Counterpointed with The World Does Not Need Open Source for your amusement.
The original “essay” dates from 2002, but the latest revision is 2010-09-14, so we’re still dealing with an authentic, unapologetic, dyed-in-the-wool Loon.
I can do no better than quote from the introduction:
[To FLOSS developers:] Please, where possible, use an existing widely-used (standard) license for your software, one that is known to be compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL).
Why would I want to do this? Because:
you can combine your code with code released under the GPL into one larger program.
Call me glass-hopper. I am a mere novice in the Seven Ways. Continue, O master.
(Section 2)
Why a GPL-compatible license? Because if your FLOSS project isn’t GPL-compatible, there’s a significant risk that you’ll fail to receive enough support from other developers to sustain your project.
Dearie dearie me. I am abashed.
And there’s a lot of GPL’ed code to take advantage of.
I think the phrase “take advantage of” is slightly misjudged, what with IBM and Oracle and RH and Google and all. But let’s continue to:
(Section 3)
This is weird beyond belief, but I’ll just pick two things out:
The popular text editor vim became GPL-compatible, after a long legal discussion.
That’s good, because I would never have used vim unless it was authentically GPLed. That was the main reason, honestly. I really wanted to use it, but …
Multiple major projects don’t undergo painful license changes unless they have a reason to do so. The GPL is so popular that GPL compatibility is now an important requirement in a license.
Well, I was going to pick a license that meant that I didn’t have to work full-time in a tire-rotation shop for a living. I was wrong. Just like a little girl in a halloween cheer-leader’s outfit, I want to be popular!
(Section 4)
The original BSD licence was naughty, although nobody ever complained about it (apart from the legal nit-pickers at the FSF, who were totally justified, honest). The new BSD license is OK. But it’s not the GPL license. So it’s not OK.
Avoid every single other license on Earth. Why? Let me bore you with the pointless and irrelevant details.
(Section 5)
Many FLOSS projects are already saddled with a GPL-incompatible license, and it’s just too hard to change… But remember that these supposed benefits may not outweigh their many disadvantages.
Ho ho. (As an aside, note that the article hasn’t been updated very well. Flossies are now bitching that Open SSL is being abused for being free, whereas Wheeler is still stuck in the past, claiming that it’s not the right sort of free.)
(Section 6)
Customers find a long list of licenses completely bewildering.
Customers also find EULAs bewildering. You know what? They just tick the box marked “Accept.” In the whole history of EULAs, nobody has ever been sued.
The GPL and derivatives, on the other hand … Well, lawyers have to feed their families, too.
(Section 7)
While it’s possible to relicense FLOSS software to make it GPL-compatible, it can be quite difficult — you’re much better off avoiding a mistake, and starting off GPL-compatible in the first place.
Or, alternatively, to tell the Loons to fuck off and die.
There’s a lot more, but let me finish with:
(Section 10)
If you’re looking for a cautionary tale of how things can go badly because of a GPL-incompatible license, you need look no further than the tragic story of XFree86’s demise.
Was it because the software stack was outdated, useless, constantly breaking crap?
Nope.
It was because it wasn’t really Free!
I’m not kidding, but this freak actually signs off by describing himself in the third person:
It is rumored that he doesn’t actually sleep, which would explain a lot.
Oh go on; I never would have believed that.
Comments
Nice find! I mean the essay “ The World Does Not Need Open Source” not the FUD itself.
I think I will never ever understand this whole FOSS licensing business at all, really I have no clue what it means that two licenses are “compatible”. This seems to happen on a purely ethical or personal level.
Amusing is the contact page of D. Wheeler, its a rather long site describing that you have to add a “ham password” to the subject if you want to send him and email. Then it goes on what a “ham password” is why you need a “ham password” and how “ham passwords” protect you from spam. Further down a notice that spam is illegal.
I actually thought spam was SOLVED. Bayesian filters together with white, black and grey whatever lists seem to work very well. Works for me, at least. Probably D. Wheeler is a real follower who lets somebody print out all his emails and let them be send to him via mail. In this case I would understand that spam can be annoying.
Link seems broken. I get a 403 forbidden.
Which one? I’ll try and tinyurl it …
The “World Does Not Need Open Source” article is a work of art. I wonder how much hate mail Dr. Tarver got for writing it.
Now what differentiates this from the supposed M$ propaganda that they keep complaining about? GNUTards, please die.
You must be signed in to leave comments.