From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Feb 23 14: 7:42 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from post.mail.demon.net (post-11.mail.demon.net [194.217.242.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4119117F9 for ; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 14:07:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from marko@uk.radan.com) Received: from [158.152.75.22] (helo=uk.radan.com) by post.mail.demon.net with smtp (Exim 2.10 #2) id 10FPzM-00078r-00; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:07:37 +0000 Organisation: Radan Computational Ltd., Bath, UK. Phone: +44-1225-320320 Fax: +44-1225-320311 Received: from marder-1. (rasnt-2 [193.114.228.212]) by uk.radan.com (8.6.10/8.6.10) with ESMTP id WAA05488; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:06:55 GMT Received: (from marko@localhost) by marder-1. (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA00495; Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:04:39 GMT (envelope-from marko) Message-ID: <19990223220438.C216@localhost> Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 22:04:38 +0000 From: Mark Ovens To: dyson@iquest.net Cc: brett@lariat.org, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The GPL and the Robinson-Patman Act References: <36D2AF58.A2FB5E82@uk.radan.com> <199902231909.OAA03734@y.dyson.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i In-Reply-To: <199902231909.OAA03734@y.dyson.net>; from John S. Dyson on Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 02:09:23PM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, Feb 23, 1999 at 02:09:23PM -0500, John S. Dyson wrote: > > One of the basis of my beliefs is to follow the licenses of others, in > meaning and legally. I could not knowingly violate someone elses license > and be happy with myself. Which, of course, is the right and proper thing to do. > In a sense, the GPL world is depending on > the honor of those who it is most destructive. > This confirms what I thought. The GPL and Berkeley-style licence work more through a "Gentlemens Agreement" than the threat of a law suit and, as another poster pointed out, a PR disaster if, for example, FreeBSD were to hijack GPL code and release it under a Berkeley-style licence. None of this of course is protection against M$ taking a Linux or FreeBSD distribution and releasing it with an M$ logo (Minux or Winux?) under their EULA. The bad PR is hardly likely to concern them. After all everyone slags off M$ anyway, so a bit more isn't going to make any difference. A daft idea M$ releasing a version of Linux/FreeBSD? Not necessarily. Linux/FreeBSD with an M$ logo would be a lot more attractive to the suits than Linux with a Red Hat logo. It would evolve more and more towards NT until it disappeared, but it would give them a lot of control over the "free" Unix market and severely damage the market share of real Linux/FreeBSD. After all they didn't release IE to make a profit on it as a product but to influence and exert control on the market, the ultimate aim of which I suspect is control of the Internet. And what could anyone do to stop them? I doubt FreeBSD would have a case as it wouldn't contravene the FreeBSD licence (would it?) and the only way the FSF could enforce the GPL is through the courts, but could they afford to take on M$?. > -- > John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, > dyson@iquest.net | it makes one look stupid > jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. > -- FreeBSD - The Power To Serve http://www.freebsd.org My Webpage http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~markov _______________________________________________________________ Mark Ovens, CNC Apps Engineer, Radan Computational Ltd. Bath UK CAD/CAM solutions for Sheetmetal Working Industry mailto:marko@uk.radan.com http://www.radan.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message