Businessweek Recommends License Switch for Linux

MadFarmAnimalz writes "BusinessWeek has an article about the perceived threat of patents to linux, citing the SCO case, the opening of OSRM, and the Munich situation as evidence for the veracity of their conclusion that Linux isn't safe. Their solution? Relicense to the BSD license or the Mozilla license. On a positive note, the article's author does link to RMS' article Why Software Should Not Have Owners; good to see Stallman being quoted and linked to in a publication Like BusinessWeek."

Comments

Re:No protection

[product byproduct]

It's businessweek. Business people like to force a useless migration to something different every once in a while.

Re:In other news....

[Anonymous Coward]

I absolutely agree! And so do the moderators, apparently.

Re:hail

[imroy]

I belive in spell-checkers!

Re:License? We don't need no . . .

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What's important to note is the overall quality of life for the citizens of the United States

You arrogant, selfish little nerd.

Love,
Everyone in the rest of the world who supports or contributes to OSS.

Slashdot Recommends License Switch for MSOffice

[originalhack]

Well, as long as the people that don't hold the copyrights are suggesting that those who do change their licenses, I think Slashdot should suggest that Microsoft switch the license for Office to (GPL or) BSD.

Re:No protection

[Ralph Yarro]

Business people also like open source programmers to release their work under a BSD license rather than GPL.

As a business man I can confirm this and would like to add that we would also like it if you would mail us your life savings at the same time.

Thanks

Ralphie

Re:In other news....

[thephotoman]

Some women seem to have standards.

That's why we have beer.

Re:Not going to happen.

[Peter Cooper]

it's roughly on a par with somebody who is being attacked by rabid hyenas deciding that they'd be safer if they distracted the hyenas by attaching large chunks of fresh meat all over their body

Unoriginal. This concept has already been done in the 'Predator' episode of Sealab 2021. It actually worked.

Re:Privatization wet dream

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Instead, Businessweek, being what they are, is in the business of fantasizing about free giveaways to large companies.

So, BusinessWeek is really just porn for MBA's. I guess that makes the golf course their version of Hooters too -- all those big round curves and that hole they are always trying to get their balls into, swinging their rods of wood and iron around.

Re:No protection

[Tony-A]

SOP for a new CEO.
If it was centralized then decentralize it.
If it was decentralized then centralize it.

Businessweek..

[polyp2000]

"Businessweek, the leading authority on linux and open source recommends a licensce switch to BSD."
(Speak in the voice of James Earl Jones form maximim effect)

Take heed developers... Businessweek know their shit when it comes to Linux and FOSS...

Nick ..

Re:No protection

[bwalling]

As a business man I can confirm this and would like to add that we would also like it if you would mail us your life savings at the same time. Should I send it to your address in Nigeria? Alternately, I could just deposit it into that account I have set up for our other transaction. Please let me know, as I know this is of utmost importance.

And of course...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

No business has ever donated code to a BSD project. Oh no. Never happened.

The irony here, of course...

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Switching to a BSD license will just encourage code forking which is bad.

Which is exactly why there are like 50something different forked BSD systems, each of them unpredictably different from the next. Oh, wait, no.

Yes, make fools of yourselves, just like I did

[Estanislao Mart�nez]

Here's the email that I sent to this suit los3r:

Non-dear Micro$oft shill Mr. Wildstrom:

I did not read your article, since slashdot reported on it, and of course the contributors and editors never read articles incorrectly, and never attribute strawman claims and/or arguments to pieces they are opposed to. This is because they, I mean, we, are geeks, and we are the smartest people, and never tell lies (read the first few chapters of ESR's Jargon File, it explains how cool we geeks are).

Anyway, I am writing to tell you how stupid you are. I know this because Slashdot says that you said that Linux should switch to the BSD license because it would help it avoid patent issues. I know that your article claims that, because Slashdot said it did, and Bruce Perens also responded knowing that it did, and of course Slashdot and Bruce Perens must be right.

I cannot imagine how a human being can claim something so stupid and obviously wrong. Logic, if applied strictly, should then warn me to suspect that Slashdot has misreported what you said. But, hey, it's Slashdot vs. a dumb suit, so of course Slashdot must be right.

I will tell all my friends in Slashdot to write you emails just like this one.

Fuck you,

--E.M.

Re:Simple BSD allows rape

[maximilln]

except claim that it's theirs

To: John M. Programmer
From: Microsoft

Dear Mr. Programmer,

We regret to acknowledge that you are correct in your assertion that your source code was included in a recent Microsoft product. Our compiler stipped out the comment line which acknowledged you as the original author. The acknowledgement will be reinserted upon the next formal release of the software which is scheduled for 2007.

In the meantime we've taken the liberty of patenting all of the functions which the software may be used for. While we will happily reinsert the acknowledgement into the binaries we will have to ask that you cease and desist all further distribution of your own work in this area as it violates three patents which are pending approval.

Sincerely,

Redmond, et al.