[Previous entry: "Microsoft in league with Internet foes, film at 11"] [Next entry: "Day one vulnerability in IE"]

06/09/2004: "The GPL is science"

Says here that Linux is a leprosy.

It also says:

"The Samizdat report recommends that the U.S. government should invest $5 billion in research and development efforts that produce true open source products, such as BSD and MIT license-based open source. Government investment in open source development will accelerate innovation."

Which is, I think the root of the matter. Namely, that the persons who funded this crapfest are really attempting to convince the U.S. government that the GPL is bad for the country. Stated differently, it is the GPL that they fear, not "Open Source". Code that can be stolen with only credit given (e.g. that covered by a BSD or MIT license) is good, because Microsoft can use BSD code in their OS, leveraging the work of others, with nothing given back.

This isn't possible with the GPL. It's always there, blatantly in your face, telling you "You may not use this code in proprietary ways.'' If a company takes your work, repackages it and sells the repackaging and service for it, your code is still available. It isn't legally permissible for them to take your code, incorporate it into another product and sell that product without also making the code to that product available for the cost of distribution.

One of the major differences between the GPL and the MIT and BSD licenses is that the GPL requires distribution of the source code, while the MIT and BSD licenses permit same. If you read permit as allow, you'll get the right gist of the difference.

The GPL is rooted in science. Modern science was born in the 18th century when scientists began openly publishing their methods and results. Before the arrival of modern scientists, the pseudo-scientists of their day were known as "alchemists". These deluded individuals insisted on keeping their work proprietary for much the same reason that latter-day pseudo-scientists keep their work secret.

The GPL forces re-distribution of others work that you incorporate in your work, but only if you decide to distribute your work (for gain or not). The BSD and MIT licenses do not, and thus, great work, like the TCP/IP stack from BSD can now be found in Windows.

Stallman created the GPL because he realized that maintaining the progress due to this open scientific tradition is far more important than providing free labor for rip-off artists. The freedom of the GPL is the same as the freedom of true Science--progress through open sharing of knowledge, allowing us to stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before, so that we may see farther than they.

This is the reason why I think that Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, and others involved with the term "Open Source" have done the computing world a great dis-service. Fighting words, I know, but their reaction against the GPL and its "confrontational attitude":

We realized it was time to dump the confrontational attitude that has been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that motivated Netscape. We brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source," contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing we came up with.

was basically a tip-off that we should have all recognized, but didn't. "Open Source" is not simply a new name on the idea that the source must be available for any program that incorporates code that is licensed that way. Rather, it dilutes the freedom that rms sought. Eric and Bruce positioned that they were making Free Software safe for business, when in fact they were working to confuse the rank and file with a new term, a term that they controlled, and could use for their gain.

Quoth RMS, "Unlike some of you, I am not an open source developer. I'm an activist in the free software movement."

See Why Free Software is better than Open Source for more explanation about the difference between the free software movement and the open source movement.

Stallman says it all far better than I.