Peter Yared, chief executive of ActiveGrid, an open-source company, originally planned to ship its software development tools under the GPL but adopted the Mozilla Apache license instead after an early prospective customer said it wouldn’t touch GPL code. Yared says he and others in the open source community wasted two years trying to counter all the SCO-related FUD with customers. Just as that cloud is being lifted, along comes Stallman and the GPLv3 to mess everything up again.
Money quotes:
“SCO and Stallman are the two worst things that have happened to Linux. This is complete bullshit. The guy has his own agenda. Stallman is going to keep doing what he’s been doing, but on this one he’s going to go off a cliff. No one wants to put up with it.”
And:
“The true definition of free software, for all of us who were hobbyists back in the ’80s, was that we all did software under a public domain license. You can do whatever you want with it. It’s not like open source was this new thing invented by Stallman. His idea was to force people to contribute stuff back. When you start putting your claws into people it’s not free anymore.”
And:
“Stallman and these other guys, it’s like Bush-ism, where Republicans come out with some dumbed-down messages. He’s calling it free software, but it’s not. It’s got a bunch of strings attached. People think the GPL is restrictive enough already. Now they want to add more restrictions. People have humored him but now he’s pushing it too far. GPLv3 will go the way of all the other garbage licenses.”
RSS
4 responses so far ↓
Peter Yared // October 16, 2006 at 6:24 pm
Another great article, Dan! Yikes I forgot I went off like that. But you forgot the funny one we have all been laughing about at ActiveGrid, Stallman’s “free software” is like “free checking,” there are a bunch of conditions on it!
Crosbie Fitch // October 18, 2006 at 4:03 am
If you change ‘restrictions’ into ‘protections’ you can see where the agenda is.
The only people upset by more protections (of the public’s freedom) appearing in the GPL are those who would like to take the public’s freedom away.
Free software liberates the public to enjoy published GPL software. The ‘P’ stands for public. Published GPL software belongs to the public, and they shall not be restricted.
If you want to control your own GPL software, don’t publish it. If you still believe in copyright and want to restrict the public’s use of the non-free software that you publish, well, just use the magic sigil (C) with no license.
Dan Lyons // October 18, 2006 at 9:08 am
Well in your zeal to “protect” the public you are threatening to screw up an operating system that some of us members of the “public” enjoy. And the “public” doesn’t own this code — if we did you guys couldn’t jerk everyone around. The code is owned and controlled by RMS, who has convinced developers (thank God not Linus Torvalds) to sign over their copyright to him. That’s not “public” ownership. That’s RMS “hoarding” code and then demanding a price for it (by dictating the way others behave). In other words, it’s exactly the behavior that RMS rails against in others. I can’t believe you need to have this explained to you. (I suspect that you don’t need it explained.)
Anyway, as for making life even more difficult for Linux distributors, hey, fantastic work, dude. Which “public” are you protecting? Face it, this has nothing to do with the “public,” since 95% of “the public” are happy with Windows and 3% more are happy with Macs. This is about the “public” as defined by RMS and a few others. This has to do with the narrow agenda of a few radicals led by RMS, with the ultimate goal of creating a world where all software can be freely copied. In such a world companies could not make money selling software. Fair enough; that’s what RMS is after. Why do you guys never dare say this? It’s in the GNU Manifesto. But you always have to play this coy doublespeak game about how you’re actually pro-business and pro-capitalism. Please. If you want to play Che Guevara and embrace an anti-private property agenda, at least have the courage to admit it.
What’s next? Will you protest outside bookstores because those poor books are being held “prisoner” on the shelves, penned up and kept in cardboard boxes in dank warehouses? Set the books free! The “public” has a right to free books! The “public” also has a right to free movies, and free music! End the tyranny of Blockbuster movie “prisons,” and shopping mall music stores, holding discs captive! Storm the Virgin Megastore! And restaurants! Chefs are keeping recipes to themselves! Free the recipes! Free the ingredients! It is a crime against humanity to hoard food in restaurant kitchens while the “public” is hungry! Chefs are making obscene amounts of money by hoarding food and charging high prices for meals. But they cannot help their neighbors! Free the carrots! Free the steaks! (Of course you can’t do this because RMS didn’t create these books, movies, music or recipes; and he hasn’t convinced any authors, musicians, filmmakers or chefs to sign their rights over to him.)
Oh, but you’re all about “protecting” the “public.” You’re the heroes of the people. And all those new open-source companies like ActiveGrid, Zimbra, and so on, who won’t touch the GPL with a 10-foot pole, they’re just “evil” and “enemies of freedom” and “out to hurt the public.” Is that it? Dude, you guys are absolutely full of you-know-what.
Crosbie Fitch // November 3, 2006 at 12:30 pm
I’m actually a very strong proponent of private intellectual property and fully support the right of any member of the public to sell their private IP for any price the market will bear. They’ve done the hard labour, they should be permitted to exchange this labour on the free market accordingly.
This also applies to GPL software. Any individual or business should be free to modify GPL code and sell their modifications for any price they can get for them.
Just as there are many in the Open Source camp who found the GPLv2 agreeable, so there are many in the Gift Economy camp (APL/HPL) who would have GPLv3 made agreeable to them.
These gift economists believe private modifications to GPL code must be provided on request without charge.
I am in diametric opposition to this movement, so perhaps you can see I have credentials that demonstrate full support of the principle that authors of GPL code have a right to sell their work.
Like gas stations in rural Texas after 10 pm, comments are closed.