Major proprietary software companies such as Wind River Systems and Microsoft have recently taken action on an open-source software reality that threatens their business model.
Wind River decided to purchase an open-source company, and Microsoft launched a campaign against established open-source initiatives, especially the General Public License (GPL). Microsoft also began a questionable "shared source" program of its own.
I would like to respond to this challenge and, in the process, clarify a few key aspects of the GPL.
First and foremost, the GPL is simply another software license. Software is never really sold; it is just licensed to customers. A customer agrees to the terms of a software license each time that customer acquires and runs software.
That said, the GPL is not some oddity of the software world. In fact, it embodies the best of both proprietary software and open-source software by allowing companies to keep their own work while using the incredibly stable and robust features of an open-source operating system such as Linux. To further clarify inaccurate statements, the GPL never requires a company to give away source code to its custom application programs.
Allowing proprietary and GPL code to interact while keeping the two separate is a fundamental process practiced by organisations around the world. For example, if an application or driver runs in user space and makes normal calls to the operating system, the proprietary source code is not required to be licensed under the GPL but may be licensed under a proprietary license if the author chooses.
Challengers of the GPL like to spread fear about its "viral" effect. Yet what they fail to mention is that all software licenses (even the Microsoft Windows license) have the same viral effect as the GPL. The difference between a derivative of Microsoft code and a derivative of GPL code is the final ownership of the code. Microsoft code and derivatives assuredly go back to Microsoft and possibly benefit them with profits.
GPL code and derivatives go back to the GPL and the public domain and possibly benefit numerous individuals and organisations. This said, the GPL clearly delineates an ability to use GPL code, and future derivatives of that code, without threat of trademark infringement.
