ESR: "We Don't Need the GPL Anymore"

[Tony Godshall]

> [David N. Welton]
> 
> > I don't think the GPL is no longer necessary.  
 
[Rick Moen]
> Good point.  When people ask me "What licence should I use for [project foo]?",
> the only reasonable and sensible answer I can think of is
> "It depends entirely on what licence effects you're trying to achieve."
> 
> I suspect Eric spoke in something of a flamebaiting fashion to achieve
> some sort of street theatre effect (I'm guessing, obviously), but doubt
> he'd claim GPL or other copyleft licensing is inappropriate for someone
> who has a specific reason for wanting copyleft mechanisms.
> 
> In any event, hardly anyone bothered to fairly consider Eric's point,
> e.g., "As far back as 1998, I suspected that allegiance to the GPL is
> actually evidence that open source developers don't really believe their
> own story. That is, if we really believe that open source is a superior
> system of production, and therefore that it will drive out closed source
> in a free market, then why do we think we _need_ infectious licensing?" 

Well, that's ESR point.  I don't think all open source developers 
would agree that his market-oriented justification is the only or
last word; many have moral and ethical reasons (exemplified of 
course by RMS whose motivation is entirely moral and vehemently 
objects to the the term itself).

For most people on the side of GPL I think the issue is theft of 
work... that is "I wrote this, I meant for it to be free to all, 
and I want it to remain free"... i.e. fairness.

My own position is, like Rick's, that it's the developer's 
choice, and depends upon what the developer wants to acheive.  

But at the same time, if said developer want other developers to 
participate, without paying them, the developer should commit to 
not taking the project private at a later date.  That can most 
obviously be done by license, tho it can also be done 
institutionally (e.g. by establishing a foundation).