I read about Richard Stallman’s visit to Sweden and the Royal School of Technology (KTH) this week, and his general bashing of everything not GNU.

I would not call Stallman a communist as some would, he want software to be free and open, and make it possible for individuals to contribute and be protected of license infringement (if he was a communist he would have wanted more control and a strict board to govern which software was to be allowed to be written, and individual choice would not be promoted or allowed…). In terms of licensing Stallman has a totalitarian view that GNU is good enough for everybody and all software.

I would like to see more choices, and it’s good with different Open Source licenses, they serve different purposes for different projects. And in a way even Stallman and the Free Software Foundation has realized this and created LGPL, that is a bit more friendly in terms of how you can use the software as components (with-in software with another license).

And I think this is the flaw in his reasoning; he argues that software patents do not work because software is a complex set of different ideas and concepts. I agree, but software today is so complex that it is also a complex set of ready made components (some commercial, some open source) and custom components put together to form a complete program or service. Almost no software built today is built from scratch, and almost any electronic product today contains software, software is everywhere.

So if I am building a commercial product (let’s say a mobile phone) and there are a number of ready made software components for some of the building blocks available as Open Source, some of them are not exactly what I need, so I need to add some functionality to them.

1) If any of these components have a GNU-type license, I could use them, but would have to distribute the complete source for my Mobile phone software (in one way or another).

2) If any of these components have a Apache-type license, I could modify the components as needed and include them in my product. I would not need to distribute the complete source for my Mobile phone software.

There are a number of compelling reasons not to do 1), and there are some perfectly good business models that could be built around 1), but with 2) I could modify the components and feed that back to the Open Source project and add some value to that.

For Linux the GNU model, 1), works quite well I think. But for minor components I think the Apache style license works a lot better, because it allows me to choose 1 or 2 above, whatever fits my business model, it also means that if my business model and business idea is working out, I can dedicate more resources to the contribute to the community (Open Source) project, which is what you can see with a lot of the small Apache projects (that don’t share the “heavy” foot-print that Linux has in terms of momentum etc), I think many of these small Apache projects would die (slowly but surely) if they were to be GPL licensed. A lot of the GNU licensed smaller projects don’t thrive as the Apache ones do. If I am a small startup with few resources, and early-on before I know which business model really works and how I will actually end up making money, the flexibility can be quite important and in many cases it would make sense for a small startup to open-source my custom/proprietary components with an Apache model, but not with the GPL (in terms of benefits of sharing it).

Now FSF and GNU has realized this and created the LGPL, but GNU would like to forget that, it seems.

Stallman thinks the world could be better by with widespread technology use, me too, I just think that variations, openness and flexibility is what moves things forward and will in the end be the route that creates the most diversity and spread, and I am foremost an Entrepreneur that want to create companies that make money of creating a value for it’s customers.

My punchline: Freedom of choice, and different licenses are good, there should not be just Apache or just GNU, just as there is no “one size fits all” for anything else in our world.