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.'"
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.
really? (Score:3, Interesting)
Almost enough to make me endorse GPL3 (Score:2, Interesting)
MC
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.
Actually, yes, I do (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
I read another comment that said "Microsoft-funded means automatic ignore, especially on Slashdot". Close but no cigar. One, did you ever stop to count just how many MS stories get posted to Slashdot? The "editors" know that's a sure way to get loads of angry comments, which translates into page views which translates into $$$. (Given how much Slashdotters love to use that puerile M$ tag, maybe any Microsoft story should now get tagged as $la$hdot flamebait.)
And two, no matter the reaction on
Think about it.
Re:In other news... (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 do. When I review a scientific paper (I do that too often for my taste these days), I have to assume that what the authors say they did is true. I can't redo the experiments, so I have to trust the results. All I can say is whether what is actually reported in novel, interesting, properly backed up by experiments (which I have to trust). If someone (relatively clever) fakes results, there isn't much I can say. *However*, if the authors of the study have no financial (or otherwise) incentive to find one thing or another, it adds a lot of credibility to the results.
So in summary, I give as much credibility to a study funded by Microsoft on the GPLv3 than to an FSF study on the (de)merits of proprietary software -- regardless of the methodology. At best I'll find a few good arguments supporting one side of the story.
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:The arguments are pretty sound. (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:In other news... (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.
Mart