[OT] What is Open Source? (was Re: ANN: Twisted 0.16.0...)

[Laura Creighton]

> >>>>> "Laura" == Laura Creighton <lac at strakt.com> writes:
> 
> > >>>>> "Laura" == Laura Creighton <lac at strakt.com> writes:
> > 
> >     Laura> People here seem to be thinking that the GPL is there to
> >     Laura> protect creators rights to their software.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure that that is what rms has in mind, as long as both
> > "creators" and "software" are inclusive collective nouns.
> > 
> > The consumer protection argument is the OSI line (a special case
> > thereof), and rms don't have much truck with anything so economical
> > and relativist.
> 
>     Laura> 1. Why did you remove my prior line, 'as a thought
>     Laura> experiment?'
> 
> I apologize for the rudeness, none was intended.  I did not, and still
> don't, see that its presence or absence has any effect on the
> semantics of the discussion.  So I took it out.

Apology accepted.  The reason I put this in was because I don't want to
get involved with 'what was RMS thinking' and 'What does RMS believe'.
If we want to find that out, the only way is to ask RMS.  Going to his
writings and attempting to work things out, unless he explicitly says
he believes something is frought with great peril.  Being wrong about
what RMS means when he says something is as easy as falling off a
log.  And I find all discussions of 'what was RMS thinking' to be
more or less pointless.

When I frame this as a thought experiment, then the people who think
that RMS intended a Consumer Protection Proclamation, and the people
who think that if the GPL is a Consumer Protection Proclamation then 
he got one by accident can have discussions on the merit of crafting
a Consumer Protection policy without bringing RMS and his beliefs into
it.

> 
>     Laura> I put it in in order to avoid having this conversation
>     Laura> right now?
> 
> But it didn't.  I don't see how the GPL is about consumer protection.
> 
> Not as "original intent" (you _did_ use the word "intended"), and not
> as a "thought experiment" in social engineering.  I planned to address
> both, but I see I completely missed the mark on the "thought
> experiment" (and further confused the issue by mentioning rms again).
> Again, I'm sorry for creating misunderstanding.
> 
> There are plenty of ways to address the goal of consumer protection,
> many of which might very well be more profitable (eg, the US DOD's
> second source policy) for the developer of the software under license
> than the GPL.  None of these are satisfactory substitutes for the GPL
> (or free software in general) because they violate freedom.  Another
> example: the Aladdin Free Public License has all the benefits of the
> GPL in protecting customers from broken software: you can always hire
> someone to fix your broken Ghostscript.  You just can't redistribute
> the fixed version for money, and thus amortize the cost.
> 
> But you don't want to go there, do you?  rms definitely doesn't.

Me, personally -- of course I want to go there.  But I am leaving the
'get things done with the US legal system' aspects to Americans who 
live there.

> If one is _only_ interested in consumer protection, there are plenty
> of very attractive alternatives to the GPL that could be imagined.  As
> you point out, some might have to be enforced by changes in IP law in
> practice, but most could (in theory) be achieved simply by customers
> insisting on a reasonable contract.  (The OSI line again.  "You don't
> need to abolish IP or to demand the GPL; there are other ways to
> protect yourself.  But you should protect yourself by insisting on
> access to source.  Preferably by using free software, which benefits
> all software users, usually without hurting you.")
> 
>     Laura> 2. I learned this from RMS himself, when he was living in
>     Laura> my house about 15 years ago.  Look up 'hoarder' in his
>     Laura> writings.
> 
> I've read them.  I understand the concept.
> 
> My mother doesn't.  She will never notice how much software has been
> "hoarded" by Microsoft, only how much has been delivered at remarkably
> low prices.  My mother has no need or desire for a copy of the source
> herself.  She recognizes the usefulness of _someone_ having access to
> source, but "second-sourcing" or "source escrow" would be plenty to
> protect that wily consumer in her own opinion.
> 
> My point is that rms developed the GPL to protect/enforce sharing of
> software ideas, not to protect consumers' economic interests in
> working software.  The protection of consumers is a very desirable
> side effect, but according to rms _economic benefits in general must
> never be considered on a par with software freedom_.  The GPL wasn't
> intended to protect consumers, and it is not tuned to doing that
> effectively, since it surely results in less software being developed.
> There's a very good reason for rms's denial of consumer sovereignty:
> it is easy to show under the standard microeconomic models that "a
> little bit of IP in the right places" will surely benefit consumers
> relative to "no IP," and the GPL imposes _more_ frictions than "no IP"
> does.

You are presenting consumer protection as a purely economic issue.  
While I believe that every issue is to some extent an economic issue,
I don't see that consumer protection is primarily about economic benefits.
Is it seen that way in Japan?  My observations of the USA lead me to
believe that it is seen that way there, but clearly not totally or
Bill Gates wouldn't have to argue that consumers were protected,
anti-trust was not an issue, because prices were low.  It wouldn't
be arguable in that case.

> 
> So I don't think an argument starting from consumer protection will
> lead to the GPL, or anything that looks like it, in many important
> cases.  rms certainly doesn't.  He says so every time he's asked to
> comment on "open source," and he's personally asked me not to
> formalize, not to measure, not to mention, and most especially not to
> publish what "is easy to show...".[1]
> 
> Thus my point that the GPL (and software freedom in general) is
> primarily about protecting the freedom of developers to develop.
> 
>     Laura> I thought compelling people was a worse sin than software
>     Laura> hoarding.  [...]  RMS does not see things this way at all.
>     Laura> He thinks that software hoarding is a worse sin than
>     Laura> compelling,
> 
> I've seen him write similar things, also the moral equation of
> intellectual property to human slavery.  But I don't understand what
> he means by this, as I would deduce a need to close the "ASP loophole"
> in the GPL.  Eg with a "must publish `deployed' modifications" clause
> a la the Apple Public Source License.  But he firmly rejects that.[2]

Ok.  I don't speak for RMS but tomorrow, on my holiday, I will begin
to write up why I want a world where the right to close source your
program is greeted with the same horror as the right to sell your
children into slavery.  But I want a new thread for this, and I need
some time.  It is hard to do this one properly.  Since tomorrow and
the day after are holidays here in Sweden, I should probably get
enough time in those 2 days, but no promises.

> 
> By the way, there's a small technical error in your consumer
> protection argument.  You wrote
> 
>     Laura> The thing is you will be able to tell (or hire somebody to
>     Laura> tell you) before you buy
> 
> There's nothing in the GPL that requires that you get source _before_
> you buy the software.  Cygnus and The Kompany both have made money on
> GPLed software for which the source is not public.  It just happens
> that the customers had no interest in redistributing source
> themselves.  In fact, it seems plausible that the GPL was helpful in
> convincing some customers not to redistribute the source, as it very
> likely would have quickly ended up in the hands of a competitor.

This is very true.  I just over-simplified, in the interests of brevity.
But as long as I can return software whose source I have evaluated under
some 'unfit for its stated purpose' clause, or just as part of an
automatic 'right to return after so many days clause', then getting to
see the source before or after is less important.  (And remember, everybody,
I am in Sweden -- a lesson in how the American Consumer is protected 
under American law is of extremely limited use for me.  Professionally,
when I am selling things to Americans, I have a real lawyer who makes
sure that these details are handled correctly.)

> 
> I doubt this is all that important in practice yet---most free
> software seems to be public source as well as open source---but I
> suspect it will grow over time, especially in market segments
> developing for ASP-like applications.[3]

(hah! did you see the kicking that the Kompany received for that!
 <reads footnote> <grins> -- yes, I see you did.)

> Footnotes: 
> [1]  The "standard microeconomic models" are far more applicable than
> most free software advocates would like to believe.  Showing what the
> limits and appropriate modifications are is a project I guess I should
> dust off and get published.

This sort of analysis is part of the talk that Jacob Hallén intends to
present at EuroPython, tentatively called _Open Source Business Models_.
But with only 35 minutes, I doubt we can show much detailed modelling.
Papers like yours need to get published.  Where do you intend to 
publish this?

> 
> [2]  For reasons I understand, I think, and agree with.  So evidently
> I don't understand the hoarding v. compelling and IP v. slavery ideas.

Ok, as long as you understand that what you are getting is a paper about
why _I_ think hoarding is worse than compelling and that Closed Source
is exploitative.  I am not trying to pass my ideas off as RMS's ideas.
You can show them to him, of course, if you like, but I make no
predictions about whether he will end up saying that he agrees with me
or not.

> [3]  Though it may not.  The Kompany now avoids the GPL where
> possible, as they found that bad PR from not publishing source to
> GPLed software is actually more unpleasant than bad PR from
> distributing software under proprietary licenses.

This may not be the only reason, of course.  Some businesses hear GPL
and run away screaming, in any case.

Laura Creighton