Remember, when it comes to "prior art" arguments it boils down to whether
or not you have the financial resources to pursue a legal case, and whether or not any judge eventually hearing the case is in tune enough with technology to make a sound ruling. "One-click" is so clearly obvious that it shouldn't, logically, pass muster with the patent office,
much worse survive in court, yet it has done both.
So ... why worry about things you can't control?
More interesting is your asking whether or not aD would fight to protect the Tcl version of the ACS if someone violated the GPL under which it is licensed. Good question.
They have no direct financial incentive at the moment to do so, since they're abandoning the code base.
And OpenACS isn't a legal entity so certainly couldn't step forward to protect our own GPL'd additions to the code base. Individuals would have to do so and as individuals we don't tend to be wealthy folks able to sustain a long, expensive court battle.
On the other hand, the FSF will step forward to defend the GPL license.
They are willing to do so precisely because they understand that many GPL'd projects are run by small groups of people who don't have the resources to defend the license.
In practice this is an untested approach.
But, again, why worry about what you can't control? The siutation here
is no different than in countless other GPL'd projects. Any GPL'd piece of code risks being hijacked and bundled for release in a proprietary way that violates the GPL.
BSD folks argue that this leaves them with one less thing to worry about in life, because BSD'd software can legally be hijacked in this way...
