Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 18:10:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass) Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Here is what IBM thinks about using FreeBSD on their newer Message-ID: <200011291810.LAA19425@usr08.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20001129104056.0496b420@localhost> from "Brett Glass" at Nov 29, 2000 10:43:29 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >But I have to say that I'm not at all surprised about the Linux > >"omission", or the phrasing of the statements about "Caldera > >OpenLinux" and "Do not install a non-supported operating system". > > > >The lawyers have quite a different take: if you want to use GPL > >code, or any other code with a source distribution requirement, > >you are required to attend a "handling toxic waste that will > >destroy your patent rights" class, before you are allowed to even > >touch it. You also have to get "cleared" copies of the code from > >internal IBM servers, so that IBM patents aren't infringed by you > >using a newer version of the code. > > > >There is an 18 page presentation that most of the internal search > >engines will point you to, when you are going through the exercise > >of trying to find information internally. It boils down to "how > >to double-glove before putting on your biohazard suit to enter a > >class 5 hot zone containing live Ebola". > > When IBM acquired Whistle, it acquired a product that included, > and in fact depended upon, GPLed code because FreeBSD does. How > did it handle this situation? Is there any chance that IBM might be > interested in helping to free the BSDs from the GPL? There is a difference between tools dependencies and product dependencies. The InterJet is a closed box, and does not ship with a ful developement environment. The way IBM "handled it" was to do due dilligence on all the code that shipped on the InterJet, and with one procedural snag, vetted it for shipment. The actual thing that gave them the most trouble was PHK's "BeerWare" license, which they finally decided didn't really constitute an obligation, since they could just decide to not like the code or find it useful. One thing they did do was force us to rip out SQUID (GPL), since they believe that SQUID infringes a number of IBM patents. They didn't indicate that they were willing to go after the SQUID people about this (probably as suicidal as USL attempting to mung UC Berkeley, from a pure marketing standpoint), but they were unwilling to ship GPL code which they believed embodied IBM patents, since they believed that doing so would grant license to use the patents royalty free. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200011291810.LAA19425>