Klara Systems is Wrong About the GNU General Public License (GPL) and Here's Why
As a BSD-centric (or focused) company, Klara Systems is simple for outsiders to deem or classify as "biased" (trying to push people to BSD), but let's consider the more pertinent technical and legal details. They mostly argue in favour of user-hostile or used-subjugating Digital Restrictions Management (DRM), not in favour of BSD (permissive in the sense that it permits DRM pushers to take control away from users, even take their own data away at any time - i.e. directly the opposite of users' security).
THIS is a relatively long rebuttal, but it could be a lot longer.
Someone has sent us a link to this new article, arguing that is makes Klara Systems seem like Microsoft catspaws. In the past, Klara Systems did cover some GNU/Linux systems, but Klara Systems is a BSD company.
The article "GPL 3: The Controversial Licensing Model and Potential Solutions" may seem like envy unraveled, but let's dissect the underlying arguments in it. Let's try to be fair.
The summary:
Discover the controversies surrounding GPL 3 and the growing trend of GPL to BSD migration in the open-source world. Our article provides in-depth insights into the differences between GPL and BSD licenses, and why more businesses and developers are opting for BSD's flexibility in their open-source strategies
They speak of "growing trend of GPL to BSD migration in the open-source world." Sorry, I'm not seeing that. I've been in the area for over 2 decades and it seems like the "GPL ecosystem" (RMS dislikes such a framing) grows fast, whereas the BSDs perpetually lurk behind. Rarely have I seen a migration like the one they assert exists in significant numbers. Maybe I'm blind, maybe I'm ignorant, but I'm not quite seeing it. Some Microsoft proxies try to claim it, even if the data barely supports that.
They then say they will cover "why more businesses and developers are opting for BSD's flexibility"; more than when? I'm not seeing that. I'm not a "newb" either; there is no link in this summary to support this assertion. Not even to Microsoft proxies such as Black Duck.
The top of the page then says:
The GNU General Public License (GPL) has been a cornerstone in the open-source community, dictating (and we use that word intentionally…) how software can be freely used, modified, and distributed. GPL version 3, released in 2007, introduced significant changes from its predecessor, GPL 2, and sparked considerable debate among developers and corporations. This article delves into the controversies surrounding GPL 3, its differences from GPL 2, and compares it with other popular licenses like BSD and MIT, to understand how they coexist in the open-source ecosystem.
The first sentence is highly problematic: "The GNU General Public License (GPL) has been a cornerstone in the open-source community."
No, there is no such thing as "open-source community." Or movement. You're thinking of Free software and the use of dash is indicative of openwashing, which is not even Open Source "proper". They use the word "dictating" (they say "intentionally") as if to imply that Free software sticklers are dictators. Exercising control over the sharing (back) of one's own code is dictatorship? Really? In the land of objective sanity, keeping the source code secret is dictatorship. More so making it increasingly hostile and gradually worse (owing to remote updates).
They then say GPLv3 came, as if all that much changed in it. Microsoft front groups like ACT tried to scandalise it and to make it sound like it was business-hostile (nothing could be further from the truth; if anything, it protected the businesses better). They say the new version "sparked considerable debate among developers and corporations." And Microsoft front groups, as we covered extensively at the time. They speak of "controversies surrounding GPL 3", so we'll explore those later. At the end they say "open-source ecosystem." This means they view it from the Apple perspective, i.e. how to make proprietary, locked down (with DRM) systems and then stick "open" on them (mislabeling, misleading, openwashing).
Now they start with a graph:
Let’s start with some interesting numbers: Permissive [sic] licenses stand out as the most popular choice in the open source community. The MIT license leads the pack, being the choice for over 812,000 projects. Following closely is the Apache 2.0 license, used in around 465,000 projects. The BSD-3 license, another permissive option, is applied to approximately 71,000 projects. Together, these three licenses – MIT, Apache 2.0, and BSD-3 – account for roughly 70% of the projects in the Libraries.io dataset.
That's highly misleading. What is Libraries.io? That's from Tidelift, which is promoting Microsoft talking points and is partly funded by 'former' Microsoft as the General Manager, as we explained in 2022. They basically count a lot of Microsoft GitHub and Microsoft NPM. So Klara Systems bases its assertions on data that is controlled by Microsoft, limited to what Microsoft is controlling etc. The lion's share there is Microsoft prisoners rather than Free software developers.
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics"
--Benjamin Disraeli
Not good, Klara Systems. Come on, do some better research. Check your sources. GNU- or GPL-centric projects typically aren't gullible enough to let Microsoft control them. There are many other factors, but the bottom line is, Klara Systems tries to make it seem like the GPL is dying, dead, or very minuscule.
Moving on, they say:
One might argue that with the changes being introduced in 2007, 2024 is hardly the year to get annoyed at the changes. However, the relevance of GPL 3’s implications is accentuated by the increasing integration of open-source software in enterprise environments and advancements in technology sectors like IoT and cloud computing. These developments bring GPL 3’s provisions on user rights and software distribution to the forefront.
So-called "cloud computing" ("the clown", or SaaS at the time; the buzzwords changed) was affected by AGPL, it's not about the number at the end. For many companies the A (Affero) was valuable and important. It helped them compete fairly. They mention "IoT". Good luck defining that old, dying buzzword - usually some device with an Internet stack. They don't make a strong poiint here. Notice how they keep putting dashes in "open-source". It is not an accident.
Then:
Additionally, growing concerns about user privacy, digital rights, and the rise in software patent litigations make understanding GPL 3’s approach vital for legal compliance and strategic business planning. In this evolving landscape, comprehending GPL 3 and other licenses is crucial for leveraging the benefits of open-source while addressing its challenges.
Again "open-source" with a dash. GPL is about freedom, it says nothing about "open-source" or Open Source. They insist on misframing what's at stake.
The next section says "What’s Controversial About GPL 3" and let's focus on that weakly-argued block/wall of text by breaking it apart into the pertinent paragraphs.
First paragraph:
GPL 3 has been contentious for various reasons. One primary concern is its approach to “tivoization.” Tivoization refers to the practice of using GPL-licensed software on hardware that restricts modification of that software. GPL 3 prohibits this practice, ensuring that users have the freedom to modify GPL-licensed software running on their devices, a stance that some manufacturers and developers have opposed.
OK, so Klara Systems is a DRM or lock-down proponent. Got it.
Second paragraph:
Another controversial aspect is the license’s stance on patent litigation. GPL 3 attempts to protect users against patent litigation arising from the use of GPL-licensed software, which has been met with resistance from companies heavily invested in software patents.
Who is this "controversial" to? Microsoft???
Last paragraph:
Additionally, GPL 3 addresses the issue of digital rights management (DRM). It explicitly forbids the use of GPL-licensed software in systems designed to enforce DRM restrictions, which has caused concern among content providers and software developers who implement DRM.
Wait, that is an issue?
OK, then... good luck pushing controversial DRM with your "open-source" "ecosystem", which you claim barely has anything with a GPL licence, pointing to Microsoft data.
I never quite realised how hostile this company can be toward the "controversial" GPLv3, which based on the above section is only 'controversial" because it protects users and developers, rather than DRM pushers who are looking to hurt both.
A friend told me that "on the topic of licensing and software freedom, Klara usually has good articles but today is spreading pro-DRM anti-FOSS FUD. The article is quite bad and make me wonder if the good articles were just bait on the hook."
"Nominally one can see another approach in which FS and OSS are merely different tactics to the same goal. That's what Perens had aimed for. However, Klara seems to be channeling Microsoft today and moving away from software freedom in general. So without drawing attention to the specific garbage hatchet job perhaps a rebuttal of their approach is warranted."
I was going to respond to all the text, but then Fair Use doctrine is at stake. So let's just leave it at that. The rest of the text presents weak arguments, fallacies etc. It's easy to respond to and rebut/debunk.
An author (or authors) is not named in the article, so one can assume it's the company's stance/statement.
"A key point is that Klara has deviated far from what the original OSS founders were aiming for and have instead now sided with Microsoft against OSS," my friend has concluded. █