Umm, Jonathan, calm your tits. You're preaching to the choir. I don't like the GPL or strong copyleft either. Weak copyleft like the MPL is okay as it discourages proprietary forks (and Mozilla could have had a lot of trouble) and the GPL can work in some situations, like with the Linux kernel (a lot of code for modules is so damn close to the core parts of the kernel that they have to be opened). But I always license my work under permissive licenses (e.g. BSD, zlib, MIT).
I assumed otherwise when you said Apple hates software freedom and cited incompatibility between the App Store and copyleft licenses. I don't believe there are any conflicts between the MPL and Apple's App Store; to my knowledge, that's just an issue with the GPL. Mozilla even directly created a version of Firefox for the iPhone, which was distributed through the App Store, for a time.
Also, I should stress that while I was reacting to your comments, my vigorous indictment of the GPL was not directed at you. I was making a speech about a subject, not trying to personally browbeat you. We are and were cool in my book.
Also, I wouldn't call the GPL an abuse of the law. It's specifically under contract law, which allows you to do just about anything. And it's not like EULAs (which are also License Agreements) are much better.
I would for the reasons outlined above. I'm not saying it's
illegal, only that it's an artifact that goes outside the public interest scope of the laws it makes use of. Contracts exist to protect the private interests of the parties involved. The GPL disavows any private interest on the part of the original creator, and serves only to limit the rights of other people to their own work, for the sake of an ideologically-defined public interest. EULAs aren't much better, but at least they're actually intended to protect the interests of the people selling the product, rather than dismantle the rights of the people consuming the product for its own sake.
As for Linux and poor commercial support? Now that's just FUD. Red Hat, Oracle, Canonical... the list is almost limitless.
I would characterize the list as pretty limited, actually, but I can't say your response is incorrect given the vagueness of my assertion. Still, it doesn't it doesn't deny my underlying point. I'm aware that companies like Red Hat and Canonical make a business model out of working on GPL code by monetizing
services, but this isn't a very extensible model, and Canonical itself may or may not actually be profitable (the last time they spoke publicly about it, they were not). Oracle sells proprietary software and engages in dual-licensing of several GPL projects, which goes against the spirit of the GPL, and is something only the original creator can do anyway. At the end of the day, I realize that if Linux were widely adopted, it would have comparable commercial support to other platforms... but this would come at the cost of a much larger proportion of the available software being proprietary. Companies like Red Hat can turn a profit writing code and not actually selling it, but they're subsidizing programmers, rather than monetizing them. It would be the same with a game where only the art is proprietary -- it's a shrewd idea, but it's still the art team paying the bills for the engine coders. If a vulture company swoops in with a better art team, the programmers can end up without bread on their table and no functional way to monetize their work directly.
In summary, though I don't much like the walled garden of the App Store (can't install apps outside Apple's official channel without breaking your warranty), I agree the GPL is one of the curses of open source. It's great that its usage is declining.
The walled garden is a sin, but it's one with a complicated and important business motivation that isn't as selfish as it might seem. While Apple getting a cut of all App sales is a nice feature, the real advantage for maintaining exclusivity in the App Store is control over user experience. The video game industry disintegration from 1983-1985 was attributable in large part to Atari's lack of control over the platform, and a rapid devolution in the quality of games... a mistake every major console maker has resolved not to repeat, with video game consoles being closed platforms ever since. Apple is taking a similar approach to their mobile platform. The App Store isn't highly strict about quality, but it includes a centralized rating system, helping consumers to identify high quality apps. The App Store also enables a single consistent install/uninstall process that simplifies user experience, and gives Apple the ability to block malicious or controversial apps that they feel contracts the image they want for their platform.
Apple's reasons for obligating everyone to go through the App Store aren't all reasons beneficial to the user, but much of the subtle calculus is intended to improve user experience. It's not mere money-grubbing, as it might seem to be.
Author
Topic: LCS 4.06.5 Download (Bank Heists, Mar 2013) (Read 93972 times)