The impact of open source, grids, and advanced networks
Mon, 11 Feb 2002 02:05:10 -0500
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 <email@example.com> 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?
> 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
>> 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