Page 1 of 1

Bill Gates and Understanding the GPL

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:31
by Chroelle
Bill Gates who since January has been leaving Microsofts executive chair to board the board-leaders chair once more opened his mouth and made a statement that might baffle most people.

The statement is regarding using Open Source software in the medical field:

"There's free software and then there’s open source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, "there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with." Open source, he said, creates a license "so that nobody can ever improve the software," he claimed, bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and business. [Editor's note: Yes, Linux fans, we're aware of how distorted this definition is.] He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: "I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical."

Source:
http://arstechnica.com/journals/microso ... agree-with


Some might disagree with software under the GPL being restrictive to the possibility of users changing it...

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:57
by Scythe
I guess what he's saying is that if he picks up software made under the GPL and makes his own improvements to it, he should be able to sell it. In other words, he wants to profit off the base work done by others, instead of developing software from scratch. Of course he's opposed to the GPL. It's preventing him from making an even larger profit!

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:53
by Chroelle
Yes the guy obviously needs money (he is not the richest man in the world anymore...)

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 13:25
by Maz
Scythe wrote:I guess what he's saying is that if he picks up software made under the GPL and makes his own improvements to it, he should be able to sell it. In other words, he wants to profit off the base work done by others, instead of developing software from scratch. Of course he's opposed to the GPL. It's preventing him from making an even larger profit!
Oh yeah.

And then he is accusing GPLed SW for being impossible to improve. I wonder how stupid announcements can be made by a man, who has been so successfull... Let me see. GPL allows modifying a product. How about many other, non GPLed products, lets say Windows? Who can improve it?

It is true that many companies avoid using GPLed SW. But it is not because the GPL denies them from using it, it is because they do not want to allow improving their own SW. If they used GPLed software, then they should give away their own product's source too. (simplified statement).

So my question is, who actually is the bad guy and makes products that cannot be improved by others? I believe that possibility to improve, use and even sell things is the greatest victory of GPL. We really cannot say that GPLed products would have been a failure? Just look at Linux, it has actually been a success. Even success big enough that M$ is interested in co-operation. (search for Suse and M$ with google). And I bet Bill knows it. It is just that linux is like Wigwam:

No Windows.
No Gates.
and Apache inside.
.
.
.
And most importantly, no Bills :D

mmm.. Actually, I some times ago read somewhere that open source SW costs approx $60 billion a year to proper SW companies. And I assume that's what bugs mr Bill..

(I found the article:
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... pen-source
)


I just wanted to add this after I read the article once more:
:eeew:

Posted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 21:56
by Zyx
Also neat from BillG to redefine what "free" in Free Software means. It doesn't mean free as beer, it means free as in freedom to do whatever with the software.

Far more interesting was the realization that most of the code contributions to the major OS projects, like Linux, come from commercial companies like IBM.

Also, it's really stupid to call all OSS GPL'd. There are many other open-source licenses that do not have the poison pill that GPL has (to guarantee the Freedoms). This rather classical MS-speak to frame the discussion.

And Scythe, BillG is free to pick up a GPL software and sell it. That's perfectly okay. That's what all the big companies do today. And there's nothing wrong in that, as long as they play by the rules and most do.

Heck, I don't really like GPL either.

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 0:13
by Scythe
Zyx wrote:And Scythe, BillG is free to pick up a GPL software and sell it. That's perfectly okay. That's what all the big companies do today. And there's nothing wrong in that, as long as they play by the rules and most do.
Oh. Then all I can say is, I don't understand what it is he's saying. :)

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:50
by Chroelle
I am not sure I understand how that is possible either. Could you explain Zyx?

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:37
by Zyx
Easy. Take a look at the human-readable version of GPL2. Does it prohibit selling the software? Nope. BUT, it does mandate that in ANY CASE you have to provide source-code to your program free-of-charge. And your program has to be licensed under GPL if you have any GPL'd code in it.

It's the last two things that make MS and other a bit wary about GPL. Apple for example uses mostly BSD or Apache License with its OSS projects. The idea of GPL is that the guy using your software has exactly the same freedom to the code as you did.

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 11:51
by Scythe
I will admit that Big Bill's words make less and less sense to me the more you explain it, Zaxxon. I mean, if what you're saying is true, then what he's saying is clearly not. But maybe that's the whole point? I'm probably seeing things out of context...

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 13:47
by Maz
Zyx is correct. GPL's whole idea is to guarantee FREEDOM of code. Not free as free of charge, but free as freedom.

You can get the source and do whatever you want to do with it. You can sell it, modify it, burn it, give it to a neighbour or sell it to bishop. It's up to you. Hence free as freedom.

But GPL aims to maintain this freedom. So if you use GPL'd code in your product, then those who get your product must have the same freedom over it. You can sell the product, but you must give the source code away too then.

Theres also this 'lesser GPL lisence', which allows you to use code published under it in your closed source product, as long as the open source part can be separated from the product. (Basically, you cannot have the lib/someotherpiece licensed under lesser GPL dumped inside your executable, it must be dynamically linked).

But all in all, Mr. Bill really has no point in his babbling :/

Posted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 15:11
by Scythe
It's really all very strange to me.