brainstorming

[Benjamin Rossen]

Bjorn

Yes, you are correct... I am blurring too many boundaries, because I am 
looking at the big picture, here. 

Personally, I do not mind mixing GPL & Open Source software with Proprietary 
software, and on my machine I have some Microsoft things running in my Linux. 
Since I have several spare Windows licenses lying around I have legitimately 
taken all the Microsoft TTF fonts and put them into my RH Fedora 3, which 
makes my web browsing experience much nicer (aesthetically, I mean). 

And, traditionally, it goes in the other direction too. Even the FSF devised a 
C library license to make the software amenable for proprietary users, 
without requiring that software using those libraries be made GPL. So, in 
fact, there are shades between the OSI Community and FSF Community; not only 
different shades because various definitions exist, but because there are 
many interpretations of what the definitions mean. I know all that.

However, my main point is - I believe - still valid. Many distributions do not 
include any proprietary elements (as far as they can). The GPL is designed to 
force anyone making derivative works to keep their software under GPL, and 
free according to the FSF definition. 

Well, now, that is not happening. Where would Microsoft be without TCP/IP - 
running its own little Redmod Wide Web on NetBUI? Why has nobody declared the 
Microsoft IE to be derivative, and force them to release it under the GPL? 
If, as Microsoft declares, the IE is integrated with its operating system, 
and cannot be separated from it (pardong me if I am out of date, but I 
believe that is still the official MS line) then Microsoft's entire operating 
system is derivative. So, why are the Windows operating systems not GPL? 

There are undoubtedly many reasons; I am insufficiently well informed to know 
them, but I guess that a few might be: 
(1) TCP/IP was not released under the GPL license. It was just given away; 
that is, put into the public domain. 
(2) The definition of derivative is so vague that it cannot be used in this 
case.
(3) MS is so big and powerful that no one dares to try it on. 

Let us look at the big picture. 
The Open Source and the Free Software Foundation Communities (we are really 
one) are not protecting ourselves. We are giving away too much, for too 
little in return. Now we face a serious problem, if - as it seems - the 
emergence of software patents is going to put a weapon into the hands of 
Proprietary Sortware Vendors that could be used to close down the Open & Free 
Software Community. 

So, let me go back to the brainstorm origin; is it not possible to use the 
license (perhaps in some new form) to lever ourselves into a contractual 
relationship with anyone who incorporates any aspect of Open Source or Free 
software into their products, or who makes use of it in any way, that can 
extinguish this threat. 

I suppose it is too late to put something so essential as TCP/IP into such a 
license (or correct me if I am wrong; perhaps the W3C can still claim 
authorship and hence rights). If we cannot, then it is high time we started 
thinking strategically and making sure that we have something stronger, and 
something that explicitly forces any proprietary software vendor to go GLP 
(or equivalent) if they may any use the new things we are now making, and 
shall be making in the future (if they haven't shut us down before we get 
there). 

It is a question. I do not presume to know. I am looking for a legal opinion. 
I suppose I have put this question poorly, because many replies seem to 
address a detail here or there in my expression of this idea, and not the big 
picture I am addressing. 

The Big Picture; It is a Question

Is it not possible to have a form of license that generates a strong 
contractual obligation on the part of the other party to refrain from using 
their patent advantages against the Free and Open Source Software community, 
in exchange for their using the fruits of the community's creative work? 

Benjamin Rossen 




On Saturday 15 January 2005 13:25, Bjorn Reese wrote:
> Benjamin Rossen wrote:
> 
> > At present the Open Source Community is desperately trying to make sure 
that 
> > no bits of protected proprietary software are used in Open Source 
Software. 
> 
> I think that you may be confusing the Open Source community with the
> Free Software community. There are many within the Open Source community
> that have no problem with proprietary software.
>