL is an advocacy
> tool, pure and simple.  It's all about affecting licensing decisions
> for code that others write, it has nothing to do with protecting
> freedom of yours.

Um, I value the freedom to use code that I wrote, including derivative
versions.  If you think I shouldn't have any interest in derivative
versions, try selling some derivative versions of Microsoft code and
see how fast Bill slams you.

>     Chris> There are those (uniformly programmers) who hate the GPL
>     Chris> because it restricts their ability to "hide" the source if
>     Chris> they incorporate GPL'd code in their non-GPL programs.
> 
> Consumers also dislike the GPL because it removes their freedom to
> sell their privilege of inspection of enhanced derivative software, a
> privilege most will never wish to exercise.  They don't hate it the
> way Bill Gates does, of course; they just would rather not pay for it
> in higher prices and reduced functionality. 

Or lower prices and enhanced functionality?  Look at all the GCC ports
that have been released for free because of the GPL, for example.  The
people who did those ports would have loved making them proprietary,
but that option wasn't available if they wanted to start with GCC, and
users everywhere benefitted.  (Of course if a developer really wants
to release a proprietary C compiler, he's perfectly free to write his
own instead of porting GCC, so the GPL imposes nothing on him).  

If I write a program that does XYZ and you want a program that does
XYZ+W, the GPL is my way of saying "hey, I'll do 90% of the work of
that XYZ+W implementation for you if you make the final result free".
It promotes cooperation by providing an incentive to release free
software.  Whereas if I release XYZ under a BSD license so your XYZ+W
ends up proprietary, I've simply become your unpaid employee.  That
arrangement might be nice for YOU, but I can do perfectly well without
it, thank you.

The non-GPL-ness of Python is a main reason I don't have much interest
in doing significant development work on the Python implementation
(though I'm willing to make smaller enhancements to fill my own
requirements, and send in the patches).  On the other hand, Python's
non-GPL may have attracted some corporate development money, so it's a
trade-off.  And of course some volunteers do contribute heavily.  It's
a decision everyone has to make for themselves based on their own
priorities.