Re[2]: Re: .Net version of FIT

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

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

One thing that I don't understand is what rights a copyright owner
would retain under GPL.  It seems that once you've GPLed, you've
essentially relinquished the right to copy to the community.

The other thing that I don't understand is how viral clauses prevent
commercial hijacking.  As Stallman says, it is free as in freedom.
Anyone can incorporate any amount of viral code and charge any amount
for derived products as long as they make the source available at
no cost.  I can easily imagine an open source project hijacked by
a group that provides a responsive service for modifying the codebase.
Under something like a GPL, I suppose that they wouldn't need the
author's permission to go in a wildly different direction at odds
with the original author's intent.  It seems that commercial hijacking
can still happen, it can happen at the service provider level.

Michael