Whether or not that goal was or wasn't well-served by the GPL, that was and remains the motivation.
It is rather easy to see how patent and tivoization are harmful to the creation of such ecosystem.
As for the article, "no empirical evidence that they serve to increase innovation and productivity" is obviously outright false. We certainly don't have proof, but there's a helluva historical correlation between patent enforcement (or existence) and countries with strong economic growth, particularly in technology sectors. That has to be referred to as evidence - since evidence which cannot be misleading, i.e. "incontrovertible evidence" is actually proof.
Moreover, histories of technology often show simultaneous invention, and in such cases, the obscure and unsuccessful efforts very strongly tend to appear in areas where patent law is not efficient or respected, and therefore investment for development of inventions is lacking. Without his patent, James Watt could not have and would not have (finally, after a long effort) found a sufficiently rich partner who could fund the development and production of his new kind of steam engine.
Note too that even if patents weren't globally efficient (which I strongly believe they are), they nonetheless attract inventors to your country and so are locally efficient (a prisoner's dilemma that only coordination through treaties would defeat.)
This doesn't mean that present patent law is ideal, or that the historical context hasn't at least partly vanished, however: very complex technologies (which we're now awash in) create situations in which it may be more valuable to cease to produce smartphones and instead use patents to hold a gun to the head of others and merely extract rent from those still producing them (sneezeMicrosoft.) Since you aren't producing phones, others can't retaliate by refusing to license their patents - you no longer need their patents. When more than one (or perhaps a thousand) IP holders want to extract rent from the same item, obviously this can introduce great inefficiencies. Few patents are truly essential (outside FRAND standards, a different situation) but many are costly to get around. One way or another, sooner or later, we may have to deal with this situation. I wish I knew just how.
BSD or MIT are more liberal??
The reality is that there is nothing called 'absolute freedom or liberty.' Freedom may be defined as the terms that are acceptable to the whole community, not as an individual.
Say for example, GNU GPL Freedom translated to real life: I can't kill you, so you shouldn't kill others.
and the same terms for MIT/BSD: I'm letting you alive, but it is Okay for you to kill others (including me).
Which one (GPL vs others) do you now think is more liberal?
If you think carefully on what you have said, you are contradicting yourself. How are you sure that you won't get sued for the patents used in the MIT software/library you use in your (proprietary) software (even if the original software developers are the patent owners)? In fact, GNU GPLv3 prohibits that, and ensures that you won't get sued for the patents from the original authors.
I recommend you better get a lawyer, rather than saying that 'MIT/BSD is simple.' btw, IANYL, and IANAL. :)
Thank you.
Edit: Some says, there is implicit patent protection for MIT/BSD. But afaik, it is never tested in court. GNU GPL v3 gives explicit patent protection. Be at the safe side if you doubt.
Edit2: If you agree with "there is an implicit patent protection for MIT/BSD" that means it "includes giving away (partially) your hardware and software patents." If then, why would you use MIT/BSD Rather than doing a GNU GPLv3+/non-free dual licensing (as do Qt or Odoo do), which would better serve your business?
There is no implicit patent grant that comes along with MIT/BSD licenses. "THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT."
Just because other people have reproduced work that enabled freeloading doesn't mean the GPL wasn't successful at discouraging it. Not that this was ever the point.
Why is that in any way surprising?
> With or without replication, the general response to the GPL is not to contribute, since contribution is penalized in a way that freeloading isn't.
How is contribution penalized? And what makes you think the give back rate is any better for more permissive licenses? There are a tonne of proprietary BSD forks that have never contributed anything back.
BSD gets a lot of contributions back, including many from corporations that forbid use of GPLed code. Of course, as with other open source projects, there are non-contributors, and the scale of that (cough, Apple) can indeed be galling. But over time, a lot of the sting has been taken out of that, as corporations have seen the long-term advantages to open source in helping them avoid another firm's lock-in and network effects. So nowadays, you can fork a lot of code, take it proprietary.. but then fail to sell it, since what you've mostly added is adverse lock-in, etc.
The real solution is governmental - code isn't art. It should have a four or seven year "copyright" and then go into the public domain. But that copyright doesn't go on executables unless the code is revealed first. Two recent court cases that have, astonishingly, treated copyrights to code as something more like patents of ideas or methods have really underlined this for me. One is the Facebook/Oculus case (yes it's Texas, but really!) The other is the Facebook/Nearby Places case.
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/facebook-suspends-locationshar...
> But over time, a lot of the sting has been taken out of that, as corporations have seen the long-term advantages to open source in helping them avoid another firm's lock-in and network effects.
And what about when you can sell it, like with a closed sourced android that is locked in to google?
The interests that led Google to make Chrome would still have existed, though it probably would have been a downstream adaptation of Firefox with V8 rather than one of WebKit.
The Android libraries (as opposed to Java engine, app store, etc) that Google recreated are open source, and not locked in to Google, many others use them.
It's not reasonable to hope to banish proprietary code entirely, especially since open source hasn't really found a good, general business model yet. Open source code that businesses will use and contribute to is winning the day; GPL has been a bad wrong-turn. Again, copyleft might work - but the software and hardware patent grabs that come with GPL2 and GPL3 simply haven't. Such an incredible waste. It's hard to find historical parallels.
Blink is a fork of webkit, it's still under the LGPL. But I see where you've gone wrong now, you're attributing every OSS rewrite that also includes a license change to being rewritten because of licensing, which is simply not true. Without webkit being LGPL though, they never would have got to the point where they could fork it.
> It's not reasonable to hope to banish proprietary code entirely, especially since open source hasn't really found a good, general business model yet. Open source code that businesses will use and contribute to is winning the day; GPL has been a bad wrong-turn.
The GPL doesn't banish proprietary software and never will. It banishes GPL software from becoming closed software.
So why not open source windows from the beginning and save billions, and a ton 'o precious programmer time?
Increasingly, corporations are concluding that investing in licenses for other's proprietary software is wasteful and they are seeking out open source software where they can, to avoid lock-in and network effects. So a hundred years from now, that may be the standard view of proprietary software. Long before that I hope we recognize how awkward applying artistic copyright to code is, and grant a four or seven year copyright, but only once the code has been revealed. The purpose of granting intellectual property rights was originally to create public goods, that's just not what's happening with computer code.
The GPL is commonly cited as the reason why Linux is where it is today. It's a different incentive model to be sure, but one that undeniably works. It's why many prominent projects continue to use it, and it's why new projects use it as well. The only thing the GPL slowed down is people who aren't willing to accept how the GPL was designed to work.
Sure, I'd love a world where copyright was laughed off and where DMCA and anti-circumvention laws were annulled (i.e code is treated like the math that it is), but that's not the world we live in. In this reality, I and many others believe that the GPL provides the best trade-offs in terms freedom to users (and thus developers).
Tally up all the replacements, and the cost is staggering. Not to mention that developers and programmers are especially critical resources. GPL is possibly the greatest tragedy to befall technology since James Watt failed to understand the physics of scale, and vigorously prevented high-pressure steam engines from existing until his patent ran out.