Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 20 Dec 1998 22:46:39 -0500 (EST) | From | Wesley Morgan <> | Subject | Re: Article: IBM wants to "clean up the license" of Linux |
| |
On Sun, 20 Dec 1998, D.A. Harris wrote:
> It wouldn't surprise me to see more of this occur. Especially when you > have propietary hardware manufacturers that write the drivers and interfaces > for their hardware when want to interface with Linux, and not release > openly the source to what they perceive as a major source of their income. > Granted it will more likely happen with more specialized, high end hardware, > unless it is the case where it is just too easy to install and use, to not > buy, as with OSS.
Actually, I have to disagree with you. As a matter of fact, I think that vendors should warm to the idea of open source drivers. Would you ever PAY for a driver for some hardware you just bought? No, I wouldn't. An open source driver released for Linux would be a great starting point for the FreeBSD guys to pick up and hack their own version -- less work for the manufacturer. My opinion is this... UNIX software has traditionally been largely "open source" (I hate all these buzzwords... "innovate", IT, "open source"). Windows software has (almost) always been binary only. Why? (Other than monetary issues) Because your average Windows/DOS user wouldn't have the slightest idea what to do with a makefile. Not to mention the lack of widely available FREE compilers for DOS. Since there is no "standard development" compiler, how can you be certain that software developed under Borland tools will build with another compiler, etc. A massive source of headaches for software developers. Where UNIX has had a strong common thread (gcc and other GNU tools or the respective vendor-supplied tools) which propelled it towards an open source model, Windows/DOS lacked these tools and has spent the last fifteen-odd years becoming firmly convinced that binary is the only way to go.
So you can see that even if open source in in our opinions inherently better, it has not been a viable option for the Windows/DOS platform. UNIX users are generally both more capable and comfortable when dealing with source code instead of binaries. Unfortunately since they say between 80-90% of all computers run the traditionally binary-only platforms, we won't see much movement towards open source unless we can either irrevocably prove that open source is better for all platforms or become a much larger player. Linux is just moving up from being a pinch-hitter to the starting lineup (Sorry for the baseball analogy, but hey I'm American).
Comments on the GPL discussion:
From the GPL 2:
Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
What this tells me is that if you are working on continuously updated software it would be in your best interest to release under a specific version of the GPL. That would prevent any earler or later version from applying. If Linus is afraid of IBM or someone else bribing or bullying the FSF into releasing a weakened GPL 3, he can simply change the license to GPL 2 only. And since Linux development is constant, he could change the license to GPL 3 at any time he wanted. The only time it would benefit you to specify "any later version" would be if you were releasing software and letting it sit without planning on updating it or the license (which hopefully will never happen with Linux).
WM
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |