Re:The GPL: Intellectual Theft
on
GPLv2 Vs. GPLv3
·
· Score: 1
To start this off, I have been a long time passive reader
of slashdot, but never really got around to making an account,
as I never had any reason to comment. That said, the complete
lack of any sort of understanding of the GPL on the part of you
or your lawyers has blown my mind. It is to make this reply that I
took 10 minutes to create an account.
"It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under
something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License."
Ok, first, let's use the term 'licensed' as it is more appropriate.
It is copyrighted under normal copyright laws, which are what
make the GPL possible. Some of the copyright laws are given up,
to allow more freedom for the end user. Also, it is worth noting,
GPL stands for GNU Public License, not GNU Protective license.
"Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel
are to be made freely available."
Not entirely true. The license states that when distributing
binaries, licensed under the GPL, you must also offer the underlying
source code. If the binaries never see the light of day outside
your company, you never need offer the source outside the company.
On the other hand, if you distribute your own personal flavour of
Linux within your company, you must offer the source as well,
but only to those in your company. And if they all have your level
of technical expertise, I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.
"... any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would
also have to its source code released."
Wrong. According to Ken Foskey, an OpenOffice.org developer responding
to this very question, you can have closed source binaries compiled using GCC. http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2005-01/msg00140.ht ml
"Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position."
As I said before, you need not distribute your source outside
the company, if you do not distribute your binaries outside the
company. You could quite easily make your own fork of Linux, keeping
it tightly secured inside your own company, a la Google.
"We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000."
I'm curious how you were able to port a project that required exacting
kernel changes to a closed source platform. I'll be honest, something
doesn't smell right.
"I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with
Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that
no business will ever be able to use it."
The GPL keeps Linux competitive with the closed source model by ensuring that
closed source conglomerates do not make a living by utilizing free code,
and never giving back to the community. The GPL is also what makes it possible
for companies to use it, as they know that other companies can't take their
source code, and lock it down, such as with the BSD license.
Do some research, and learn what the GPL is and does before you bash it. Also, get
new lawyers, because yours do not know what they're talking about in matters of
technology and licensing, which are apparently important topics in your company. It's
too bad you've brought this up after you've switched to a new model, as it means that,
in the end, your productivity will be hurt over needless fears.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks a lot, Al Gore.
To start this off, I have been a long time passive reader
t ml
of slashdot, but never really got around to making an account,
as I never had any reason to comment. That said, the complete
lack of any sort of understanding of the GPL on the part of you
or your lawyers has blown my mind. It is to make this reply that I
took 10 minutes to create an account.
"It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under
something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License."
Ok, first, let's use the term 'licensed' as it is more appropriate.
It is copyrighted under normal copyright laws, which are what
make the GPL possible. Some of the copyright laws are given up,
to allow more freedom for the end user. Also, it is worth noting,
GPL stands for GNU Public License, not GNU Protective license.
"Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel
are to be made freely available."
Not entirely true. The license states that when distributing
binaries, licensed under the GPL, you must also offer the underlying
source code. If the binaries never see the light of day outside
your company, you never need offer the source outside the company.
On the other hand, if you distribute your own personal flavour of
Linux within your company, you must offer the source as well,
but only to those in your company. And if they all have your level
of technical expertise, I'm sure you have nothing to worry about.
"... any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would
also have to its source code released."
Wrong. According to Ken Foskey, an OpenOffice.org developer responding
to this very question, you can have closed source binaries compiled using GCC.
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-help/2005-01/msg00140.h
"Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever
use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position."
As I said before, you need not distribute your source outside
the company, if you do not distribute your binaries outside the
company. You could quite easily make your own fork of Linux, keeping
it tightly secured inside your own company, a la Google.
"We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000."
I'm curious how you were able to port a project that required exacting
kernel changes to a closed source platform. I'll be honest, something
doesn't smell right.
"I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with
Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that
no business will ever be able to use it."
The GPL keeps Linux competitive with the closed source model by ensuring that
closed source conglomerates do not make a living by utilizing free code,
and never giving back to the community. The GPL is also what makes it possible
for companies to use it, as they know that other companies can't take their
source code, and lock it down, such as with the BSD license.
Do some research, and learn what the GPL is and does before you bash it. Also, get
new lawyers, because yours do not know what they're talking about in matters of
technology and licensing, which are apparently important topics in your company. It's
too bad you've brought this up after you've switched to a new model, as it means that,
in the end, your productivity will be hurt over needless fears.