Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:6064 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:13204 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:3888 comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware:1879 gnu.misc.discuss:1804 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!husc6!ddl From: ddl@husc6.harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani) Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Please boycott Xircom Message-ID: <4309@husc6.harvard.edu> Date: 30 Sep 90 20:59:44 GMT References: <1990Sep26.042027.23110@news.clarkson.edu> <5DN%9T*@rpi.edu> Followup-To: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA Lines: 40 In article , nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes: | In article <14568@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens) writes: | | From what I've seen, and from what I know about people, I | doubt that there was any conspiracy to steal anything. More likely | is that they didn't even read the conditions applied to it and when | the knowledge of their mistaken violation finally made it to the | right people, they acted honestly and complied with the copyright. | | You're right in that it *is* more likely. In this case, however, | Xircom knew about the GPL, or GPV (General Public Virus) as one wag | put it. They knew they were obliged to make their source available, | and agreed to do so for those people willing to sign a nondisclosure | agreement. In spite of agreeing to do so, they will not. I hope no one takes this as a flame, but I suspect GNU/FSF proponents could help minimize incidents like this one by using more conventional terminology rather than inventing or redefining words that might have potentially misleading connotations. While it in no way excuses Xircom from ignoring the terms of the license, I think the words ``free'' and ``copyleft'' as used by FSF are likely to confuse people not familiar with the GNU license agreement. Before the FSF's usage, the term ``free'', when applied to software, often implied to many a lack of cost associated with use and/or distribution. Giving up control of proprietary code is a very real cost for many companies and they may not understand that this could be one of the costs associated with incorporating ``free'' software covered by the GNU license agreement into their product line. The non-word ``copyleft'' is probably even worse in that a corporate lawyer not aware of FSF policy may assume (foolishly, perhaps) that this is a cute way of saying that something is not covered by copyright, i.e., that it is in the public domain. Until ``copyleft'' finds its way into the legal texts (and dictionary) it might improve understanding if FSF advocates simply stated that their software is covered by a real copyright and that its use is governed by a license agreement whose terms might result in significant actual and perceived costs to certain users/distributors. Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*