Don't fear the GPL

A FEW SOFTWARE companies (I'll let you guess which one heads the list) have spent a considerable amount of time recently trying to convince folks that the GNU GPL (General Public License) is evil. Well, it's not. In fact, the GPL is perhaps the most empowering license that an end-user of software could ever receive.

Why? Because the GPL ensures that the software user has full access to the source code. It also grants you permission to modify the software as you see fit, as well as permission to redistribute both the original software and your modifications. That's a lot of power for an end-user.

But what if your organization wants to modify a piece of GPL software to add some logic that you want to keep secret? Does the GPL demand that you spill trade secrets to competitors just to modify the software? Not at all -- as long as you don't redistribute the software. If you are keeping the modifications for use in-house, you can do anything you'd like to the source code. But if you decide to start distributing the software, you will need to include your modified source code with it. Because most end-user companies don't want to enter the software business, this is a non-problem.

But some vendors insist that the GNU General Public License is a threat. In particular, they claim that publicly funded software development should not use the GPL. Why? Because once the source code is under the GPL, they cannot make a closed-source derivative and then charge high prices for the result. Sure, they can charge for their GPL code (there is nothing in the license against that), but they won't be able to restrict the redistribution of the code to others. Realistically, they can make money off the research code; they just won't be able to make obscene amounts of it, that's all.

Is this wrong to deprive corporations from making a profit from publicly funded software development? Hardly. Which is more deplorable: that a few profit-making software companies won't be able to make as much profit from publicly funded software, or that the public who already paid for the software once with their tax dollars will have to pay for it again when the large software company puts it into their closed-source product?

I'm all for companies making a profit. But I don't think profits should come at the taxpayer's expense, especially when that expense is paid twice over.

Government-sponsored research would serve the public well by releasing code under the GPL. If a company wants to use the research in a closed-source product, it can always develop its own independent implementation and use the GPL code for comparative testing. That's a lot fairer than expecting citizens to pay for the code all over again.

The GPL is no bogeyman. But it does give incredible power to the end-user organization. And that makes some software vendors afraid.