| |||||||||||
We should emphasise the GNU GPL and discourage "copyleft"We should emphasise the GNU GPL and discourage "copyleft"Posted Jun 26, 2003 20:55 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole (guest, #3068)Parent article: Penguin on Thin Ice? (FindLaw) The use of "copyleft" in regards to describing the Linux kernel license should be actively discouraged. Here is the FSF definition of copyleft, but "copyleft" means something different to others. Quoting from the University of Texas CS department: The concept of copyleft is to put a program into the public domain and choose not to enforce any copyright on the program. This is not the same the GNU GPL, which is (I hope) a very strong copyright license. It is expected that the provisions of the GNU GPL will be enforced (although clause 6 seems to remove that onus from the user), and in fact violations of the GPL are usually quietly but firmly resolved. Most people working with Open Source software have a general idea of the provisons of the GNU GPL, but it seems to usually be limited to clause 1. For an exhaustive clarification, the Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU GPL should be enough for anybody.
(Log in to post comments)
We should emphasise the GNU GPL and discourage "copyleft" Posted Jun 26, 2003 21:32 UTC (Thu) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I think it's the UT people that should be taken to task--I believe 'copyleft' was invented by RMS, wasn't it? So his definition would be the canonical one--as well as the one that makes sense. We already have a phrase describing what UT defines as "copyleft"--that being, "putting something into the public domain". Putting something into the public domain means giving up all rights to it completely, which of course is exactly what "copyleft" does not mean.
We should emphasise the GNU GPL and discourage "copyleft" Posted Jun 26, 2003 22:11 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] Yep, you're right. But take a look at what www.subvertise.org thinks "copyleft" means:CopyLeft means copyright except for non-profit making initiatives/organizations where the it is used to positively portray what it sat out to do. If you are not sure what it originally set out to do you must ask its creator. This means that you can use the (graphics, article etc.) If you are not making money out or it and do not have the intention...Sigh. The lesson learned from the above is not to try and write legalese when drunk or stoned. Here's an apropos passage from Lewis Carrol: "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."My concern is that ambiguous usage and understanding of "copyleft" will serve to undermine the strength of the GNU GPL by proxy. Imagine if a majority of the Supreme Court justices confused the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. And used a copy of the Declaration from some random person's personal notes. The GNU GPL is our Constitution, and should be defended, even from the effects of sloppy and imprecise reporting as in the FindLaw article.
We should emphasise the GNU GPL and discourage "copyleft" Posted Jun 26, 2003 21:32 UTC (Thu) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Since the FSF invented the term copyleft, I think their definition is the authoritative one.
The UT site is incorrect and obsolete Posted Jun 26, 2003 22:46 UTC (Thu) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] Mail to the page maintainer's address bounces. The information is incorrect, out-of-date, and unmaintained.
The UT site is incorrect and obsolete Posted Jun 26, 2003 23:49 UTC (Thu) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] Thanks Karsten. It looks like that may have been a semester project which was abandoned when the course ended. It also appears from the phrase "our GPL" they intended on having their own GPL, since they didn't link to gnu.org. Now that would be interesting, lost in a maze of GPLs, all different. Not.The reason I'm making such a fuss over this is that it seems SCO's strategy is to win in the court of public opinion. They are probably smart enough to realize that they will eventually lose in a real court. But if they are able to convince enough IT professionals to hold off on moving to Linux or to move from AIX to Solaris, then IBM will make a "business decision" that buying SCO for $130 million is better than being attrited by say $200 million per year for the several years that it will take this case to play out.
IBM's strategy Posted Jun 27, 2003 17:08 UTC (Fri) by MathFox (subscriber, #6104) [Link] If IBM wanted it, they could have settled with or bought SCO. Doing so would have been an invitation for other extortioners to try too. I think IBM is taking the short- and medium term losses to keep up the image of a company that you don't want to meet in court.Looking at the news: SCO allready is rapidly losing attention from the media, they have nothing new to tell... I wouldn't be surprised if the IBM spin machine would start leaking bits of news to change the image SCO tried to create, or would they use their Open Source allies for that job??? From several sources I've heard that the SCO-IBM case delayed AIX or Linux deployments for one, sometimes two weeks. The amount of media attention the case generates (bad publicity is publicity too, and I'm not sure whether this media attention is bad for Linux) could even help Linux acceptance. At least it is a very good reason to educate people about the difference between GPL and propriatary licenses. I am sure that IBM is handling this case in the best of its own interests; but it is in the long term interests of IBM too to get Linux out free! I don't worry too deeply.
IBM's strategy Posted Jun 27, 2003 18:36 UTC (Fri) by StevenCole (guest, #3068) [Link] "Millions for defense, sir, but not one cent for tribute".That misquote comes from the XYZ affair, but is good policy. I sincerely hope you are right on all your points.
|
|||||||||||