Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 18:32:31 -0500 From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pfg1+@pitt.edu> Cc: Craig Harding <crh@outpost.co.nz>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Big companies and the GPL (was: FreeBSD spokesman (was: So what happens to FreeBSD now?)) Message-ID: <20010705183231.C657@sydney.worldwide.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <3B4266BB.AE0CE214@pitt.edu>; from pfg1%2B@pitt.edu on Tue, Jul 03, 2001 at 08:43:39PM -0400 References: <20010626174756.A61831@blackhelicopters.org> <200106260901.AA23134284@stmail.pace.edu> <20010626122845.A11960@xor.obsecurity.org> <20010626214230.D461@canyon.nothing-going-on.org> <20010626174756.A61831@blackhelicopters.org> <20010702211810.B325@sydney.worldwide.lemis.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010703141550.045f5340@localhost> <20010703134058.A9446@mooseriver.com> <3B426349.B50B1A4D@outpost.co.nz> <3B4266BB.AE0CE214@pitt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tuesday, 3 July 2001 at 20:43:39 -0400, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > Craig Harding wrote: >> > ... >> >> What I find most entertaining is the similarity between Brett's view of >> the GPL and Bill Gates' (as detailed in his recent interview - I read >> the BG IV and thought Brett must have been ghostwriting for him). And >> therein I think lies the simple appeal of the GPL to many people - if >> Bill Gates doesn't like it, it must be good. > > Something interesting; the only company attacking the GPL is > Microsoft. This doesn't mean it's the only company that is being hurt > though: while IBM, HP, SGI and the others are not attacking it, are > pretty silent considering they have invested on Linux projects. Disclaimer: I do not speak for IBM. Everything I say below is available on the web somewhere, but I can't quote you a URL. IBM is not silent about the GPL. They have had some issues with it, neither the ones I have, nor the ones Brett and co. have, so they ended up writing the IBM Public Licence (IPL). I don't know exactly how they differ, though I suppose that's an exercise for the reader. Stallman has agreed to the IPL, though, so it can't bee too different from the GPL. IBM's stance on GPL'd software is that there is a significant quantity of software of general use which can be released to the community without adversely affecting the bottom line. That's what it's doing. IBM will *not* release software under the BSD license, because that would enable its competitors to take the software and use it to their own purposes. This doesn't mean that IBM will not support BSD. But the rules change depending on whose code it is. > The truth is the GPL is not a good business, In the long term, no. In the short term it might help people change their way of thinking. I have strong doubts about the viability of the current "open source" model beyond the next 10 years in any case. It would be nice if whatever it evolves into is less predatory than Microsoft. > but Microsoft is the only company doing real profits anyway. No, I don't think that's the case. Microsoft is very much in the news, *and* they make real profits, but that doesn't mean that other, quieter companies aren't doing well as well. -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010705183231.C657>