I like their free spirited developers who contribute to open source without expecting any monetery benefits and instead contribute their time and knowledge to the overall betterment of software. Open source (As I see it) is not about competing with propritiery code. It isn't and shouldn't be aimed at commercializing and capturing market share. It is about going about doing what people are passionate about which is building world class software without the limits imposed by the propritiery code. It is all about the freedom to tinker with the existing code and creative derivative works. It is about focusing on one thing which is to build great software rather than focussing on interests of shareholders.
What I don't understand is why Sun's President Jonathan Schwartz is critical of GPL. If he understands the purpose and the tenets of GPL, he wouldn't be critizing it. I sure don't agree with some one taking a GPLed code and create a derivative that is proprietiery.
And I really really think that the core tenet of GPL which requires all the derivative works to be free as well should be preserved. Without that I ask, what is the purpose of open source? Without it, Open source would be a way for companies to hire developers for free and take all the profit without giving anything back. If it really needs to be amended, I suggest requiring the derivative works to give 50% of their profits back to the community :-)
The only thing I hate is the MS bashing the OSS advocates do which is contrary to their mission. They seem to get their motivation out of this bashing which isn't appealing to me.
My comments shouldn't be taken as my disagreement with propritiery source. I am part of it but I salute those who give their time to a common good and expect nothing in return. This is like saluting the soldiers who defend the country putting their lives at risk because chose to do so.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Read his blog. He's not anti-GPL, he's anti-American companies going to developing nations saying "here use this" as a means of defanging them from competing.
In response, I just read Schwartz's blog and here is what he says:
"..First, because we felt the existing licenses had serious flaws - the Mozilla Public License, for example, restricts from the issuer any power to change the license, and predetermines all disputes must be heard in Santa Clara, California (not good if you're a Bolivian developer). Alternatively, the GPL expressly limits choice by disallowing the inclusion of non-GPL code into GPL projects - and exports a form of IP colonialism to nations seeking to create their own means of production."
Here are the 2 things that I don't understand:
1. GPL or MPL are not products to have flaws. They are licenses and I would have called it "restrictive" rather than "flaws". This shows that Schwartz isn't still getting it.
2. GPL has no boundaries. All it tries to preserve is the culture and once you allow non-GPLed code to mix it is as good as propritiery code.
Post a Comment