Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 10:08 pm Scott Moore wrote (in article ): > Randy Howard wrote: > >>> And by >>> putting everything under the GPL, we ensure that the bad software makers >>> will never be able to come back, since they can't pull the same >>> "steal the code, tweak it, and release it as closed source" tricks they >>> did back in the '80s. >> >> >> Sorry, but I don't see this. There was very little 'open >> source' software to steal from back then. Apart from the TCP >> stack, what other examples can you point to? >> > > This has become the urban legend of the GPL movement, but I believe it > largely traces back to the AT&T vs. MIT case concerning X-Windows. MIT > produced X-Windows, and let the source go free, unrestricted (even the > GPL). This is about 1984 (according to Wikipedia). AT&T filed a patent > over the ability to save the contents of a window, then restore that > when it would be uncovered. This is the "backing store" patent. The > patent was filed even though MIT clearly demonstrated the technique > in their released code, and AT&T clearly got the idea from their code. > AT&T then made MIT REMOVE the code to avoid voilating the patent. I remember this case, but it has to do with patent infringement, and an arguably 'bad' patent grant, but doesn't say anything about the general assertion that there were 'bad software makers' stealing code from open source during the 80s. > In fact, just publishing on the web consitiutes legal proof, since there > are web sites (wayback) that record snapshots of older web versions. > This can and has been the basis for legal decisions. I would think that any company wishing to have this type of backup information would do their own archives of their web sites on a timed basis, have them notarized and stored offsite by an independent entity. Hmmm, maybe there is a business plan in there somewhere. > The other "proof" of (abscondtion ?) GNU uses is that a open source > program might be "improved" by a commercial entity, and users might > grow to like that better than the original, open source program, > perhaps because they advertised it better (or other, non functional > reason). Then, the users are "locked into a proprietary standard". > > However, this ignores the fact that the original, open source version > is well available, and users are free to choose whichever version they > like. Exactly. What they really object to is the idea of someone liking an alternate version better. Witness all the arguing over forking and what not. The recent issues with Mambo are really bizarre, and an example of what happens when "communities" try to do things collectively without a strong central leader that others give way to, such as Linus. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .