Re: Again: list of advantages of the xGPL

Matt Seitz wrote:

>"Tony Lambregts" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>  
>
>>first off 
>>they would have to prove that they did not use the GPL source. 
>>    
>>
>
>Can you point me to a reference that documents that the accused has the burden
>of proof in a copyright violation case?
>  
>
http://newsforge.com/newsforge/02/05/07/2234251.shtml?tid=3

Of course this is France and in France the accused has to prove thier 
innocence. It may be that in the U.S. it is different, and I would 
assume that you want U.S. cases, but that would be irrelivant if the 
case was tried in France.

>  
>
>>GPL software is for all intents and purposes immune to embrace and 
>>extend tactics. 
>>    
>>
>
>If you mean that one cannot take the original source and extend it in a closed
>source product, then you are correct.  But one can always create a new product
>with the same functionality as the GPL version plus proprietary extension.  So
>the embrace and extend tactic is harder with GPL code than with BSD code, but
>not impossible.  But given that Microsoft has repeatedly used this tactic
>against other commercial developers, it doesn't seem that the GPL would be much
>of a deterrent.
>  
>
In most cases reimplimenting something is an onerous task, in some cases 
prohibitive, certainly not impossible. (After all I wouldn't be spending 
my time on Wine if I though so.) So to be more correct GPL software 
*Extremely* resistant to embrace and extend tactics. Certainly the 
chance of Microsoft Windows becoming GPL'd would deter them from using 
the source. Perhaps not.


Tony Lambregts