Re: Not "Satanism;" realism.

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 05:00 PM 1/2/99 -0600, Steve Cohen wrote:
 
>OK, I'll concede that Microsoft may have clean-roomed the TCP/IP stack code. 
> But
>wait.  Was this clean-rooming or "clean-rooming" i.e. copying the code and 
>lying
>that it came from a clean room.  You'd seem to be implying the latter here 
>by your
>mention of similar bugs.

Not so. "Clean-rooming" code sometimes does result in similar bugs,
especially if those bugs result from flawed algorithms.

>So the problem isn't that Microsoft has deeper 
>pockets,
>it's that they have fewer scruples.  Anyone can copy code.  Is your 
>complaint about
>GPL that it can't be enforced?

That wasn't my particular complaint, though it is nonetheless true.

>> Many of the stated intentions of Richard Stallman *will* actually happen if
>> we embrace the GPL.
>
>You've not answered my point.  Most of the things Microsoft might be most 
>interested
>in copying are not protected under the GPL.

Oh? I disagree. Now that the GPL is "infecting" more and more software,
Microsoft is more interested in providing equivalents of GPLed software
every day.

>You've not proven that using 
>the GPL
>anywhere leads inevitably to using it everywhere.

The GPL is "viral" by nature, which means that its reach naturally
spreads unless it is willfully checked by those who realize the harm
it does. Also, because GPLed software competes unfairly with commercial
software, it tends to drive it out of markets, one by one. The result:
unless we realize the damage it does, it will be everywhere. And there
will be precious few, if any, alternatives. The alternatives that
remain will come from the likes of Microsoft.

--Brett