> On Saturday, Jan 24, 2004, at 18:13 US/Pacific, D. Jay Newman wrote:
>
> > It seems that fixes come more quickly to
> > Linux (open-source) than to Windows (closed-source).
> >
> > Also, the open-source community admits to and fixes problems more
> > rapidly than most close-source sources.
> >
> Except when they refuse to admit that they have a bug.  I understand
> that there is some VERY questionable logic in the current Linux ARP
> code, and the relevant developer simply refuses to admit that it
> should be changed.  Since there is effectively no way to apply market
> pressure to free software, it might never get changed.  Assorted
> vendors are cringing about how much THEY are likely to have to spend
> to 'support' this quirk that won't go away...

Anybody is able to rewrite the ARP code and release it. Yes, that may
cause a split, but it is allowable under the GPL.

> And there are the lovely version to version incompatibilities in
> famous packages like emacs.  Sometimes solved by fragmentation into
> several separate "products."

As you point out.

> Open source is a fine thing, but it doesn't solve all problems.

Agreed. I will admit that I try to choose open-source alternatives
when possible, but I'm not a fanatic about it.

> It also isn't new.  Universities and such were sharing source code
> for all sorts of stuff long before the 8086 even existed...

Ayup. Including some of the unix code...

> It does raise some interesting Intellectual Property issues.  If
> code is copyrighted and/or trade secret, I am free to "clean room"
> reproduce similar code (like an IBMPC BIOS, as a popular item) if
> I can reasonably demonstrate that I never studied, stole, or otherwise
> used the code i am 'reverse engineering.'  Accused of violating GPL
> by including open source (GPL'ed) code, I would likely have a very
> difficult time indeed demonstrating that I had never looked at the

Unfortunately you may be right. However, in any non-trivial program
there should be enough differences.

> relevant open source code.   I'm not a big fan of the GPL ("if you
> include any GPL code, your code must also be GPL'ed.")  We have a
> <expletive deleted> legal team that has to oversee and approve
> every use of open source code in our products.  Somehow, I think
> paying lawyers big bucks instead of paying programmers big bucks
> was NOT what even RMS had in mind.

Again, this is highly unfortunate.

Frankly I'm not a big fan of the GPL, preferring the LGPL instead. I
feel that the GPL is a bit too strict and can lead to a lack of sharing.
--
D. Jay Newman           !
jay@sprucegrove.com     ! Xander: Giles, don't make cave-slayer unhappy.
http://enerd.ws/robots/ !

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different
ways.  See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details.