The impact of open source, grids, and advanced networks

Luis Villa louie@ximian.com
11 Feb 2002 10:58:26 -0500


On Mon, 2002-02-11 at 01:34, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> 
> On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 09:33 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 04:42, Chuck Murcko wrote:
> >> On Sunday, February 10, 2002, at 02:15 AM, Gary Lawrence Murphy wrote:
> >>
> >> I believe the copyleft has also never been to court. So it's really a
> >> philosophy until then, no?
> >
> > Apple tried to violate the GPL with their Objective C compiler (which
> > blatantly violated the GPL placed on gcc). They were called on it. The
> > source was freed. So... it has never been tested, but at the very least
> > Apple's lawyers feel it is solid.
> 
> Problem is AFAICS New Mexico is still trying to figure out if it can 
> copyleft its XCI (XML Court Interface) after three years. Marty, did 
> this ever happen?

All corporate/IP lawyers have an inherent fear of the GPL. It isn't
necessarily that it is indefensible; just that their entire training is
centered around keeping and grabbing instead of giving anyway and so
they have a hard time wrapping their heads around it. It's incredible
(in my very recent experience) how quickly they adjust when their hand
is forced one they realize they've been caught in the GPL cookie jar.

Note, for what it is worth: I've heard the suggestion that MS may be
very deliberately trying to test this; there is a Redmond-based palm-top
company using Linux that has no hardware that anyone has seen yet, but
their GPL-based software is behind some big 'you must agree to the EULA'
language. No proof it is tied to that other corp in Redmond, but it is
something to think about.

> >>> 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.
> >
> > Not sure what that last sentence means, but I'm curious...
> > Luis
> >
> 
> Well, there's all the BSD and derivative licensed software for one 
> thing. The implication of the original statement I replied to was that 
> somehow open software needed to be led from its state of naivety by the 
> copyleft principle. But clearly there's a body of successful open 
> software that followed its own, non-copylefted course. So there's a 
> larger community composed of both copyleft and non-copyleft software. 
> It's important not to forget that.

Ah, fair enough... I'd misread the first reference to naivete in the
thread, which made me misunderstand you. My fault :)
Luis