Do you have products that are no longer available that you wish would be put in the public domain? Submit your list of favorite "lost technologies" and the companies who could win kudos by making them available to those who do still care.
You must be logged in to the O'Reilly Network to post a comment.

Showing messages 1 through 30 of 30.

• Making Document Formats Open Source
  2005-10-26 09:49:39  thomasbing1 [Reply | View]
  
  
  Tim's call for opening the source for orphan applications is right on target. I wish we could also do something to open access to file and document formats that were once dominant, but are now passe'. For instance, conversion of SCCS archives to other CM tool formats has been done more than once. Some of the folks who did these converters were UNIX source code licensees (like IBM), and we all have access to the "sccsfile" man page. But it would be a good bit easier if the source code to SCCS could be placed in the public domain. Maybe that's been done, but I don't remember seeing anything about it. Is SCCS source part of the FreeBSD distribution?
  
  I have been doing word processing on PC's for 24 years now, and if I had not kept a (properly licensed) copy of WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS, my old Wordstar 2.26 files would be mighty hard to decipher now. Whoever is the successor in interest to MicroPro should release the format specifications to Wordstar 2.26 and later versions. Sure, they can be reverse-engineered, but absent a functioning copy of Wordstar or a printed copy of the original document, it's hard to tell if your reverse engineering succeeded. Opening up the old formats would benefit all current WP developers, allowing them to design import and export tools more intelligently.
  
  Are all the old obsolete WP formats protected? I would imagine copyright still applies, but surely no _patents_ were issued for these formats? Does copyright protect "expression" that is contained solely in internal corporate documents?
  
  
  

• Example: Aldus Intellidraw
  2004-02-29 16:46:57  carraj [Reply | View]
  
  
  Intellidraw was an excellent drawing program developed by Aldus for both Mac OS and Windows. When Aldus was acquired by Adobe, the product was killed. If the source code had been put in the public domain (given that Adobe had no interest in furher developing it, or even selling licenses to executables), we would now have an excellent, freely-available drawing program (far more advanced than Xfig). Even so, it would still not have competed with Adobe Illustrator -- it wouldn't have compromised sales greatly.

• Open Source and Improv
  2003-10-31 00:48:21  alaindef [Reply | View]
  
  
  I fully agree with you, but IMPROV especially caught my attention.
  I am using Improv still every day, and the reason is simple: Excel just cannot cope with multiple dimensions (Pivot tables are a nice try, but only for display, not for input).
  There are plenty of applications where you need more than two dimensions. Just one example is Planning, where you need at least Tasks, People and Time units. I have a nice application that calculates a plan automatically, with constraints on available resources. I had tried a long time with Microsoft Project, but it just did not do what I wanted.
  I am afraid though that one day the use of Improv will be denied to me because of yet another update of the Operating System. At that time I will be glad to switch to Open Source, if Improv could evolve along with that environment.
  
  Alain De Feyter
  A.I. Systems

• Recycle no. NEW! DOS versions yes!
  2003-03-20 10:15:40  anonymous2 [Reply | View]
  
  

• Dennis Ritchie's Contributions Continue
  2002-04-18 07:14:41  thurmunit [Reply | View]
  
  
  Dennis Ritchie's hompage contains a collection
  of historial materials. http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/
  
  I like his Unix notes from the early 70s.
  http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/notes.html

• Software Trusts
  2002-01-10 08:49:11  thczv [Reply | View]
  
  
  I read your article on recycling software, and immediately thought of the big land trusts. You may have heard of these enormous trusts, like the Nature Conservancy. These organizations leverage
  an investment in land for environmental purposes. For example, they might purchase a big stretch of land that is environmentally sensitive, encumber it with a restriction saying that 90% of it must be left in its natural state, and then sell the least environmentally sensitive 10% for a commercial development, or whatever. This way, a relatively small investment leads to the protection of vast expanses of natural land.
  
  I wonder if something similar to this could be used to free old software and make it useful again. Perhaps a small corpus of donated funds could be used to purchase the rights to old
  programs. Executables are made available for free, and source code is sold for a small amount sufficient to fund additional purchases of old software.
  
  It is just an idea with rough edges. There are probably many ways of accomplishing this. But the land trusts may provide a useful example.
  
  After reading this article, I also found several web sites that discuss this issue, particularly with regard to intellectual property. See here, for example:
  
  http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december00/bearman/12bearman.html
  
  This guy Bearman seems to have done a lot of work in this area, though his emphasis seems to be on creating an electronic library of free-to-read documents, rather than on creating a software repository.
  
  thczv

• One major source of the problem
  2002-01-06 16:20:16  curt_howland [Reply | View]
  
  
  I believe the real fault has been in the abusive extension of "copyright" enforcement beyond any rational meaning of "limited time". If copyright were given the same weight as patent, 7 years, such problems as the Lotus Improv one addressed in your article would be moot. If intellectual efforts after 7 years moved into the public domain just like physical efforts, we would all benefit.
  
  Especially in computer terms, software more than 7 years old (dare I say two years?) is not something anyone is going to make a profiton by keeping closed.
  
  I am told that later products from the same company that re-use code from they themselves released under the GPL has no GPL restrictions. This is a very good thing, since I have no wish to hinder people who want to sell closed source software if they so choose. However, the GPL being something I've only read once, this flexibility was not obvious to me. The Public Domain is far easier to understand.
  
  For centuries "we" have had the public domain for ideas that have run their commercial course. It is time that the extreme efforts of the entertainment
  lobby that have corrupted copyright, and destroyed the idea of the benefits of public domain, be rolled back.
  
  Yes, Disney would loose their enforcement of a character invented early in the last century. But I would finally be able to put three black circles together any way I wanted to without asking anyone's permission for the first time in
  my life.
  
  Curt-
  
• One major source of the problem
  2002-07-17 21:12:12  john_betelgeuse [Reply | View]
  
  
  I agree wholeheartedly!
  
  Not only should copyright be rolled back to
  something very time limited and much simpler,
  but the DMCA should be repealed or heavily
  modified.
  
  As it stands now, you can be prosecuted
  for reverse engineering something for the
  purposes of creating interoperating systems.
  
  Talk about a monopoly grant!

• Open Source and the Obligation to Recycle
  2002-01-05 02:22:48  jonnyace [Reply | View]
  
  
  Hello Tim,
  
  You mentioned that a new edition of a book sold badly, while the original edition was a success. It was kind of you to propose its release into the public domain.
  
  As a techie and a buyer of computer books, I'm sure I speak for many that it is a pain in the pocket having to keep up with newer editions. While we need to keep current, it has always seemed unfair to me to have to pay the full amount just to have the latest edition, which may be only marginally different from the old one which I own.
  
  I would like to suggest a kind of discounted upgrade policy as well. For instance, a registration card in the book which will entitle us to access the full newer edition on the Web, or purchase at reduced rates Web or CDROM editions.
  
  Even for the same edition, I find that for some titles, it is convenient to have both the printed edition as well as an electronic version for portability reasons. If my preferences are at all representative, then sales of the same edition may actually increase with such options.
  
  
  -JT

• Source code escrows are common
  2002-01-04 12:55:19  davidleetodd [Reply | View]
  
  
  Commercial software purchase contracts routinely specify that the source code must be put in a third-party escrow, and released to the customer if support is ended,or if the vendor goes out of business.

• Abandonware Petition
  2002-01-03 21:09:47  mivox [Reply | View]
  
  
  I had to sign up to respond to this one... I'm running a petition asking software copyright holders to do exactly this with their older and discontinued software. Please stop by and sign the petition, and if you have any specific companies you'd like the petition sent to, or specific programs you'd like requested, email the details to me and I'll add them to the list.
  
  http://mivox.com/essays/petition.html

• Poison Oak Remedy
  2002-01-03 20:41:21  tyrerj [Reply | View]
  
  
  One thing about this, you could have it run through a GC.MS and and find out what is in it.
  
  You can't do that with software.
  
  JRT

• Release text of old versions and books
  2002-01-03 17:29:40  scooper [Reply | View]
  
  
  You still have some potentially useful books
  that are neither in your current catalog nor
  in your open book list. The series of BSD
  documentation for example.
  
  One approach would be to release the text of
  books a suitable time after their publishing
  date- perhaps two years would be appropriate.
  The computer field is fast moving, and the
  value and sales of older books is less as time
  passes.
  
  Another idea would be to release the text of
  original editions of books a short time after
  new editions are published. For example
  Programming Perl edition 1 and edition 2, DNS
  edition 1 and 2 and so on. This might have an
  effect of stimulating interest in the new bookonly
  edition and making available general information
  about products that can be useful although has
  been superceded by the new, book only edition.
  This approach seems particularly suitable when
  the newest edition is largely expanded; such
  as the second editions of Sendmail, Les & Yacc
  or CGI Programming on the World Wide Web.
  
  Your efforts in making your out of print books
  are commendable; you might also consider a
  similar effort with older, not readily availble
  books and old editions.

• Copywrongs...
  2002-01-03 16:15:39  mkbilbo [Reply | View]
  
  
  Actually, what people seem to forget when this issue is brought up (e.g. Mr. Glass' comments), copyright was intended by the founding fathers themselves to EXPIRE.
  
  What you are advocating is, actually, the very thing copyright law should do, were we to adhere to what the founders of the US intended. Old programs *should* be entering the public domain and "enriching the soil" as you put it. This should simply be normal and expected, not something which must be advocated and requested.
  
  The founders DID NOT intend that copyright be a tool of corporations to lock information away for all time. They (particularly Jefferson who proposed copyright and patent be limited in term in the constitution) would be quite distressed to see how these MONOPOLY GRANTS (yes, they are monopolies, read Jefferson et al) are being abused and corrupted by corporations who are trying to create "intellectual property" by fiat and deception.
  
  We should not have to "request" copyrighted material revert to the public domain. We should DEMAND it. We, the people, GRANT the monopoly of copyright, we can WITHDRAW it.
  
  If there are going to be corporate copyrights (and I disagree with the very idea of a fictional entity having "rights" at all), then they should be severely limited in term and scope and should EXPIRE the moment said corporation goes out of business.
  
  This would make "business" hard? Well, tough. I don't see "easy profit taking" in the Bill of Rights.
  
  Mark K. Bilbo

• Poison Oak Remedy
  2002-01-03 15:25:23  Tim O'Reilly [Reply | View]
  
  
  peeto de la noche sent me email that read:
  

  
  <blockquote>
  i read your recent "Open Source and the Obligation to Recycle" article and noticed that you lost the only useful poison oak remedy you've ever found because the company wouldn't release the formula.
  

  
  well my dad (a chemical physicist) discovered a poison sumac allergy quite suddenly one day about 15 years ago, after manually uprooting a sumac tree in our yard. he went to the library and in an old book found what is the only useful remedy we've ever come across:
  

  
  5% ferric chloride (FeCl3) by weight
  
  
  95% half-and-half isopropyl alcohol/distilled water base.
  

  
  so 5g FeCl3 to 95g IPA/dH2O is about right. it should have a yellow-orange color. apply with a cotton ball to areas affected with poison ivy/oak/sumac two or three times a day and the itchy spots go away in short order.
  

  
  i have no idea if this is the same stuff you were talking about, but at least in my experience it is really effective, and certainly miles ahead of calamine lotion or cortisone cream.
  

  
  hope this helps!
  </blockquote>
  Haven't tried this yet, but I sure will if needed. Thanks.

• Reply to: Not necessarily a good idea
  2002-01-03 14:20:08  rebolscott [Reply | View]
  
  
  In his example harm is only done with a GPL licence.
  
  BSD linence would allow your business to incorporate it.
  
  
  BTW, MS bundling for free is not the same as gpl free. With MS you at least have the illusion of support. Which makes the product much more compelling than a gpl version. Otherwise Star office would have already eliminated MS office.
  
  END OF LINE
  

• Thanks Tim
  2002-01-03 14:18:44  coxcu [Reply | View]
  
  
  Thanks Tim. Releasing rather than destroying is definitely the right thing to do.
  
  Have you ever considered teaming with a book-on-demand publisher? You might be able to profitably continue "publishing" a book well after initial demand drops off.
  
  It might also be an avenue to pursue with other low demand editions. Personally, I would love a single volume that contained all of the O'Reilly Java Nutshell books minus the API detail pages. I understand that there might be an insufficient market to justify a large run of this book.
  
  Thanks again.

• What do I miss that's discontinued?
  2002-01-03 13:27:25  afeldspar [Reply | View]
  
  
  Back a few years, back when being "EXTREEEEEME!!!" was still the hip new thing and not a parody of itself (I know, during that five-minute timespan) every major cola company, and a few minors, were bringing out their own "supercharged" soda, if they didn't already have it. Jolt Cola was the leader; Pepsi was well-entrenched with the high-caffeine Mountain Dew; Coca-Cola brought out "Surge"; and the Royal Crown Company brought out "RC Edge", which advertised not only caffeine, but ginseng and taurine in the formula.
  
  Coca-Cola has since discontinued Surge, it seems, and RC has discontinued RC Edge. But here's the thing -- I have had at least three different medications for my ADD, and *none* of them worked as well to keep me alert and calmly focused as RC Edge did. I would truly love to see them recontinue the product or transfer the formula to someone who will.

• rent-seeking is not helpful
  2002-01-03 12:19:45  ichbin4 [Reply | View]
  
  
  
  In the previous comment, BrettGlass argues that releasing the code for dead projects is a bad idea because it will hurt the projects' remaining competitors. While his conclusion is true, insofar as the disappearance of the competitor's code allows the existing firm to obtain a rent (continued profit without continued development), this is hardly an argument against Tim's suggestion. On the contrary, it's another argument for!
  
  Market groundrules (like IP law) are supposed to exist for the benefit of consumers, not firms. The rights that IP law grants firms are supposed to be the minimum necessary to give the firms incentive to produce desirable things that would otherwise to unmade -- no more.
  
  If a firm goes out of business because someone offers an equivilent free, that is an UNAMBIGUOUS net plus for the society. Why? Because society gets whatever its employees spent their time making (and at a reduced cost) AND the workers can go off and earn their money making something else useful for society that it would otherwise not have.
  
  A great deal of failed industrial policy is based on the notion that helping a nation's firms to avoid competition (including free competition) is a net plus for the nation. A wonderful parody of this dead-wrong idea can be found in the satire of the 19th century french writer F. Bastiat, who composed a "petition" from candlemakers for relief from their unfair competitior, the sun.
  
  (Bastiat also took the notion that exports are good for a nation and imports bad to its logical conclusion, proposing that all ships carrying goods overseas should sink when they leave port).
  

• Not necessarily a good idea
  2001-12-23 12:47:43  brettglass [Reply | View]
  
  
  Tim:
  
  Your ideas on what you call "software recycling" are interesting. However, I can think of one scenario in which it could cause as much harm as good.
  
  Suppose I have an innovative, well-run software company that makes a product that performs a specific function. I have a competitor whose product I am struggling to outdo. That competitor goes belly-up, either due to mismanagement, poor marketing, an unrealistic business model (very common in the open source community in particular), or some other factor which may or may not be related to the quality of its software. The product is "recycled" as you suggest.
  
  Suddenly, the market climate changes dramatically. A product similar to mine is available to consumers for free! Ironically, the failure of my competitor is likely to kill my company, too -- EVEN IF MY PRODUCT IS SUPERIOR. (People will tolerate many shortcomings in something that's free.) What's more, if the product category has had a chance to mature (that is, most products have the key features that most users want and the rest are largely "frosting"), the newly-free product is likely to have everything most users desire. There is little I can add that will motivate anyone to buy my product in the presence of a free one.
  
  The situation gets worse still if the GPL enters the picture. If the competitor's code is released under the GPL, I cannot so much as LOOK at it. I do not have access to the code that's free to everyone else and it is not a public resource.
  
  Thus, the sudden release of software from companies that go out of business either into the public domain or (worse) under the GPL can cause a chain reaction which destroys any incentives to create or improve products in that category. Do we want that? Is it fair to developers like myself who are trying to eke out a living by writing software?
  
  It is bad enough that Microsoft can destroy markets by bundling. (For example, it destroyed the market for PIMs by giving away Outlook with Office. NetManage, which made Ecco, the top-rated PIM, went out of that business immediately after Outlook was added to Office, and I lost many thousands of dollars when investors pulled out of a project in which I was involved whose purpose was to create a PIM. My finances have still not quite recovered.) Giving away the software of failed companies could turn every corporate failure into a disaster for everyone else. Maybe, instead, orphaned products should be offered for "adoption"?
  
  --Brett
• Not necessarily a good idea
  2002-07-17 20:22:31  john_betelgeuse [Reply | View]
  
  
  > Ironically, the failure of my competitor is
  > likely to kill my company, too -- EVEN IF MY
  > PRODUCT IS SUPERIOR.
  
  Part of quality is the price. But in all
  cases, the judgement as to whether a piece of
  software is inferior or superior lies with the
  user, not you.
  
  If people switch the GPL'ed version, it is by
  definition because the GPL'ed version is
  superior.
  
  > The situation gets worse still if the
  > GPL enters the picture. If the competitor's
  > code is released under the GPL, I cannot
  > so much as LOOK at it.
  
  This is typical FUD and misrepresentation by
  the anti-GPL crowd. The GPL is based soley
  in copyright law. There are no intellectual
  property law aspects in the GPL.
  
  You can freely use any ideas you find in a
  GPL'ed program. You simply cannot use the
  code itself.
  
  > Thus, the sudden release of software
  > from companies that go out of business
  > either into the public domain or (worse)
  > under the GPL can cause a chain reaction
  > which destroys any incentives to create
  > or improve products in that category.
  
  The incentive is to make money by improving
  products of that category. If you cannot
  improve the product, either due to product
  maturity, or you own inability to see a way
  to improve, then you *should* go out of
  business!
  
  And frankly, I'd prefer you to go out of
  business, rather than add unneccesary and
  undesirable frippery to programs that don't
  need it, then having to use dirty tricks like
  secret file format churn to force your customers
  to give you more money.
  
  Your business has no right to survive. Compete,
  change businesses, or get out of business.
  That's how our system works.
  
  > Giving away the software of failed
  > companies could turn every corporate
  > failure into a disaster for everyone else.
  
  No it wouldn't. It MIGHT prove to be a disaster
  for one particular company, but many more
  people (the users) would benefit, than would
  loose out in this situation.
  
  Most of your arguments have been soundly
  rebutted by:
  
  http://www.cpi.seas.gwu.edu/oss/cpi_rebuttal.pdf
• Re: Not necessarily a good idea
  2002-01-03 21:48:57  jmay [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm not convinced that the scenario you describe would cause such a bad result to the "innovative, well-run" company. Considering how well open-source alternatives have penetrated the market compared to Microsoft's commercial products (in the case of the Office tools, I would say not very well) I'm quite confident that a well-run commercial firm could easily hold it's own against a suddenly-free alternative.
  
  The suddenly-free product is now a mass of unsupported source code, probably poorly documented, with no base of support. The company that had supported it is now gone, and presumably all the knowledgeable staff are now off in search of other employment. The commercial product still has a solid organization supporting it, able to respond to customer inquiries and deliver worthwhile incremental improvements - for a price.
  
• Not necessarily a good idea
  2002-01-03 16:10:06  mrresistor [Reply | View]
  
  
  >> If the competitor's code is released under the GPL, I cannot so much as LOOK at it. I do not have access to the code that's free to everyone else and it is not a public resource.
  
  This is clearly false to anyone who has read the GPL, since the it SPECIFICALLY grants you the right to look at the code licensed under it. You have just as much access as anyone else to that code, provided any portion of that code that you use, as well as anything built upon that code, is also GPLed.
  
  Note that the GPL only affects the origional code and code built upon it, not the whole project. If you take a feature from your defunct competitors code and modify it to work with your own, as a plug-in say, only that feature is subject to the GPL.
  
  GPLed code is a PUBLIC resource. The only thing that limits your access to it is YOUR desire for code to be a PRIVATE resource.
  
  The situation you describe with Microsoft Office is totally different. Without the marketshare that Microsoft Office already had, bundling Outlook would have been meaningless. Bundling is a tactic that can only be employed by a producer with an already successful product.
  
  The arguement that free, public domain, and ("worse") GPLed software "destroys incentives to create or improve products" in a given category is also clearly false. Are you suggesting that there has been no innovation or new products for word processing since the introduction of emacs?
• A commercial programmer cannot look at GPLed code
  2002-01-03 20:06:20  brettglass [Reply | View]
  
  
  Remember, the GPL mandates (perhaps illegally, but that's another discussion) that any derivative work be licensed under the GPL as well. This means that for a commercial programmer to look at GPLed code is professional suicide. If he later writes ANYTHING that performs a similar function, he may be accused of having produced a derivative work and hence coerced to forfeit the fruits of his hard labor. (As you may recall, the late George Harrison was even successfully prosecuted for "unconscious" copyright infringement because his song "My Sweet Lord" sounded similar to another song that he might have heard.)
  
  Thus, it is extremely unwise for any programmer who seeks to make a living from his work to look at GPLed source code. Were it not for the GPL's "poison pill" provision -- whose EXPLICIT intent is to sabotage the livelihoods and businesses of commercial programmers -- it might indeed be possible to read and learn from it. But we will only do this with code that's released under a truly free license (such as the BSD or MIT X license). It's simply not prudent to do otherwise.
• A commercial programmer cannot look at GPLed code
  2002-07-17 21:01:33  john_betelgeuse [Reply | View]
  
  
  > Remember, the GPL mandates (perhaps
  > illegally, but that's another discussion)
  
  No perhaps: it's totally legal.
  
  > that any derivative work be licensed under
  > the GPL as well.
  
  Correct.
  
  > This means that for a commercial
  > programmer to look at GPLed code is
  > professional suicide.
  
  Dead wrong. The GPL is entirely about
  copy right. You seem to think that somehow
  the GPL (and ONLY the GPL!) some how grants
  a patent with the license.
  
  > If he later writes ANYTHING that
  > performs a similar function, he may be
  > accused of having produced a derivative
  > work
  
  You may be accused of anything, by anybody,
  at anytime.
  
  > and hence coerced to forfeit the
  > fruits of his hard labor.
  
  Not true. If you didn't copy the code, you
  didn't create a derivative work.
  
  > Were it not for the GPL's "poison pill"
  > provision -- whose EXPLICIT intent
  
  Again, not true. There is no explicit statement
  in regards to ruining anybody through
  licensing.
  
  > is to sabotage the livelihoods and
  > businesses of commercial programmers
  
  The intent of the GPL is
  to protect the rights and freedoms of
  software users.
  
  > It's simply not prudent to do otherwise.
  
  That's just about the purest example of FUD
  I've ever seen.
• A commercial programmer cannot look at GPLed code
  2005-01-14 04:43:06  Tony2046 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I feels like the lawyers are frustrating software development and have successfully intimidated the creative class.
  
  My beef is that it is cruel to withdraw a good program from the market. I still use Aldus Intellidraw Version 1.0 because its the best under $1000. To satisfy everyone, it could be sold for what the market can bear and that will be fair to all.
  
  If they do not wish to sell, then, to sell licences seems the fairest arragement ie if a programmer wants to use some code, a formula for a licence can be created, to support development of better programs. Companies that hide behind bullies in the law are wounding the economy they perport to love. They deny consumers and also deny themselves, but the worst of it, is the obsenity of the dog in the manger attitude. If they cannot produce anything better sell it or give it up. Adobe is guilty of this and they should be outed.
  
  More outpourings like this will eventually lead to changes, be it ever so humble keep up the pressure.
• A commercial programmer cannot look at GPLed code
  2002-01-06 06:50:10  asdf1234 [Reply | View]
  
  
  I'm not quite sure you understand the GPL or Open Source in general. I'm not a big fan of the GPL either, I rather prefer BSD-like licenses.
  But I fully respect the copyrights of GPLed software. And whats the big deal releasing your products source code as well? Sun has done it with Java (under an even more restrictive license as the GPL), and many founders of open source projects earn a lot of money by providing professional support for their - free - product.
  Of course, this is not always an option...
• Most people do not fully understand either copyright or the effects of the GPL.
  2002-01-07 10:54:24  brettglass [Reply | View]
  
  
  Most people do not understand either the GPL or copyright law. But I have studied both at great length. What the "Free" Software Foundation -- whose goal is to eliminate all commercial software and prevent programmers from making a living by writing it -- does not tell you of the GPL truly can hurt you.
  
  You see, under copyright law, if you view a copyrighted work and then create something like it, you can be charged with having created a "derivative" work. This is true so long as your work is similar to the one you saw, even if you saw it long ago or your copying is "unconscious." (Witness, for example, famous case in which ex-Beatlee George Harrison was convicted of having "unconsciously" copied the song "She's So Fine" when creating his hit "My Sweet Lord.)
  
  If your work is ruled to be a derivative work, the confiscatory language of the GPL comes into play. It says:
  
  b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to
  be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
  
  Thus, as a commercial programmer, you not only cannot use GPLed code in a work for which you hope to charge money -- you also cannot even LEARN FROM that code. This is not freedom at all, and is the reason why code licensed under the GPL, despite the FSF's anti-business rhetoric, is anything BUT free.
  
  --Brett Glass
  
• Most people do not fully understand either copyright or the effects of the GPL.
  2002-07-17 21:08:15  john_betelgeuse [Reply | View]
  
  
  > You see, under copyright law, if you
  > view a copyrighted work and then create
  > something like it, you can be charged
  > with having created a "derivative" work.
  
  The problem here is that source code is
  not the same thing as a song or story.
  
  Even in the most egregious case of "copying"
  ever (under much more destructive and
  restrictive agreements than the GPL) the case
  was not won.
  
  Indeed, it was settled out of court because
  it really couldn't be won, and the defendant
  just didn't want to bother fighting it anymore.
  
  > Thus, as a commercial programmer, you
  > not only cannot use GPLed code in a work
  > for which you hope to charge money --
  > you also cannot even LEARN FROM that code.
  
  Not true.
  
  If it WERE true, then there would be no need
  of patents, and especially, of software
  patents.
  
  You need to study more.
  
  But even if you were right, which obviously
  you are not, your point is not specific to
  the GPL . . . you'd better not look at ANY
  computer softare, nor should you use any
  GUI . . . lest copyright (which exists without
  having to register or in any way mark the
  copyrighted work!) catch you out.
• Not necessarily a good idea
  2002-01-03 15:07:15  seanegan [Reply | View]
  
  
  > If the competitor's code is released under the
  > GPL, I cannot so much as LOOK at it.
  
  I am not sure you understand the GPL on this point. The GPL licenses your abitilty to copy the work. You are alowed to study the code, reverse engineer any and all constructs contained, and otherwise learn from the code. The elements of Intellectual Property Law which would "taint" you are private contracts, like employment agreements, and Trade Secrets.
  
  You cannot get AIDS from reading GPL'ed code.