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

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Michael K. Edwards (m.k.edwards@gmail.com):

> Precisely.  And in fact the GPL is an excellent solution to the
> problem that it originally was designed to solve -- assuring the
> recipient of the code that he can modify it to fit his needs, and pass
> it (modified or not) to others with similar needs, while assuring the
> upstream author that her code base, enhanced or ported by an outside
> vendor, will not become a tool for vendor lock-in against her own
> organization. 

Lest we forget:  It also, as part of a multi-licensing model, can be a
marketing tool for selling a proprietary-licensed instance of the
codebase:  Customers can see the merit of using and building on the GPL
(or other copyleft) instance, and thereby be motivated to pay for the
proprietary one to permit third-party uses that the copyleft one doesn't
allow.

> People outside the industry -- and as far as I am concerned that
> includes ESR, who does not appear ever to have run a software or
> services business -- are unfamiliar with the actual economics of any
> of these situations, and in any case tend to think exclusively in
> terms of the consumer software sector.  For ESR to pontificate about
> the superior economics of the GPL, when his interviewer knows more
> about modern developments with respect to the GPL and trademarks and
> patents than he does, is pretty funny.

I'm probably not competent to speak to software/services microeconomics,
but would like to mention, in case it's relevant, that Eric _does_ have
a demonstrated excellent grasp of licence mechanics and applicable law
(including trademark and patents).  Please see, for example, his and
Catherine Olanich Raymond's Licensing HOWTO
(http://www.catb.org/~esr/Licensing-HOWTO.html).

I'm disinclined to play credentialism.  Whether this has anything to do
with my lack of credentials, you be the judge.  ;->

> Andrew Tridgell knew what he was doing, as did Larry McVoy.  There is
> considerable prior art on vendor lock-in and its discontents (some of
> it created by Andrew and Larry themselves), and I didn't see anything
> particularly insightful in that part of ESR's comments.

He's one of very few who have clearly and unambiguously stated that
Tridge did nothing wrong, and explained why in a fashion that could be
understood by any layman.  I find that valuable.

> If you ask me, if he wants to retain celebrity status (which has, I
> think, been of some economic use to him), he's going to have to work a
> little harder.

"You got money off being famous" objections have always struck me as
more than a little facile, not to mention the supposition that Eric's
obliged to work at making you or me happy.