Qouth ErikSev>If Linux were released under a more flexible license, it's extremely possible that a corporation (read: MS) could take the code and develop it under a proprietary licese. Should that version become widely accepted, it could kill the entire movement.
I disagree. If produced a -better- version, it -might- become widely accepted. Thats darwinism, plain and simple. But just releasing a proprietry version wouldn't necessarily be enough to kill the movement. The other, existing versions would -still- exist. And most of the people who currently use it, would probably prefer to use an open version, anyway.
Unless you see 'the movement' as serving some -other- cause than the creation of Open-Source software? People will continue to *use* Open Source software for the same reasons they always have - because shrink-wrapped binaries dont -serve their purpose-. Yeah sure, to some, its more of a a religious thing, but its the increased value of using an open software tool versus its closed alternative that makes the difference to most -work- done with that tool.
'The movemement' hasn't yet shrivelled up because of billg, nor is it likely to in future, and a proprietry Microsoft Linux is hardly enough to change that. It -decreases- the value of the tool.
Quoth Bruce>O'Reilly would much rather we accept business on its own terms rather than ours.
(Note: I'm assuming that refers to 'business' terms' rather than 'O'Reilly's terms')
I think this is slightly misleading though. I'm not aware of any business trying to coerce modification to the GPL. But, just as 'old-style' (for want of a better term) Open-Source developers are trying to 'protect the code', so these companies are trying to protect their business. If a company invests time and money in a product, it expects some return from that, be it financial or not. But some companies probably don't feel they can afford the unending altrusim of something like the GPL. For example, they might want to open up some of their products to Open Source, but leave others of it out of the gaze of their competition.
If Company A writes a library that they use in Product X and Product Y, and release the source to the library and Product X under the GPL, then by extension, Product Y has to be opened up as well. They might not want Product Y to -be- Open Source. Why -should- they be forced to release the source to Y?
And I think this is what fosters a lot of the various 'proprietry' Open Source licenses.
I don't see O'Reilly as trying to change the 'tradition' of old-style Open Source at all. I think their trying to point out the coming (arrived?) wave - the businesses who wish to contribute to, and benefit from, Open Source, but without compromising their profit.
Would it be too much to consider that Open Source needs -two- licensing structures. Call them the Community GPL and the Industrial GPL. One protecting code developed 'in the wild', one protecting code released -to- the wild.
Because businesses are -not- going to accept the GPL en masse. It just won't happen. Should we should be aware of that, accept it, and cater to it? Or just tell them to stuff it?
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
Would you mind sending me an invite? I'd like to check it out. I just setup wallopmexp@gmail.com . Thanks in advance.
...a twisted firestarter...
Sigh. Couldnt resist.
Qouth ErikSev>If Linux were released under a more flexible license, it's extremely possible that a corporation (read: MS) could take the code and develop it under a proprietary licese. Should that version become widely accepted, it could kill the entire movement.
I disagree. If produced a -better- version, it -might- become widely accepted. Thats darwinism, plain and simple. But just releasing a proprietry version wouldn't necessarily be enough to kill the movement. The other, existing versions would -still- exist. And most of the people who currently use it, would probably prefer to use an open version, anyway.
Unless you see 'the movement' as serving some -other- cause than the creation of Open-Source software? People will continue to *use* Open Source software for the same reasons they always have - because shrink-wrapped binaries dont -serve their purpose-. Yeah sure, to some, its more of a a religious thing, but its the increased value of using an open software tool versus its closed alternative that makes the difference to most -work- done with that tool.
'The movemement' hasn't yet shrivelled up because of billg, nor is it likely to in future, and a proprietry Microsoft Linux is hardly enough to change that. It -decreases- the value of the tool.
Quoth Bruce>O'Reilly would much rather we accept business on its own terms rather than ours.
(Note: I'm assuming that refers to 'business' terms' rather than 'O'Reilly's terms')
I think this is slightly misleading though. I'm not aware of any business trying to coerce modification to the GPL. But, just as 'old-style' (for want of a better term) Open-Source developers are trying to 'protect the code', so these companies are trying to protect their business. If a company invests time and money in a product, it expects some return from that, be it financial or not. But some companies probably don't feel they can afford the unending altrusim of something like the GPL. For example, they might want to open up some of their products to Open Source, but leave others of it out of the gaze of their competition.
If Company A writes a library that they use in Product X and Product Y, and release the source to the library and Product X under the GPL, then by extension, Product Y has to be opened up as well. They might not want Product Y to -be- Open Source. Why -should- they be forced to release the source to Y?
And I think this is what fosters a lot of the various 'proprietry' Open Source licenses.
I don't see O'Reilly as trying to change the 'tradition' of old-style Open Source at all. I think their trying to point out the coming (arrived?) wave - the businesses who wish to contribute to, and benefit from, Open Source, but without compromising their profit.
Would it be too much to consider that Open Source needs -two- licensing structures. Call them the Community GPL and the Industrial GPL. One protecting code developed 'in the wild', one protecting code released -to- the wild.
Because businesses are -not- going to accept the GPL en masse. It just won't happen. Should we should be aware of that, accept it, and cater to it? Or just tell them to stuff it?