And there is a reason for why these developers don't change that much in their computer's configuration; they spend that time being productive in their chosen specialization which is probably why they are where they are today.
Most proprietary ISPs tend to have their own End User License Agreements that is either specific to the company or the product. Adding to that 88% of the sourceforge projects choose one of 3 licenses. The GPL license prevails, at 77% of projects. The LGPL is second at 6%, and BSD trails in third at 5%. All other licenses account from 3% to 1%. http://asay.blogspot.com/2005/09/analyst-nature-an d-size-of-open-source.html
So when dealing with open source projects you supposedly have a problem with license proliferation? You have to deal with 1000 licenses? I don't buy that.
Also it is worth to notice that it is common that EULAs have special clauses on how the software can be used, by who and how the software can be distributed within the organization. Some of these clauses can truly be quite interesting. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_ vista_eula_analysis/ (plenty of other article if you don't like this source)
All OSI approved open source licenses permit the distribution of software with little to no worry compared to EULA governed software. No more Bussiness Software Allicance audits which can threaten to disrupt your normal bussiness. It is when you change the software or distribute it externally that you have to worry about the open source software license, but then, that is a different discussion since it is not normal for proprietary software to allow that.
From my experience I agree fully with Copps that the state of broadband services atleast here in the San Francisco Bay Area is abysmal. When I lived in Norway I shared a 2 mb/s DSL line with 38 students and that connection was about 10 times faster at peak times than my private Comcast "5 mb/s" connection in the middle of the night. As stuedents in scandinavia tend to do a lot of P2P filesharing I expected this to be the other way around when I moved here. The things that annoys me the most is high latency, slow speeds and my FTP/SSH speeds. Judging by how my download speeds decline over time I believe Comcast is shaping traffic and btw it sometimes takes much longer than it should to get my search results from google.
There are probably countless reasons for why the broadband is so much faster in Norway than in the San Francisco Bay Area, but the most noticeable difference is that the broadband competition thrives in Norway (ADSL, SDSL, VDSL, Cable, Radio Broadband, Fiber Optic, 3G Broadband etc. (and I am just listing technologies here, not providers) ) I effectively (and practiacally) only have two choices here (Comcast Cable and ADSL from AT&T + peers). In the so-called internet mecca of the world nobody offers me VDSL or fiber-optic broadband! That is not good enough. Where do you think the next google will come from?
and that
For me Datamations list was much more interesting since they spend time digging up new and upcoming projects I did not know about like kdenlive (kind of like the Diva video editor, but not a dead project).
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/ 3678071
Arguing that the enforcement of the GPL and other licenses is equivalent to the enforcement which BSA does is just rhetorics, since the GPL is not the only open source license out there so that a company which does not want to share it's changes can for instance choose a BSD licensed project instead. And how does it hurt any company that Theo decides that in *his* project he does not want any binary blob firmware? He and his fellow coders are the ones which do the work to enforce this policy.
But even if we were talking about GPLed software I find this argumentation capricious. The first thing which strikes me as wrong with this kind of argumentation is that the rights to modify and change the software is something which most proprietary software companies will not give you, so the simple provision that you have to give back your changes in order to distribute GPL software is *not* the same kind of software provision BSA is using to put it's customers customers in line. BSA controls the way you use software you have *not* changed in any way which is something the GPL does not restrict at all.
"Have you ever wondered why AOL sent so many CDs instead of telling people that the program is on the internet?"
The likely reason for that is that they are selling internet connectivity through dialup. Since they already have
a high market penetration they probably want to target the market of people without internet connectivity and for
those an online link would not be very constructive.
You know, I always have problems with people that begin their argument with "the fact that." Most of the time these "facts" turn out to be opinions
The fact I am referring to is the judgment in several countries and states against Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly in the operating system market.
Maybe I'm a little on the thick side today, but how is everybody using Firefox better than everybody using IE? Isn't that just as anti-competitive?
According to OneStat Firefox now has a global market share of 12.93 percent while Internet Exlorer has a market share of 83.05 percent. The scenario where these numbers are reversed is still very hypothetical. The goal is to regain a competitive market space on the web platform(s) and that would be more likely in a market space where one single player does not command a majority of the market share. The ideal situation is not a black/white situation where we have to choose either Firefox or IE, but a situation with a choice between many different implementations of the standards for web browsers. It is also detrimental to the competition when the dominant player in the browser market has a major incentive to unnecessarily tie the browser platform to their operating system and software tools.
I would agree if it was not for the fact that Microsoft acquired the browser market share that it currently has through questionable practices (read monopoly abuse) so the tactics it is using to target the users of it's biggest competition should be limited. From Yahoo!s perspective it probably makes sense financially to do such a deal with Microsoft, but inherently this is more about Microsoft trying to push it's browse platform as a way to lock users in to it's main platform. Therefore it would be better if Microsoft was prohibited from doing such deals because that would probably increase the competition in the marketplace and Yahoo! could make a similar deal with an alternative browser instead (e.g Opera).
But I would say that in the so called browser wars the government has largely failed at performing their role in limiting Microsofts abuse of their operating system monopoly in achieving a monopoly position in another market. It is not illegal to have a monopoly, it is just illegal to abuse it.
So, yes, as long as you buy Microsoft (and probably Adobe) software this is what you should expect. The auditing clause is not limited to England, but is a worlwide clause.
In the battle between open standards and windows, in the article denoted as Linux, it is entirely in Microsoft's hands if it want to conform to those open standards. If even a non-default option in Microsofts server and client operating systems could, without loss of essential functionality, make it conformant to open standards that would be a good step towards such a state of truce/peace. As it is well established that Microsoft currently implements several open standards in the server environment in a non-standard way it should be possible for them to
1. publish how their implementation is different from the standard
2. remove Microsoft-specific extensions of the standard from their implementation From an engineering perspective, as is reflected in the opinion of Moskowitz and other engineers at Microsoft, it would be better if Microsofts and other implementations of the open standards could communicate. But for Microsoft as a major monopoly in the operating-systems market it is important to make a sound business decision which will protect it's position in the server space using it's dominant position in the operating system market. As can be seen in the EU judgment against Microsoft it is not willing to share it's "trade secrets" regarding the server protocols, so I find it very interesting that Moskowitz use the word truce. Merriam-Webster defines truce as: 1 : a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces : ARMISTICE, CEASE-FIRE 2 : a respite especially from a disagreeable or painful state or action So basically a truce means to cease fighting, but it does not mean peace. Unfortunately when it comes to these standards and the engineers who have to live with the implementations the "painful state or actions" will be there until the barrier between these implementations can be fully bridged either with or without Microsofts help. For me that sounds more like a state of peace and if the opinion of this engineer reflects a change of attitude by Microsoft that is wonderful.
I would argue that considering Microsofts earlier behaviour in hindering open standards work (e.g Open GL) when this standard is in opposition to technologies they generate a lot of revenue from I think it is reasonable to oppose Microsoft joining such a group. Although you are of cause more knowledgeable on this specific group I do think it is very indolent to believe there is no malicious intent here since Microsoft must be expected to do everything it can to protect the revenue stream from the Microsoft Office family of products. This is bussiness as usual.
"Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best."
According to the Free Software Foundation of Europe Microsofts implementation of the *standard* server SMB protocol: "... a number of incompatibilities deliberately introduced in pre-existing protocols and then altering them with the aim of prohibiting interoperability." To extend a standard protocol is not inventive, it is evolutionary. The protocol is not secret, http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html, the non-standard Microsoft implemenation is. The EU simply says this is an obvious abuse of monopoly hurting competition and must stop. And no, seeing one specific implemenatation does not easily get you far in understanding how Microsoft specifically has extended the protocol itself. And by the way, 12000 pages of documenation? How can the Microsoft specification be that much longer than the original specification?
Also it may be useful to look at the wikipedia reference on the SMB protocol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_message_block IBM, not Microsoft, specified the SMB protocol. What Microsoft did, inheretnly to stay incompatible with competitors server products and illegaly use their desktop monopoly, was to extend the SMB protocol. Andrew Tridgell which leads the Samba team has on several occasions noted that it seems like the changes made often has no other purpose than to make the Microsoft SMB implemenation incompatible with other implemenations.
Real broadband is capable of transfering tv-shows, phone and computer data at the same time. To achieve that 10Mbits is required. In scandinavia this is now slowly getting the standard and video-on-demand has been released. As a marketing trick the broadband term was watered out, and to say the least 0.2 Mbits is far from being broad in any sence. My Comcast in California sucks in comparsion with a normal ADSL line in Norway. Honestly I do not think the american always-on internet connectivity market is nearly competetive enough.
If the modified software is only used internally in the company, and not in external products, the GPL does not require you to publish your code. Google is an example of a large company which uses GPL products in such a way. But if you decide to sell/redistribute a GPL licensed product or a modification/adaptation of such a product you have to make the source readily available. This is of cause very reasonable since you did not write, like in this case, the linux kernel. But as Red Hat has shown a packaging/distribution of GPLed products which has your unique plavouring can be protected under trademark law from distribution by others, even though the separate components on their own must be distributed according to the GPL. Therefore it is possible to combine a live and vibrant community with commercial considerations. Your knowledge of how to make things work together is often more valuable than you would believe.
If you on the other hand make a product on your own which dynamically links towards a GPL-licensed library or framework, you are free to choose any license since your binary does not include any GPLed code. If you on the other hand statically link towards GPL licensed software this will create a binary which includes GPL code and thus the GPL states that all the code must be licensed under the GPL.
is an standard, supported by all major linux distros, which ensures that even proprietary software can be developed using it's components as a framework.
When it comes down to compiling with GCC it is just bullshit and FUD that this imposes any license restrictions. As you can surely see on
There are several problems facing closed-source commercial projects developing for Linux which is not that much of a problem for open-source projects. Many of these problems stems from the fact that Linux is not well defined because of it's open nature and the unclear implications the wildly popular GPL license has for proprietary applications. But fortunately Linux and the open source business models are maturing to become more inclusive platform for proprietary development, and there are efforts to make Linux a more defined platform to develop towards with clearer licensing terms (LSB (Linux Standard Base) ). The reason why this is important is that to succeed the OSS model must provide the user with the freedom to choose, even though the choice may fall on closed-source software.
Distributing and maintaining closed-source applications you have to pre-compile it into a binary distribution, and therefore in the ideal case you want to develop towards a set of standards. Currently there is no prevailing standard base which secures compatibility among Linux distributions, and therefore a company have to create individual binaries for every distribution it supports (which has it's own unique package set). The fact that there is no standard package set create dependency hell and often leads to many vendors just supporting one distribution or a version of that distribution. Fortunately there is an effort called the LSB (Linux Standard Base) which aims to develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. It seems like the LSB is slowly getting foothold in the Debian camp, but it is currenly unclear how much interest it will generate in the rpm-crowd (Mandrake, SUSE, Red Hat etc). Even if the standard is not adopted by SUSE and Red Hat, it has the prospect of unifying the Debian-based distributions so that Linux can collect a substantial amount of users on only three distribution-platforms. Proprietary software vendors has shown themselves willing to support three Linux-distribution bases.
Now, the licensing issues for proprietary vendors to develop towards the Linux standards also needs to be clear and easy to understand. Even though the plurality of open-source licenses gives the developers a good choice, it takes quite an effort to wade through the implications of all of them. I am not saying that closed-source platforms does not involve this problems, what I am saying is that on a platform like Windows you can (through paying a bunch load of money) acquire a commercial license, which can be really difficult for some GPLed projects. The problem with a library under the GPL-license is that it does not clearly define *exactly* what a derivative work is, which is left up to a whim to be interpreted by anyone, and since GPL has a viral nature a proprietary software vendor can not risk that his application will be defined as a derivate work. For instance Trolltech recommends that commercial vendors use it's alternative commercial Qt license while developing closed-source software. We have often heard about the Windows licensing hell, but this is often interpreted as licensing hell by the lawyers of proprietary software-vendors. Fortunately the Linux Standard Base addresses these problems by requiring that any package included in the LSB should be free to use for anyone to develop towards. The LGPL is a license which satisfies this criteria while still protecting the work itself from being ripped off by commercial vendors keeping the changes they have made to a LGPL project for themselves. It should be up to the devoper(s) to choose which license the software should be developed under (GPL, LGPL and proprietary).
Slashdot Mirror
And there is a reason for why these developers don't change that much in their computer's configuration; they spend that time being productive in their chosen specialization which is probably why they are where they are today.
For Ubuntu and MythBuntu packages for MythTV .20.2 has been released into the repositories for older releases.
http://www.mythbuntu.org/node/30
The packages are available for Feisty, Edgy and Gutsy (plus all their derivates).
Most proprietary ISPs tend to have their own End User License Agreements that is either specific to the company or the product. Adding to that 88% of the sourceforge projects choose one of 3 licenses. The GPL license prevails, at 77% of projects. The LGPL is second at 6%, and BSD trails in third at 5%. All other licenses account from 3% to 1%.n d-size-of-open-source.html
_ vista_eula_analysis/ (plenty of other article if you don't like this source)
http://asay.blogspot.com/2005/09/analyst-nature-a
So when dealing with open source projects you supposedly have a problem with license proliferation? You have to deal with 1000 licenses? I don't buy that.
Also it is worth to notice that it is common that EULAs have special clauses on how the software can be used, by who and how the software can be distributed within the organization. Some of these clauses can truly be quite interesting.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft
All OSI approved open source licenses permit the distribution of software with little to no worry compared to EULA governed software. No more Bussiness Software Allicance audits which can threaten to disrupt your normal bussiness. It is when you change the software or distribute it externally that you have to worry about the open source software license, but then, that is a different discussion since it is not normal for proprietary software to allow that.
From my experience I agree fully with Copps that the state of broadband services atleast here in the San Francisco Bay Area is abysmal. When I lived in Norway I shared a 2 mb/s DSL line with 38 students and that connection was about 10 times faster at peak times than my private Comcast "5 mb/s" connection in the middle of the night. As stuedents in scandinavia tend to do a lot of P2P filesharing I expected this to be the other way around when I moved here. The things that annoys me the most is high latency, slow speeds and my FTP/SSH speeds. Judging by how my download speeds decline over time I believe Comcast is shaping traffic and btw it sometimes takes much longer than it should to get my search results from google. There are probably countless reasons for why the broadband is so much faster in Norway than in the San Francisco Bay Area, but the most noticeable difference is that the broadband competition thrives in Norway (ADSL, SDSL, VDSL, Cable, Radio Broadband, Fiber Optic, 3G Broadband etc. (and I am just listing technologies here, not providers) ) I effectively (and practiacally) only have two choices here (Comcast Cable and ADSL from AT&T + peers). In the so-called internet mecca of the world nobody offers me VDSL or fiber-optic broadband! That is not good enough. Where do you think the next google will come from? and that
For me Datamations list was much more interesting since they spend time digging up new and upcoming projects I did not know about like kdenlive (kind of like the Diva video editor, but not a dead project). http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/ 3678071
Arguing that the enforcement of the GPL and other licenses is equivalent to the enforcement which BSA does is just rhetorics, since the GPL is not the only open source license out there so that a company which does not want to share it's changes can for instance choose a BSD licensed project instead. And how does it hurt any company that Theo decides that in *his* project he does not want any binary blob firmware? He and his fellow coders are the ones which do the work to enforce this policy.
But even if we were talking about GPLed software I find this argumentation capricious. The first thing which strikes me as wrong with this kind of argumentation is that the rights to modify and change the software is something which most proprietary software companies will not give you, so the simple provision that you have to give back your changes in order to distribute GPL software is *not* the same kind of software provision BSA is using to put it's customers customers in line. BSA controls the way you use software you have *not* changed in any way which is something the GPL does not restrict at all.
"Have you ever wondered why AOL sent so many CDs instead of telling people that the program is on the internet?" The likely reason for that is that they are selling internet connectivity through dialup. Since they already have a high market penetration they probably want to target the market of people without internet connectivity and for those an online link would not be very constructive.
Seems like Spocko has found a new internet host. The blog can now be found at:
http://www.spockosbrain.com/
For those interested, the new host has commented on his intentions to keep the
blog up and going
http://marc.perkel.com/
You know, I always have problems with people that begin their argument with "the fact that." Most of the time these "facts" turn out to be opinions
The fact I am referring to is the judgment in several countries and states against Microsoft's abuse of their monopoly in the operating system market.
Maybe I'm a little on the thick side today, but how is everybody using Firefox better than everybody using IE? Isn't that just as anti-competitive?
According to OneStat Firefox now has a global market share of 12.93 percent while Internet Exlorer has a market share of 83.05 percent. The scenario where these numbers are reversed is still very hypothetical. The goal is to regain a competitive market space on the web platform(s) and that would be more likely in a market space where one single player does not command a majority of the market share. The ideal situation is not a black/white situation where we have to choose either Firefox or IE, but a situation with a choice between many different implementations of the standards for web browsers. It is also detrimental to the competition when the dominant player in the browser market has a major incentive to unnecessarily tie the browser platform to their operating system and software tools.I would agree if it was not for the fact that Microsoft acquired the browser market share that it currently has through questionable practices (read monopoly abuse) so the tactics it is using to target the users of it's biggest competition should be limited. From Yahoo!s perspective it probably makes sense financially to do such a deal with Microsoft, but inherently this is more about Microsoft trying to push it's browse platform as a way to lock users in to it's main platform. Therefore it would be better if Microsoft was prohibited from doing such deals because that would probably increase the competition in the marketplace and Yahoo! could make a similar deal with an alternative browser instead (e.g Opera).
But I would say that in the so called browser wars the government has largely failed at performing their role in limiting Microsofts abuse of their operating system monopoly in achieving a monopoly position in another market. It is not illegal to have a monopoly, it is just illegal to abuse it.
When buying Microsoft Software the End User License Agreement (EULA) states that Microsoft can forcem mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=111186
you to audit at it's own convenience
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?co
which will be done by the Microsoft's Sales department.
So, yes, as long as you buy Microsoft (and probably Adobe) software this is what you should
expect. The auditing clause is not limited to England, but is a worlwide clause.
In the battle between open standards and windows, in the article denoted as Linux, it is entirely in Microsoft's
hands if it want to conform to those open standards. If even a non-default option in Microsofts server and
client operating systems could, without loss of essential functionality, make it conformant to open standards that
would be a good step towards such a state of truce/peace. As it is well established that Microsoft currently implements
several open standards in the server environment in a non-standard way it should be possible for them to
1. publish how their implementation is different from the standard
2. remove Microsoft-specific extensions of the standard from their implementation
From an engineering perspective, as is reflected in the opinion of Moskowitz and other engineers at Microsoft,
it would be better if Microsofts and other implementations of the open standards could communicate. But for
Microsoft as a major monopoly in the operating-systems market it is important to make a sound business
decision which will protect it's position in the server space using it's dominant position in the operating system
market. As can be seen in the EU judgment against Microsoft it is not willing to share it's "trade secrets"
regarding the server protocols, so I find it very interesting that Moskowitz use the word truce. Merriam-Webster
defines truce as:
1 : a suspension of fighting especially of considerable duration by agreement of opposing forces : ARMISTICE, CEASE-FIRE
2 : a respite especially from a disagreeable or painful state or action
So basically a truce means to cease fighting, but it does not mean peace. Unfortunately when it comes to these standards
and the engineers who have to live with the implementations the "painful state or actions" will be there
until the barrier between these implementations can be fully bridged either with or without Microsofts help. For me
that sounds more like a state of peace and if the opinion of this engineer reflects a change of attitude by Microsoft
that is wonderful.
I would argue that considering Microsofts earlier behaviour in hindering open standards work (e.g Open GL) when this standard is in opposition to technologies they generate a lot of revenue from I think it is reasonable to oppose Microsoft joining such a group. Although you are of cause more knowledgeable on this specific group I do think it is very indolent to believe there is no malicious intent here since Microsoft must be expected to do everything it can to protect the revenue stream from the Microsoft Office family of products. This is bussiness as usual.
"Big picture view, I do believe Microsoft to be a monopoly. I do believe there needs to be some sort of repercussion for it but I think anyone asking them to give up THEIR intellectual property that they have developed is just proving their point... they are the best."
According to the Free Software Foundation of Europe Microsofts implementation of the *standard* server SMB protocol: "... a number of incompatibilities deliberately introduced in pre-existing protocols and then altering them with the aim of prohibiting interoperability." To extend a standard protocol is not inventive, it is evolutionary. The protocol is not secret, http://ubiqx.org/cifs/SMB.html, the non-standard Microsoft implemenation is. The EU simply says this is an obvious abuse of monopoly hurting competition and must stop. And no, seeing one specific implemenatation does not easily get you far in understanding how Microsoft specifically has extended the protocol itself. And by the way, 12000 pages of documenation? How can the Microsoft specification be that much longer than the original specification?
Also it may be useful to look at the wikipedia reference on the SMB protocol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_message_block
IBM, not Microsoft, specified the SMB protocol. What Microsoft did, inheretnly to stay incompatible with competitors server products and illegaly use their desktop monopoly, was to extend the SMB protocol. Andrew Tridgell which leads the Samba team has on several occasions noted that it seems like the changes made often has no other purpose than to make the Microsoft SMB implemenation incompatible with other implemenations.
Real broadband is capable of transfering tv-shows, phone and computer data at the same time. To achieve that 10Mbits is required. In scandinavia this is now slowly getting the standard and video-on-demand has been released. As a marketing trick the broadband term was watered out, and to say the least 0.2 Mbits is far from being broad in any sence. My Comcast in California sucks in comparsion with a normal ADSL line in Norway. Honestly I do not think the american always-on internet connectivity market is nearly competetive enough.
http:www.lsb.orgLinux Standard Base
is an standard, supported by all major linux distros, which ensures that even proprietary software can be developed using it's components as a framework. When it comes down to compiling with GCC it is just bullshit and FUD that this imposes any license restrictions. As you can surely see onhttp://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanIUseGP LToolsForNF
gnu.org
the copyright on the editors and tools does not cover the code you write. Therefore it is possible to compile even proprietary applications with GCC.Distributing and maintaining closed-source applications you have to pre-compile it into a binary distribution, and therefore in the ideal case you want to develop towards a set of standards. Currently there is no prevailing standard base which secures compatibility among Linux distributions, and therefore a company have to create individual binaries for every distribution it supports (which has it's own unique package set). The fact that there is no standard package set create dependency hell and often leads to many vendors just supporting one distribution or a version of that distribution. Fortunately there is an effort called the LSB (Linux Standard Base) which aims to develop and promote a set of standards that will increase compatibility among Linux distributions and enable software applications to run on any compliant system. It seems like the LSB is slowly getting foothold in the Debian camp, but it is currenly unclear how much interest it will generate in the rpm-crowd (Mandrake, SUSE, Red Hat etc). Even if the standard is not adopted by SUSE and Red Hat, it has the prospect of unifying the Debian-based distributions so that Linux can collect a substantial amount of users on only three distribution-platforms. Proprietary software vendors has shown themselves willing to support three Linux-distribution bases.
Now, the licensing issues for proprietary vendors to develop towards the Linux standards also needs to be clear and easy to understand. Even though the plurality of open-source licenses gives the developers a good choice, it takes quite an effort to wade through the implications of all of them. I am not saying that closed-source platforms does not involve this problems, what I am saying is that on a platform like Windows you can (through paying a bunch load of money) acquire a commercial license, which can be really difficult for some GPLed projects. The problem with a library under the GPL-license is that it does not clearly define *exactly* what a derivative work is, which is left up to a whim to be interpreted by anyone, and since GPL has a viral nature a proprietary software vendor can not risk that his application will be defined as a derivate work. For instance Trolltech recommends that commercial vendors use it's alternative commercial Qt license while developing closed-source software. We have often heard about the Windows licensing hell, but this is often interpreted as licensing hell by the lawyers of proprietary software-vendors. Fortunately the Linux Standard Base addresses these problems by requiring that any package included in the LSB should be free to use for anyone to develop towards. The LGPL is a license which satisfies this criteria while still protecting the work itself from being ripped off by commercial vendors keeping the changes they have made to a LGPL project for themselves. It should be up to the devoper(s) to choose which license the software should be developed under (GPL, LGPL and proprietary).
Linux has the prospect of ma