Comments on: Sleeping with the GPL http://martysmind.com/2008/02/10/sleeping-with-the-gpl/ Marty Poulin's Random Thoughts Thu, 15 Jan 2009 20:48:28 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Marty Poulin http://martysmind.com/2008/02/10/sleeping-with-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Marty Poulin Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:58:09 +0000 http://martysmind.com/2008/02/10/sleeping-with-the-gpl/#comment-88 Hi Chuck, Looking at it as an outsider I think there are a number of factors. 1) The GPL seams to be designed to redefine the roles of programmers from IP producers into service providers. With client software the service is simply a different model (consulting, customization etc). 2) It is harder to enforce on the server. It would be simple to hide the use of GPL'd software. 3) Not allowing software to be monetized as a service limits the products adoption. In a nutshell limiting GPL'd softwares use as a service would limit its adoption, utility and enforceability. Also remember that the owner of the GPL'd software can dual license the product and is therefor not bound by the GPL. While I do use some GPL'd software, I prefer much less restrictive and viral licenses, even as a service. Each use of software, commercial or FOSS, requires some due diligence to determine fitness and total cost of ownership. There are many factors that lead to the success or failure of an FOSS project, the license is one of the elements that can add friction for adoption. We are already seeing a division and duplication of effort as a result of license requirements. It will be interesting to see how each license competes. -Marty Hi Chuck,

Looking at it as an outsider I think there are a number of factors.

1) The GPL seams to be designed to redefine the roles of programmers from IP producers into service providers. With client software the service is simply a different model (consulting, customization etc).

2) It is harder to enforce on the server. It would be simple to hide the use of GPL’d software.

3) Not allowing software to be monetized as a service limits the products adoption.

In a nutshell limiting GPL’d softwares use as a service would limit its adoption, utility and enforceability. Also remember that the owner of the GPL’d software can dual license the product and is therefor not bound by the GPL.

While I do use some GPL’d software, I prefer much less restrictive and viral licenses, even as a service. Each use of software, commercial or FOSS, requires some due diligence to determine fitness and total cost of ownership.

There are many factors that lead to the success or failure of an FOSS project, the license is one of the elements that can add friction for adoption. We are already seeing a division and duplication of effort as a result of license requirements. It will be interesting to see how each license competes.

-Marty

]]> By: Chuck Esterbrook http://martysmind.com/2008/02/10/sleeping-with-the-gpl/comment-page-1/#comment-87 Chuck Esterbrook Wed, 13 Feb 2008 09:12:30 +0000 http://martysmind.com/2008/02/10/sleeping-with-the-gpl/#comment-87 As someone recently pointed out on a mailing list, the GPL seems very arbitrary in that you don't have to distribute your source if you provide a service, but you do if you provide a product. In other words, the GPL promotes software-as-services over software-as-products. Why should someone creating software with an XML-RPC interface get to keep their mods private while someone distributing a library be forced to reveal their mods? As someone recently pointed out on a mailing list, the GPL seems very arbitrary in that you don’t have to distribute your source if you provide a service, but you do if you provide a product. In other words, the GPL promotes software-as-services over software-as-products.

Why should someone creating software with an XML-RPC interface get to keep their mods private while someone distributing a library be forced to reveal their mods?

]]>