Page 2 - Washington State Congressman attempts to outlaw GPL

realnowhereman -

To be honest here, I don't understand how you can feel that your point of view is justified?

How is it that YOUR "right" (which, I imagine, few people will recognize) to know MY technique (which I put a lot of hard work into) outweighs MY right to set the terms on MY product? You don't like my terms, you don't buy my product: very simple. If I choose to sell my source code as part of my product then that's my choice and you should have no influence over that decision in any way except whether or not you give me your money. If I'm creating a good product and most people don't need or want the source, I can sell it and be profitable. If I'm creating a product that people DO need or want the source to, and I'm STILL selling it even without the source, then that's the fault of the stupid masses buying the product.

While I personally prefer Open Source, I hate Microsoft for the most part. They make crummy software and OSes, BUT, I am certainly willing to stand up and say "While I don't think you should be buying from them because they sell garbage, you still have no right to demand that they show you their source code because it's THERE product to do what they want with".

realnowhereman, just remember that just because something is convenient for you, doesn't automatically make it a right you have. Other people have rights to, and as long as what they're doing isn't directly hurting anything, then you have no grounds to impede on their rights.

As for the actual topic (I must not be the only one cursed to the eternal damnation of off-topic threads):

It's ridiculous. That's all that needs said. I'm moving to Australia.

Just for reference, here's some backup to the story:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2...5416921766.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/busin...6_gpl23ww.shtml
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/10/...8.shtml?tid=117

This is some rather interesting info about dear Mr. Smith as well:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politici...7833&cycle=2002

LoL@Ctb

That last link is quite a telling one...

I read all of the posts first and then went back and read the actual letter on Newsforge that started this thread. Based upon what a lot of people were writing I was under the impression that the congressmen were trying to outlaw the GPL. But based on the letter, that does not appear to be what they're doing (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).

The letter said: ...it is important to affirm that government R&D should be made available under intellectual property licenses that allow for further development and commercialization of that work.

The way that I interpret this is, they are saying that companies should be able to use government research to make closed source commercial applications. In other words, government-funded projects shouldn't be GPL'd. They are not saying that if I, as an individual, create a program that I can't GPL it (thereby outlawing the GPL). They're just trying to define a standard license under which government-funded projects should be released.

If my interpretation is correct, then the argument becomes:

A. All government-funded source code should be GPL'd. As a taxpayer, if I fund a project, then I have a right not only to that source code, but to any additional source produced by any company that makes use of it to create a commercial product.

B. All government-funded source code should have a more restrictive license. Everyone has equal access to the original source code, but any additional work that uses the government funded code can be protected (closed-source). I have a right to the part I paid for, but not a right to anything produced and paid for by a private company or individual.

The question is, if I help fund a project as a taxpayer, what do the people / companies that benefit from that project owe me in return? Or does funding this project just pool resources and give us all an equal starting point but moving forward we're all on our own?

I'm torn on this issue because I really like the GPL. But if all government research was GPL'd then much of it could not (or would not) be used by commercial companies if they had to divulge their proprietary source code to use it. Personally, I'm glad that the company I work for is making a profit each time I draw a paycheck. If they could use government research to provide better services and products, great. If they have to give all their source code to their competitors to get that source code, then it will never happen. For better or worse, they would be forced to develop all of the government-funded code a second time to avoid the GPL.

As someone on slashdot pointed out, just because a piece of code is GPL'd doesn't stop a company from using it. Especially in this case (R&D).

When the code was created as a research effort, I guess that usually there is some sort of published information regarding the results of the research. If the source of the code was never released, a company could still use this published information to create their own code.

If the code was released under the GPL, this makes it even easier for the company to create their own code, because they can already see one implementation of the research.

If the code is released under a BSD style license, then the company is free to copy the code without ever understanding the design decisions that went into creating it. This isn't illegal or anything, but it's kind of stupid (on the company's part).

All this means is that just because some code is GPL, doesn't mean it's useless to a proprietary software company.

Yes, I have to give a big sheepish grin...

I did happen to see that last night when I looked more closely at the information. It's unfortunate that the posting at Newsforge uses such an inflammatory title, and that I just copied the title without looking a little more closely.

So it is not an attempt to outlaw the GPL in general, but simply to prevent government development projects from being released under the GPL.

This is an argument of a much different type. Honestly, in this case, I would not mind if Government research is released under the GPL or a BSD-type license, as long as it is open source, being funded with taxpayer dollars.

Of course, some of the more passionate GPL supporters, such as RMS himself, will be as upset with this argument anyway. In their minds any software release NOT using the GPL is an infringement somehow...

We should still be wary, though, because this letter, and Adam Smith's argument might just be the thin edge of the wedge. For example, once all government is forbid to use the GPL, then it becomes a much simpler matter for certain pocket-lined politicians to start pushing for a general outlawing of the GPL. The argument could just as easily be related to the TCPA, claiming that GPL-ed software doesn't fall in line with "trusted" computing, etc...

(It's quite ironic that "trusted computing" really means quite the converse: namely that the computer users/owners are NOT trusted.)

True. But its not as useful.

With non-GPL'd code, any enhancements or patches can be applied directly to your existing code. With a propietary set of code that is based on a GPL'd set of code, you would have to examine the changes and then figure out how to apply them to your code.

Also you get into a gray area where how much do you have to change the GPL'd design in order to create a non-GPL'd design. Or is this even possible without infringing on the copyleft? Would you have to still do a clean room design ?

Non-GPL'd would be easier for a close-source company to use.

Definately, but is it better for taxpayers?

As for a clean-room implementation, the original argument I read said no. I suppose I could go check, but I have a feeling that the GPL doesn't specify that. Just don't go copy/pasting stuff .

I think the real issue is whether or not a company that may or may not have paid taxes (Microsoft?) should be able to profit from the investment of taxpayers.

I'm actually leaning toward a BSD license being better. I personally prefer the GPL, but in this case I'm wondering if the extra freedoms would cause any harm.

Am I the only person that likes Open Source but NOT the actual GPL license?

I've looked at it a couple of times for my work, but I find it to be a SERIOUS pain in the arse! I won't release anything on it and I don't really like using anything that's GPL'ed because it can be really bloody easy to violate it. Just my random thought on the GPL (back to the thread now )

While I don't actively dislike the GPL, I tend to prefer the BSD approach. BSD people seem just a little more... relaxed about all the perceived social conflict between businesses, individuals, freedom, etc... Also, my 4 favorite pieces of software use a BSD-style license: FreeBSD, PostgreSQL, Apache, and PHP. Each of these are IMHO the most robust and stable of their breed.

So my reasons are both technical and intuitive. It just seems to me that people using the BSD-style approach are a little more interested in just getting the job done, rather than repeatedly informing us as to how we should live our lives.

But in general, I am quite laid back about this whole thing. As I said above, The only thing I am really concerned about is preservation of personal choice. Once any party takes steps to remove choices from the others, then I start to get worried.

There is an article at slashdot which takes a more balanced and informative look at this story.