Hey, Linux is opensource and Windows is prop. Windows developer can read Linux source code and take away "some" good part from the source code and implement in Windows code. But hey, we don't know, right since Windows is prop. But if we "can" see Windows code in "someway" and put the code in Linux, the guys in Redmond will know, right??!!!! Kinda not fair, huh??!!!

So, is this possible?????

Have you ever seem this:

http://www.imblaze.com/screenshots.asp

it's IMBlaze (cough, cough). Basically, the guy took Gaim code, make it closed source and filled up with spywares and banners (classic behavior from windows programmers). Now, GPL says that you are free to distribute and modify GPL code. You can even sell it if you want, as long as the source code is given back to the community. Did IMBlaze do that? Nope... not even mention about the authors of Gaim. There's no need to check the source of IMBlaze, it's just to look at the snapshots. Can gaim guys sue their butt? Sure they can, you can sue anyone for anything, to win the suit is another question. Problem is GPL license is untested in court, as far as I know...

Now, playing fair? I doubt anyone plays fair. Not long ago, some mplayer code was found in a danish DVD-player. Did they release the code? Nope. They affirm that it's not mplayer code and copyrighted. SCO plays the same way, they affirm that their code was used into Linux kernel, but they don't show which code. Will there be any GPL running hidden under Windows? Probably... but we will hardly know, that's for sure

GPL is a bit weak if you'd ask me...

Been tested in german court. Link
LINK

Dont know how it might affect other courts.

Great link pave_spectre! Thanks!. Well, I hope more law suits will come eventually

This life is hard........

Personally, I don't feel like that.

I suspect that it's got more to do with the FSF (or whoever it is that's actually the "legal guardian") not having access to unlimited fund's to go chasing every transgression.

But as you say, the linked doc is good, and the more often these types of lawsuit occur, all help to a "gathering momentum" that says to the transgressor's, "don't take the piss".

Afterall, even if there is open source code in windows (again, as you say, hard to prove), it's even harder to make "them" disclose their so called proprietary code to a court, so the lawyers can pull it apart and prove (or disprove) that it was lifted from something that's licenced as GPL.

Last I heard, someone had shown that the TCP/IP stack in windows, had some stuff from FreeBSD, but the freeBSD licence is different again.

Which suggest's that these kind of arguements are, not only "circular", but very expensive to prove - hence, that's one of the bigger reason's that I'd suggest that M$ have "one over" open source - focus on the $$$'s bit.

Sorry if that sound's cynical, but I feel that it really does look that way. Hopefully, i'm wrong in that view.

just my

regards

John

John has great points .

Read this quote from IMBlaze page:

Their page is full of things like this. They need urgently a spell-check program. ..lol . Maybe they could get an open-source spell checker then add spyware and release at their page too .

Melinda, unlike my personal philosophies , the programming world doesn't follow an eye for an eye. We don't care about MS's source code, we only look to promote and use source code that is held freely under the GPL.

however, if we saw some of the microsoft code, why would we want to copy it anyway? heheh.

however, the gpl seems to be at the moment, more suseptible to 'bulies' in the software industry, but as more people use and love the gpl, then it will thrive more. As the german law case showed. It should be a law that whenever there is a conflict in software, both sides should show their code in court. It would shoot SCO right out of the water.

my 2 cents

titanium_geek

I don't think it really matters much. GPL code has an unalienable advantage over stolen GPL code. It is developed by anyone with talent and an interest in the project, where the stolen code gets stuck in a box to be worked by only a few....this can easily lead to stagnation due to the limited resources available to improve on the project. In the hypothetical event that Microsoft obtains the code...well, resources aren't an issue, but we've all seen how "innovative" MS is...it's nothing new. It's not right, but I don't see how it would harm the original project...the GPL code is still freely available, along with its copyrights. Some people will take advantage of this for personal gain, but that's a drop in the ocean. It's not as if they can take the code and close it up.

I sometimes wonder, when people talk as if open source is in some big competition against proprietary software, what are they thinking. Open source is about making good code and sharing knowledge...it's not a battle against the dark side. The good in open source software is something that can never be taken away. The code is already free.

GPL rocks.

the other advantage of GPL is that the code is continually being developed because the code is open.

here here

titanium_geek