Ugly Huge BSD Monster

[Brett Glass]

At 03:30 PM 9/4/2003, Mark Murray wrote:

>I am a professional programmer, and I do my programming in an
>environment that has plenty of GPL'ed code. I get to mess with
>GPL'ed source, use binaries compiled from GPL'ed source and we
>distribute some of this binary and source. We also distribute a
>commercial, source+object product that has very little open source.
>This product is compiled with GCC and its documentation is maintained
>partialy with open source tools and partially with commercial
>products.
>
>What is the threat to MY livelihood? 

If you view GPLed code, and then write something similar, you are
open to claims that your work is derivative of the GPLed code and
therefore must likewise be GPLed.

Interestingly, the lawyer for the Open Source Initiative was one
of the first people to make this point (though he made it with
reference to Microsoft's "shared source" rather than GPLed code,
because he is very anti-commercial and wouldn't mind if the GPL
had the same damaging effect on commercial programmers). 

He noted that, as in the famous George Harrison case involving
the song "My Sweet Lord," the accuser does not need to claim that
the copying was conscious. Merely having been exposed to the original
is enough.

See his paper at http://www.rosenlaw.com/html/GL8.pdf for more.

So, yes, if you have read GPLed code, you are at serious risk. At any
time, the FSF could claim that your work was derivative and had to be
given away for free. You might prevail in court, but doing so could be
just as costly as losing the proceeds from your work.

--Brett Glass