Want to join the UK’s fastest growing dedicated IT community? Enter here to browse the UK’s top usergroups, societies and associations.

Why the GNU GPL Still Matters

July 16, 2009

Posted by: Glyn Moody

Last night I went to the official launch of the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, which I wrote about on Tuesday.

As you might expect, this was full of people who knew a great deal about the licensing of free software. So I was intrigued to hear the view that “free software” and “open source” are the same thing, and interchangeable terms.

That comment dovetailed nicely with some very heated discussions taking place around the Web as to the relevance today of the GNU GPL. I started reading the comments on two posts in particular, one from a GPL sceptic, and a rebuttal from Matt Mullenweg, WordPress's creator.

It soon became clear to me that some people are labouring under serious misconceptions about the GNU GPL. Somewhat optimistically, I thought I would offer my own understanding, such as it is, in the hope that it might be useful in this context.

One of the biggest issues for those attacking the GNU GPL seems to be the apparent contradiction between its desire to propagate freedom, and its refusal to give complete freedom to programmers – specifically, the freedom to take the code and make it closed.

The confusion arises because there are two different freedoms involved: that of the user, and that of the programmer. As the official guide to the GNU GPLv3 puts it:

There are four freedoms that every user should have

That is, every *user*, not every programmer. The former's freedom is paramount, to the extent that the latter's is compromised, but only in one, very specific, respect: that programmers do not have the freedom to take freedom away from the user.

The reason for this is simple: unlike open source, free software is not about software, it's about freedom. It's aim is to propagate freedom, and the means it uses to do this is through software.

Where the freedom of the programmer clashes with the freedom of the general user, the latter takes precedence – for the freedom of general users would actually be reduced if programmers could take otherwise free code and enclose it, exactly the opposite of the intended effect.

So, while it is true that the GNU GPL takes away one very specific freedom from programmers, it is not true – as many of those commenting on the posts above seem to believe – that the GNU GPL can, or even wants to, limit their freedom in other, arbitrary ways: like only programming on a Thursday, or wearing a tiara when doing so. Again, the official gloss on the GNU GPL v3 makes this clear:

the freedom to use the software for any purpose

This is actually highly contentious, but not for the reasons critics of the GPL normally mention. It means, for example, that the most oppressive regime in the world has the right to use free software for anything: no conditions are imposed, no conditions must be met.

That shows a pretty deep commitment to freedom when you allow even people that you almost certainly despise to use your software for purposes you are likely to abhor. Nothing could be further from the world of closed-source software that does get to specify who can use their software and for what.

Registration is free, and gives you full access to our extensive white paper library, downloads, speciality areas and more.

Stay up-to-date with the latest, breaking IT news, most-read articles and expert insight, direct to your inbox.

ComputerworldUK’s RSS feeds sends the latest news, reviews & analysis direct to your desktop!

The other major bone of contention in the discussion about the merits and demerits of the GNU GPL concerns the issue of efficiency: that is, what is the best way to encourage coders to join projects and for users to adopt software. But this, too, if based on a misunderstanding of free software: the point of free software is not to spread software, but to spread freedom.

It is not trying to be “efficient”, it is trying to be ethical; ideally you want both – and in many respects, the culture that the GNU GPL fosters is extremely efficient, for reasons I'll discuss in a moment. But if efficiency and ethics clash, ethics win every time.

Jump to page : [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ]

Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!

<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>

Advert

Email this article to a friend or colleague:

PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.

This article is now being printed.

What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.

Click below to add 'Why the GNU GPL Still Matters' to your blog.

If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.

If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.

What is this?

Comments received

It varies said on Thursday, 16 July 2009

I submit that the best way to maintain a dynamic community is to make the community version valuable. X.org is a case in point: the X11 licence is as free as you can get without actually being public domain; but X.org is where the action is, and if you take it and proprietise you'll lose big time. Even Apple and Sun contribute. It's held together not by copyleft, but by the community being the place to go for the good stuff.

One's mileage may vary, of course.

Glyn Moody said on Thursday, 16 July 2009

You're right that the community is crucial. For X.org, that model works, evidently. But it may also depend on the people involved, the history of the project etc. I worry about the future if more "liberal" licences are used people may be put off for fear that their work will be "exploited."

akf said on Thursday, 16 July 2009

I agree with you in what you want to say. But I think the term "free riders" could be a bit misleading. We should not be against mere users, who don't program at all. They also don't give anything in return. But I would say, that they are welcome.

seeker5528 said on Thursday, 16 July 2009

"One of the biggest issues for those attacking the GNU GPL seems to be the apparent contradiction between its desire to propagate freedom, and its refusal to give complete freedom to programmers – specifically, the freedom to take the code and make it closed."

To some small degree calling that a contradiction would be somewhat along the lines of calling it a contradiction that people in a free society created a law making slavery illegal. In the end, as it applies specifically to this point, the opposing groups would largely fall into 2 categories. Those who create the software and don't care how it gets used, they just want it to get used. And those who feel because it is free software, they shouldn't be expected to adhere to the license the same way they would with proprietary code.

Later, Seeker

markit said on Thursday, 16 July 2009

very very well written, THANKS

Papa Chango said on Thursday, 16 July 2009

I rarely comment on sites unless something really irks me but had to mention that this was an excellent article.

Sometimes its harder to heap abuse than it is to praise someone so Ill make this brief.

You already set the bar high with your writing and opinions, this just moved it up a bit more.

Kevin Guertin said on Friday, 17 July 2009

Wow! Amazing article! I, too, don't often comment on articles, but I had to on this one. Very well said, indeed!

Jose_X said on Friday, 17 July 2009

[part 1 of 3]

Some other observations:

I could be wrong but... BSD, MIT, and many other similar licenses are free software licenses http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html . These free software licenses are not copyleft http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware and they don't require you to publish the source if you distribute. They are called "free software", however. This fact is used by some to refer to "free software" despite not supporting the GPL. The point is that while those that use the term "free software" rather than "open source software" generally like the GPL, technically, most open source licenses in use are also free software licenses and the term "free software" can be abused to hide one's preferences (eg, anti-GPL preferences).

Jose_X said on Friday, 17 July 2009

[part 2 of 3]

Noncopyleft free software (open source) licenses allow a dominating agent in the proprietary area to exploit the project to bias against *all* others. They can repeat this for every project they want, for example, adding the open software plus some lock-in to their closed source monopolies. In this way they leverage the work of others to keep their software competitive and in control. On the other hand, it is more difficult and risky to try and leverage GPL software in this way. Thus the GPL is used to prevent the accumulation of software monopolies around a single entity that bundles and integrates all their software together in closed fashion (like a growing black hole).

Jose_X said on Friday, 17 July 2009

[part 3 of 3]

As stated in the article, users benefit from the GPL protections. In addition.. The GPL favors the copyright holder (only they can close off the source or give alternative licenses for $$). This creates a level of predictability for the copyright holder. It also serves as an incentive to treat your contributors well because forking would allow this incentive to be passed on to a new group. Thus, the GPL creates incentives for each of the two main developer groups, copyright holders and lesser contributors, and this helps build and keep the project healthy.

Developers are significant users many times. This is particularly true for software tools. The GPL protects many developers.

Pat said on Friday, 17 July 2009

Bravo - A well written article about an important topic.

Viva Freedom