[OSM-legal-talk] PD vs SA: The eternal battle

[Richard Fairhurst]

bvh wrote:

> If you think Apple wouldn't do that just look at webkit. I am quite
> convinced that had that one been pd they would just have forked it and
> never looked back...

Actually, WebKit - which is licensed LGPL and BSD, _not_ GPL - is a  
good example of how liberal licences can work. See:

http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2007/06/12/ars-at-wwdc-interview-with-lars-knoll-creator-of-khtml

http://arstechnica.com/journals/linux.ars/2007/07/23/the-unforking-of-kdes-khtml-and-webkit

In brief:

1. Apple takes KHTML
2. Apple adds 8 zillion features and does only what is required by the  
share-alike licence (LGPL), i.e. making the source available in its  
rawest form
3. KHTML devs, and others, complain that the resulting "code bomb"  
cannot be easily integrated back into Konqueror. Cue outraged Slashdot  
articles and so on
4. Under community pressure, Apple changes its practices, and works to  
reintegrate ("unfork") the code, _even_though_they_don't_have_to_
5. QtWebKit now exists for KDE, KHTML is significantly better, half  
the world is using an open-source standards-compliant browser, etc.  
etc. etc.
6. We all live happily ever after, apart from maybe the IE devs ;)

So share-alike itself actually ain't that helpful if the person  
doesn't really want to contribute back.

But if you use community pressure, rather than trying to get medieval  
on their licensing ass, you can get a great result - whatever the  
licence.

cheers
Richard