The Use of Open Source and Free Software in Education: November 6-26, 2006

Julia and Therese,

I really think the GPL is such a great invention that it goes way beyond its creator.  Let me explain:

RMS speaks of economics (negatively) as a [vehicle] for unexamined values. Stated positively, economic benefits happen without us having to make any moral effort (that is a central thesis of Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations)

RMS thus argues that choosing the GPL is morally higher than choosing BSD style licenses.  I don't want to or need to argue for or against this point, rather:

Ironically and happily (for reasons i will explain), once a piece of software has been licenced GPL, it becomes itself a vehicle for unexamined values ... in the same sense that economics happens without us having to make any moral effort... GPLed software automatically goes to work (those against calling it "viral", those for it calling it "protecting our rights and freedom") for  that  initial version, every version derived from it from now till eternity and even arguably for anything that includes it as part of an integrated collection ... as long as a tiny part of an integrated mass of software uses GPL software, the entire mass is "contaminated" (according to the naysayers) or "legally and ethically obligated" (according to the enthusiasts) ... for example microsoft lost face when it was shown it was using a tiny piece of GPL software in its TCPIP stack ... not just because it was hypocritical (what else is new) but because it is on shaky legal ground, and likely losing arguments in debates, confusing some discerning clients and worse, confusing some its own key employees perhaps contributing to a mini-exodus.  Let's not forget that around Microsoft's birth, Bill Gates spent a lot of time preaching the gospel of the morality of respecting proprietary intellectual property, and its economic benefits. At the time, almost everyone was sharing (he called it "pirating") software, thinking they were helping spread this new technology for the betterment of society.

My point is that despite RMS's motivations for the GPL, once it has been attached to a program, perhaps forever, much like capital in a free economy, it will take on a life of its own, benefiting the original author for sure, but also multiplying its benefits in countless other situations (like circulating capital)

and ironically, in contrast, BSD copycentred licenses, once adopted, still promote examination of conscience whenever a new version is created or an integration is contemplated ... at each of those points, the original intent of the author can be either morally abandoned or  maintained ... 

personally, I think the BSD is free-er than the GPL in the sense that even original intent can be changed at will anytime in the future (so human decision making is possible in perpetuity).  But the GPL is stronger in the sense that the original great freedoms are maintained forever and I can bank on it (as much as we can bank on anything) ... backed with the confidence that the GPL works just like the hidden hand of Adam Smith:  we do not need to make any particular moral effort to ensure it works as advertized... it just works.  And with GPL version 3, it seems that we can even protect ourselves from litigation!  Even if this is only very partially true, it is very amazing and most sustainable

After spending the first part of my life un-successfully looking for a magical way to help all humans make socially-conscious decisions i.e. going into morally high ground,  I finally saw the wisdom of instruments that do good without requiring participants to examine their values constantly (or at all).  And in the GPL, I think we have one such rare bird:  it pleases both idealists (like RMS) and liberal economists (like Linus Torvalds) ... therefore it is a huge phenomenon.