Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 01:10:30 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: David Johnson <djohnson@acuson.com> Cc: "Kenneth P. Stox" <stox@imagescape.com>, freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD and Microsoft Message-ID: <3B3AE676.79EB397D@mindspring.com> References: <XFMail.010627111801.stox@imagescape.com> <3B3A2720.815A74C0@acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Johnson wrote: > "We don't feel comfortable with Linux because of the GPL nature > of the kernel ..." > > Now, I'm not a kernel hacker. I haven't written a compiler in > twenty years. I don't know anything about .NET. But for the > life of me I can't figure out why the licensing of a kernel > stops them from making a Linux port as well. Are they planning > to make C# a kernel module? Are they confused and think that > glibc is under the GPL as well? The "glibc" is LGPL, though Stallman has been suggesting that, for it and a number of other LGPL packages, that it is now time to consider converting them over to the GPL. I think they are more worried about possible scenarios, as in: o I have this .NET code from Microsoft that I'm trying to extend o I have this deadline, fast approaching o I have this boss breathing down my neck o I have this GPL'ed kernel code that almost does exactly what I need, and which I don't have the time to rewrite the functionality from scratch o What do I do? I've worked at a company where this has happened, only the GPL'ed code in question was squid. IBM made us rip squid out of the product, and not distribute it with modifications that would enable it to use the Cyber Patrol database library to block web site access. It was a deal breaker: we did it, or they didn't acquire the company. I think there's also the possibility of code going the other way, where some patented technology ends up in the GPL'ed code, because someone wasn't careful. IBM objected to squid on those grounds, as well, in that it has code which IBM claims is covered by no less than 5 IBM patents -- and IBM distributing code under the GPL that is covered under their patents grants, in their expert legal opinion, the right to use the patents, royalty free. But it gets worse: companies that deal with the government are not permitted to be discriminatory in terms of pricing: therefore, if you offer it at one price to one company, you must offer it at the same price to all companies, particularly in the case of a monopoly. A patent is a government granted monopoly. Case closed. But wait, there's a third option! You could improve the code with your GPL'ed addition, and, through negligence, fail to identify the origin of the code (or not know it), and give it back to Microsoft -- and thus Microsoft takes it, and incorporates the change in their code -- and now _ALL_ their code is GPL'ed, and _ALL_ the code that uses snippets of that code elsewhere, is _ALSO_ GPL'ed. IBM has a 1 week class, part of which is an 18 slide presentation on the handling of GPL'ed code. If you wish to work with GPL'ed code in IBM, taking this class is mandatory. In addition, after passing the class, you can only use GPL'ed code from approvide IBM FTP sites: this ensures that the code was vetted to not embody any IBM patents (needless to say, tracking a GPL:'ed developement project is a right royal pain... you are always behind by enough to cause problems with integration). So Microsoft aren't the only people who feel the GPL puts them at potentially significant risk, just by being nearby. -- Terry 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?3B3AE676.79EB397D>