MS-Funded Study Attacks GPL3 Draft Process 206
QCMBR writes "A new Microsoft-funded study by a Harvard Business School professor concludes that developers don't want extensive patent licensing requirements in the GPL3. There are significant problems with the study, however, especially given the very small sample size. 'Although 332 emails were sent to various developers, only 34 agreed to participate in the survey — an 11 percent response rate. Of the 34 developers who responded, many of them are associated with projects like Apache and PostgreSQL that don't even use the GPL.' Ars points out that the GPL3 draft editing and review process is highly transparent and inclusive 'to an extent that makes MacCormack's claims of under-representation seem difficult to accept given the small sample size of the study and the number of respondents who contribute to non-GPL projects.'"
Naturally (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Naturally (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:2, Informative)
A lot of it revolves around the decades-old debate between the BSD- or MIT-styled licenses, and the GPL-styled licenses. Essentially, what we find is that those who scream the loudest about giving freedom often are actually the biggest proponents of limiting it. That's what we have with the GPLv2, for instance. It puts some pretty serious restrictions on what can be done with modifi
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
We run into the same problem with those who preach tolerance. Often, those people are extremely intolerant of those who preach intolerance. So on one hand we hear them say how great tolerance is, but we witness their inability to practice tolerance when they're facing those who are intolerant.
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, and by outlawing slavery we're restricting people freedom to own slaves.
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:4, Interesting)
Right, well *obviously* we need a new licensing scheme which will limit the freedom to limit the limits on limiting freedom. Duh.
Much like Ronald Reagans Starwars-programme engineering advisors who, when asked what the US would do if the Russians build anti-anti-missile missiles responded "Then we'll build anti-anti-anti-missile-missile missiles".
Honestly, its a no-brainer for anyone who has read Lewis Carroll..
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So taking this same line of reasoning, the degree of freedom for society as a whole has been decreased by eliminating the freedom to own slaves.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No freedom is maximized for the community by having the absolute minimum number of restirctions necessary to ensure freedom. To be free in a community means that nobody else can take away your freedom. To ensure freedom for everyone, nobody may be allowed to own slaves.
That's what the GPL does, establish the minimum necessary restrictions on you to ensure freedom for
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I don't think so.
The GPL is a decent license (though certainly not perfect) for commercial open source projects because it means you are not competing against well-funded companies taking your code. The BSD license has other advantages in other cases.
License wars are fun but not altogether enlightening.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's nonsensical. If I download code, with the intent of using that code for something, I am the user. GPL has some pretty harsh restrictions on what the users of the code can do. MIT and BSD licenses also have some restrictions, but they're no where near as restrictive as the GPL.
As far as I can tell, neither BSD, MIT, or GPL licenses really care about the people who only intend to use the compiled software. The only real difference for the final end user is that they'll ignore "This product cont
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason legit rules exist is so that people cannot restrict other's rights or infringe on their property (physical, tangible property, that is. It's not property if I can receive it and you can keep it). The GPL does the first.
The fact that Microsoft can't go into the Linux kernel, change some things and call it Windows 2.0 is not a bug, it's a feature. Without the restrictions GPL, open projects could NEVER become substantially better than their closed counterparts. Have a new interface that leaves Vista's in the dust? Microsoft can just copy it. BSD/MIT licenses are an unending and unbeatable game of catchup.
All this, mind you, would be unneeded if there was no ability to control code in the first place. Everyone would be on equal footing, even with closed code (decompiling and reverse engineering are much easier than you may think). Is that ever going to happen? Maybe. Any time soon? No. So, the GPL is the realist's way to "software utopia", the BSD/MIT the idealist's.
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:5, Informative)
No. The GPL has no restrictions on what users of the code can do. The GPL isnt an EULA. The GPL is a copyright license, and as such only becomes relevant once you want to do something you would otherwise be forbidden to do by copyright law, ie, copy, modify and distribute.
"care about the people who only intend to use the compiled software."
Care about the people as in ensuring that they too have access to the code, should the software not perform the task they wish? Care about the people as in care about their right to share the software with friends if they enjoy it?
Caring about people takes many forms; sometimes it means denying others the ability to gain power and control over them.
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL is designed to maximize freedom for all recipients - the first user to get the source must offer the same abilities to anyone he chooses to distribute to.
The BSD license is designed to maximize freedom of those who get the software from the original author - almost carte blanche. On the other hand, users of derivative works only have as much freedom as the developers along the chain decide to allow them to have.
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm also not getting what you mean by "[The GPL] actually takes away a lot of freedom..." How so? If I license my code under the GPL, you and anybody else are free to do whatever the GPL states you are allowed to do with the limitations of what the GPL states you are not allowed to do. Without the GPL, you aren't allowed to do anything with my code at all. In other words, just because I choose to license my code to you under terms other than the GPL doesn't make that license automatically BSD. And if I don't license it to you at all, then you can even look at it.
As far as technical excellence goes, what license one uses has nothing to do with ones proficiency at programming. And if you are truly interested in finding the most technically excellent (man this is starting to remind me of Bill and Ted) way to write your piece of software, I would think you would want to know how it is improved in the future by Company X, something the GPL forces them to let you know if they plan to redistribute it. Therefore, it could be argued that those who use licenses like the GPL are really the ones that are truly interested in technical excellence as they want to see a better way to do what they set out to do if anybody ever figures one out.
This comment is insightful??? (Score:2)
The GPL is a kitestring (Score:4, Insightful)
Wrong (Score:2)
I would argue that those involved in BSD licensed projects are either interested in technical experimentation (i.e. the Postgres founders), or are interested in reference implementations, while those who advocate the GPL are interested in avoiding proprietary competition with their projects.
It is just about proprietary competition and the role that plays in a project. In short it should be an economic rather than a religious argument.
Howe
Re: (Score:2)
It does not make a product more Free (BSD does give more freedom).
It does not make a community project more successful (look at Apache and PostgreSQL).
It does allow companies like MySQL to sell additional permissions/proprietary licenses/License exclusions.
The BSD license is great for many things. So is the GPL. They are just great for *different* things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The arguments are pretty sound. (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a piece of code with no special license, just default, plain-jane copyright. If you're not the creator, what freedoms do you have to redistribute it?
None.
Now I think it's pretty clear that you can do what you like with the code up to the point of distribution, though not everyone agrees. Regardless, you have absolutely zero freedoms with regard to redistribution of modified or unmodified code.
Now take a piece of code available under the GPL. If you're not the creator, what freedoms do you have to redistribute it?
You have the freedom to redistribute it as far and as wide as you like, provided that you allow everyone who receives it from you the same freedom. You have the freedom to distribute it modified or unmodified. Furthermore, I've only met a few people who believe that the GPL makes any attempt to restrict what you can do with the code apart from redistribution, and every one of those people seemed very confused about copyright and the GPL.
I take from this all two points.
First, under the current Berne Convention regarding copyright law, recipients of copyrighted code have, by default, no rights to redistribute such code.
Second, under the GPL, recipients of copyrighted code have the right to redistribute such code.
I do agree that the BSD and MIT licenses grant more freedoms, but the argument that the GPL reduces the net freedoms in the world where there is no right to redistribute in modified or unmodified form by default is, pardon the phrase, a patently ridiculous semantic game.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing worth discussing is which developer community was hostile. Who are those that aren't being reached out to
Re: (Score:2)
Good point - it's about as reliable as trusting the information on Vioxx as released by the manufacturers. Big oops!
It's just another episode of M$ spitting out whatever propaganda rubbish they can come up with to stave off the rapid loss of interest in their company.
Re: (Score:2)
In a really lame way, that's pretty fucking funny.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As for the rest of this article, already 95% of the comments are completely worthless "boo Microsoft is so evil" themes. If you want to make an impact in the business world you'd better try and come up with something a little more mature than that.
Ok, got it : :
As the founder as the independent [and self proclaimed] Paris Laboratory of Software Good Practice and Methods, I hereby make the following statement. A recent survey made in a representative sample of the professional programming population gave the following result
- 76% of programmers consider MS products inferior to unix flavors
- 24% consider it superior
Conclusion of the study : Microsoft products fail short of expectations on their ability to leverage innovative processes in terms
Re: (Score:2)
M$ does not participate in GPL in any way shape or form, the neither contribute to it it support, all the do is continually attack it. M$ are doing everything in the power to limit peoples ability to choose. M$ off
Typo! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone can create a biased survey that self-serves their own interests.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that, the studies point the other direction [imageshack.us]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
other studies show different things .. (Score:2)
Is this study biased?
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
The real question is, can one attack the survey based on it's merits? Are there flaws in the research methodology or it's conclusions? I'm betting the answer is "yes". But to write off studies based purely on the messenger is nothing but an ad hominem attack, and isn't terribly useful or enlightening.
Re: (Score:2)
There are two reasons for this to be done, usually, and Slashdot is often guilty of the former-
A) because they can't see past who commissioned the research, and
b) because there IS nothing to attack in the research.
This applies to ALL research which is attacked this way, but Slashdot is enormously guilty of it. Another good example of the former is the whole "climate change" tempest, pardon the pun.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, it means there is an incentive for the people who did the study to be biased. Even without reading the details, if I found a study by Greenpeace saying "there's no global warming" or a study by Exxon saying "we need to cut down on CO2", they'd be a lot more credible (you know they'd at least be honest) than the other way around. The problem with studies (or papers) is that there's only so much fact checking you can
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, the survey is flawed. One word: selection bias.
Now, the second question: cui bono?.
Add those up, and you get a completely worthless survey.
MartRe: (Score:2)
They just don't publish those ones.
Interesting.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Problems not just with the study... (Score:5, Interesting)
On to the study it self, I agree with the authors point that far more then 34 people have participated in the drafting of the GPL v3. Not only GNU folks, but major corporations.
If nothing else, the GPL drafting process doesn't even need to open. The Free Software Foundation could easily have hidden with some lawyers for a couple of months and then simply presented the new GPL. Obviously all the FSF stuff would go over, as would quite a lot of other stuff that has the V2 or later clause. Most developers aren't lawyers, and I'm sure that they would accept the new GPL, even if they didn't have a say in drafting it (compare version two), so long as it looks alright.
Conclusion, the study is stupid and a waste of time. While I don't use the GPL for my own projects (preferring something simpler), they are quite simple projects. For anything major, the GPL does the job, and will no doubt continue to do the job well into the future.
Re:Problems not just with the study... (Score:4, Insightful)
My only problem with GPL v3 as a developer (a hat I've long since given up, and never enjoyed wearing) is that it gives FSF license elitists more reason to feel their license is freer, opener, and in all ways better than any MPL, BSD, or Apache license. I'd rather talk to MS sales division about licensing issues than a bloody GPL zealot.
I have no problem with GPL software, or with the FSF philosophy. I just don't need it shoved down my throat every time I ask a question on a forum or a mailing list. Yes, guys, I get it. Now, how about you help me fix this bug?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think their conclusion that BSD/apache people won't suddenly embrace GPLv3 is probably valid, but you don't need to do a survey for that. And a survey can't determine which is better, GPL versus BSD, because its such a religious issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you figure that lends credence to your arguments?
Unfortunately, he actually does, along with misrepresentation [slashdot.org], shilling his own posts with sockpuppet accounts [slashdot.org], hypocrisy [slashdot.org], blatant flaming [slashdot.org] and ad hominem personal attacks [slashdot.org].
And that's just this week.
What MS does not like the GPL3? (Score:3, Funny)
really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
This prevents them from having a valid opinion of the GPLv3? Maybe they have good reasons for not using the GPL that should be taken into account?
I mean honestly, if you survey 2000 GPL fan boys, what do you suppose they will say about the GPLv3?
Re: (Score:2)
Well if such a small percentage responded (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(Disclaimer: I tend to release my personally written stuff under BSD unless what I'm working on has othe
Ya but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's a double bluff.
Maybe they want you to embrace it by emotionally being attached to it rather than logically evaluating it on it's merits. Maybe GPL3 is bad for open source and Microsoft would like nothing more than illogical and fanatical support for it from the community since Microsoft is against it.
So... (Score:2)
Bugger Me (Score:4, Insightful)
Considering the rather silly deal Microsoft struck with Novell, and the silly deals they'd like to strike with other Linux vendors to get the message across to the corporate sector that if you use open source software you pay Microsoft for IP, this looks a touch suspicious. Maybe the FSF have touched a bit of a nerve somewhere.
It's incredibly funny and rather unbelievably naive that Microsoft would think that anything like this would sway anyone's opinions, certainly in the same manner as one of their 'Get the Facts' studies or one of those 'Windows Server beats everyone' studies. They really haven't learned a whole lot over the years. For them to claim the open source developers, the people who they've derided and don't have much time for Microsoft either, are under represented just seems like quite an above average desperate move.
Almost enough to make me endorse GPL3 (Score:2, Interesting)
MC
Re: (Score:2)
If anything, my gripe is that the GPL3 process is taking so long; I've been sitting on some code for over a year. But getting the license right is to me more important than any particular piece of co
you lost me at MS funded... (Score:3, Informative)
in this day and age, and on slashdot in particular, isn't "MS funded" synonymous with "/ignore"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nah, redirecting to /dev/null allows the malicious statement to remain intact and accessible to stdout before being discarded :-) i'm talking about instantly ignoring whatever follows the term "ms funded".
in unix terms, "ms funded" is an alias for /* or # meaning that the following is a comment that should be ignored by the interpreter/compiler.
I get it... I do, I do understand (Score:2)
11% (Score:3, Insightful)
what a shcoker... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm also more shocked, genuinely that Harvard allows people who conduct "studies" like this to be professors... It's just shocking incompetence. I'd be amazed if you could pass an MBA doing shit like this
Re:what a shcoker... (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on, this is a business school, they don't know any real math. They think statistics is the art of making up numbers to prove their points.
"A Developers' Bill of Rights", proposed by MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, Microsoft is proposing a Bill of Rights, for open source developers! Can you believe that?
Re:"A Developers' Bill of Rights", proposed by MS (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, Microsoft is proposing a Bill of Rights, for open source developers! Can you believe that?
Okay, I will never - ever - again accuse them of lacking a sense of humour.
See, that's what's missing in the arena of world domination: a bit of drollery. I mean, if an power-hungry megalomaniac can't let his hair down from time to time, where's the point in it?
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the S.O.P.? (Score:5, Interesting)
Seriously, though, who gives a crap what a Harvard professor, funded or unfunded, with or without a good sample size, claims the average developer wants? The GPL is not supposed to be populist, it's supposed to achieve a purpose. A purpose that most of the world - heck, even much if not most of Slashdot's readership - has never fully grasped. A purpose that is diametrically opposed to software patents.
What about Microsoft license agreements? (Score:2)
At least they had a choice. Any guesses on how many developers who didn't like the parade of Microsoft licenses (for the OS, tools, etc) got to choose a different licensing instead of what Microsoft rammed down their throats?
A virgin writing about sex? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Many will want it (Score:2, Insightful)
If a company then can go and make changes to your code, and add patented technology which you are not allowed to used, then you are pretty fucked, right?
Why should anybody not want to be protected against this?
The Developer Demographic Data (Score:2, Informative)
Demographic Group
Pragmatists 19
Intellectuals 8
Philosophers 7
GPLv2 / LGPL / GPLv2+Commercial: 20
included: Linux, MySQL, XenSource, Snort, Amanda, JBoss, GCC Toolchain
Non-GPL: 14
Includes:Apache, PHP, Apache Geronimo, Perl, PostgreSQL, Eclipse
Raw Data:
Amanda 2
Apache 4
Apache Geronimo 3
Eclipse 1
GCC Toolchain 4
Jboss 3
Linux Kernel 7
MySQL 1
Perl 2
PHP 2
PostgreSQL 2
Snort 2
XenSource 1
Don't like GPLv3? Use GPLv2 or BSD. (Score:3, Insightful)
If developers are upset that GNU projects will go under a license they don't agree with, well, that's just tough. Either use the BSD equivalents, fork the GPLv2 versions, or write your own. The FSF doesn't exist to please you, it exists to protect the 4 freedoms for all users of free software.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:2)
He Just Needs More Data (Score:2)
I posted this entry [bfccomputing.com] on my blog the other day - as a small developer unable to compete with massive patent portfolios, I believe that Patents + GPL3 is the only way for Open Source to weather the patent storm.
OSS-Funded Study Atacks MS EULA License Process (Score:2)
I can't wait to hear what someone would say about that...
Oh ... let's not wait
Finding One - Microsoft Values Open Source as a Development Model
Let others develop the code while we steal it.
Finding Two - Microsoft Values Building on Others' Work
Let's face it, we couldn't have dunnit by ourselves.
Finding Three - Microsoft wants Choice in Licensing
Yep, the more open source licenses the better. Especially ones where I get to to use your code without any payback.
Finding Four - Microsoft Likes I
With 11% response, you can toss the statistics (Score:2)
Either people were afraid of repercussions for answering it, or people were absolutely and completely indifferent to it.
In turn, those that do answer either answer because they know they agree with a certain commonly agreed stance, or they had to push an agenda (and thus didn't answer honestly, but in the way that furthers their own agenda).
Either way, the statistics is best kept in cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people are genuinely afraid of voicing opposition to what the FSF wants. I've seen that myself on here many times. It's because whenever somebody does try it, they are excoriated, slandered, and sometimes threatened.
Thanks for confirming the validity of GPL 3 (Score:2)
Always nice to hear Eben is getting it right
Microsoft shouldn't talk about "choice" (Score:2)
That's unlike Microsoft software, where many users use it because they don't have a choice. Personally, I have half a dozen Microsoft Windows licenses even though I don't actually use Windows and don't want those licenses.
Any OSS developer or maintainer knows (Score:2)
opposing patent protections? (Score:2)
Now that Microsoft has made its strategy of patent bullying clear, why on earth would you specifically oppose erecting defenses against it? Remember, the existing patent defenses in GPLv2 are the only thing that is keeping Microsoft from going after RedHat and other Linux distributors right now. Microsoft has said as much!
Sometimes the truth hurts (Score:2)
You can say whatever you like; the reality is that version 3 of the GPL genuinely is enormously unpopular. I didn't need this survey to tell me that.
Just because you yourselves might worship Stallman as God, it doesn't mean that he genuinely is. What that also means is that if he tries to do
Re: (Score:3)
You mean other than Linus (who, by the way, is now "pretty pleased" [com.com] about the newest draft because his concerns were addressed)? Cite sources like I just did.
That's better. Actually mentioning "MySQL" was enough to lead me to this [realgeek.com], which does back up your claim. You should note, however, that according to that article MySQL doesn't actually have any particular philosophical disagreement with the GPLv3 itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Atacks? (Score:5, Funny)
It's quite shocking (Score:2)
That Gartner didn't get a cut of the money.
but but but ... it doesn't blow ! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so where did that 17% come from? (Score:2)