Is use of the GPL really decreasing?

Sam Varghese
Wednesday, 12 August 2009 12:12

Opinion and Analysis

A second statement reads, in part "you've got to give it away for free, and you've got to give the source code away for free as well." This is a quote from an analyst who has been interviewed as part of the article. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The GPL FAQ states very clearly that you can sell a program, charge for downloading it, and that distribution can be charged for as well.

One major point which the author has failed to deal with in detail - and which the post has raised - is how one deals with the plethora of new licences in the event that a number of libraries need to be used for development and each is released under a different licence.

As the poster has pointed out, the Free Software Foundation has clearly outlined the compatibility of the GPL and other licences whereas the creators of other licences leave it to the user to work out.

The article also has a statement from the editor that an attempt was made to interview FSF founder and the original GPL author, Richard M. Stallman, "but he demanded control of what we published, so we declined."

It would have been good if the author had been specific about what exactly Stallman wanted to control; I have obtained comment from him on more occasions than I care to remember and the only things he has been particular about have been the use of GNU/Linux (to indicate the enormous contribution that the GNU Project has made to the operating system) and to be careful to differentiate between free software and open source software.

I really see no problem with that even if people may say that he is being pedantic about both issues.

However, if Stallman had insisted on onerous terms, then the author should have let the public know. The words "demanded control of what we published" raise visions of some kind of Stalinist dictator at work and brings back memories, to me, of the emergency in India when newspapers which had guts ran empty spaces on the front page rather than submit to the censored versions of news.

That apart, it would have been good to see, in a four-page article, some quotes from the other side of the fence - from people who have moved from other licences to the GPL.

It looks to me as though the author had a premise/angle and then went about looking for people who could substantiate it - rather than being confronted by a collection of facts which led him to a conclusion. The quotes from the head of the Apache Software Foundation are an indication in this direction, as it is well known that the Apache licence has always been incompatible with the GPL.