> Anand Kumria wrote:
>
> Actually I have never encountered that. Most "corporates" seem to accept
> fairly quickly that the GPL is good for them because it means their
> competitors, if using the same software, must also realise (a simplification,
> yes) their changes.
>
> You can see this in how most companies (e.g IBM, Apple, Sun, Netscape) have
> a ``your contributions become our property'' like clause.
The GPL still has an anti-corporate stigma attached, and I'd wager most
thus-far unenlightened lawyers wouldn't go near it with a barge pole. The
companies you've mentioned certainly haven't used the GPL for the bulk of
the software they produce (which is exactly the point).
> Regarding forking. I'm not sure everyone does. The most famously forked
> piece of software, for example, is Emacs (and then XEmacs). What was
> the justification? Technical? no. Political.
>
> The other fork you may be referring to (samba) is again a political one.
I'm not referring to software forks - I said that explicitly. They honestly
don't concern me, because the community has developed ways of avoiding or
dealing with them.
The scarier concept is the "unseen forks" *between* software. libcurl and
Gnome - ne'er the twain shall meet (until libcurl is relicenced), so a new
project is formed in libcurl's stead. Or, as is the case right now,
technically inadequate or hard-to-integrate software is used instead. This
essentially "forks" the network effect of Free Software (yes, I'm using the
word fork for it's emotional value).
> > The more incompatible licences there are - especially those typically
> > difficult one-time ones - the harder it is to determine whether linking
> > important pieces of software is allowed.
>
> Well, not really. There are many ways to get around linking issues with
> shared libraries.
Sure, but are you willing to develop software with a frankensteinian
heritage of licence ins and outs? Technically possible maybe, but no one's
going to use your software because the legal ramifications are either
undefined or murky.
> > This completely blows away the network effects of Free Software, and is
> > probably the most dangerous form of disintegration - and it's from the
> > *inside*!
>
> Network effects as a whole, yes. But each of ``communities'' has built
> up a significant network effect (or else they would be surviving)
The Gnome and Mozilla communities are very separate, and yet we have an
example of where their code could (and should) be shared. Consider the NSS
and PSM modules in Mozilla/NS6... They're useful all over the place.
Not having the ability to work with other projects and integrate code is a
Bad Thing.
> Viral, as RMS would say, has the wrong connotations.
I don't personally agree with the "virus" statement, but given the direction
of the conversation and comments from others, the question is definitely
worth asking (whichever words you use to describe the effect).
- Jeff
-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------- http://linux.conf.au/ --
Ye shall be cursed to fall in love so easily, and yet be so
cold of heart as never to express it.
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux User Group Mailing List - http://slug.org.au/
More Info: http://slug.org.au/lists/listinfo/slug
