I agree that this is an attack on the OSS movement but I'm not sure it started as a conscious one. Whatever are Darl's motivations, his actions can be catastrophic to the widespread adoption of open source products.
Corporate execs are starting to realize that, since "anybody" can contribute, open source projects are exposed to IP litigation. This creates uncertainty/risk, which decision makers tend to avoid.
Now the open source community has to adapt (it is good at adaptation). We have to find and implement ways to make sure OSS distributions are truly free.
I also think that our law makers should protect the common good by making IP holders more involved and proactive in protecting their assets. Like setting a relatively short time period after which "published" open source code becomes public. I mean, if I owned some IP regarding a particular technology, I'd spend some time looking at major open source projects working on similar technologies to make sure nobody's stealing from me. I thinks that is a normal behaviour to expect from any "owner" - property a not only a right, it's also a responsability.
I am not in favor of governement intervention, but a clearer legal status and protection for open source code might be necessary for OSS to become mainstream (after the SCO FUD-attack) by limiting the risk for corporations.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that this is an attack on the OSS movement but I'm not sure it started as a conscious one. Whatever are Darl's motivations, his actions can be catastrophic to the widespread adoption of open source products.
Corporate execs are starting to realize that, since "anybody" can contribute, open source projects are exposed to IP litigation. This creates uncertainty/risk, which decision makers tend to avoid.
Now the open source community has to adapt (it is good at adaptation). We have to find and implement ways to make sure OSS distributions are truly free.
I also think that our law makers should protect the common good by making IP holders more involved and proactive in protecting their assets. Like setting a relatively short time period after which "published" open source code becomes public. I mean, if I owned some IP regarding a particular technology, I'd spend some time looking at major open source projects working on similar technologies to make sure nobody's stealing from me. I thinks that is a normal behaviour to expect from any "owner" - property a not only a right, it's also a responsability.
I am not in favor of governement intervention, but a clearer legal status and protection for open source code might be necessary for OSS to become mainstream (after the SCO FUD-attack) by limiting the risk for corporations.