Are GPL and mergers compatible?

Have you noticed how much the GPL is both the most widely used Free and Open Source Software license and the most criticized license? Have you also noticed how much irrational or political the critiques about the GPL can be? I did. And what I like about this is that it is something that makes so many people and corporations jump in the air and get them all sweaty. It's not that I am a fan of Godwin's Law, but what the debates around the GPL show is nothing short of a sensational failure to understand how Free Software works. Okay, and now before you click away thinking I am about to lecture you on how the GPL is great, think about that bold assertion we (the FOSS contributors in a large sense) have all heard one day: You can't make money with software covered by the GPL. Wrong. Let me explain one possible, and quite compelling business case for the GPL. This story may have actually happened already. Company A develops a network management solution. It ships either as a pure software solution or as a network appliance. Company A licenses its solution under a traditional proprietary license. Company B is exactly in the same line of business. In fact, companies A & B are direct competitors. Same kind of solutions, same kind of technologies, and the two of them are excellent at what they're doing. The only difference is that the software is provided "as is" and licensed under a BSD license. Company B makes revenue on the sale of appliances but also on service (support mostly). Company C is their third competitor. Somehow, they do exactly the same thing, and C is nothing short of being as good, if not better in terms of technologies than A and B. Company C does license its software solutions under GPL (version number irrelevant in this case), makes revenue through the bundling of its software solution and some cheap networking gear; that means, it sells an appliance and does provide paid support and consultancy. One day, one networking technology giant, one that makes routers for a living, is out for shopping and gets across those three companies. Lucky them, the kind of technology they are developing is exactly what the behemoth wants for its next generation network management and load balancing platform. The software solution would ideally be integrated into the company's advanced routers. Looking closer towards those companies, the big corporation realizes that there are three distinct ways to make business with them, and the three of them have both advantages and drawbacks. But let's think in a pragmatic way. Perhaps the right question is not so much how each company will operate and do business with the large corporation, but it may well be which of the three will have more chances to do business and draw a substantial benefit out of it. That's exactly what I am about to show: Company A makes the things look clear on the outside. Its proprietary, pay-as-you-go business should reassure anyone. Think again. Would a network giant embarrass itself with code audit (and auditing proprietary software can reveal many, many more issues than with FOSS), wholesale deals on licenses and tickets while keeping an outlook on the next time the two will have to sit again and negotiate the prices? Most likely, no. The only option left would be for the giant to acquire the company A, but that again is not the kind of decision that can be made on the fly. Hence, Company A does not stand a great chance to enter into whatever business relation with the large corporation. On to Company B. B is really a simple and perhaps a sad case. It boils down to this: While the large corporation will certainly be able to acquire a copy of the source code for free and hence look into it, it will likely go away with it as BSD has no strings attached. Thus Company B cannot usually hope for a major deal with that customer. It is however advisable for the large corporation to strike whatever deal with the Company B that will allow support, warranties and more details on the IPR of the software solution. Company C starts off badly, some might think. But, and here's the crux of the story, Company C can also benefit from the weak point of its strength. Let me explain: GPL and its "share-alike" aspect (I don't want to analyze the GPL any deeper) forces the large corporation to abide to the license terms. And the GPL demands that everybody essentially plays nice in order to pass along the rights that it confers. In other words, the first thing the large network group will want to do after having analyzed the code is to contact Company C, and enter in business because it will have to abide to its license. The rights conferred by the company C through the GPL licensing can also turn out to be weapons against competitors and strategic assets. In other words, the GPL is a formidable tool for capitalists. How's that for a business model? One might object that the large corporation will not be interested in a company that licenses GPL software. First, that's historically wrong. Second, a company judges its opportunities based on merit, not necessarily on politics. GPL software does not make a business be less compelling than a proprietary one; it just comes with different rules one has to understand and master. Care about browsing through lines of code and sign that NDA? Ask the large corporation's legal staff if they like it. Well they don't, but they're just used to it. Care to understand each and everyone's rights and deeds under the GPL? Perhaps the same department won't like it... but they will have to get used to it, eventually. Think about it the next time you want to get rich!