The only disaster I see waiting for open source in this discussion is the
time wasted and fears raised unnecessarily.
The points as I understand them:
1. Vista and GT.M are two different products. Vista does not need GT.M
specifically to run, and GT.M does not need Vista to run.
2. Vista is, in it's current state, a public domain set of code. It has no
restriction on it's use or reuse. Anyone can and will for the near future,
get the code as provided under the FOIA release from the VA regardless of
what Hardhats or anyone else chooses to do, including using it in closed
source, commercially available software. This is and will continue to be
one of it's greatest strengths. No one, including the current open source
religion of the day, can decide what anyone else does with it.
3. Therefore, there is no restriction for someone who creates a modified
version of Vista from releasing the modified version of Vista under GPL or
any other license. That does not change the rights of anyone else to start
with the base FOIA Vista and release a different modified version
commercially, nor should it. It would prevent someone from taking your
modified sections and using them commercially in a closed source system,
which is an appropriate if that is what the you, the person(s) who made the
modifications, desired.
4. If GPL cannot accept a software with a less restrictive license than
itself, then this is a serious flaw in GPL in my opinion, and I will have to
reconsider whether any development I do will ever use GPL software or be
released under GPL. My goal in pursuing open source is to remove
restrictions, no create them.
The bottom line for me is if you haven't added any value to the product
(Vista in this case), then you shouldn't have any right to decide how it is
used. That would be a less desirable state in my opinion than a fully
closed source environment (At least I could buy the closed source company if
I wanted the source bad enough).
Mark
