China DOS Union

The World Linux Brought Back
Author: Fang Xingdong
Linux has become the first legend of the Internet; it represents the spirit of the Internet: freedom, openness, innovation, and sharing. Linux has set off a new wave of open source software (OSS). Its biggest characteristics lie in this: using the network to achieve exponential improvements in performance; using the power of the group to eliminate software defects in parallel; binary code will perish, but source code will live forever, making possible parallel development and broad dissemination that commercial software companies cannot possess. Of course, there are also issues such as management costs and the degree of trust from institutional users. But open source code has also become a major trend. After Linux became popular, Netscape opened up the Mozilla source code, making browser technology freely spread; the server software Apache, too, after lying quiet for many years, came roaring out, and in less than a year surpassed NCSA's httpd to become the number one server software on the Internet; Apple, which lit the fire of the PC, has also actively joined this new wave.

In just a few short years, open source software reached “commercial-grade” quality and standards, making the traditional market monopolist—Microsoft—unable to sit still. From Microsoft's internal memo aimed at Linux (for details see my book Rise Up), one can discover that as the biggest beneficiary of closed source software (CSS), Microsoft is already panicking inside. They will do everything they can to put out this fire in order to protect their own commercial interests.

Many people think Linux created a new tradition. In fact, Linux has merely called back the long-lost PC spirit of the industry; it is another carrying forward of the PC spirit. Therefore, to understand Linux, one must go back to the root of the Linux spirit—the early PC era.

Amid piles of books and all the same talk, people all say Jobs and Bill? Gates created the PC industry. In fact, in the early stage of the PC industry's takeoff, they really did play a crucial role. But the true founders of the PC industry were the many nameless, penniless computer hobbyists.

In the large-scale anti-war tide of the late 1960s, there was a group of young men in blue jeans listening to rock music who came together with the fanatical idea of “rolling up our sleeves and building a computer for ourselves.” They formed grassroots groups, started self-funded publications, corresponded and exchanged ideas, taught each other technical know-how, bought components for each other, and held touring lectures, setting off a wave of personal computer research. The most famous among them was the “Homebrew Club.” They were not accepted by orthodox people and upheld the goal of “returning computers to the people.” They loathed naked commercialism, all for the sake of a “living machine that belongs to the individual.”

They became the main innovators, makers, consumers, inventors, and advocates of the early PC. Whether it was the earliest Altair 8080, the early Apple I, or Gates's Basic, all drew innovative ideas here, were tested and improved here, and spread and became famous here. It was precisely their wisdom and pursuit that brought the PC industry out of the ground and became the greatest driving force in its early development. It can be said that without the “Homebrew Club,” without these obsessed computer hobbyists, there would have been no early PC enterprise. Today's PC industry would absolutely not look as it does now either.

More importantly, everyone advocated openness, freely spreading software code and internal operating details to all, so that programmers and peripheral makers could create compatible products to expand the market. The hobbyists brought their own values into the computer industry, making openness in computer system design into an ideal at the time. Back then people each wrote their own programs and all thought it impossible to go buy someone else's software. And when they wrote programs, rather than for using the computer, it was more to show off what the machine could do. Including Kildall, the father of DOS, and the early Gates and Allen, their work was more about experiencing the joy of creation than chasing rolling wealth.

But as technology developed, computers had to be turned from toys into tools, and more complex, more useful software had to be written for them. So programming, originally done out of hobby, quickly became a real commercial opportunity. And Gates was undoubtedly the earliest person to realize this business opportunity. He developed the first Basic language for microcomputers. He was the first programmer to remind people to take illegal copying seriously.

In January 1976, Gates published that famous “Open Letter to Hobbyists.” In the letter he accused them of widely making illegal copies of his Basic, and said those who did so were thieves. This righteous letter became the manifesto of the software industry, and also the banner for Microsoft's future development.

In fact, it was Bill? Gates who first established the rules of the game in the software industry. And afterward, no one was ever able to change his rules. This is the secret of Microsoft's success. Because it is both the maker of the rules of the game and the main player of the game!

Gates's contribution to the software industry is indeed undeniable. But this unreasonable state of affairs was bound to lead to a rule full of loopholes. For example, at the time Gates's attacks had no effect at all on the hobbyists. They certainly understood the value of his labor, and they also needed Gates's software to make the machine work better. But they were even more dissatisfied that Gates put the sky-high price of 500 dollars on the tiny Basic language. People could not see what reason or basis there was for a price equal to the price of the hardware. However, from then on, the rules of the software industry could not be corrected by anyone stronger, and for more than 20 years Gates has used his own pricing strategy and market logic to dominate the entire industry. No one has been able to question this set of rules. Even though the most basic original question still has no fair and reasonable answer to this day.

Linux has arrived. It cannot crush Microsoft. But it has brought back a tradition lost for many years; it has brought back the long-missing ideals of the software industry. The force it has formed will push Microsoft to reflect on itself and adjust itself. Linux is not the Statue of Liberty, and it is not here to establish a free, no-charge “utopia” for the software industry. But it will have the most direct impact on the injustices of the existing software industry. It will reinfuse the software industry with a spirit of fairness and reason, and reinfuse vitality, passion, and innovation. In the past, Microsoft dominated the discourse power of software intellectual property rights, creating the distorted state of intellectual property rights and the industry as it stands today. Linux has arrived; it will gather all resistance and dissatisfaction with the current system. We welcome it, just as we would welcome an old friend long separated for many years.



—Excerpted from: CPCW.COM

Linux: Both Spirit and Business Opportunity
　　The utopia that once represented an ideal world has become a thing of the past, but at the end of the 20th century, a new utopia arose again in the software field—free software. As the representative work of free software, Linux has set off a movement worldwide.

　　Software without a commercial color

　　In 1991, the Finnish student Linus Torvalds put the Linux operating system he wrote onto the Internet for people to use, modify, and add to freely. Seven years later, Linux finally entered our country, and like a hidden fire began spreading rapidly. Today, on brand-name computers such as Great Wall and TCL, Chinese editions of Linux such as Xteam, Red Flag, Tom, and Bluepoint have appeared one after another.

　　According to Ren Yi, general manager of Surf Platform, the first domestic company specializing in the development and promotion of Chinese Linux, their company's XteamLinux sold 120,000 copies last year, while total Linux sales in China last year had already reached about 200,000 copies.

　　Even so, Gong Min—a Linux expert who returned from Finland—said: "Manufacturers have never played a major role in the development of Linux. What really drives Linux forward are Linux enthusiasts and users. Nor does it exist for profit; people use it simply because it works well."

　　But at the same time, Gong Min also pointed out that Linux is a kind of software with a "grassroots nature." In the past, because Linux was free and no company was responsible for it, some senior managers in big enterprises stipulated that this kind of software was not to be used. But some users, unable to tolerate the defects of Windows, began using Linux secretly. Because of the superiority of this operating system, company leaders simply turned a blind eye, and in this way it gradually spread.

　　It seems that the appearance of professional Linux vendors has at least solved enterprise users' worries about service. This has also determined that Linux mostly treats service as an important line of business.

　　Many people participating in free software have not treated Linux as their profession or means of making a living. "Linux is not my means of making a living. I have my own profession, but I am a promoter of Linux," as one Linux enthusiast put it.
　　

　　There are business opportunities even in free

　　According to the rules of the game, free software is free to users; users can download software from the Internet and copy, modify, and use it at will. If it is sold, sellers can only charge a low price covering copying costs. An insider pointed out: "Free software must follow the GPL (General Public Licence) principle. According to the GPL principle, software derived from any GPL-following software can also be sold, but others cannot be deprived of the right to distribute and sell that software." And this stands in exact opposition to the copyright notice in commercial software: "This program is protected by copyright law and international treaties; unauthorized copying or distribution is prohibited..."

　　Obviously, free software is the opposite of commercial software. Even so, shrewd businessmen still try to dig gold out of it. Similar to the Internet, the first bucket of gold Linux brought operators and investors came from the financial market, not from customers. Starting late last year, a series of shocks appeared in the U.S. stock market. First was the listing of VA Linux Systems stock. On the day it went public, this stock, issued at 30 dollars, closed at the sky-high price of 299.25 dollars, a rise of 698%. Calculated on that basis, company founder and investor Larry Augustin, who owned 6.6 million shares, became a billionaire worth 1.6 billion overnight—American media cried out: "Linux creates billionaires overnight!" Not only that, some stocks merely associated with Linux also rose all the way in a case of "when one attains the Way, even his chickens and dogs ascend to heaven." In a short time, Red hat founder MarcEwing and others also rapidly became billionaires.

　　Different people have different views on this. Some commentators believe Linux may become a new focus for venture capitalists. A believer in free software, however, said this kind of surge in (Linux) stocks is the stock market's inaccurate response to business. In fact, companies like Red hat have not made profits, and stock prices are giving false information; in reality this is "water without a source, a tree without roots." It merely calls to mind the great rise and fall of the U.S. stock market in 1929—once confidence and hope in the financial market collapse, this will become another line of falling dominoes.

　　Ren Yi explained the basis for their survival this way: "Free software does not allow vendors to deprive users of the right to use and distribute it freely, but it also does not stipulate that vendors are obliged to teach users how to use it." This sentence reveals the way the vast majority of Linux vendors survive—software service.

　　Ren Yi said Surf Platform has already established cooperative relationships with several companies specializing in training and software service. These companies are responsible for user training and service work for Surf Platform, and charge service fees on that basis, part of which goes to Surf Platform.

　　It is understood that abroad, Linux vendors generally adopt similar ways of survival: some charge for service, while others sell Linux as one product together with other hardware products and earn hardware profits.

　　Charging nothing for the software itself while charging for software service is not some visitor from outer space. According to statistical data, software companies' service income has risen sharply in recent years, with some companies reaching 80% of total revenue. Thus, free software charging through service and commercial software increasing the proportion of service are simply different roads leading to the same destination.

　　According to relevant experts, up to now the focus of Linux applications has been enterprise applications on the server side, and it is precisely enterprise-level applications that place particular importance on software service, where service income makes up the largest share. This is what makes Linux's "free" and the survival of Linux vendors not contradictory.

　　Microsoft will face Linux crusaders

　　Like all operating system software, once Linux came into this world it was inevitably going to compete with Microsoft. But Linux is a fellow who practices tai chi; though Microsoft may have iron fists, it doesn't know where to strike.

　　Linux is not software! Some people say so. And a photo circulating on the Internet represents the true meaning of Linux. In the photo, free software founder Richard Stallman is dressed like a missionary, holding a Bible, with a halo above his head, as if he wants to deliver all living beings. And the facts are indeed like this: almost all Linux believers regard free software not merely as a product, but as a philosophy, a faith, or a movement. One Linux believer said: "If Linux is a commodity, then it is at least an extremely special commodity."

　　In fact, most Linux enthusiasts are motivated either by hatred of Microsoft or by a kind of philosophy. From this point of view, Linux has gone far beyond the simple market concept of competing with Microsoft, and its meaning does not lie in the program code Linux contains. This is fully reflected in the speeches of Stallman and Torvalds: in almost all their talks, most of the time they are preaching and discussing philosophy, and only rarely analyzing technology or the market.

　　"This is a mass movement that isn't called a mass movement," Gong Min said. "Microsoft can buy out and eliminate a company, but how can it eliminate a mass movement? From the market angle, Windows currently has the largest share, but I think Microsoft has no future. It may flourish for a while, but it will definitely die! And Linux will live much longer."

　　Nor is enthusiasts' confidence in Linux blind. "Although Linux did not appear until 1991, it evolved on the basis of UNIX and inherited most of UNIX's features, so in fact its history can be traced back to the late 1960s and early 1970s." Shao Changping, a senior manager who once worked as a programmer for three years, said, "It already has a history of more than 30 years. Software that remains full of vitality after more than 30 years in the computer industry is definitely not some simple piece of software."

　　It seems that this time Microsoft really must be careful, because what it faces is no longer a company, but a group of crusaders.



—Excerpted from: NetEase report

Understanding GNU GPL, Developing Linux
Author: Chen Jihong

　　That Linux could in just a few short years occupy such a dazzling position in the software field was something most people did not expect. Because of its unique license system, Linux undoubtedly has enormous appeal for us, who long to break through Microsoft's monopoly on the Windows operating system and possess an operating system of our own. Software for Linux-based operating platforms and their integrated application environments has already been listed in the national catalogue of key priority high-tech industrialization fields.

　　Studying the rules of the game of GPL and other free software licenses is of great significance both for developing the domestic free software cause and for accurately positioning the development of Linux in China.

　　The rules of GNU GPL and analysis

　　1. The formulation and purpose of GNU GPL

　　The Free Software Foundation (“FSF”), created by RichardStallman, is devoted to eliminating various restrictions on the copying, distribution, study, and modification of computer programs. They achieve this goal by developing and using free software in all computer fields—especially by developing the GNU operating system. GPL was first written by Stallman in 1989, in the hope of using it to break the shackles of the copyright legal system on software and protect the public's freedom to share and modify software. Under the terms of GPL, “freesoftware” means “free software” rather than gratis software. In response to some issues that arose in the use of GPL, FSF released the second edition of GPL in 1991. The success of GPL has greatly promoted the development of free software.

　　Besides GPL, FSF also formulated the LGPL license. Compared with GPL, LGPL is a weaker copyleft license, permitting programs to be linked with non-free modules.

　　2. The application of GPL

　　If the original copyright holder clearly states in a declaration that a program or work is released under the terms of GPL, then GPL applies. At the end of the document GPL gives an example explaining how an author may use GPL to release his own program. To do this, the author must at least include the following points in the program:

　　●Copyright notice. For example: “Copyright (c) 19XXΙAuthor NameΛ”. This shows the author has not given up copyright.

　　●Free software declaration. For example: “This program is free software. You may modify and distribute this program in accordance with the GNU GPL published by FSF.”

　　●No warranty. For example: “This program comes with no warranty of any kind, not even the implied warranties of Merchantability and Fitness.”

　　●A complete copy of GPL or a way to read or obtain it.

　　In some situations (for example, if the program you want to release under GPL is a work made in the course of employment), before releasing the program under GPL, the developer needs to obtain a declaration of copyright abandonment from the institution or person with the power to dispose of and control that program.

　　The GPL license only restricts the copying, distribution, and modification of the relevant program. But as an exception, if the output produced by running the program constitutes a work based on the program, then the act of running it is likewise constrained by the terms of the license.

　　3. Copying and distributing programs

　　When you receive a program governed by GPL, so long as the following conditions are met, you may copy and distribute it in any way:

　　●Clearly and appropriately mark the copyright notice and no-warranty notice on each copy;

　　●Give each recipient a copy of the GPL license.

　　4. Modifying programs

　　Under the GPL terms, the recipient of a program may modify it, thereby forming a derivative work. To republish that derivative work legally, the following conditions must be met:

　　●Indicate the modification information;

　　●Permit third parties to use the whole free of charge according to the license terms. The fee referred to here means the license fee deriving from copyright law;

　　●If the program reads commands interactively when running, then before the interactive command it should print a copyright notice, a no-warranty notice, and a statement that the user may republish the program according to GPL.

　　5. Distributing programs in executable form

　　So long as you comply with the GPL rules concerning the copying, distribution, and modification of programs, you have the right to copy and distribute the program in executable code form, but you must either include the source code together with the executable or provide written offer information for obtaining the source code. The charge for obtaining the source code is limited to the actual cost of making the source program available.

　　Copyright issues of free software

　　Linux is released according to GPL, therefore its copyright issues are the same as those of other free programs released under GPL.

　　1. What is copyright

　　Copyright is the exclusive right to a work that its creator obtains according to law. GPL was formulated with the aim of opposing copyright, and it creatively established the Copyleft licensing method. But, dramatically enough, in order to construct a legally binding rule for the distribution of free software and ensure the free sharing of free software in society, GPL again relies on copyright law and the copyright system to ensure the smooth realization of its purpose. Copyright holders obtain various moral rights and property rights under copyright law. A copyright owner has the right to use the work himself, may also permit others to use it, and has the right to prohibit unauthorized use of the work by a third party. Authors who distribute programs under GPL terms have never given up copyright; on the contrary, they often prominently mark the words “Copyright” at the beginning of the program. Retaining copyright rather than abandoning it is based on the following factors:

　　●To ensure the identity of the lawful grantor of the license. A license is a legal document by which one grants one's own rights to others for conditional use, and the premise is that the licensor must possess that right or those rights.

　　●To have the right to restrain the various acts of redistributors of free software. If the distributor of free software did not adopt the GPL license but instead adopted copyright abandonment, then the redistribution, copying, and modification of free software would be uncontrollable, and might move toward the opposite of the original distributor's intention.

　　●To prevent abuse of free software. Abandoning copyright is equivalent to placing the program in the public domain, where anyone may use it in any way. Under such conditions, it is possible that some people could appropriate free software by claiming copyright in a modified work or by applying for patents.

　　●To preserve the original rights holder's right to revise the licensing rules for free software. In some situations, such as where patent problems restrict the distribution and use of a program in certain regions, the original copyright holder may explicitly exclude those regions by adding terms to the license.

　　2. Copyright issues

　　In the use of GPL, one issue often encountered is the copyright of derivative works of a program. According to copyright theory, the copyright in a work produced by modifying or translating an existing work belongs to the modifier or translator—that is, the re-creator owns the copyright. Free software governed by GPL is no exception. The recipient of a GPL license naturally lawfully obtains the right to modify the program or a work based on the program, that is, he has the legal basis for modifying the program. The copyright in the new work after modification should belong to him. However, what is important is that when the modifier republishes the modified program (the derivative work), he must meet GPL's requirement: “You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.” And the GPL terms provide that “each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions.” Clearly, when the modifier republishes the modified derivative work, aside from being able to indicate the modifier's identity on the derivative work, he has already lost any control over the derivative work. All users' licenses, no matter by whom directly granted, are regarded as obtained from the original licensor. The author of a derivative work enjoys copyright in the work, but when he republishes the derivative work, he is in fact transferring the rights to the original issuer of the license. Users of the derivative work are likewise regarded as obtaining from the original issuer of the license the rights to copy, redistribute, and modify the work.

　　A modified program forms a derivative work based on the program, and when redistributed it is constrained by GPL terms. However, if it can be proven that some part of the redistributed work is not a modification of the program or its derivative work, but an independent part, then it forms a “different work.” When a different work is distributed independently, it is not constrained by GPL terms, and the author enjoys full copyright in that work. Even if it is a different work, when it is distributed as part of a derivative work, as a whole it is still constrained by GPL.

　　Many software companies have developed plug-in Chinese input systems for the Linux system. A Chinese input system runs on the Linux platform and completes Chinese input functions, and should be regarded as an independent part, a “different work” from the Linux core system. However, if the Chinese input system is distributed together with the system as part of a Chinese Linux operating system, then the developer can no longer claim the input system copyright in his own name; the input system has already been placed under the constraints of GPL.

　　The development of Linux software in China

　　Some once hoped to develop an operating system with independent intellectual property rights on the basis of Linux. But after carefully analyzing GPL's copyright system, we can easily reach the conclusion that this is almost impossible. Because no matter how deeply we modify the Linux system, the work formed is still a derivative work, and its distribution is still constrained by GPL. Aside from being able to mark the modifier's name on the program, we cannot possess any rights.

　　Perhaps some may think of drawing on and learning Linux software technology, then independently developing an operating system similar to Linux. Of course this could obtain independent intellectual property rights, but from the kernel to support software, without exception everything must be written from scratch by ourselves, and the software written cannot include any part of Linux, nor modify any part of the Linux system. The effort and price of this are enormous. Without a free software distribution and development system like GPL, a closed new operating system would have difficulty gaining society's recognition and acceptance. Its innovativeness would lack vitality.

　　Even so, making full use of the Linux system and the GPL framework is still crucial to the software industry. One may imagine this: in the years that follow, we devote ourselves to promoting the development of the Linux system in our country, spare no effort in promoting the use of the Linux system in our country according to GPL, and develop all kinds of supporting and practical software under the Chinese-language environment. We make Chinese practical software based on the Linux system (most of which, of course, should possess independent intellectual property rights) comparable to practical software for Windows, and make Linux users and Windows users be on the same order of magnitude. After that, we develop an operating system compatible with Linux by modeling it on the Linux system, yet with complete intellectual property rights. This is entirely possible, because we merely referred to Linux's design ideas. Everyone knows that what copyright law protects is the expression of a work, not ideas.

The “Contradiction” Between Free Software and Commercialization
Author: Chen Jihong
　　The Free Software Foundation (“FSF”), created by Richard Stallman, was established in order to eliminate various restrictions on the copying, distribution, study, and modification of computer programs. For this reason, they formulated the GPL. But under the terms of GPL, “freesoftware” means “free software” rather than gratis software. It is precisely because it is “not free of charge” that it brings all the attractions of commercialization.

　　There is no doubt that Linux is the most typical among all free software. Therefore, we use Linux as an example here to discuss the commercialization of free software constrained by GPL.

　　Basic business model: software distribution services

　　Neither Stallman nor Linus has ever opposed commercial activity aimed at Linux. In fact, most of FSF's funding comes from its software distribution services. Stallman believes that in the Copyleft era, software companies can make money through services and training rather than by collecting copyright license fees for software. Linus himself is also very happy that people can make money on Linux, “because that increases Linux's depth, and also introduces new motivations and new factors. If it were not for commercial purposes, that would be impossible.” Generally speaking, commercial activities aimed at Linux include: making profit through distributing Linux software; making profit through selling (licensing) copyrighted “different works” based on the Linux system that are not constrained by GPL (note: if it can reasonably be considered that some part of a redistributed work is not the program or its derivative work, but an independent part, then it forms a “different work.” When a “different work” is distributed independently, it is not constrained by GPL terms, and the author enjoys full copyright in that work. But even if it is a “different work,” when it is distributed as part of a derivative work, as a whole it is still constrained by GPL); and charging fees for providing customers with technical services (training, software maintenance, modifications, etc.).

　　Profiting from the distribution of Linux software is the most basic business model based on Linux. If a distributor wishes, he may distribute, without modification, any version of Linux software governed by GPL that he has obtained from anyone, anywhere, to anyone, while charging his customers a certain fee. So long as that distributor fulfills the obligations toward redistributors stipulated under the GPL license, his conduct is completely lawful. But please remember that the basis on which the distributor charges fees is that he has paid human and material costs for the act of distribution, and the basis for his charge is limited only to that—absolutely not to the license fee for use of the program or work. Even if the distributor modifies the program and improves its performance, thereby forming a derivative work based on the program, the rights he obtains in copying and distributing the derivative work are no greater than those of a mere distributor.

　　People once worried that the free distribution model for free software under GPL terms would affect the survival of commercial companies. But with the rapid growth of software companies whose core product is Linux, people discovered that this worry was unnecessary. Commercial Linux software companies have many ways to attract customers: ever-changing new versions of software, which are the key to attracting customers; besides the Linux core operating system, they also provide abundant support software, and some of that software constitutes “different works” not constrained by GPL and cannot be freely copied by others; detailed manuals and technical support, with the manuals themselves protected by copyright law; and some commercial companies even provide customers with guarantees of software quality. It can be foreseen that organizations that rely solely on redistributing Linux operating systems developed by others as a means of survival will find it difficult to continue existing.

　　Different works and no warranty

　　The distribution of “different works” is not constrained by GPL. The copyright holder may charge software license fees and may enter into license agreements with licensees that are entirely different from GPL. At present, while many commercial Linux companies are developing performance improvements for the Linux operating system, they are also developing much software that runs on the Linux operating system, such as browsers, word processing software, and all kinds of games. Most of these satisfy the conditions of “different works.” Many commercial companies place “different works” under the constraints of GPL, while some commercial companies retain the copyright in “different works” in order to raise software charges and prevent competitors from making the software available without charge according to GPL terms. Both approaches are perfectly acceptable.

　　No warranty is an important term of GPL. For an ordinary product to enter the market, it must have merchantability suitable for sale and fitness for a particular purpose, and these are the producer's implied warranties to the user. To avoid potential legal risks, the no-warranty clause in GPL is strict: neither express nor implied warranties are provided by the copyright holder or any other party providing the program. However, GPL does not prohibit a redistributor from providing warranties to users in his own name, and he may even charge fees for warranty behavior. This is also an important reason why commercial Linux companies have been able to expand their markets.

　　Stallman says this in the article “Fifteen Years of Free Software”: the world is not peaceful, and we cannot expect that because we have freedom today, we will continue to have it five years from now. On this issue, Linus himself appears more at ease, because he knows that a company hoping to control the Linux system must take over and bear responsibility for development of the Linux kernel. But that cost is indeed expensive.

　　Free software and patents

　　The threat patents pose to free software comes from two directions: first, a third party not constrained by GPL possesses some software patent, while the original developer of the free software or a later modifier uses that technology in the program or its derivative work; second, a redistributor of free software obtains a patent in his own name for some technology in the free software, in effect turning free software into private property. As for the latter patent problem, GPL has the power to restrain the patent applicant. GPL clearly provides: either after obtaining the patent, allow anyone to use it freely (which is equivalent to having no patent), or do not permit the patent. As for the first patent problem, GPL has no power to restrain the patent holder, and if the free software is distributed in the territory where that patent is valid, it may lead to patent infringement liability. In this situation, GPL makes a helpless provision: if a patent does not permit all those who receive copies of the program directly or indirectly from him to distribute the program without paying patent fees, then the program should not be distributed at all.

　　GPL also takes into account an even harsher situation: in some regions, the distribution and use of free software are restricted because of patent problems. In such cases, the original copyright holder may add terms restricting the areas of distribution and explicitly exclude those regions.

How Open Is Open Enough?
More and more companies are catching up with the trend of opening source code, but the author of this article, Mary Jo Foley, believes that in most of this news, commercial competition schemes are at work rather than any sincere desire to truly open and share their own source code for public use.

Will open source eventually become the mainstream path for program developers? Supporters of open source certainly think so. Eric Raymond believes that "the peer-review model of the Open-Source Community serves present and future users." In the same way, it has also helped quite a few vendors (such as IBM and SGI) become involved in open source, but some vendors are still not like this. Eric stresses that attention should be paid to whether those vendors joining under this trend are truly committed to the ranks of open source, or whether they are only creating more inconsistency.

According to the Open Software Initiative's definition of "Open Source," "open source" must have the following three characteristics:

Free redistribution

Modification allowed

Distribution of modified versions allowed

The article finally concludes that Netscape is currently making a contribution in open source. The Mozilla research team has already opened Mozilla, thus helping bring about Netscape 6 PR1.



—Excerpted from: LinuxFab