Re: Re: .Net version of FIT

If we didn't have "viral" clauses, linux would be gone already. The 
viral clause might be the only thing that saves Linux from the SCO 
assault.

Microsoft coined the term "viral clause" as part of its attack on what 
it sees as a competitive threat -- the free software community. I've 
practiced copyright law (as an attorney) for some time, and don't see 
anything wrong with the clause. The copyright owner lets you use the 
software, distribute the software, and modify the software, all at no 
fee -- but if you modify the software AND distribute the modification, 
you have to publish the modified version under the same license as the 
original. This blocks commercial hijacking of a large group's work by a 
small number of people.

Do you have a specific example or a specific concern with this clause?

-- Cem Kaner

On Thursday, July 17, 2003, at 05:57 AM, [email protected] wrote:

>
> What's your preference for licencing? The current code is GPL. Would 
> we prefer a licence without the viral clauses?
>
> S.
>
> p.s. you might want to set the home page for fit on sourceforge to 
> point to the fit page on c2.
>
>
> On 14 July, 2003, Ward Cunningham wrote:
>> I will make a project for Fit on SourceForge. I will wait until there
>> is some consensus as to the preferred organization of the source tree
>> before uploading the source that I have. Please watch the fit-dev list
>> for discussion on this topic. -- Ward
>>
>> http://lists.freepan.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/fit-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fit-dev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.freepan.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/fit-dev
>
>
Cem Kaner, Professor, Department of Computer Sciences,
Florida Institute of Technology, 150 West University Blvd.
Melbourne, FL 32901.
Senior author of
	Lessons Learned in Software Testing
	Testing Computer Software, and
	Bad Software: What to Do When Software Fails.