Microsofts new way of bashing Linux

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 16 June 2006 16:24, Michael T. Richter wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-16-06 at 12:25 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > > Which is just wrong. The GPL is there to protect your
> > > > intellectual property.
> > >
> > > Exactly how does the GPL "protect" my intellectual property? 
> > > As far as I can tell it gives my intellectual property to
> > > everybody for free.
> >
> > If you write new original code, you are not forced to release it
> > under GPL. But the Linux kernel, the FSF apps and most of the
> > rest of the OS were specifically created with the idea of
> > forwarding the ideals in the GPL. If you do not agree with these
> > ideals, or do not agree with the chosen mechanism to bring them
> > about (GPL), then I would recommend that you switch to a
> > different OS that better suits your needs.
>
> The statement above was, and I quote: "The GPL is there to protect
> your intellectual property."

And I was not replying to that statement, but to yours: "As far as I 
can tell it gives my intellectual property to everybody for free."

It's not intellectual property either, it's your copyright. 
Intellectual property is an entirely abstract collective concept with 
no meaning in law or even in real life. You may keep your own 
trademarks, and you are unlikely to get much of your code used in 
Linux if you assert any patent rights.

> Let's take the use case you've provided.  I make a super-keen sound
> system for Linux (to drag in another thread just to be a more
> effective troll).  I GPL it.  How, exactly, does the GPL protect my
> "intellectual property"?  Be specific.

By ensuring that it is always yours and can only ever be used under 
the terms of the license.

Now, it only makes sense to use the GPL if you buy into the idea of 
the four freedoms as stated by RMS. Other people wrote a kernel and 
gave it to you to use under the GPL. They still own the copyrights. 
If you don't believe this, try and re-license the kernel under GPL3 - 
you could only do this if you got explicit permission from every 
contributor/copyright holder whose code you want to re-use.

The GPL ensures that if you choose to release your code using it, that 
all future users will always have those freedoms. Which incidentally, 
is the same conditions the kernel devs gave you the kernel under, 
upon which you built your kick-ass sound system. Quid pro quo.

Using the GPL, you do essentially lose the ability (but not the right) 
to charge Joe Schmuck mega-$ to use that code. But if you are even 
considering GPL, it is pretty much a given that you have no intention 
of making mega-$ from it. In that case, you should not develop for 
Linux, or for any GPL'd kernel. Rather code for Windows, Mac OSX or a 
BSD OS.

> (Hint: it doesn't.  It takes my "intellectual property" and makes
> it something anybody can use for any purpose whether I approve of
> it or not; whether I profit from it or not.)

Hint: GPL is not exclusive. There is nothing to stop you from 
releasing your latest code under a proprietary license, and releasing 
v <latest>-1 under GPL. CUPS do this, it funds their development.
>
> Now had you, you know, bothered to continue reading before jerking
> your knee, you'd have spotted the bit where I said that I don't
> even necessarily disapprove of this state of affairs.  I just
> disapprove of people talking about how the GPL protects
> intellectual property when it, in fact, does exactly the opposite. 
> The GPL eliminates the whole concept of intellectual property
> (except as communal property).

No, I completely understand that you are not necessarily anti-GPL, and 
I did read your post. I was refuting the statement that it gives your 
_copyright_ away to everyone for free. The GPL does not do that - you 
still retain all copyrights on your work. By using GPL, *you* have 
chosen to make your code available to all for the greater good. By 
releasing it under that license, GPL only ensures that your wishes 
are guaranteed into the future.

-- 
If only me, you and dead people understand hex, 
how many people understand hex?

Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five