John Reynolds's Blog

GNU licenses and small startups

I recently blogged a lament regarding obstacles to the use LGPL'ed software, but that pales in comparison to Jonathan Schwartz's recent assertion: (the GPL)"exports a form of IP colonialism to nations seeking to create their own means of production.".

Here's the other side of that coin:

If you are a small software provider, like JBoss for example, the GNU licenses are pretty much the only insurance that you can get to discourage established companies from "one-upping" your code.

Think about it... If you are a relative newcomer and you don't Open Source your code, customers will probably not take the chance of using your software. If you do Open Source your code, using an Apache style license, then an bigger company can tack on some proprietary extensions and provide a more compelling product.

As a software consumer I still prefer the Apache license, but I do see why the GPL makes business sense to small providers.

Comments

• I think Jonathan Schwartz's comments are a little odd - particularly as he usually makes so much sense. One item in particular stood out for me: "the European Union ... recently considered the reformation - and elimination - of software patents".
  This is actually not true. Software Patents have never been legal in Europe. Recent moves are intended to legalise them for the first time.
  I think to speak of the GPL as colonialism is pure double-speak. It is simply an effect of the new business model. The value of a business is in the service it provides. Just because for a brief period it was easier to deliver that service via disks in boxes and charge based on the number of boxes received, does not mean that
  closed software will be any more than an historical novelty in a few years.
  Software is simply the media for accessing the service. Charging for it is like charging an entrance fee to get into a shop.

  Posted by: david_griffiths on April 08, 2005 at 05:17 AM

• When a company decides not take its customers hostage, using time-based, or release-based licensing; it will focus naturally on providing good service, which is what the customer really wants in the first place. This is hard, but satisfying work, requiring many engineers, instead of a few lawyers.

  This is the 'so-called' level playing field. Fair competition terrifies some software CXOs, even to the point of slandering the GPL, and fabricating fantasies like IP. Software is an industry in their minds, it is in fact a service in reality.

  To call the GPL, IP colonialism, is a double lie. The GPL does not 'take' anyone's ideas, news flash guys: Ideas are not Property! The second, more subtle lie, is made by omission: the corollary, i.e. using proprietary software instead, most definitely will 'take' their money.

  These developing nations are doing precisely as he described; "seeking to create their own means of production". However, instead of teaching them to fish, some would prefer to sell them the concept of buying fish.

  Fortunately, I don't think they are going to buy it. ;-)

  -John

  PS A very important added bonus to the GPL, particularly for small software companies, is that it actively encourages others to develop and donate improvements.

  Posted by: cajo on April 08, 2005 at 12:37 PM

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.