[Discussioni] [NEWS] Bisogna crescere e smetterla di fumarsi GPL

[Francesco Potorti`]

>http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/aug2004/tc20040813_1107_tc120.htm
>
>  « [...]  Stallman's thinking suffuses the GNU General Public License
>  (GPL), a  document that governs the distribution  of  Linux and many
>  other  open-source programs.  The   GPL not only  requires  that any
>  programs licensed under  it be freely distributed  but also that any
>  modifications  made to the  software, or any  other software derived
>  from it, are themselves automatically covered by the GPL.
>
>  Unfortunately,  the  GPL  is hardly  a  model  of  clarity,  and few
>  disputes  involving it have  gotten to court,  so  case law has done
>  little to clarify its meaning. This  is causing reservations as more
>  and  more companies consider  using  GPL-covered software to develop
>  either commercial programs or  software   for their own use.   Apple
>  (AAPL ),  for example, rejected Linux as  the basis of  Mac  OS X in
>  favor of   another open-source,   Unix-like operating system  called
>  FreeBSD, largely because the licensing terms were less restrictive.
>
>  What exactly  constitutes a "derivative  work" automatically covered
>  by the  GPL?  "The truth is  we   don't really  know, and  there are
>  reasonable  arguments on both sides,"  Jay Michaelson, co-founder of
>  software company Wasabi Systems and a lawyer and a programmer, wrote
>  in  the  June  issue  of the  Association  for Computing Machinery's
>  journal  Queue. "*Some people  argue that the  GPL  as a whole isn't
>  even enforceable*.... At the end of the day, the unfortunate reality
>  is  that  developers  should    check with   the   companies'  legal
>  departments   before  proceeding with   any  GPL-related development
>  because the requirements may vary on a case-by-case basis." »
>
Andrea Glorioso:
>L'articolo  non è particolarmente  interessante  e contiene una  buona
>dose di FUD; in particolare non  ho capito cosa intende Jay Michaelson
>quando dice "Some   people argue that  the GPL  as a whole  isn't even
>enforceable".

È da sempre, o almeno da quando leggo sull'argomento, che ci sono
persone che sostengono che la GPL sia debole sul piano giuridico.
Premesso che domani tutto può succedere, venti anni di uso della GPL
spingono a pensare esattamente il contrario.  Il fatto che finora sia
arrivata in giudizio una sola volta in tutto il mondo, e che quella
volta abbia vinto, nonostante ciò sia accaduto in un regime giuridico
(quello tedesco) diverso da quello per cui la GPL è stata pensata
(quello statunitense), non è certo un indizio di debolezza.  Al
contrario, è indizio di solidità il fatto che nessuno osi contestarne la
validità.