Hun-Speak

Click here for other Hun-Speak columns.

June 18, 2001 -- Neither Side Gets It

It has been said that there are two things in life that you should never argue about: politics and religion. People have strong opinions on both subjects--sometimes even backed up by facts. Of course if a debate descends into an argument, no matter what you are talking about, both sides have lost.

I think I have found a third subject to avoid at all costs, especially among hardcore computer types: software licenses. If you've paid any attention to either pro-Linux or pro-Microsoft websites lately, I feel sorry for you. Both camps have been engaged in enough mud-slinging to make your average political candidate proud. And you know what? Both sides are wrong!

The argument lately has been over the GNU General Public License or GPL. It is a license that allows you to view the source code of any program licensed under it. You can take that source and do pretty much whatever you want with it, but if you release it, you must also release the modified source.

Microsoft claims that the GPL stifles innovation and is, in the final analysis, basically communist. You would think that Richard Stallman and his cohorts are the spawns of Satan, judging from the way that several high-profile Microsoft executives have talked about the GPL. The reality of the situation is that Microsoft hates the GPL because it is bad for (and really goes completely against) their business model. It takes away one of their chief weapons: embrace and extend (some would also add "and destroy"). They take an existing technology and extend it until it only functions with their own software. Thats exactly what they did with Kerberos, and exactly what the GPL forbids them to do.

Many free software advocates have been just as venomous in their attacks on Microsoft and other closed-source companies, not to mention non-GPL-compatible free software licenses. Opposition is not just on a practical but a philosophical level. A good example is the NVIDIA XFree86 4.x drivers. NVIDIA released these drivers which provide excellent 3D graphics support in Linux. Because they didn't release the source to the drivers, NVIDIA was soundly condemned by free software zealots. Never mind that they work, and work well. If you don't want to hand out the source, they don't want the software.

The GPL is neither panacea nor pariah. It is excellent for some software, it is not ideal for all. It will not make us all Leninist, nor will it free us from all ills. It, like the software it licenses, is a tool. Use it as you see fit.

But you know what? No one cares! OK, that's hyperbole. Very few people care. You can make a strong argument that very few people should care. People want their computers to work. Computers should help them get their work done, entertain them, and hopefully make their lives just a bit better. Period. Talk to the average computer user about the theology of software licensing and they will roll their eyes and try to get on with life.

Here's an open challenge to both sides: shut up and concentrate on making your software suck less. Microsoft camp: stop charging up the wazoo for bug fixes should have been in the initial release and incremental upgrades that should have been left out altogether. Free software camp: make some apps that matter. And that work. And with user interfaces that weren't designed for nuclear physicists by nuclear physicists. Make business apps so compelling that people will have no reason not to use them.

In the last analysis, that's all that matters. Do the apps work? Do they help me get my work done? Do they let me have more fun? Do they make my life easier? Can I afford them? The software that can answer more of those questions with "yes" is the software that will succeed. The market will kill everything else off, ideology be damned.