Re: Re: Open Source Licensing

From: Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor[_at_]yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2003 11:40:44 -0400

• "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen[_at_]rosenlaw.com> wrote:
  > Mike,
  >
  > I agree with you about the ambiguities and uncertainties of the GPL.
  > That's one of the reasons I encourage the use of the Open Software
  > License (OSL, www.rosenlaw.com/osl2.0.html). This is not to say that
  > the GPL is unenforceable; I think SCO is dead wrong on that. But, like
  > you, I prefer a license that is clean and clear.
  

Why do you say the GPL is unclear? It seems pretty straightforward to me: if you make a derivitive (and distribute it), then the combined work must be licenced by you under the GPL. If there is uncertainty about what constitutes a derivite work, that is ambiguity within the Copyright law, not the GPL.

Should you choose to make such a derivitive work, you (of course) still own the copyright on your original contributions, and could sell separate licences for it (standing alone) if you so chose.

As for SCO, they seem to be on crack. Their GPL defense is just comical. I hope the judge sanctions them if they bring it in court. I think it likely that SCO will yield greater damages to the IBM counterclaims than the value of their company. IBM niclely hit every single SCO product with a patent infringement claim. Ouch.

They seem to be employing the "Chewbacca Defense": http://www.connect-dots.com/Poofs/chewbacca.html

Bryan

---

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com Received on Thu Aug 21 2003 - 19:40:44 GMT