Richard Stallman on GPL Exceptions

by Joe Brockmeier - Jan. 11, 2010Comments (5)

Richard Stallman

Richard Stallman raised more than a few eyebrows when he signed the letter objecting to the MySQL purchase. Endorsing, or seeming to endorse, the practice of selling proprietary exceptions to GPL'ed software seemed entirely out of character with Stallman's comments on Free Software up to that point. To clarify, Stallman has written up an essay that spells out his opinion on exceptions and when they're acceptable.

According to Stallman, it's acceptable to sell exceptions to copylefted software — but not to sell proprietary versions of a free program or to sell proprietary extension to a free program. Got all that? Here's how RMS sees the situation:

We must distinguish the practice of selling exceptions from something crucially different: proprietary extensions or proprietary versions of a free program. These two activities, even if practiced simultaneously by one company, are different issues. In selling exceptions, the same code that the exception applies to is available to the general public as free software. An extension or a modified version that is only available under a proprietary license is proprietary software, pure and simple, and no better than any other proprietary software.

If this seems an unlikely position for Stallman to take, he explains later that if he were to consider exceptions unacceptable because they allow embedding within proprietary software, then it would mean finding software under the X11 license unacceptable for the same reason. Stallman considers it "too extreme" to condemn the X11 license for allowing embedding in proprietary software, so it isn't a good reason to condemn GPL exceptions either.

What is consistent and expected is that Stallman reassures the reader that the Free Software Foundation isn't going to practice exceptions, even if he doesn't find them unacceptable.

From a more pragmatic point of view, exceptions mean — at least in theory — that more software will be released under Free Software licenses. Companies can use copyleft to work with the FLOSS community and know that other parties can either buck up code or dollars to use their work. No matter how you slice it, exceptions are better than not having code released under FLOSS licences at all.

What Stallman doesn't touch on is copyright assignment, and whether it's "acceptable" for companies to require assignment so they can continue to sell exceptions even to work that the company didn't create. Few people would consider it unreasonable for a company to re-license its own work any way it sees fit.

But what about projects that require assignment so they can take Free contributions and make them non-Free? Ultimately, that may never be an entirely solved problem. Companies continue to struggle with the question of providing a fair deal to their contributor community and find a way to monetize the development they put into the software. It's nice that Stallman agrees that companies have a right to sell exceptions, but there's a lot more to address.

Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier is a longtime FLOSS advocate, and currently works for Novell as the community manager for openSUSE. Prior to joining Novell, Brockmeier worked as a technology journalist covering the open source beat for a number of publications, including Linux Magazine, Linux Weekly News, Linux.com, UnixReview.com, IBM developerWorks, and many others.

Previous: California Warms Up ...Next: Law Firm IT Director... Browse Blog

by an anonymous user on Jan. 14, 2010

It's quite clear the GPL has many problems, and it certainly not business model friendly, industry has found it almost impossible to develop an effective business model based on giving anything away for free.

Again, there is little or no incentive with the GPL to create commercially viable software, again that people are actually willing to pay for.

This has a detremental effect on quality, as GPL programmers do not have any feedback or incentive to create applications that people are willing to pay for.

The only FOSS/GPL type business model that seems to be effective to any degree is the "maintenance/support circle". Giving away code and charging for maintenance and support gives programmers the only incentive of creating code that requires maintenance and support.

Commercial, or proprietary software companies see maintenance and support as a business liability, so they attempt to reduce that at the design and manufacturing level.

Proprietary software engineers, attempt to create code that people are willing to pay for, so it has to reach a specific standard of quality and functionality. If they are successful they sell more product and make more money. That is a business model.

Free software, seems to simply be a method to shift the ability to make money from the software developed from the programmers to the management.

Ofcourse management love the concept of having people work for them for free, providing product they can use internally.

But when it comes to the average consumer, they are willing to purchase items that meet their needs and requirements.

FOSS should go back to being a technical persuit and not a political vehicle for "advocates" and "freedom fighters". There is so much politics, infighting and conflicting idealogies that the core concept of creating code and things people can actually use has become secondary. To the detrement to the 'movement'.

FOSS could be great, or it could be political, it's a shame it chose politics, FOSS HAD the potential for greatness, anyone remember 1995-2000, FOSS/Linux was all over the news, in every news stand, you could buy for $10 one of a number of 'distros' for $10 get a CD, book and guide. (I got RH 7.1 like that, still have it).

But since that time, FOSS has stagnated, and been corrupted by politics, and anti-MS sentiment, there are far more FOSS hate sites, and anti-prop web sites than there is about FOSS software development, Quality Assurance, design goals, design documentation, and so on.

It's very damaging, and tinkering with the GPL is not going to cure this basic, fundamental issue.

People will pay extra for a better CPU, or more RAM, or a larger Hard drive and so on, price and quality/functionality go hand in hand.

The old addage, "you get what you pay for" does really apply.

software is no different to hardware, cars, houses, boats, food or anything else.

People will spend as much as they can afford for quality, convience, performance and so on.

Just telling people that by using the GPL you are working for some higher cause, and therefore you should not expect the level of quality or functionality is counter productive.

It's always a good idea to learn from history, and if you do something year after year and it appears not to be working, it might be time to reasses you're strategy.

Any software company is only as good as their most recent offerings, this means that it's possible for FOSS/GPL to in ONE version take over proprietary code. All it needs is the required quality and functionality.

People use software, and hardware to get things done, not to meet some idealogical values, freedom is a very low priority for the general users. And the soon this is discovered by the free advocates, and when product quality and functionality becomes the no.1 priority then FOSS/GPL will continue to struggle.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Jan. 15, 2010

You asked me, so here it is.

When I reviewed mySQL a decade ago, I knew I could write it. AshtonTate? Same course as Microsoft under Ballmer.

We write code, man, and we are brilliant. I don't need a dirty politician to run my company. Any conman who tried to extort from me is a dead man. You want me to change your world for the better? Get out of my way!

Richard Stallman bores me. He said what was important and relevant in 1980. Now we have more grotesque issues to deal with.

Try this out Richard: Einstien fucked up and he spent his life under house arrest because of it. The solution to the next problem stops the application of statistics to physics problems. Well brother, why would I share this solution with you, or anyone? What do you have to offer me?

Every day, I change the world. You, not at all.

0 Votes

by Kitty on Jan. 15, 2010

Stallman seriously confuses me. I guess since he made all his money already, it's fine for us to give everything away. I am a huge fan of the MIT license for open source. I can't see GPL as anything other than socialist agenda under the guise of software development practice.

The upside to all this is every time Stallman opens his mouth anymore, it's just to stick his foot in it.

0 Votes

by an anonymous user on Jan. 16, 2010

Looks like he's wearing a Guantanamo bay style jump suit.

0 Votes

by Notagod on Jan. 17, 2010

But for RMS you would all be paying for software use the same way you pay your utility bills. You want to open up your daily notes file, pay the rate. Oops, you forgot and didn't close the file while you were distracted, too bad, you need to pay for time used. They even wanted to make it illegal to write programs without a license.

You don't understand the revenue models that were being implemented at the time RMS took a stand and said enough is enough. You are also wrong about RMS making money and then wanting to change the game. He gave up his established chance to make money for the chance to help everyone else.

Unlike hardware, software holds the key to communication, personal thoughts and knowledge, it is in practice the interface to an extension of the brain. No one should have proprietary rights to another persons brain. RMS understands that and that is what he is fighting for.

0 Votes