Slashdot Mirror
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."
I have written code for Linux and I decided to put it under the GPL. Get over it. I won't change it. I feel that the GPL gives me the kind of protection I want to have. BSD license would mean that scum like SCO can abuse my code. I am sure they would love that but it won't happen. So you stupid reporters and lawyers can as well stop argueing about license switches BECAUSE IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. Go away.
Groklaw had an article about this some days ago, there are tons of discussion there why a license change;
1. Would be stupid.
2. Won't happen.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
mod parent up
:0 64859996
besides, this has already been discussed at Groklaw
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040814
War doesn't prove who's right, just who's left.
From the article:
How does software owned by everyone and by no one survive in a world where copyrights and patents shape the legal landscape?
Shouldn't that be:
how can copyrights and patents survive in a world where software is owned by everyone and by no one?
A real life example: the linux kernel is BSD-relicensed, DistroInc turns it into a closed source kernel on which a closed source linux distro is based. DistroInc has gained freedoms by the relicensing, but everyone else has lost them, because if the kernel were not relicensed, DistroInc would have to have made their improvements public, thereby benefiting everyone in the community, giving them higher freedom to use DistroInc's advancements.
I think you are confusing BSD and MIT licenses. The BSD license specifically states that you must acknowledge the use of BSD code even if you only ship binaries (see the IE about box, for example). The MIT license only requires you to include the copyright in the source code (which you do not have to distribute).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Let me clarify that point.
What I meant was that if Linux switched to the BSD license, Microsoft could release their own proprietary version of Linux. Under the BSD license, such a release would not have to be open at all.
They already did that with the TCP stack from what I understand. They incorporated the BSD stack in their code and their use of it is not open at all.