GPL and some open-sourcers: I'm outraged!

    I apologize in advance that I will retell things that have been known for a long time, but the other day I came across it myself, and I just can’t help but speak out :)

    [summary: I wanted to use the so-called “free software” for my needs, spent a lot of time, and ended up leaving with nothing].

    The story is like that. There is a customer selling some software product. For this product, it is proposed to write a very useful, but in general optional module (M). In my opinion, the module consists of two large algorithms, one of which (M1) in its pure form does not exist in nature (i.e. it needs to be composed), and the second (M2) is essentially a library procedure, even and quite non-trivial.

    Of course, you can write both M1 and M2 yourself, but why reinvent the wheel? And I went for the M2 to the Internet. And what did I see there, in these open spaces?

    At first glance, everything is not bad. Such modules are available, and even in large numbers. But as it often happens, a closer look instantly cuts off more than half of the projects - incomprehensible half-abandoned undertakings, “experimental versions” not recommended by the authors themselves for real use, some grains extracted from large systems, not the fact that they work independently of everything else .

    With this, everything is clear, normal situation. But then I found myself in a position of very little choice: either buy (for a lot, by the way, money) a module from a commercial supplier, or use “open source”. And then I got :) The fact is that the M2 module is, as I said, a non-trivial thing, and almost all implementations have somehow left university laboratories. And there, as they say, let's face the facts:

    - Half of all projects are written in Java. It doesn’t suit us (we need a neutral code, a customer requirement).
    - A quarter is somehow inaccessible for “left” reasons (the main developer wrote a diploma and dumped; the project is closed, we all do other things, and we don’t have time to mess with the old code; all this is done to write a scientific article, and use in real life - um, hammer it - and so on). It's a shame, but in general it is also understandable.
    - But the remaining four are, in fact, the subject of my indignation, but in fact they do not give a damn about those who may be interested in this project at least somehow.

    Again, let's face the facts: at universities (I myself work at the university) we write software to conduct research, compose publications and go to conferences. Such a life forms a kind of parallel value system, with its pluses and minuses. In this case, a clear minus is the development of software for the sole purpose of supporting the work of its narrow group. Those. software users - well, five to ten people, and the rest are simply not interesting to them.

    In an ideal world, the universities that exist on the taxes of society should be beneficial to this society. And the development of software (possibly free), which industry does not reach, is a good step in this direction. Just a few take this step.

    Favorite history in practice - Linux and GPL. A typical statement: "we write on Linux, everything is compiled under Linux, do not ask about other platforms, we are not interested." Well, you love Linux, your business, you have the right. I have nothing against Linux. But how is it, “you are not interested”? Those. Are 90% (or more) potential users of your software not interesting to you? And then where is justice, where are the taxes going? ;)

    And the GPL is generally the devil’s invention. If software is published under the GPL, it cannot be used in a package that is not licensed under the GPL. The authors argue this way: they say it would be wrong if the company took GPL software, finalized it, and then competed with us. Logical and reasonable. But how could one reasonably deal with this? Demand distributing GPL code for free even with a commercial program? Of course. Prohibit the release of modified software for non-GPL licenses? Suppose so! But they go further - suppose I have a text editor that, when writing text to disk, archives files in ZIP. It would seem that I am not a competitor to the archiver on any side. However, you cannot use the GPL ZIP archiver (you cannot even call the executable file through the command line)! Let it out, my friend, all your text editor under the GPL! (There is, of course, a much less evil LGPL, but the M2 module I need, distributed by LGPL, did not come across).

    That is, in fact, all this software is unsuitable for serious use by anyone. Do you want “free software”? Yeah. First, use our operating system, and then sign the agreement with blood, that from now on all your software (in which our library is only a small part) will be distributed “freely”. Such a model can be called anything you like, but not "free."

    Result: all the resources that dozens of universities spent on various versions of the M2 module did not give me anything. I am negotiating with a commercial company.

    Conclusions:
    If you are writing free software, think at least a little about your users. You are welcome! Let there be at least some documentation (sometimes it comes to idiocy: the source texts are megabytes, and all the documentation is a readme file with 100 lines. Well, if you wrote so much code, can you really find time for a more decent introduction?)
    Let your project be at least a little We transfer to other platforms, except your beloved.
    No GPL needed! Set any additional conditions for commercial users: let them pay you for the right to use your software, let them commit to release any modified versions of your project for free (i.e. let them upgrade and debut your code with their own money), let them cram your name in the About box. But don’t chop their capabilities! The ban on calling the GPL zip archiver from commercial software (under any circumstances!) Is nonsense and a big loss for everyone. In the end, the bulk of the popular “free software” for the developer is not the GPL.

    Sorry to boil. Spent a week searching. Now, apparently, we will pay a lot of money to the capitalists, who will continue to develop their own (high-quality product), moving even further away in level from the seemingly romantic open-source romanticists.

    Also popular now: