| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
A new source of anti-GPL FUD
A law firm called "Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks" has seen fit to issue a press release containing some pretty strange claims about the GPL.
"This 'time bomb' lurks because a popular license for open source,
the GNU General Public License, (GPL) is 'viral.' The license attaches
to any product with GPL-licensed code, including a derivative work, he
said. The entire software package becomes open source and the company
thus must distribute it freely and let anyone copy it. A widely used
open-source utility, for instance, could 'infect' hundreds of software
products and destroy their commercial value." The release also states that, should SCO win against IBM, licensing used by the entertainment industry might have to be rewritten.
We have asked this firm to back up its claims and to shed some wisdom on why it felt the need to send out this release; stay tuned.
(Log in to post comments)
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:42 UTC (Fri) by alspnost (subscriber, #2763) [Link] Strange indeed. What an extraordinary piece of hyperbole. They seem to think that the GPL can be used as a lurking weapon to attack people's software, steal it and drag it out into the open. They've rather missed the point that the GPL, like any other license, is something you *choose* to attach to your product. Sure, if you choose it for your product, or if you use someone else's GPL work in your product, you have to follow its rules, but no-one's forcing you to go down that path.Anyway, no need to preach that here ;-)
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 11:11 UTC (Fri) by laurent (guest, #7539) [Link] What this stuff really means is very simple: Other law firms are starting to notice the good business ($$$) that Boies & associates are making with this SCO.So for the price of a Press Release that doesn't say much, they advertise their services hoping that someone with a $3.000.000.000 lawsuit to manage will come to them. For them I guess that investment is better than any lottery game they could ever play... Remember in any case that FUD means good business for lawyers...
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:44 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] > "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the> Internet and you no longer have a proprietary product. Your > $50,000 software package is now worth zero" So? That sounds like a problem with the employee not the software license. What's your employee doing putting other people's source code into your proprietary product anyway? If you want to use other people's code, then you must do so based on the terms they use to license it to you. I'd expect better from lawyers.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 10:35 UTC (Fri) by stanmuffin (guest, #16955) [Link] The FSF clearly isn't going to force you to open-source your $50k application against your will. You'll get the chance to remove GPL'd code from your product and fire the employee who put it there. The FSF is not SCO.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 11:31 UTC (Fri) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] For interesting, definitive info about FSF's GPL enforcement, see this talk:http://media.april.org/audio/RMLL-2003/fixed/David-Turner.ogg by FSF's GPL compliance engineer.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 13:20 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] The FSF doens't have anything to do with it unless the GPL code that was included was copyrighted by the FSF. If you included GPL'd code and the copyright holder of that code was someone other than the FSF then you'll have to work out a deal with them. If they demand that you make source available, then you've got a problem.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 3:30 UTC (Sat) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link] Not really. If you combine GPL code with non-GPL code you violate copyright. Makingthe rest of your source code is a solution to solve the copyright violation. Copyright violation is in principle a criminal act. However, you do not go to jail for accidentally including GPL code in your product. Unless you refuse to take out the code, there is nothing to fear here. In addition, the copyright holder usually has had (financial) damage because of the copyright violation. In a civil procedure he can demand the pirate to compensate the damage. Now, I think the only damage you have when someone steals your GPL code is the money that you would earn by writing that code at normal payment rates. The "pirate" would have to pay that. In other words, there is no legal requirement to make the rest of your source GPL, it is just a legal solution, but by removing the code and paying the damages, it is not strictly necessary to do so.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 24, 2003 16:56 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] > Copyright violation is in principle a criminal act.That is not true. Criminal infringement only applies under certain circumstances, as per Title 17, U.S. Copyright Law: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 13:27 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] > "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the> Internet and you no longer have a proprietary product. Your > $50,000 software package is now worth zero" "I'd expect better from lawyers." This are not lawyers, this are bandits!... They are stating that there should be laws that permit the stealing of open-code into a proprietary for profit project!... I mean, its the only valid conclusion that you can achieve... and really reveals how filthy the "Ma$ter" is...
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 2:57 UTC (Sat) by petegn (guest, #847) [Link] > "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the> Internet and you no longer have a proprietary product. Your > $50,000 software package is now worth zero".... Yes but what a brilliant way of screwing up the employer that has been a total arse wipe and pain in the butt... not the nicest way to utilise the GPL but could be goo for a laugh.. Pete.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 12:02 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] MS and SCO are not the most reliable sources of information on the GPL and its implications.
viral licenses Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:48 UTC (Fri) by jake (editor, #205) [Link] I get so tired of hearing how the GPL is 'viral' as it is no more (or less) viral than any other source code license out there. As the SCO case shows, a source code vendor can make all sorts of wild claims regarding "derivative works" based on their code. In fact, if you have a source code license for propietary code, the license may not allow you to distribute derivative works *at all* which is certainly worse than requiring a source release for derivative works. In the end, it comes down to where you (or more likely some court) draw the line for derivative works.This is an area that the mainstream computer press completely ignores and/or fails to understand. We (FOSS advocates) need to get that message out. jake
viral licenses Posted Nov 21, 2003 13:36 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Can you control the majority of the press ? yes?:- great ; no?:- the only way is Open Standards, specialy in the Desktop, and World Domination(tm);... i mean, its pretty obvious several times a week, every week, that or Linux/FOSS wins world domination, or there is a pretty good danger of it being stoped by dirty laws...And world domination in IT, is more a technical matter than a political one, so there Linux/FOSS as an advantage if developers stick together in those Open Standards.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:52 UTC (Fri) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] They forget that there's always another option: If you want to include a GPL'd program into your valuable IP, you could ask the author(s) if they sell it to you. Some companies have even made a business case with that (MySQL, Trolltech).
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:54 UTC (Fri) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] I expect you asked them something like the following:"It goes without saying that your firm advises its clients to read and understand the licenses attached to any and all source code they might intend to use. In the case of a license more restrictive than the GPL, the consequences of willful license violation might be far more severe than the destruction of a product's 'commercial value.' The GPL, like any license, acts as an instrument of the author's intent -- in this case, that the software should be reused freely by others. In no way does the GPL act to subvert or thwart a user's intent -- unless, of course, that user intends to appropriate the GPL-licensed software and use it in knowing violation of the original author's desires. Given this, isn't it a bit extreme to describe the GPL as 'viral'?" It will be interesting to see how they respond.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:59 UTC (Fri) by TwoTimeGrime (guest, #11688) [Link] Even if the GPL were not to apply standard copyrights would. It'd be copyright infingement which can have financial penalties.
Shoddy legal advice Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:56 UTC (Fri) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link] Isn't there some kind of law against a lawyer intentionally giving shoddy legal advice? If Steve Henry has actually read the GPL, he would realize that the GPL cannot force the release of a company's IP under the GPL, it can only force the company to cease distributing the GPL'ed code incorporated into the product. I think someone should contact the Massachusetts bar to see if they might take action against Henry unless he retracts this...
Shoddy legal advice Posted Nov 24, 2003 13:09 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] Even if there were, it would be up to a lawyer to take the"bad" lawyer down. Never happen. A lawyer will file suit on behalf of a client against another Never happen. That's like trying to find a judge guilty, or never happen.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 9:57 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] I can't wait to see the FSF lawyers wipe the floor with these guys.I also can't wait for the day when big-money press goes the way of the dinosaur, and takes their lying, sensantionalist philosophy with them. Maybe then the impulse racks at the supermarket will have some *useful* items in place of their trash.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 10:03 UTC (Fri) by QB (guest, #17084) [Link] MY GOD!!!!RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 10:17 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] Yeah...kind of reminds me of that Yourdon guy and his deep-woods mission-critical combat-ready rock-em sock-em software desingn voodoo.....and his big-headline, big-letter sensationalist blather about Y2K. Got a lot of gas-powered generators moving off the shelves, though.....
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 13:42 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] C'MON DONT BE SCARED BY A COUPLE OF "BANDIT LAWYER" FUD, WILL YOU ?,..., THAT'S ALL THEY WANT...
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 19:13 UTC (Fri) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] It is not us, they want to scare, methinks.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 10:23 UTC (Fri) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] This was a conference contribution. From the conference program (web site)"Open Source Licensing: Understanding Its Possibilities The conference itself sounds quite aggressive (mostly focused on "how you can make more money and beat everyone else", IMO; the fun thing to me is always that "everyone else" is also supposed to be present at the conference), but the above abstract sounds less blatant than the press release. I wonder why they chose such a single-minded and misleading wording for their press release? Anyway, they got it wrong, haven't they? It's not about "understanding its possibilities", it's about "understanding the philosophy and working with it." Sun and OpenOffice are a good example.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 12:35 UTC (Fri) by mdekkers (guest, #85) [Link] Also interesting is the list of conference sponsors, here . Almost everyone on this list is threatened by Open Source Software, and are thus highly unlikely to hire a bunch of lawyers to do an Open Source positive presentation during their little get together.
Wolf, Greenfield site uses Flash Posted Nov 21, 2003 11:04 UTC (Fri) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] They're at http://www.wolfgreenfield.com/. For my money, it says rather a lot about where their priorities lie. (Hint: not in communicating with the cautious; Mozilla pauses for a bit saying detecting macromedia flash, please wait..." [sic] then gives a 404 on noflash.htm.) The tone of the press release sounds to me purely as if they're just trying to drum up business among the gullible.
Wolf, Greenfield site uses Flash Posted Nov 21, 2003 12:15 UTC (Fri) by freemars (subscriber, #4235) [Link] According to Netcraft, www.wolfgreenfield.com runs on Apache under Linux.
Wolf, Greenfield site uses Flash Posted Nov 21, 2003 12:19 UTC (Fri) by vblum (subscriber, #1151) [Link] Remember, it's about how to _make_ money with the IP of others ... all they criticized was that they can't make enough money with GPL'd software! But hey, here's a start...
Out with the pump and dump theory. Posted Nov 21, 2003 11:07 UTC (Fri) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] Until I read this press release I was willing to accept that the SCO saga was a pump and dump scheme. Although I leaned to the theory that it was a MS instigated FUD campaign. Now that a second front against the GPL is opened I know this is Redmond at work. The FUD theory explains this second front better than the pump and dump theory. Occam's razor does the rest.
Out with the pump and dump theory...why? Posted Nov 21, 2003 15:02 UTC (Fri) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047) [Link] The two needn't be mutually exclusive. SCO wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't something in it for their executives. Consider: Darl and company are watching their business die because, well, their offerings aren't very good. Along comes somebody with an axe or two to grind against Free Software, and says "Hey, we can help you drum up lots of noise for your stock, and pay you lots of money as well. All you have to do is start making loud threatening noises about a product you used to sell..."This way, Darl thinks, everybody wins! The somebody (I think we know who) gets to have their FUD campaign, Darl and the other executives at SCO get a golden parachute, the investors at Canopy get to dump their really-worthless-but-temporarily-valuable stock, and the lawyers, as always, get fat paychecks whether they do a decent job or not. See, it's a win-win situation for every slimebag involved, and the only losers are those "communists" who advocate Free Software!
Out with the pump and dump theory...why? Posted Nov 22, 2003 18:54 UTC (Sat) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] a small associatsion: what hapens, if one types "win" in the Window$, while running the "M$-MODE"? win-win
Enough about Microsoft already Posted Nov 22, 2003 3:40 UTC (Sat) by Peter (guest, #1127) [Link] Now that a second front against the GPL is opened I know this is Redmond at work. Oh come on. You really believe Microsoft is the only party with something to lose if GPL software continues its upward spiral? Microsoft may be at the center of the proprietary software ecology, but there are all kinds of other people who stand to lose just as much (proportionally speaking).
Enough about Microsoft already Posted Nov 22, 2003 6:26 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] Where did I say that it is only Redmond at work? However, I do observe that it is primarily Redmond that has been vocal in spewing anti-GPL propaganda.Redmond has the most to loose: its monopoly. However, theoretically, you are right, it may be other parties, excluding Redmond, that fear the GPL that are involved in this, or none other than SCO. Given this SCO license purchase by MS dating back a few months, however, MS is, at least loosely, involved. But if I where MS, seeing that my FUD campaign thus far has failed, I would do do something similar to this, it is basically the only option I would have. I have no direct evidence that this is a MS FUD campaign. However, to my judgement, it is the simplest theory that explains all of what is happening, including the comparative silence on the part of MS in its anti Linux communications. So I'll keep it as my working hypothesis. But I'm willing to change my opinion should facts arise that are not consistent with my hypothesis or a theory is propoesed that is even simpler and consistent with reality.
Enough about Microsoft already Posted Nov 24, 2003 13:16 UTC (Mon) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] No, but they are the biggest, and they arethe only ones they care about. All SCO parties deny any MS involvement, It'll take a lot more convincing than just Also, seems I remember some docs leaked from MS just
A political advertisement Posted Nov 21, 2003 11:37 UTC (Fri) by rickfdd (guest, #4519) [Link] Maybe if we talk this up a little, the article will google-rank pretty high for Wolf Greenfield. The release is an embarrasment of poor law I would not want to be associated with. Unfortunately, Laurent had it right, the release was a political statement to advertise their intended pro-big-wealthy-business stance. Hopefully, they got that wrong too, and increasingly more businesses will do business with the GPL, because it is good business.
A political advertisement Posted Nov 21, 2003 13:32 UTC (Fri) by euvitudo (subscriber, #98) [Link] The problem I see with this is that the more "business opportunities" that open up for lawyers, the harder it is going to become to convice businesses to use GPL software. If lawyers can convince businesses who hold some kind of grudge against the GPL (and other OS licenses), to file suit against GPL authors and other supporters, then more businesses will become fearful of adoption, because they don't wish to be needlessly and frivolously sued.It would not surprise me if it was Boies and "company" that whispered in SCOG's ears that they may (howbeit even remotely) have a case against IBM. Why could this scenario not be the case? Lawyers thrive off of high-stakes complaints, do they not? We all know that whether the plaintiff or defendant "wins" or "loses", the lawyer always wins. Do they not? So, if we tally the opposition that has surfaced during the past few years, a short list is: Microsoft with their FUD campaign--which appears to NOT be working, the press with their lack of responsibility in objective reporting (or the influence of their under-the-table support?), and now lawyers with their expertise with the manipulation of words (and so-called proprietary source code, may I add?) to their own wallet's benefit. Each day I read the news, it is more obvious to me that we, the lumpin' proletariat, are threatening the source of the uber-wealthy corporate overlordship of big business. They are reacting in this manner, as indicated by their unwillingness to co-exist. I say what we have going on is a techno-revolution. There are a lot of people, with a lot of money and other financial interests, against us, and it is becoming more apparent. Hmm... this sounds very familiar to me... Cheers!
A political advertisement Posted Nov 23, 2003 2:40 UTC (Sun) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link] It would not surprise me if it was Boies and "company" that whispered in SCOG's ears that they may (howbeit even remotely) have a case against IBM. Why could this scenario not be the case? Lawyers thrive off of high-stakes complaints, do they not? We all know that whether the plaintiff or defendant "wins" or "loses", the lawyer always wins. Do they not? They do when they have a guarantee in writing, like SCOX's lawyers do. Which is why, if some shyster sidled up to me as in your hypothetical case and whispered, "You have a case against X. Let me represent you, and we'll win", I would say, "Okay. And since you're so certain, I'm sure you'll be happy to represent me on a contingent-fee basis". My guess is that someone else, not Boies, cooked up the lawsuit. I'm not so sure the GPL, et al, was even on his radar screen beforehand--I could be wrong. I think the money his firm is guaranteed constitutes a good sign--if the suit appeared to be a slam-dunk, they might be willing to risk more. I also don't think the evildoers in SCOland are in much danger of coming away empty-handed, whatever happens at law. Whatever they're up to, it may be shot full of absurdity (and so it is), but I fully believe all the players expect to gain--at the expense of stockholders, their employees, maybe IBM, and possibly FLOSS distributors or the FLOSS community at large. I can only hope that everyone involved gets a big, karmic dose of exactly what they deserve. I'm not holding my breath, though.
A political advertisement Posted Nov 21, 2003 13:53 UTC (Fri) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] "and increasingly more businesses will do business with the GPL, because it is good business."And a different kind of business too, of which Linux Distros seems obvious candidates,... Who would mind having its own tayler maide distro ? http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_11/munoz/index.html
A political advertisement Posted Nov 22, 2003 19:04 UTC (Sat) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] I think, that in case of serious IT projects, special distros are part of the whole system. For instance, a kiosk installer, which has only all the nessesary, CLIENT SPECIFIC software configured and set up, not to mention, special distros are pretty common "inhouse". I guess that some web-related(wall, Storage_A.Network stuff, mail, etc) distros are grown out of inhouse special distros. So, it's good and relaxing fact for us.
Unusual GPL proponents. Posted Nov 21, 2003 20:04 UTC (Fri) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] From article:<i>Most legal experts say SCO's GPL attack is weak, but if SCO wins, it could have profound implications for software licensing agreements and all copyright licensing, putting stringent limits on the kinds of contracts that could be written. The entertainment industry, which abounds with restrictive copyright licenses, could be heavily impacted.</i> Does this mean the possibility is open that we might see the likes of the RIAA and MPAA filing amicus briefs with the court hearing SCO vs IBM in *support* of Linux and the GPL? Whatever else about this article, it does mean the "IP" (horrible term) law field in general has noticed this case and is thinking seriously about the implications of some of SCO's claims. Which possibly is a good thing.
Unusual GPL proponents. Posted Nov 22, 2003 12:48 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] If SCO wins then, i belive its only the IA64 port, and perhaps RCU, because those are the only pieces of code that might have any connection with the IBM - SCO contracts.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 21, 2003 20:44 UTC (Fri) by stock (subscriber, #5849) [Link] a Scenario : A middle aged experienced and talented programmer works for a software company. He basicly has written most parts of that Enterprise labeled software package, which sells like its the company crown jewels. The software company draws major interest from big corporate software company's. A merger or even a takeover is enacted. A couple a months later the new CEO and his new staff announce job-cuts. The middle aged programmer who wrote those crown jewels is fired also. After a very dark and miserable period in his career (say 6 months) he straightens his back, and finally oversees what has happened. Not hindered by any annoying supervisor or corporate idiocies, he decides to write a similar software package as he did at his previous employer. Still being rather angry about the job-cuts which have taken place he decides : "Hmm as i don't have a piece of the action anymore, neither will they" and subsequently releases his new software package under the GPL license. Robert
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 3:51 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] Yes, and, what are you trying to say here?I don't see how yiour scenrio is any different if I subsitute 'Propriatary License' for 'GPL'. Or in fact <some license> for 'GPL'. How is your scenario relevant to the disccusion at hand, may I ask?
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 6:18 UTC (Sat) by stock (subscriber, #5849) [Link] With a GPL License everyone has a piece of the action, namelythe use and source of that nice software package.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 6:51 UTC (Sat) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] I still don't understand what you you are trying to say here. Please explain.Would the situation be any diferent if this nice software package was released under, say, the X11 license? Or released in binary only form? I may be stupid but I honoustly do not grasp what point you are trying to make here. Maybe you trying to say that this programmer of yours, by releasing a reimplemtation of code he wrote for his former employer infringes on the copyrights of his former employer? That may be true, I don't know what his job contract with his former employer had to say about such issues, nor do I know what the law has to say about this. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that by doing so your programmer infringes the copyrights of his former employer. Well, if this is indeed the point you are trying to make, I still do not understand how this is GPL specific. Your programmer would infringe on his former employers's copyright irrespective of wheather he released his product in binary only form under the MS EULA, in binary only form under some other license, in source form under the GPL, the BSD license, the Artistic License, the Apache License or any other source license. Please elaborate.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 22, 2003 13:13 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " With a GPL License everyone has a piece of the action "Man, i belive you are confused ! GPL sofware has AUTHORS like any other software, be it a corporation or a single individual,... GPL software is not copyleft, it has copyrights as any other software, and only the author, as in your example, as all the rights inherent to that software, including selling or giving away that rights under a different license, and or turning his project into a proprietary one as long he dosent steal anybody else code in the process... and, as in your example, he is the only one "to go to jail" for stealling his former employer copyrights,... if that is what you were suggesting.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 23, 2003 2:56 UTC (Sun) by fLameDogg (guest, #11305) [Link] I think he's saying that everyone has this great piece of software, "Foobaz", which is proprietary and must be paid for. So now, in revenge, our antihero writes "Barbaz", a `Foobaz-alike', or clone (in the spirit of, say, GNU or Linux), only it is "free" (in every FSF-approved sense), and now suddenly no one needs to buy "Foobaz" anymore.That's my take, anyway.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 23, 2003 4:44 UTC (Sun) by rev (guest, #15082) [Link] Ok, maybe the OP was trying to say the following: this programmer of his can screw his former employer by releasing a reimplemention of his former employers' offering under the GPL. Assuming this is what the OP was trying to say, I still fail to comprehend how this is somehow a GPL specific problem. This programmer could have taken revenge on his former employer just as well by releasing his package under a BSD license, a X11 license or under a public domain license or some other source license. In fact, this programmer could have screwed his former employer equally well by releasing his software in binary only form under some license for little or no charge ("Cutting of their oxygen supply" this is called in the trade). The core of his case, if this is indeed what he is trying to say, is not that the programmer releases his product under the GPL but rather that he offers his own product for little or no charge.I still do not get it. I still don't understand how this problem (what problem exactly?) is somehow related to, or a consequence of the GPL. I honoustly fail to understand. Please OP (Robert?) explain.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 23, 2003 13:30 UTC (Sun) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link] You know what?Think Netscape -> Internet Explorer. It's worth pointing out that both of these were being distributed under a clearly non-free license at the time. The dirrerence was that Microsoft decided to "cut off" Netscape by distributing the tool free-of-charge to *everyone*, whereas Netscape had some requirements for corporate users to pay, and hoped that home users would pay once they decided they liked Netscape (indefinite evaluation period.) What I can't understand myself; why anyone with any sense pays attention to some of these lawyers' idiocy. As far as using the GPL to get back at a former employer, I agree that it's not all that formidable of a weapon. All the employer needs to do is to start releasing and distributing modified versions of the employee's program, and then offer better services andd value-added products (maybe in binary-only form, for a fee,) that compliment the GPL's product.
A new source of anti-GPL FUD Posted Nov 25, 2003 21:13 UTC (Tue) by stefanwagner (guest, #17209) [Link] The example want's to show a problem of the company, of getting a buisiness-damage (I'm sorry for my english).Of course other companies may produce better, cheaper, maybe open source programs, which take the others company customers over. Think of an baker. Baker man is baking bread. Of course it is a problem for the first company. How is it possible, that there isn't just one company producing cars? If a company includes just a little piece of open source code in their proprietary software, there shouldn't be too much costs, in replacing it by code developped by own programers. Of course, a programmer is responsible for not stealing code - whether open source or not. If a company for canned meat, aka spam, solds cans where their stuff included stolen meat they have the same problem. The lawyers made the fault to assume, that the GPL might be infecting all the other code, mixed with (stolen/ misused) open source. Of course, if you sold open source, due to a criminal act of your employee, you have to remove the open source code, and find an alternative. But a company is responsible for the acts of their stuff. That's my opinion.
This cannot be... Posted Nov 24, 2003 16:53 UTC (Mon) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link] "Your employee could grab a piece of open-source code off the Internet and you no longer have a proprietary product. Your $50,000 software package is now worth zero," Steve Henry, a senior intellectual property lawyer with Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., told the Software Business 2003 Conference in Boston.When he says that, he obviously doesn't know that this is completely impossible. We all know that only in the depths of the *illegal* free software world, code isn't checked for ownership (e.g. that's how Unix code ended up in Linux). In proprietary software companies, people *always* know where the code is coming from. At least that's what Darl is telling us. And if he says that, it *must* be true. Right? Sorry, couldn't resist but to ridicule this whole thing. Where do these people find such idiotic ideas?
|
|||||||||||