[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Attorney fees

From: David Kastrup
Subject: Re: Attorney fees
Date: Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:15:21 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.60 (gnu/linux)

John Hasler <> writes:

> I wrote:
>> The competitors you created in step one can create competing GPL
>> versions with the same features.
> David Kastrup writes:
>> That's a nice theory.  In practice, you can't hope to keep pace with the
>> original authors in almost any case unless development died altogether or
>> they left.
> We are talking about the main line going closed-source.  That provides
> both motive and opportunity.  Consider X.

What about X should I consider?  X was a consortium product.  The most
active developers clamped down on the distribution conditions, and other
previously active developers reengaged themselves on a different

Far cry from a single-vendor situation.  Or what are you talking about?

>> Many projects don't survive the original authors leaving (or even
>> just aging) even without forking or competition.
> If no one cares then it doesn't matter, does it?

Last time I looked, "care" and "can" were two different words.

> If Open Office went closed-source many people would care, and many of
> them would be in a position to do something about it.  Again, consider
> X.

OpenOffice is by and large not a consortium product, but Starsoft->Sun.
Quite few developers without that affiliation.  In contrast, X is not
really bound to any particular shop.

David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]