Re: [Fwd: Re: [Fsfe-uk] BBC Article about Linux SCO and Copyrights - BBCcalls for statements (fwd)]

[Alex Hudson]

On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 20:40, Paul wrote:
> A reply from Bill Thompson (the chap who did the SCO copyrights piece
> for BBC Online)

(probably not nice to forward private emails to public lists, but I'll
forgive you this once ;)

I don't really see what he was responding to, although to be fair I very
much doubt he will have received many constructive emails from people.

He repeats his obvious lack of clue: GPL depends on US copyright.. no,
it was written with the Berne convention in mind. GNU open to copyright
misapproriation: no, the FSF require written, signed agreements from all
developers (which is probably a higher standard than most proprietary
firms). 

I don't particularly see anything wrong with his article other than it
was mostly mis-informed. The basic point (that "open source" developers
should be careful wrt copyright) is okay, the conclusion (that they are
not careful) is provable nonsense, and the supporting evidence is weak
at best. 

Bill Thompson just appears to be a muck stirrer; reading his article is
like listening to Alan Green on FiveLive's 606. They put this stuff out
there to "stimulate discussion" (i.e., cause a stir), and it does that.
Fair play to him. I know the BBC aren't the only people who do this;
several well-known tech writers have admitted to me in private that they
play Devil's advocate on a fairly regular basis. Take it for what it is,
I guess.

Cheers,

Alex.