Feature:A Square Deal

Posted by CmdrTaco on Friday June 19, 1998 @06:09AM from the stuff-to-read dept.

Matthew Newhall has written an interesting piece on commercial vs. GPLd programming, and OS development. His solution is a free software advocacy commercial license. Will it work? Read and decide for yourself.

The following is a feature by Slashdot Reader Matthew Newhall

A Square deal for the Linux OS and for developers.

A solution for the person in the middle, the Free Advocacy Commercial Licence.

by Matthew Newhall

The thought process...

I recently wrote a response on Slashdot to Richard M. Stallman's June 13th on-line interview. I started thinking about a better way to encourage developers to take on monster projects. Like any programmer I know recycling code is quicker and easier. So here is the response.

Actually I find it quite humorous that Bill G and RMS are telling their points of view on the same Slashdot page. They have one very similar vital quality, they are about as flexible as an I-beam. They really don't sound all that different. I wonder what they would do to each other in an open discussion?

The insane completeness to their points of view have driven their dreams into reality. Now it is up to us, the middle people, to find a middle ground.

Here is the balance....

Organizers, developers, and distributors get rewarded financially for useful and quality OS components.

and

Users get freedom of choice, low or no price tags for OS components, no company controls the OS, perpetuating and enhancing innovation.

Notice I said OS not software. Software is a different discussion. OS control is about freedom of choice. Applications other than the OS can easily be replaced. Free or not.

If we can find a system in which these conditions are met, Linux will have 50% of the market in no time. I say 50% of computer users because the othe r half will avoid the extra choices available in Linux for sometime. That will change as they grow to better understand computers. That is fine, Microsoft can have those users. They will have an option to go to when they need it.

The two most frequent arguments I hear from each side are...

"Everything should be free because:
- We can make money supporting it and professionally manipulating and adding to it."
The problem with this:
- If it is so complicated that you need to be a professional to use it, people will look for other options, for all but the most advanced situations. That doesn't sound like world domination to me.
"Everything should be commercial and controlled by a company or companies:
- Having one central control avoids redundant work. This allows for quicker creation of new software and hardware. No confusion, no chaos. When somthing g oes wrong blame is easily placed."
The problem with this:
- Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Any company or group of companies in control will fleece the customers for a better profit margin. Projects will drag on, blame will tossed around or customers ignored altogether. If IBM had not hired Bill Gates to buy MSDOS, then IBM would be the big bad guy right now.

As a programer I want to eat, have a roof over my head and a car in my driveway. I don't want to have to work on a customer support line or flip burgers to do it.

As a programmer and as a user I never want see a Blue Screen of Death again. I never want to buy a Microsoft operating system again.

I want Linux to succeed. Microsoft is way too powerful. Without Linux to stop it, well who knows what could happen.

Let companies make money on their good ideas and turn their profits around towards more ideas. But don't let them take control. Keep the Freedom in Linux. Lets make Linux huge.

I had four responses to my letter. Putting them all in would make this proposal too long. Yury Onischuck had said:

" 1. Sometimes there is no middle
2. What flexibility You are talking about whenthe question is whether to have freedom or not to have

3. Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html before your reply, please."

Well first I read the above mentioned article. It is an incredible argument for free software. It shows how open source code can make a far superior piece of software while avoiding redundant work. In fact the GPL is the most important part of my idea. Yury Onischuck's initial two points rung very true. What are the choices for a programmer in OS development right now?

0. Work for Microsoft.

1. Work on Linux GPL or LGPL code for free.

Greg Block responded to Yury Onischuck buy pointing out that there are infinite points between 1 and 0. But in this is not the case when it comes to free OS components. I have a proposal for a .5 between the 1 and 0. Unfortunately I am not a lawyer so I can't imagine any sane company will use this as I wrote it. (That's a cry for help.) I present, in it's raw form the....

Free Advocacy Commercial Licence

The Proposal...

Let's say there is a company Widgetcorp. Widgetcorp is developing an awesome voice recognition package. Widgetcorp wants to release for Linux when its time, but the programmers are getting hungry and cranky. The bills are starting to come in. It's basically a start-up and has a very little money. The voice recognition package is very resource hungry, and needs to interact directly with the kernel and other OS components. The need to be part of the OS occurred in many places and was unavoidable. Widgetcorp is about to give up and go to Microsoft when, blamo, one of the programmers that works at WidgetCorp notices the Free Advocacy Commercial Licence. The FACL allows them to make a profit, use the open source model, and produce quality OS offerings and inventions to help the free software effort.
This is the general idea in non-legal terms

1. The software is free at all stages for non-commercial use. Anyone is free to modify and distribute at pre x.0 stages of development but not sell. Source is available at all stages. There is a time limit decided upon by the company before any bug fixes or additions are accepted.
- example:
- - a. Widgetcorp uses this to put out their alpha's and beta's for testing, suggestio nsetc. They have to have a 1.0 out in one and a half years from a given date. Users get early use of the program and get to put the ir ideas in.
2. Commercial users can make deals and offers for post x.0 commercial licences. They could even make pre x.0 if that's how they want to work it, so long as it was layed out in the initial proposal. Again, the program is freely distributable, so long as you don't sell it or use it's code for your own profit.
- examples:
- - a. When the company decides to go 1.0 Redhat decides that Widgetcorps voice recognition package is great and will up distribution sales. It cuts a deal to pay fifteen cents for every copy of Redhat 6.x sold.
  - b. Caldera also recognizes the merit to this package and cuts a deal. Seventy thousand dollars up front and eleven cents per distribution.
    
    c. Widgetcorp gets requests outside of distributions. They make a shrink-wrapped version. They sell it mail order for twenty dollars per licenced copy.
3. Two limits on are set at the beginning of the project. The FACL would be limited by number of copies sold since x.0 and a number of months after the release of x.0. When either of these limits are met the sunset clause is activated. The sunset clause converts the working code to GPL and LGPL for libraries at the end of that week. Widgetcorp. takes a snapshot with of the code with revisions right before it goes GPL. It will fork from the GPL code and can be used in future projects under the FACL. The FACL copy of the code belongs to Widgetcorp.
- examples:
- - a. Widgetcorp decides that it would make everyone happy, and pay the bills, and make a reasonable profit if they set limits of nine hundred thousand copies or 7 and a half months.
  - b. Widgetcorp can use the code from 1.x to work on voice recognition 2.x and voice synthesis 1.x. They know if they get power hungry and try to control the market through anything but a superior product, the free software advocates will pick up where they left at the last GPLed copy.
    
    c. Widgetcorp's minor revisions continue past x.0 during the profit period because of the promise of profit on the next major revision. Any contracts with the distributions should reinforce this.

There are a few catches. We as a community have to examine every contract very closely before we accept it. Here's some things to watch.

1. The sunset clause. The sunset clause will be drawn up at the time of creation. It should some basic conditions met. There needs to a limit to developing time before x.0. There needs to be a basic outline of features, methods, and what standards will be adhered to or created. There needs to be a reasonably short amount of time past x.0 when the profit period is over, say no more than a year for huge projects.& nbsp; There needs to be a reasonable limit on the amount copies sold before it forks to GPL.

2. Big companies. The bigger the company the better the bargaining&nbs p; position. Companies that did not grow out of the free software community will try to change the rules. This will be partly done because of the realization that even though I'm pretty sure you could make millions doing this, you won't be able to make billions. Some companies have billion dollar infrastructures to support. It is logical to them to expand, not shrink.

3. The distributions have to play ball. If you are considering trying this, the first thing you might want to do is see if you have any takers from the distributors. Will people be interested in you project?&n bsp; Will it be big enough to justify paying anything for it, or can a bunch of weekend warriors duplicate it in a few weeks? If no distributions want it you may find yourself not being able to sell enough shrink-wrapped copies to make cost. Then again who says you can't make your own distribution. ;)

I thought about the whole GNOME vs. KDE situation. My main complaint and I think the main concern of most people are the commercial components in KDE. I am afraid the people at TROLL TECH who are responsib le for QT might use those components to pull the rug out once they have control. This is not a personal blow to the people in charge over there. I'm scared of a change in ownership, not the current ownership. It would mean using time and energy to replace my KDE compliant programs. If KDE had used components with a simi lar licence to the FACL I would not hesitate to use their interface.

GNOME is a combination of charity and self-interest on Red Hat's part. We can't always count on distributions to come up with WYSIWYG or non technician oriented answers for the world. Distributions may come to a point where they are too competitive to be able to spare the resources on side projects.

This would be great for Linux. It would give free software advocates the opportunity to do what they love, full time. The chance to innovate OS components for OS's like Linux and get paid for it. Not only will the technician benefit but so will the user. If there were 10 such programs on the next distribution you pick up it would only cost one dollar and fifty cents more according to Widgetcorp's figures. I'll pay that price for a larger GPLand LGPL code base! I think this could be the vehicle with which to outpace duplication and enhancment ; and be the leader in substance, interface, and useability. In a few generations of distributions, Linux would have at least 50% of the market. ; Linux would be superior to other operating systems, in all aspects, by at least a mile.

I'm sure there are plenty of good and bad angles and ideas I have missed in here. The general concept of the FACL is the inteligent use of a sunset clause and the GPL. Pay the most attention to the idea and the idea will grow. I want to hear your opinion, but please let constructive criticism reign.

Don't be afraid to change the rules!