[tlug] Re: [OT] Say _no_ to the Microsoft Office format as an ISO standard

["Gernot Hassenpflug" <aikishugyo@example.com>]

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:46:33 +0900 I received from Darren Cook:

> > How do you convince developers that giving others the right to close the
> > code they took so much time to write is a benefit ?

> Because it attracts more users and developers, and the altruistic ones
> will outnumber the selfish ones.

Interesting topic,

Personally I don't buy that argument, but I won't deny that is a valid "reason"
either.

> When I need a library for a client project typically I only consider
> MIT/BSD. If it is GPL I'll need to spend time clearing its use with my
> client's lawyers: quicker to write it myself. If it is commercial I'll
> need to get budget approved: quicker to write it myself.  (Of course,
> large or complex libraries are a different matter; then there are hard
> decisions to be made.)

Right, nothing is clear cut: when something doesn't fit well
compromise is needed.

/../

> Most companies are more than happy to get their bug fixes and new
> features rolled back into open source projects: it is in their own best
> interest. They don't need the strong-arm of GPL to force them. Once a
> project is branched and only used internally all the benefits of open
> source are lost.

> But companies like to have that option. And so they avoid GPL. So GPL
> projects miss out on lots of developers and users, and instead the
> functionality of that project has to be re-invented.

You state that some companies don't choose GPL (the reasons are not
clear to me, except in so far as the company is assumed to want the
power of being able to close its software at any time - are you
referring to companies in Japan or in a wider sense here?), but I
don't understand what you are promoting here (a different license?). I
get that you are saying that companies want to do what they want to do
(get something for less than they can sell it for, including other
people's code). That they only want people to look at their code when
they want them to. Maybe that's how many companies operate, especially
in an environment of patent cases where may seem safer in the short
term (I don't buy that either, we just need a law that forces
companies to have their software scanned for patent infringements by
an overseeing body made up of patent holders, hehe) to not have
possible enemies with deep pockets looking at your source code.

I don't pretend to understand open source and licensing much, but I
bet that one can make a good case that companies that decry GPL for
the reasons you stated above don't understand it either. The IPA here
in Japan (IIRC) has funded plenty of projects whereby printer makers
for example get taxpayer money to writer closed-source drivers and
interfaces that legally allow working together with a GPL-licensed
Ghostscript.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug