From: fish@ecst.csuchico.edu (Kevin Haddock) Subject: Re: GPL, FSF, RMS, ETC, & Speaker Driver Date: 8 Jul 1993 19:54:05 GMT
In article <Jul.8.11.26.10.1993.11525@geneva.rutgers.edu> hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>
>I'm also sceptical about some of FSF's use of copyrights. However the
>effect of copyrights and license agreements are based at least as much
>on the threat of suit as any actual legal merit. No one really knows
>what a court is going to rule -- courts have made really bizarre
>rulings in the past on intellectual property issues. And the cost of
>finding out is high, in both time and fees to lawyers. So even if the
>FSF's position has no actual legal merit, it can serve to intimidate
>people who would otherwise write code for Linux. I believe there is
>also a moral issue: if the FSF does not want certain of their code
>used for commercial software, then whether this is legally enforceable
>or not, I think many of us would prefer to honor their request.
I agree. I think most people would like to honor the requests of
people they exchange value with. It is the only rational thing
to do if you want to be able to continue to exchange value with
that party. I think all of us want to continue to see FSF and
free software authors to continue to produce quality work. I also
think to the 'average greedy capitalist pig' (of which I am proudly
one!) the FSF manifesto is scary. Isn't it enough to just say that
'my software is copyrighted so don't include it in your product
without checking with me first'? That is not scary. That does not
imply some 'societal engineering' agenda. Businesspeople like to
know where you stand. The last thing they need is a bunch of
'wild eyed' commies filing frivilous lawsuits at them. In that
respect the GPL will probably will do it's job because there are
a lot more 'safe' opportunities out there. But eventually the Linux
market might be just too tempting and someone might challenge it.
You know, it takes money and talent to pursue a lawsuit too. I thought
the FSF was pretty much broke. Sounds like thier bark is worse than
thier bite.
I would have to check the law a little more but from the sound of things
I don't think a FSF case would get past discovery. One of the first
things a court is going to look at is is there a pretty solid foundation
in law for the case. If there isn't then the opponent opens himself
up for malicious prosecution.
My concern is that GPL will have to be challenged and beat before
any GPL or GPL like system will be sucessfull (in terms of acceptance
by the business community through which one needs to go to get to the
consumer community which is where the big numbers of supporters
will be). Guilty by association. Most business peoples concern is
when they hear GPL they say "woah, don't go near that stuff!". Any
piece of software that has the letters G, P, and L in reasonable
proximity to each other is going to be suspect in thier minds until
it is challenged in court. My personal experience.
>
>I believe the statement I posted from rms is sufficiently clear about
>what the FSF believes their licenses do and do not allow. I'm
>inclined to agree with rms that they have held this position fairly
>consistently over a period of time, and that there is no reason to
>believe that they are going to change it. The concept that code is a
>derivative work if it requires FSF code to work was used to get
>objective C to be released, and that's several years back. rms says
>clearly that they do believe this theory goes beyond software that is
>linked into a single core image, so we do not need to worry about
>utilities and the kernel. While Linus may prefer to modify the
>copyright statement for the kernel simply to give people a warm and
>fuzzy feeling, I believe we really do only have to worry about libc,
>and that replacing any GPL'ed code in libc is both necessary and
>sufficient, assuming that we do intend Linux to be usable for
>commercial software.
A good idea as a safeguard. I believe the battle is in the minds
of the public and the business community. I tell them 'port to this'
then when they ask about royalties, etc... I say it is free software.
They respond: it isn't some of that FSF stuff is it? I say weeeellll,
Yes and no. Then I have this long explanation to try to describe
why GLPL is different. They aren't sure and don't want to spend the
money and time having thier lawyer hash it all out. FSF has already
just about stated in thier manifesto that they are taking aim square
at the commercial software industries gonads and THAT doesn't make
them feel any more secure either! IF, OTOH, I could respond that
GPL and GPL-like stuff was found to be unenforceable in court. I
get a great big green light!
Why would you want to have any dealings with someone who is sworn
to be your arch enemy?
-Kevin
fish@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu
=======
There are no complex problems; only complex solutions!
=======
Bureaucracy: The process of turning energy into solid waste.
=======
"A politician is a person who can make waves and then make you think
he's the only one who can save the ship." --- Ivern Ball