Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: jwz resigns

Author:Angus Davis
Posted:4/3/1999; 2:16:55 PM
Topic:jwz resigns
Msg #:4778 (In response to 4753)
Prev/Next:4777 / 4779

The problem I was trying to point out is that software companies in the business of making money cannot use the GPL. It's a license full of legal loopholes and problems with patent protection and other issues. Also, it's poorly written from a legal standpoint; just ask your favorite corporate attorney with a major software company.

Another major issue for commercial software vendors is taint. For example, let's say that Adobe wanted to open source their PDF viewer but keep their PDF creation software proprietary. They simply can't do that with the GPL if any code is shared between those two products because of taint.

The MPL and other licenses like it let you open source modules of code. In the GPL, there are no boundries; one line of GPL code in your product taints the whole thing and forces you to GPL the entire product. Additionaly, companies who are serious about protecting their patents will avoid the GPL like the plague. IBM is a case in point.

The question really boils down to this: does the open source community want participants like IBM, AOL, Sun, Corel, and others like them? These folks can't use the GPL, unfortunately -- just ask the General Counsel at any of these companies. To me, that indicates a problem with the GPL.

Frankly, I don't have a strong opinion on it either way, and I am not an expert on the topic, but as one of the many folks who was involved with the creation of the MPL, I thought it might be helpful to share one small piece of the perspective we had when we created the thing. -angus

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:49:12 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.