In article <babfe4-1sc.ln1@g...>, 
simon@j... says...
> There is only one GPL - the G stands for 'GNU', which in turn stands
> for 'Gnu is Not UNIX'. There are, however, different versions of the GPL.
> V2 is the one in common current use and is so legally fierce that no-one
> has yet dared seriously challenge it in court. V3 is currently in draft
> and promises to be even fiercer.

I figured out that every one refers to "The General Public License" as if 
it were the only general public license, so I guess that term has become 
a de facto name for the "GNU General Public License." So the "G" in 
"GPL" stands for "General" not "GNU." The "G" in "GNU" stands for GNU. If 
you don't believe me just check out www.gnu.org. Anyway that is a minor 
point.

I have also been doing a lot of research lately. Many commentators, 
especially lawyers in the software licensing field working FOR open 
source causes, seem to feel that all of the open source licenses (to use 
the more general term) are on a bit of shaky ground exactly because the 
concept has never been tested in court. The shrink-wrap licenses have 
been upheld in court but that may be because they are on paper and the 
software installation disk is a physical object. Enforcing a license 
against someone who never entered into a legal contract just because they 
modified some code hasn't been tested as far as I could find. If you have 
some case law to cite I would love to see it. Keep in mind, I am not 
arguing against open source licensing. I am just saying it may or may not 
have as many teeth as advocates give it credit for.

After having read through a couple dozen licenses, the GPL does not seem 
to be nearly as accurate of a legal document as many others I have seen. 
Precise legal phrasing is there for a reason, just like clean coding 
practices are there for a reason. Even if it looks the same to non-
professionals, it may not work out as well in the end. With all the non-
precise language and excessive explanations and examples in the GPL, they 
have actually left MORE room for misinterpretation. That is just the way 
it works with legal documents. No, I am not a lawyer, but I have heard 
and read this point explained by many lawyers.

I personally suspect that the major companies like Microsoft haven't 
directly challenged the GPL or any other open source license because they 
fear it would invalidate their shrink-wrap licenses. After all, no one 
signed anything and people really just made up the idea of claiming that 
someone entered into a contract just by opening a package. I think they 
made it up hoping it would get traction just from common use. Eventually 
it did but, in the beginning, many doubted their legitimacy.

It would probably be better if there were a legal challenge to the GPL. 
Then the open source community would either have set a precedent, if GPL 
won, or learned what needs to be fixed, if GPL lost. I don't think a loss 
would kill open source. It would just teach people that they can't just 
make up these licenses will-nilly and expect them to hold up in court. 
They must get real lawyers involved and create legally precise documents. 


> FWIW I release all the code I make my living from under GPL V2.

Now I know I am going way off topic for this newsgroup but I am curious. 
The money you make from writing that code is that paid to you by a 
company? So, if you are working for a company then it is the company that 
is releasing the software under GPL, correct. So, you are making a living 
just writing code, whether or not that code is profitable. It could be 
that your company is loosing money hand over fist because they haven't 
figured out how to make money using the open source model. Or they are 
making a fortune on support. I don't know. But in that case, you are 
making money from writing code, not from releasing software under GPL.

On the other hand, if you are working for yourself, could you please tell 
me how you are actually making a living by writing code and giving it 
away. I'm not arguing. I am genuinely curious.

I suspect that the open source business model can only work for companies 
who are big enough to do the marketing it takes to convince people to pay 
for support. Even Linus Torvolds has to have a job somewhere where 
someone is willing to pay him money to work on Linux. As an individual, 
even he isn't "big" enough to make money releasing code as open source. 
Again, not arguing against. Just making an observation.