Re: Again: list of advantages of the xGPL

On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 21:43, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> Sean C. Farley wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 17:56, Tony Lambregts wrote:
> >
> >>Sean C. Farley wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:54, Roland wrote:
> >>>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>>2) Prevent embrace and extend tactics. Imagine Linux being under
> >>>>X11.  I wouldn't feel comfortable thinking about the possibility of
> >>>>M$ using this tactic. They certainly have the cash to afford making
> >>>>their own fork, think about what happened with the Kerberos
> >>>>protocol.
> >>>>
> >>>In regards to Linux, they could just pump a lot of money into the
> >>>FreeBSD project to compete with Linux.  This has not happened.  Also,
> >>>there is no point for Microsoft to actively embrace and extend any
> >>>other operating system.  It would only hurt their own sales.
> >>>
> >>>Besides, the GPL does not prevent embracing and extending the code
> >>>any more than it prevents forks.
> >>>
> >>Forks certainly can happen but the problem with embrace and extend
> >>tactics is that the extend is proprietory (closed source) and that
> >>can't happen under GPL.
> >>
> >
> >With closed-source forks, it can happen.
> >
> I'm unsure of what you mean here.

I meant that embrace and extend tactics can happen using BSD/X11
licenses placed into closed-source forks.

<snip>

> >>>As for Kerberos, they could have done this easily be writing their
> >>>own implementation.  As you said (and I agree), they certainly have
> >>>the cash.
> >>>
> >>If Kerberos was GPL Microsoft would have a harder time of it. first
> >>off they would have to prove that they did not use the GPL source. Yes
> >>they have the money to start from scratch but why make it easier?
> >
> >Why make it harder for everyone to use?
> >
> Anyone can have a commercial product that uses GPL. How is that harder.
> It just makes it harder for (closed source) proprietory software to take
> over a market

It can also make it harder for BSD/X11 projects to utilize the code.

> >
> >>GPL software is for all intents and purposes immune to embrace and
> >>extend tactics. Of course thats the reason that makers of
> >>proprietory software have a problem with it.
> >
> >No.  It is not a reason.  They may which to extend it, but they are
> >not using "embrace and extend" tactics.  When people speak of those,
> >they are referring to companies that are using it to harm the
> >open-source project they copied the code from.  What companies have
> >tried and succeeded?
> >
> I think this is a matter of degree rather than black and white. The
> extend part is used to gain an advanatage over the competition and
> Microsoft has been the worst example, and as you say even they have
> not totally succeded. They certainly have made it difficult though. So
> is your argument here that there is no need for protection or that you
> dont like this way of fighting it.

Obviously, all companies want to embrace and extend code even their own.
This procedure is usually talked about in open-source circles as a
tactic when referring to an aggressive company bent on world domination.
Surprisingly, it always seems to be everyone's favorite company which
swims in cash.

I do not like this way of fighting it.  Nuclear weapons are very
successful at wiping out an enemy.  In my opinion, they are also to
broad a weapon.  They tend to take out everything around (eco-system,
non-military, military, etc.).  I feel like GNU licenses are only out
for themselves (not necessarily those who choose them).  Not only do
they hit companies bent on replacing the open-source project they
acquired the code from, but they also hit friendly companies and other
open-source projects.

As I see it, GNU licenses try to get people to share by using the law
while BSD licenses try to get people to share by example.  I rather set
an example for people to follow and have them follow than force them
into it.  The problem with forcing people into it is that you are not
really changing their attitudes towards sharing.  If you remove the
force (poor Jedis :)), they would go right back to doing it.  You need
to change their minds to really accomplish what the GNU project is
trying to accomplish:  a true communal sharing.  I feel that the GNU
project is a dead-end.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]