gnupic: GNU LIB for PIC
Subject:
Re: GNU LIB for PIC
From:
"Eric Smith" ####@####.####
Date:
16 Jul 2002 09:14:04 -0000
Message-Id: <32917.64.169.63.74.1026810068.squirrel@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
Kevin L. Pauba wrote:
> And it particularly annoys me to think Microsoft hijacked the hard
> work of BSD programmers by using the code of the ftp client, supplying
> it with their operating system, and never compensating the project in
> any way.
They used a lot more BSD code than that!
Tom Spindler ####@####.#### wrote:
> One of the explicit philosophies of the BSD license is that you can use
> the code however you want. You're not required to chase down the author
> years later, you don't have to worry about license taining
> for other code files. You can simply pick up the code and go.
Yes, that's true now. But it wasn't before, and Microsoft WAS in violation
of the license. Specifically the advertising clause. Microsoft never
credited the University of California and its contributors.
This may sound like a minor thing, but recall that AT&T/USL was forced
to back down on their suit against the UC Regents over this very issue;
AT&T was also not in compliance with the advertising clause, and if AT&T
had not dropped their suit, UC could possibly have forced AT&T to recall
*every* copy of System V Unix and remove the offending code. Given that
"Berkeley extensions" had by that time become a big selling point of
System V, that would have been disastrous for AT&T. AT&T saved face in
the settlement by requiring that Berkeley remove a very small number of
files from their distribution (eight?), even though those files didn't
really contain any AT&T code (as determined by an extensive analysis
verifying any matching lines of code *anywhere* in the BSD system against
the original AT&T code). Rumor has it that AT&T didn't even specifiy
which files had to be removed, so the developers at Berkeley just
removed the files that they thought were most crufty and in need of
replacement anyhow.
Now that UC has dropped the advertising clause, it's no longer an issue
for Microsoft, but it does show that Microsoft will in fact steal
whatever they want. Their fear of the GPL isn't that they'll get caught
using GPL'd code, but rather that the proliferation of GPL'd code puts
other companies that are willing to share their source code at an extreme
competitive advantage over those (like Microsoft) that want to keep their
source code secret. Thus their attempts to lobby Congress to enact
legislation requiring that publicly funded software NOT be GPL'd.
In my opinion, the GPL is a nearly perfect vehicle for publicly funded
code (as well as private). Universities are trying to come up with
revenue from intellectual property while at the same time keeping their
work open for collaborative development with other researchers and the
public. The GPL makes this possible. Contrary to common belief, the GPL
does NOT in any way inhibit commercial use. If a company (such as
Microsoft) wishes to incorporate GPL'd code into a proprietary product,
all they have to do is negotiate a commercial use (non-GPL) license with
the copyright owner. This is not any worse than having to license any
piece of proprietary code.
