Eric S. Raymond on GPL and BSD licenses. & Microsoft coming to Linux

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at yahoo.com
Mon Mar 30 14:36:44 PDT 2009


On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:00:02 -0400, Yigal Chripun <yigal100 at gmail.com>  
wrote:

> sources are not the only issue here. Linux is a monolithic kernel. that  
> means everything in it (including drivers) are one process. You already  
> know that. usually when you want to find (and fix) a problem, you'd use  
> a debugger which allows you to see the memory of the process. there's no  
> way to make the debugger show only the memory belonging to the open  
> source parts of the code. even if you just see the asm of that closed  
> source driver, it'd be reasonable to assume there may be someone evil  
> enough to sue you based on that.

No, it would not be reasonable.  In fact that would just be a nice fat  
paycheck for the plaintiff's lawyer (and probably the defendant's lawyer)  
and nothing else.

Nobody can expect someone to glimpse at machine code and later recall how  
it was coded so they can use it in their own code.  Not assembly, machine  
code.  This so-called defendant would have to specifically go looking for  
code in random memory, then either disassemble it or hand-parse the  
machine code.  I've debugged plenty of code on Microsoft's OS, and I  
haven't ever been sued, or had any worry of being sued, because I  
accidentally saw some of their disassembled code.  My interpretation of  
the non-support from these developers was "we don't like non-GPL'd  
software, so we aren't going to help you," not "Oh, well if we look at  
this binary code someone might sue us."  I think you are reading an issue  
into this that doesn't exist.

> people in the US sued MacDonald's because their coffee was hot (and they  
> even won the case!). other people sued a company since their peanuts  
> contains nuts. why would a developer is free to assume he/she won't be  
> sued for accidentally seeing the memory of that closed source driver in  
> the debugger?

Anyone can sue you for anything.  To say that they will win is another  
thing.  Nobody's going to sue someone for seeing machine code in memory  
that happens to be of proprietary software, not because they are nice, but  
because they'd have no case.

In the McDonald's case, the coffee was not just hot, the coffee caused 3rd  
degree burns, which required skin grafting.  The jury awarded punitive  
damages in excess of 2.8 million *not* at the request of the plaintiff,  
but because they believed McDonald's would not change their policy (of  
making their coffee 20-30 degrees hotter than any other vendor) unless  
they did so.  That is what punitive damages are for.  The lady only sought  
to have her medical costs covered (which McDonald's refused).  This case  
has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with copyright law, so I have no idea why you  
brought it up.  People always point to this case as an example of  
ridiculous judgements, but this one actually strikes me as fair.

Other examples of lawsuits are definitely frivolous.  If that peanut case  
is true, I'd use that one instead (it sounds too ridiculous to be true,  
I'd appreciate a citation).  But let's not forget you are citing a small  
number of bizarre cases in an ocean of lawsuits that actually make sense.   
To worry that someone might frivolously sue you is like worrying that you  
might trip over your shoelaces and so you don't ever wear shoes.

>> I never said that open source software isn't important or useful. I just
>> don't think you need the GPL to protect the openness of the software
>> these days. In the beginning, there were very few people working on open
>> source software, so GPL protected them, and did a good job of keeping
>> the movement alive. Now there are a ton of people doing open source
>> under a ton of licenses (many not GPL-like). If the GPL all of a sudden
>> went away, would open source developers stop developing open source
>> software or would they just switch to a different license? Is it that
>> horrible if a company uses your open source software together with
>> closed source software but still gives you credit?
>
> sometimes it is very horrible, and sometimes not. I'm not for  
> generalizations and think that each project should use the best license  
> for it. some projects should be GPLed , some not. GPL is not redundant  
> as you may claim since there are projects that use it. as I already  
> said, all kinds of licenses have a place in our world, and I strongly  
> disagree with the notion that only the licenses that you (or me) like  
> should exist.

My assertion is not that the GPL should be illegal or be forcibly removed,  
my assertion (and ESR's as I interpret it) is that GPL'd software doesn't  
foster as much productivity or usefulness as other open source licenses,  
and therefore should be avoided.  Why should anyone use GPL when there are  
much less restrictive licenses available?  The world is full of for-profit  
companies using open source software, and the vast majority of them don't  
touch GPL'd software unless they have to.  Why is that?

>>> "I see little to no value in a for-profit company using it [the GPL]"
>>> how do you explain Red-Hat's success? there are many many companies
>>> that gain a lot by using GPL and they are certainly not forced to use  
>>> it.
>>
>> Red hat has good software, that is why they are successful. They also
>> sell their services for updates, AND I believe they have some non GPL'd
>> enterprise software, but I'm not sure, I don't buy their stuff anymore.
>>
>> But I think you are wrong about the "many many" part. There are only 2
>> companies selling Linux as fully open source software that I know of --
>> Red Hat and SuSe. All the others have gone (and there were a lot of
>> them, especially after Red Hat's IPO). Selling open source, and
>> particularly GPL'd software is difficult, I don't think it can sustain
>> many companies. I would not be surprised if the number of closed source
>> companies (those selling at least SOME closed source software) outnumber
>> the number of open source companies by 1000 to 1.
>>
>
> Linux is hardly the only project that is GPLed nor is it the best  
> example of the use of GPL. there are many GPLed projects that provide  
> companies with various business models for free (libre) software. I just  
> used Red Hat as an example.

Sure, it is not the only project that is GPL'd, but it is one of the only  
GPL'd projects out there that is the basis of a successful company.  I  
don't really know of any others.  So here is a challenge, name 10 of those  
companies.

-Steve



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list