IP: more on Letter to Michael Robertson [LINDOWS] from Bruce Perens

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Date: Sat, 13 Apr 2002 21:46:48 -0600
To: farber () cis upenn edu, ip <ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com>
From: Brett Glass <brett () lariat org>
Subject: Re: IP: more on  Letter to Michael Robertson [LINDOWS] from
  Bruce Perens


Elijah Wright writes:

> the GPL actually *requires* Lindows to make the source to Perens'
> program available.

There are serious questions about whether that requirement is, in
fact, enforceable under contract law. Also, there is no one program
which could be called "Perens' program" in this case. The code being
used in Lindows is the result of collaborative efforts; Perens was
a contributor, not the sole author. And not all of the code in Lindows
is covered by the GPL.

> If i were to write them a note
> and ask for it, they have to provide it.  they can't really just point me
> to an ftp site and say "its all already out there, go get it"... if that
> were true, what value are they adding?  what is their product, really?

The value that they are adding is to code which is not licensed under
the GPL. Lindows consists of Linux plus WINE -- a package which, when
they derived their product from it, was licensed under the X11 License.
It is unlikely that they did anything very interesting to Linux, since
this would be likely to cause compatibility problems. The innovation and
value added are almost certainly incorporated into their version of WINE,
whose source they are not obliged to publish even if the GPL *is*
enforceable. 

> how is *that* anti-business?  how is asking someone to adhere to a
> license anti-business?

It is when the license itself is anti-business, or when the goal is to
harm the company or waste its developers' energies.

Let's put it another way. Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that
the GPL is 100% valid and enforceable (which I do not believe it is), and
that it requires them to release the source code even before they have
begun to ship their product to the general public. (I don't believe that
this is so either. They are currently testing and polishing the code; it's
not yet available except to testers.) At most, this would be a "de minimus"
violation of the GPL. Do we really need to see their unfinished code when
release of the shipping version is imminent? Why disrupt the development
process at this critical stage?

The fact that the FSF and Perens are doing so has very serious implications
about their motives. They are attacking a company which, if it is
successful,
could do a great deal to popularize Linux on the desktop.

Why would they do that? Clearly, their highest priority is not to popularize
Linux or other open source software or provide users with an alternative to
Microsoft's offerings, since if it were they would be glad to forgive what
is,
at worst, a "de minimus" violation of the GPL. Rather, their highest
priority
must be to hurt commercial software vendors in general and this one in
particular. (This is consistent with the views expressed in Stallman's "GNU
Manifesto," which stated that a specific goal of the FSF and its software
would be to prevent programmers from starting software companies or earning
a good livelihood by programming.) This is what is of great concern: that
the FSF, despite its claims of promoting "freedom," in fact aims to destroy
promising young companies that would offer consumers new alternatives.

--Brett Glass


For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/