The impact of open source, grids, and advanced networks

[Chuck Murcko]

On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 02:18 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:

> Chuck Murcko wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 02:15 AM, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> "C" == Chuck Murcko <chuck@topsail.org> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>     C> I don't think rms had the idea; IMO he just borrowed it.  The
>>>     C> RCP/M and RBBS communities were going for at least five full
>>>     C> years before FSF appeared. There was lots of open, cooperative
>>>     C> development there. FidoNet grew out of that once the IBM PC
>>>     C> appeared.
>>>
>>> RMS didn't invent the idea of free software, he invented the
>>> 'copyleft', a legal document by which free software could be codified
>>> and spared some of the aggrivation experienced by the cases you site
>>> (remember Phil Katz?) RMS knew very well of the prior history of
>>> free software; he sought to protect it from it's own naiivity.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, actually. The legal aggravation like SEA v. PKWare is endemic to 
>> the software business, not just to the open forms of it.
>>
>> I believe the copyleft has also never been to court. So it's really a 
>> philosophy until then, no?
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/enforcing-gpl.html
> While it's under 'philosophy', reading it makes their case seem strong. 
> I don't know of any copyright law holes in it and I'm reasonably savvy 
> about copyright/trademark/patent and contract law.
>

Understood. We'll see I guess.

>>
>>
>>> As for a movement, RMS didn't call the the "GNU Manifesto" for 
>>> nothing.
>>>
>>
>> There's also a sizeable community of non-copyleft software. I think it 
>> managed to cope with its naivety on its own.
>
> And it could be coopted by Microsoft, et al, at any time, speaking of 
> licenses like BSD.

That might not be such a bad idea from a security standpoint. Seriously, 
so there's a code fork on a coopt (if in fact it can be kept completely 
secret) at worst instead of a completely different code base. Where's 
the IP coming from upstream? There's value in that. It creates movement 
toward real standards in software behavior.

> The various Open Source (tm) licenses have the strength of GPL with 
> compromised goals.  Useful for many circumstances.
>

Different goals, not compromised ones. 8^) Open flow of IP  within an 
open software community, for one. Licenses that are up- and downstream 
benign to each other without all being the same license. Different 
licenses carry along the concept of different target audiences. That 
variety seems to be a good thing. I think you agree, useful for many 
circumstances.

> sdw
>
>> Chuck
>>
>>
>>
>> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
>
>
>
>
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>