TalkBack Central: GPL vs. Linux
To summarize Will's article, the companies that want the niche software would contribute to the development of the software, and the GPL would prevent any of them from owning or controlling it. The end result is that each of the companies would have access to software that would otherwise never be developed, and each of them would be free to use and modify it. This is analogous to a group of farmers working together to develop of a piece of equipment that has such a small market that no company wants to develop it for them. And it is analogous to the farmers using the GPL to ensure that each of them has free access to the blueprints so that nobody has control over the machine.
It is important to realize that in Will's scenario neither the computer programmers nor the companies are taking a financial risk. Rather, the companies are investing in software that they need, and the companies they work for are paying the computer programmers a salary. Also, there is no competition with this software, so it is guaranteed to be a success. Everybody gains; nobody loses.
Compare that situation to the Linux/open source/free software movement that has taken on the monumental task of developing an alternative to Windows, and at their own expense. Many open source supporters promote the concept that mainly volunteers can create software, and that the source code can be distributed for free. The programmers who need to make a living are suppose to sell services, CDs, and T-shirts, as well as ask for donations. (The OpenBSD people actually do sell T-shirts to supplement their meager income!) Unlike Will's scenario, in which everybody wins, it is possible that everybody loses with Linux/BSD and ends up going back to Windows.
The GPL is not ideal even in Will's scenario. The GPL will indeed provide a solution to the problem that he mentioned, but it is not the ideal solution. The reason is that GPL does not solve the underlying reasons that these problems exist in the first place. Rather, GPL is merely a desperate attempt to work around the problems. Two of the underlying problems are outlined below.
1) Today's applications are very expensive to produce. During their early 1980's software was so primitive that a person in his spare time could easily produce an application. He could offer it as shareware, and if he received $5,000 in return, he would be making a lot of profit. Many software developers were willing to take on projects that had a potential profit of only a few thousand dollars.
Today, however, most applications require thousands of hours of programming time, and some (e.g., voice recognition) require even more. Unless an application can bring in tens of thousands of dollars per year, most software developers will ignore it.
The GPL does nothing to make applications less expensive to produce. One way to make applications less expensive is to produce more advanced software tools that we use to develop applications. Compilers, for example, need to be more advanced. It would also help if we could reduce paperwork and other overhead expenses involved in operating a business.
2) Money is not distributed evenly. Microsoft and some other companies make enormous profits from software, while other companies do not have enough money to hire all the programmers they need. The entertainment and weapons fields are also highly profitable. The end result is that there is plenty of money for Microsoft, Hollywood, gambling, and military contractors, while other areas are suffering from shortages of money.
The GPL does nothing to distribute money in a more sensible manner. We would do ourselves more good if we looked for solutions to this problem. Two examples are:
a) We could admit that free enterprise is not practical with desktop operating systems, so we could put desktop operating systems in the same category as public water supplies or airlines. Specifically, our government could release the Windows source code to the public domain, and any company that wanted to develop it would be allowed to work on it and sell copies. The government would supervise this in the same manner that they supervise the public water supply.
b) Our government uses tax money to fund NASA and hydroelectric dams on the grounds that free enterprise cannot properly provide these services. We could use tax money to fund the development of software that free enterprise is not dealing with.
To summarize all of this, the GPL can be used by a group of companies to provide them with an application that nobody wants to bother making. By comparison, the Linux and related open source people are taking a big risk on a concept that is bordering on the absurd. Furthermore, Will's column does not show that the GPL is the best solution to our problems. Rather, he merely shows that the GPL can be used to work around certain problems.
To top it off, if companies attempted to use the GPL to develop software for themselves, most of the time it would lead to resentment and fights because some companies will contribute more than others, and some will not contribute anything. Only a few companies will manage to make Will's scenario come true. Our best solution is to find ways to deal with the underlying problems. I think releasing Windows to the public domain would do us the most good, in the shortest period of time, and for the least cost to the public.
Eric Hufschmid has been sole proprietor for the last 11 years of a tiny company that makes CAD/CAM related software for industries.
Disclaimer: 'Your Turn' and 'Reader TalkBack' are commentary columns written by a ZDNet News reader. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author, not those of ZDNet, ZDNet News nor its editors.
We want to feature "you" as a guest columnist on TalkBack Central -- The page dedicated to you and your views! Got a column for Your Turn or Reader TalkBack? Submit it here.