Subject: Re: Successful FSBs
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 15:17:02 +0900

>>>>> "Rich" == Rich Morin <> writes:

    Rich> What they want isn't the issue; it's what they _do_ that
    Rich> matters.  If they convince me, through force of argument,
    Rich> that the GPL is the best license for a particular project,
    Rich> _I_ will make the decision to use it.

Tell that to Bill Perry and, who preferred Qt on technical
grounds, but were forced to use GTK, when they enhanced XEmacs.  Or to
NeXT, who apparently made a legal misjudgement in planning their C
compiler product.

The GPL, like all[1] IP licenses, is inherently coercive once accepted.
And don't tell me that "you could have written a new Emacs from
scratch."  Exactly the same argument applies to the "Microsoft tax"
(and in fact to all of Microsoft's predatory practices that I know of).

Do you not see the irony? Microsoft's monopoly is founded on nothing
but IBM's decision[2] to commission a "new OS from scratch"!

[1]  For practical purposes the "permissive" licenses are non-
coercive, but even there there are some terms (hold harmless, eg).

[2]  Presumably to avoid Digital Research's IP, but I don't know exactly.

Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
 My nostalgia for Icon makes me forget about any of the bad things.  I don't
have much nostalgia for Perl, so its faults I remember.  Scott Gilbert