In parts I & II, I talked a bit about my distrust of free software and open source’s legacy. Where do the evil corporations fit into this and where is all the money coming from? I already stated that developers have to eat and most of those working on open-source are being paid by someone. Corporations are purely based in self-interest and therefore would never subsidize or support an industry that does not have fiscal reward. The little moneymaking secret is the GPL.
GPL does not assign the ownership right. If you GPL your work, you still own it (unless you assign it over to the FSF and Richard). Of course, anyone can pretty much use your software for free (as in beer) - or at least the current version of it, as long as they don’t want to use it in proprietary software. So there’s the rub. If I want to do anything but create other open-source software, I can’t do it with your GPL code.
So what is an enterprising company going to do? Since they still own the code, they are going to release the code under a non-free (in either sense) proprietary license and charge you for it. No harm done right?
The harm is that these organizations sell themselves as philanthropic shepherds of the code. As people modify and improve the code, the ownership rights are generally relegated back to the original owner of the base project. The only problem is, these shepherds then turn around and sell the hard work of the community to others. They restrict how all of the contributors use the code and only allow true “freedom” when you put up the hard cash.
No one forces these developers to give their free time so someone else can profit off the work of their labor. I just think it’s ethically and morally wrong. The “owners” of MySQL are “revered” for their use of GPL, but are truly just seeking a buck. As a matter of fact, the GPL crowd berates the proprietary crowd for their money-seeking ways but are completely blind to the fact that they themselves are facilitating profiteering.
Woe be to the indie developer who wishes to sell a proprietary application to feed his family. He’s a capitalist pig. Companies profiting off their GPL software, idealist saviors of all, are fine and good. It’s just bogus. At least it’s very clear the indie developer’s motivations. They don’t hide behind a thin veil of philanthropy.
What is mildly amusing is the recent announcements of the sell of MySQL AB to Sun and Trolltech to Nokia. Both of these companies (MySQL and Trolltech) make money by selling software under proprietary licenses while marketing themselves as virtuous purveyors of GPL code. A single license of Qt from Trolltech can easily cost upwards of $3000 or more. Those who truly understand the licensing can see the possible fun. Either of these companies could stop licensing their code under GPL tomorrow. Sure, you could still use the version of source code available today in your GPL projects, but you would ALWAYS be required to buy the proprietary version for use in your own proprietary code. Of if you wanted the latest and greatest. Of if you wanted the support that only the parent company could likely provide. How is this free?
There is such a sense of security in the GPL. It is purely a fallacy. I will note, some GPL (primarily owned by the FSF) is not dual-licensed and can only be used in other non-proprietary uses - and therefore can’t be monetized really at all. I still don’t consider it free - but it at least isn’t being leveraged hypocritically to make money.
Without the poison pill of the GPL, the other free licenses encourage healthy participation by corporation and individual alike. At least its a straight up proposition. Interestingly enough, I think some of the best of the free software is licensed under the BSD / Apache licenses. At least it truly is free and not tainted by veiled commercial interests (the commercial interests are out in the open for all to see). If a company wants to contribute and make their source available - great. At least it isn’t encumbering my potential use down the line. As much as I dislike IBM, I think they may offer the best example of honest and positive use of open-source (with mostly BSD-style licensing). They employ developers to work on open-source code - returning most of the benefits to the community, then monetize proprietary additions and services based on these open-source projects. This would be nearly impossible with GPL (NOTE: I’m avoiding some pretty complicated licensing / legal nuances regarding GPL’ed operating systems such as Linux and referring primarily to everything else - libraries, applications, etc).
The fact of the matter is that software is something worth paying for - whether it’s IBM paying for it or some indie writing proprietary software for sale. It has value through the labor and innovation required to build it. The GPL dual-licensing tries to hide the fact that it is worth the effort to do in the first place, pretends that software should be “free” from some morally superior high ground, then turns around and forces you to pay for true freedom.
Before I conclude, I want to make one thing very clear. Many amazing developers from many different motivations, both philanthropic and to feed their families (both perfectly reasonable mind you) have created some incredible free software (GPL and otherwise). Nothing in these articles is intended to detract from the work and effort of these developers.
My intentions were twofold. First, I just want to make sure that software development is not seen as a worthless or valueless task. In my mind, software development is nearer art than engineering, or at least I hope it be so. To be honest, whether art or purely manufacturing, it still deserves remuneration.
Secondly, I want the corporations who deceptively hide behind the veil of the philanthropic motivations of the GPL and “Free Software” while monetizing the free labor of others to be exposed for the ilk they are. At least no longer idolized as generous and benevolent with little monetary interest while indies are demonized as capitalist blood-suckers. That’s probably more my own failing than anything else - being bothered that so many venerate what I see as hypocrisy then torch those who are honestly just trying to feed their families.
As a developer and heavy consumer of software, I find myself using both free and proprietary software all the time. I generally seek the best value for my buck. Sometimes it’s proprietary, sometimes it’s free. Sometimes I value free because of the freedom it gives me to extend and control my data. I certainly intend to continue using both. Will I steer clear of those who try to envision the ideal of free software while luring you into the trap of use restrictions? Absolutely. Especially when two good products exist for which to choose (i.e. PostgreSQL vs. MySQL). While open-source can be very positive, the GPL for me will always incite distrust, and those who use it for monetary gain at the expense of developers and the rest of the software development community, with disdain..
Share this:
These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
Just another husband, father, employee, software developer, writer, liver of life. More available