IBM became involved with Linux because it was becoming popular and they were becoming more of a service company.
If the GPL was so important to them they could have used GPL'd code a long time ago. They didn't because until Linux came along, there was no business case for it.
Having made the commitment, IBM naturally invested in it, but only after the original developers had made it a force to be reckoned with.
"The purpose of the GPL is to keep the project as a whole "free" not just the original version."
The word "project" implies some kind of structure or organization to design and implement it. If I buy some wood from a construction company and make a carving of RMS face, is my carving part of some construction company project?
A group that forms the core development for a project maintains control of that project even if somebody forks it to create their own proprietary project.
Yes, you've identified the legal weakness of the GPL. Allowing internal development on a GPL'd derivative without giving away your source helps promote GPL'd software, but it also creates a loophole.
What if I start a GPL-Ripoff organization that you can join for a fee? We take GPL'd code, modify it and allow you to use it but don't give you the source. Is GPL-Ripoff distributing when members of the organization use the modified version of the GPL'd code or not?
This issue will probably be tested in court some day.
I think it should be "Linux is popular only because of the GPL" (but I'm quibbling and risk being corrected for my mistakes).
I think that statement is mostly propaganda.
Developers might have been attracted to Linux because it was their first opportunity to collaborate on a new UNIX derivative from the ground up.
BSD had already been done before the Internet was available and reportedly didn't have a welcoming culture.
Once Linux starting catching on as the UNIX for the next generation, it's popularity snowballed.
If it had been licensed under the BSD license IBM could certainly have created a proprietary version without giving back, but to what end? They already had their own perfectly adequate UNIX system.
I doubt that Linux developers would just stop development because their grandfathers' Big Computer Company was competing with them.
For a company, maintenance is driven by the companies needs, goals, and schedules. The "community" doesn't necessarily care about those things and so community maintenance isn't very useful in many cases. Of course there's no guarantee that the community is interested in maintaining your application anyway.
There's a big difference between would could be done and what is done. As the GP said, there's no guarantee that the changes will ever be "given back" to the community.
Even if someone attempts to give back, there's no guarantee that the maintainers will be interested in using it.
The bottom line is that if you're concerned about your code being used without payback of some kind, you shouldn't be making it open source regardless of the license.
I think it's more about the development costs and time associated with programming the console's internal code and games in assembly.
In the Atari 2600 all of the code was in the cartridge, there was no BIOS in the console let alone an OS. I have no doubt that being able to access system hardware at a low level would make instant play more feasible, but it would significantly slow down game development and cost a fortune.
I think what the GP meant was that most managers would never seriously risk their own job to save one of their reports. That's what a real leader would do.
"Yeah man, AMERIKKKA sure is an unlivable hellhole, isn't it? Oh wait, it's the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet."
Sure, and we have Bill Gates in the US, the wealthiest man on the planet, so why should anyone complain? True, it doesn't mean you can afford healthcare but remember, we have Bill frickin Gates on our team!
No, I don't have a large TV, just an IMAX screen. OK, just kidding. So I'm wrong about you being single, yes, you are young and we don't know yet if your wife will approve your coffee table.
As long as an OS provides significant functionality that is needed it makes sense to use it. In many cases, it doesn't. I think an OS is often used because the developers have never targeted a system without one.
"Every bloody piece of technology you own was PRODUCED with Linux, and it more than likely relies on Linux."
I guess I must own the non-bloody technology since I own many technical devices that weren't created with or run Linux. Of course, many embedded systems don't really need an OS, but I'm not sure that young software developers have been taught that fact. On the other hand since memory is so cheap perhaps the training wheels are almost free.
I'll bet you're single, young and/or have a very large TV.
single: I don't see most wives buying into a "higher coffee table".
young or very large TV: Even with HDTV resolution, it's not easy for older folks to work from the couch (unless the TV is close enough to kick).
In summary, convergence is held back by non-compatible ergonomics. You can get around that by spending a lot of money or putting up with funky furniture in your living room, but for the masses, it ain't ready yet.
First it was the TV and the Computer. Now it's the TV, Computer and/or the Internet. Convergence doesn't actually happen - they just keep adding items to it.
"HTML+Javascript/is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point."
I've never heard of a kludge described as a standard framework. When HTML was designed, Javascript didn't even exist, so clearly nobody designed a framework.
"Guess it's time to kick a few dollars over to the EFF."
I don't know how effective the EFF is at lobbying, but perhaps it would be more efficient to contact your congressional representatives who have the actual power to vote on these matters.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM became involved with Linux because it was becoming popular and they were becoming more of a service company.
If the GPL was so important to them they could have used GPL'd code a long time ago. They didn't because until Linux came along, there was no business case for it.
Having made the commitment, IBM naturally invested in it, but only after the original developers had made it a force to be reckoned with.
"The purpose of the GPL is to keep the project as a whole "free" not just the original version."
The word "project" implies some kind of structure or organization to design and implement it. If I buy some wood from a construction company and make a carving of RMS face, is my carving part of some construction company project?
A group that forms the core development for a project maintains control of that project even if somebody forks it to create their own proprietary project.
"In the end, their software will always be better than yours because they build upon your work."
This is where your argument falls apart.
Yes, you've identified the legal weakness of the GPL. Allowing internal development on a GPL'd derivative without giving away your source helps promote GPL'd software, but it also creates a loophole.
What if I start a GPL-Ripoff organization that you can join for a fee? We take GPL'd code, modify it and allow you to use it but don't give you the source. Is GPL-Ripoff distributing when members of the organization use the modified version of the GPL'd code or not?
This issue will probably be tested in court some day.
"Linux is only popular because of the GPL."
I think it should be "Linux is popular only because of the GPL" (but I'm quibbling and risk being corrected for my mistakes).
I think that statement is mostly propaganda.
Developers might have been attracted to Linux because it was their first opportunity to collaborate on a new UNIX derivative from the ground up.
BSD had already been done before the Internet was available and reportedly didn't have a welcoming culture.
Once Linux starting catching on as the UNIX for the next generation, it's popularity snowballed.
If it had been licensed under the BSD license IBM could certainly have created a proprietary version without giving back, but to what end? They already had their own perfectly adequate UNIX system.
I doubt that Linux developers would just stop development because their grandfathers' Big Computer Company was competing with them.
For a company, maintenance is driven by the companies needs, goals, and schedules. The "community" doesn't necessarily care about those things and so community maintenance isn't very useful in many cases. Of course there's no guarantee that the community is interested in maintaining your application anyway.
There's a big difference between would could be done and what is done. As the GP said, there's no guarantee that the changes will ever be "given back" to the community.
Even if someone attempts to give back, there's no guarantee that the maintainers will be interested in using it.
The bottom line is that if you're concerned about your code being used without payback of some kind, you shouldn't be making it open source regardless of the license.
I think it's more about the development costs and time associated with programming the console's internal code and games in assembly.
In the Atari 2600 all of the code was in the cartridge, there was no BIOS in the console let alone an OS. I have no doubt that being able to access system hardware at a low level would make instant play more feasible, but it would significantly slow down game development and cost a fortune.
"What about earning the respect of your peers?"
We're talking about software developers and IT folks - respect isn't in our vocabulary.
I think what the GP meant was that most managers would never seriously risk their own job to save one of their reports. That's what a real leader would do.
"Yeah man, AMERIKKKA sure is an unlivable hellhole, isn't it? Oh wait, it's the wealthiest, most powerful nation on the planet."
Sure, and we have Bill Gates in the US, the wealthiest man on the planet, so why should anyone complain? True, it doesn't mean you can afford healthcare but remember, we have Bill frickin Gates on our team!
Actually, I don't care. I just like to poke people who say things like "you DO know how to do X, don't you?"
No, I don't have a large TV, just an IMAX screen. OK, just kidding. So I'm wrong about you being single, yes, you are young and we don't know yet if your wife will approve your coffee table.
Glad it works for you but it sounds more like divergence than convergence.
As long as an OS provides significant functionality that is needed it makes sense to use it. In many cases, it doesn't. I think an OS is often used because the developers have never targeted a system without one.
If the keyboard is one of the input devices you refer to then, yes, most general purpose computing is limited without it.
I don't get your point. It seems you are saying that a computer attached to a TV is fine as long you don't use it as a computer.
"Every bloody piece of technology you own was PRODUCED with Linux, and it more than likely relies on Linux."
I guess I must own the non-bloody technology since I own many technical devices that weren't created with or run Linux. Of course, many embedded systems don't really need an OS, but I'm not sure that young software developers have been taught that fact. On the other hand since memory is so cheap perhaps the training wheels are almost free.
I'll bet you're single, young and/or have a very large TV.
single: I don't see most wives buying into a "higher coffee table".
young or very large TV: Even with HDTV resolution, it's not easy for older folks to work from the couch (unless the TV is close enough to kick).
In summary, convergence is held back by non-compatible ergonomics. You can get around that by spending a lot of money or putting up with funky furniture in your living room, but for the masses, it ain't ready yet.
If Slashcode can't handle links without the poster implementing it in "Standard HTML", perhaps we should write the JavaScript to post the message too.
First it was the TV and the Computer. Now it's the TV, Computer and/or the Internet. Convergence doesn't actually happen - they just keep adding items to it.
You're missing the point. There is no framework. Just a bunch of unrelated things thrown together.
"HTML+Javascript /is/ the standard GUI framework, that's the point."
I've never heard of a kludge described as a standard framework. When HTML was designed, Javascript didn't even exist, so clearly nobody designed a framework.
"Guess it's time to kick a few dollars over to the EFF."
I don't know how effective the EFF is at lobbying, but perhaps it would be more efficient to contact your congressional representatives who have the actual power to vote on these matters.
I'm sure you could find many Slashdotters that gave up on Word a lot sooner. Why is this guy so special?