Re: GUI of Windows2001 (my gut reaction, then something for cons

[Paul Dorman <pdorman ihug co nz>]

Hi Steve, 

well, I guess if you are talking to me, I'd say yes and no. Whilst the
GPL and other source licenses covers the source code, it doesn't as far
as I can see cover the intellectual property rights of the software.
Software patents *are* a bad idea, but the reality is that they will be
used increasingly against open source development projects as the
software we develop gets closer to their commercial counterparts.

The 'look and feel' aspect of our applications should receive the same
sort of protection that commercial companies and their lawyers seem to
feel they are entitled. Say Apple comes along one day and says "hey,
make your icons, windows, or whatever, look like that and we'll sue
you", we'll say, "oh yeah? Do that and we'll countersue for using
such-and-such look and feel which the open source community developed.
All I'm talking about is getting some teeth to defend ourself against
litigation. Without teeth, companies like Apple and Microsoft could
close down projects with mere threats.

I love open source. I love openness. I love standards. But I fear the
power that these companies have in terms of crippling open source
development. If we are actually going to take a leadership role in
software design, then we should expect to get appropriate amounts of
flak from the rather enormous corporations which are going to die as a
result. I hate seeing projects shut down because some company's legal
thugs say "continue with that and we'll sue you". We can't dodge every
proprietry technology out there, and there aren't always alternatives.
As software gets more sophisticated we are going to see more occurences
of patent infringement by open source projects, and sometimes there
isn't an elegant alternative. If you find this far fetched just look at
the rate at which software patents are being filed.

Hopefully I am wrong. Hopefully open source guardianship of intellectual
property isn't the answer, but I still think the issue needs to be
examined, especially within large, progressive projects like Gnome which
are entering the turf of some really aggressive players.

Best regards,
Paul Dorman.

Steve Homer wrote:
> 
> Does the GPL not flatly contradict that???
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nelson-gnome@crynwr.com [mailto:nelson-gnome@crynwr.com]
> Sent: 30 July 1999 16:14
> To: GNOME LIST
> Cc: "recipient.list.not.shown"
> Subject: Re: GUI of Windows2001 (my gut reaction, then something for
> cons
> 
> Paul Dorman writes:
>  > Huh?? May I be the first person to say "What the... ??!!"...
>  >
>  > nelson-gnome@crynwr.com wrote:
>  > >
>  > > Paul Dorman writes:
>  > >  > A second thing I'd like to say is that the open source community, as
>  > >  > abhorent as the very concept may be, might be forced to secure
>  > >  > intellectual property rights over technology developed within the
>  > >  > community.
>  > >
>  > > "Free speech" mean tolerating all speech, even speech aimed at
>  > > eliminating free speech.
> 
> Producing free software means tolerating all uses of that software,
> even proprietary software.  I thought it would be obvious.  I don't
> like to hit people over the head with "And the moral is ...".