Slashdot Mirror
IBM InterJet II Uses Embedded FreeBSD
stephen.schaubach writes, "The new IBM InterJet II is a small net appliance that looks cool, is small and has some kick-ass features, including: e-mail server, Apache, Firewall, FTP, DNS and DHCP services. Admin it from a Web browser like the cobalt's. But, best of all it runs an embedded operating system based on FreeBSD UNIX. The down side is that it looks as though you kinda of ASP-lease the thing. Anyone told VA yet? heh " The InterJet is a neat piece of kit, and the developers at Whistle have contributed a lot of high-quality code back to the BSD project, both before and after their buyout by IBM.
Once again, a Large Corporation takes control of what was previously a fre project, slaps a few worthless features on it, and sells it back to us, the Open Source community for big bucks.
First of all, I doubt anyone with enough of a clue to know the difference between OSS and regular software would even consider purchasing this particular piece of equipment. I mean realistically, a server that's adminstered via http, most likely without telnet/ssh? This is aimed squarely at people who need a workgroup server/firewall and don't have the time/ability to administer it themselves, nor the money to hire someone to administer it. A lot better than a Windows95 box with wingate, don't you think?
Do I hear cries of outrage over IBM's abuse of the BSD and apache licenses? No. Even the BSD users, notorious for their unfounded zealotry (such as implying that FreeBSD is somehow superior to Linux), are silent. Do you enjoy being ravaged by the forces of violent captialism?
Ok, this is the main thing I must disagree with. The ability for IBM to take the code and use is the whole purpose of this type of license. I develop software for a living. I don't have a boss, I get paid for what I can sell. Whether it's a software package, or an integrated system. I release code under the BSD license for the same reason I try to only use software under a BSD license. This is the spirit of OSS, whether some huge company comes along and decides to take and not give back is irrelevant. In every project I've implemented, I've always given full source, and I don't think theres been a single instance where my work would not have been 100% compliant with the GPL. But I still wouldn't use it. I see the GPL as a restriction, it restricts people from using my code in situations where they might really need it. And where they might not be in a position to use the GPL (it happens). It's simply the golden rule, I don't want to someday be involved in a commerical venture and have to worry about the GPL. Not every OSS developer develops as a hobby. This is why other licenses continue to exist. The GPL simply doesn't make sense sometimes.
This isn't to say your opinion doesn't matter. It does, follow your own principles, but understand that some of us do indeed make a living via software. And just because you pay for something doesn't always make it any less free (glances at stack of FreeBSD cds that have never been used).