A pretty interesting article about the GPL

[EdiieLives]

Click me (http://www.delilah.itcsalvemini.org/lust/GNU-Articles/New%20World%20Order.html)

I just want to know any opinions and toughts about this... the part I find really interesting is where it shows how GPL software won't work as commercial software if it's to spread too much.. if you agree with it, is there anything you think that might work to support GPL program making as a job?

[XiaoKJ]

It shows good concerns, but saying that GPL will become a monopoly is quite out of the box.

FIrstly, the GPL is kept down by the rich people in the world as they want to protect their property. This is where software patents and licenses become important.

Also, what goes up must come down. GPL may rise to take up the majourity of the economy like windows is now, but will, nevertheless, fall to its doom one day. The BSD license may one day overtake GPL.

Despite GPL, many companies like Lindows.com is still making rich revenues... Licenses, like law itself is, is always exploited to some form or another, and people are lazy enough to never learn. they may just pay up then learn how to operate...This is why windows is capable to win [just one of the many factors] -- with windows come a standard whereby everything is used to work, with emulators to keep the standard in place. people need not learn new things or whatever.

I think GPL is still relevant in today's context.

[Ludootje]

Just scimmed through the article... he makes some mistakes and misses some points.

But in the early 90s, as said before, when PCs became powerful enough to run UNIX, a Finnish student by the name of Linus Torvalds, decided to modify the kernel of MINIX.
He didn't touch the MINIX kernel code, or any other kernel code. (unlike what Ken Brown from AdTI is trying to claim with his 'Linus didn't make Linux' bull****)

The software would be useless without the hardware anyway. The only downside could be that competitors could modify your firmware for their hardware, rather than developing their own.
That's not a downside! This is one of the biggest upsides of the GPL: the competitors will use it, enhance it, fix bugs, and deploy it. When it's deployed, the original manufacturer can apply those fixes/enhancements to his/her own product, and so on.
This results to financial savements for both companies (i.e. less development time to pay for), and a better overall product for the end customer.

An example of this scenario is Quake from IDsoftware. The game engine is free, but the textures, sound, maps and other content are not.
Yes, a good example of what I'm saying: that engine resulted in some great games being created.

In general, I disagree with most of the article, although some things are correct. (didn't read it completely though, as I said)

[sharth]

But they lose a competitive advantage of being the only group with those fixes...

[psi42]

Some GNU supporters are against Microsoft because of the monopoly position that they hold. But the GPL is more or less forcing a monopoly for itself aswell, since all source that touches GPL should become GPL aswell, which will eventually lead to a GPL-monopoly. And given the disadvantages of GPL that I have addressed, will this be an improvement? I don't think so.

Hmm... this reminds me of a certain executive who called the GPL "virus-like" :)

[maccorin]

i may as well admit i didn't click the link.

but umm.... GPL == license, not company, so how can it become a monopoly....?

[EdiieLives]

Originally posted by psi42
Hmm... this reminds me of a certain executive who called the GPL "virus-like" :)

:eek: Well I actually I find that funny hehe..

My surprise comes when I see that the main concern of people is that the GPL can possibly stablish a monopoly. If I understand correcty, he means that if most software became GPL, it would be some sort of monopoly because the trend to show your code would dominate instead of selling closed source software and those would be the minority and would be doing what we are doing with closed source software, showing the flaws of open source software.

What I'm concerned about is, what if the GPL manages to be succesful, how would it be used for porfit? For example, with SUSE, if GPL became successful, more people would give others downloads to SUSE and that would be the way most people would get it instead of buying it.