Skip to main content

The GPL will have a bigger impact than the printing press

This Eric Laffoon article singing the praises of the GPL and TrollTech’s relationship to it said this:

500 years ago the printing press ended the dark ages with an unprecedented sharing of ideas. The internet offers dramatically more potential.
Given that the GPL is all about sharing information, a leading representative of a new way of thinking about information, a shorter way of putting that is:
The GPL will have at least as much impact on society as the invention of the printing press did.
I’ve thought around the issue a bit, and a few yesses and nos raised their heads so far, but nothing lethal and nothing requiring significant amendment.

FOSS in general and the GPL in particular has made software for most purposes readily, legally available. The printing press did the same for “brain software” — the records and techniques which made training beyond the apprentice system and possible independently of the extant political authorities feasible.

It may be argued that computers have made the copying of information cheap, but that’s not the key point. The advent of computers and cheap data storage made copying cheap, but they did not make it legal or safe.

Public Domain and BSD-like licenses make it legal but not safe to copy — your competitors take your own code and out-develop you with it. Only the GPL and related sets of rights really make it safe. A competitor cannot legally out-develop you because they are required by the GPL to publish their own improvements, which you can then use in turn.

It could be argued that the Internet is at least as much responsible for the increase in access to information as things like the GPL... until one notices that the Internet is built on RFCs, which are effectively a (milder) form of GPL for protocols.

Eric points out that:

outside of niche markets the traditional model is eventually going to fail even Microsoft
Microsoft are busily trying to capture other markets. In those other markets, Creative Commons and the like are just getting started with the process of wiping out the markup merchants standing between artist/author and customer, and redefining “ownership” of expression. GPL for other media.

I reckon we’re headed for another Renaissance, if The Real World™ gives us enough time to snowball to critical mass. A Renaissance in which a monopoly on most things becomes effectively impossible.

We may already be irrevocably committed to that critical mass; I’m not sure that there’s a reliable way to measure it. Here’s hoping. (-:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...