On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:43, you wrote:
> On Wednesday 23 October 2002 12:21, Ben Ostrowsky wrote:
> > http://newsvac.newsforge.com/newsvac/02/10/23/1247236.shtml?tid=4
> >
> > Tampa rep Jim Davis (D) co-signed a letter to colleagues which
> > mistakenly slams the GPL as being anti-industry. Would any constituents
> > care to make an appointment with his office? We've got an "in" here,
> > folks.
>
> Read closer. They're saying that GPL licensing government funded SECURITY
> code will destroy closed-source abilities to use the code. They're right,
> to a point.
No they are not right. Things funded with public funds are COMMON property
and a common property license, such as the GPL is needed to protect the
common property.
>
> If the code is going to be sold IN A MODIFIED FORM by commercial companies,
> or as a component of their commercial software package (libraries that
> aren't LGPLed), they have to contribute the code back to the community.
>
> From a commercial perspective, this relegates that code to a "dirty place"
> that they can't touch for fear of contaminating their "clean room" source
> code that is their IP life-blood. So, rather than *understand* and work
> with GPL, they would rather avoid it altogether.
>
> Alternatively, they could BSD style license the code and it would still be
> OpenSource friendly while still being valuable to industry that uses it to
> improve their own products without concern.
That is irrelevant. Open source is not the issue. Common property rights is.
The code developed by public funds was NOT developed to become private
property.
>
> It's an education issue really. Do you try and educate all corporations how
> development with GPL/LGPL'ed code is not only generally painless, but often
> beneficial to everyone involved? Or do you just give up and throw the
> source out there for EVERYONE to use without a guarantee that those who use
> it will publically contribute their changes back to the community as a
> whole?
You educate and legislate.
>
> So, yeah, it makes me mad, hell RMS would be furious, but I can understand
> their argument to a point.
>
> - Ian C. Blenke <icblenke@nks.net> <ian@blenke.com> http://ian.blenke.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:38:21 EDT