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."
Oh, the irony. Software shouldn't have controlling interests, remember? It should be free! So sayeth the great RMS.
If you don't like this sort of feedback, don't use misleading terms like "free software" in connection with the GPL.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Business people also like open source programmers to release their work under a BSD license rather than GPL.
As the author of the BusinessWeek Online article in question, I just want to say a couple of things. First, I actually appreciate all the mail I;ve gotten from SlashDotters (as well as GrokLawyers and others). I;ve replied to some of you, but I can;t possibly reply to everyone. Second, I want to correct two things in Commnader Taco's post. First, I never said that Linux is not safe. I poses some challenges to developers anfd has some particular risks in patent litigation, but I centrainly didn't discourage nayone from using it. And I did not recommend relicensing GPLed software under a different license. I did suggest modifying the GPL and my model, on reflection in the week-plus since I worte the article, would be the Apache license. Finally, I want to correct one point in the article itself. I was incorrect in saying that SCO had purched the UNIX trademarks from Novell. The purchased certain trademarks, inlcuding Unixware and (maybe) Unix System Labs. The basic UNIX trademarks, which aren;t worth very much at this point, have been assigned to the Open Group. Steve Wildstrom Technology & You columnist BusinessWeek
What an absolutely imbecilic statement to make. The GPL comes with enough strings to tie up an elephant, and almost all of the looney tunes that use it push it as some great "free as in freedom" deal. The GPL is not, in fact, free. It is just as restrictive as any proprietary license out there, just in the completely opposite manner.
If you want "free as in freedom", BSD is it. If you want to lock down people under psuedo-proprietary licensing schemes because you don't know what "free as in freedom" means, you use the GPL.
Moral superiority my ass... just a bunch of hippies who need a dictionary.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Parent post was funny... but also equally (if not more) insightful. Just as IBM et al are in it for the money, so not all GPLers are in it to benefit big business. It just so happens that the current situation benefits both parties.
Bearing in mind the flaws in the karma algorithm ('funny' mods don't count, but 'overrated' does, hence getting modded +5 funny, -1 overrated *loses* you karma), I'd suggest it would be better in future to mod 'funny' posts with even a modicum of insight as 'insightful' instead of 'funny'.
I said 'in future' because, of course, there's no way to mod this one up (at 5:funny) without modding it down first, negating any benefit.
Moral: Say everything in a deadly serious manner.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).