Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Daniel Robbins' come back ?

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

On Monday 14 January 2008, James wrote:

> > Absolutely not -- For BSD licensing please use BSD.  I see no reason
> > why everything Gentoo related can't be GPL v2 -- after all, the
> > kernel certainly is.
>
> It runs a little deeper than this, particularly when you look at how
> is doing what. For example
>
> There are Dozens of corporations willing to sell 'embedded linux' to
> you. Yet the core of their offering is the same linux you used (with
> some tweaks at the kernel, HAL and a few other places). How does Monta
> Vista get to sell embedded linux without being sued?

The GPL does allow to sell your product (as opposite to giving it away 
for free). Why should Montavista be sued if they respect the GPL? As 
long as they distribute the source code with their products (which 
admittedly I don't know), they are fine. Just because the sources are 
not downloadable from their site, does not mean that they should be 
sued.

> I really don't think this is the place to discuss licensing but the
> BSD vs GPLv(2/3) is a hugely complicated issue. Lots of small
> companies are being quietly sued for building products related to
> embedded linux. But, none of the large corporations that do the same
> or worse are being sued....?

It seems to me that the difference is not between small or big companies, 
but rather between those who obey the GPL and those who do not.
Recently, someone noticed that ASUS (not exactly a small company) had not 
published the full sources for their eee pc OS on their site; they were 
notified, and subsequently they added that code. Read the full story:

http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-first-impressions-and-gpl.html
http://cliffhacks.blogspot.com/2007/11/asus-eeepc-some-sources-posted.html

Other companies have been sued or notified, but not just because they 
were big or small, but because they failed to obey the GPL (xterasys, 
monsoon, fortinet, d-link...you can find tons of cases just by googling 
a bit), someone even admitted their faults, 
In some cases, the companies were declared guilty.

> Again you miss the point. If some small company builds a product, they
> are not going to want to stray very far from the linux kernel tree.
> The most they do is write a device driver. If they have some real
> 'magic' you just put a second sub $1 micro processor on the circuit
> board and locate your "magic" therein. It's as easy as eating pie.
> Publish your gpl code on the big micro and hide your magic in a small
> proccessor/DSP/FPGA/PAL. There are many other schemes to get around
> GPL, including writing your own boot loader. (not as difficult as it
> sounds).
>
> What the GPLv3 is doing is effectively keeping the little guys from
> building products ~100% based on linux and open source. They have not
> stopped a single well funded company (or an entire country like China)
> from using linux and open source as they choose.

Why should they have been stopped?

> This is a very huge reason for the current state of affairs for failed
> technology companies (particularly in the USA), at the present time.
> The Linux Journal has a big campaign to locate "linux inside" of
> products, basically asking folks to 'rat out' companies using linux to
> make a buck.  <insert your own conspiracy theory here>

Making money, even lots of money, with linux is not prohibited. What is 
wrong is when someone does not obey the GPL, and that's what LJ wants to 
do: to discover companies that try to benefit from the work of the linux 
community without giving anything back (I think you are referring to 
the "linux incognito" initiative here).

> You still believe gplv3 is a good thing? I think *GPLv3* is the spawn
> of Satan, and that's the reason most of the kernel devs did not go for
> that *horse hockey*!
>
> > That being said, it would be fantastic if the Gentoo Foundation
> > found ways to make money :)
>
> It will never happen as longs as "myths" such as the ones you espouse
> reign supreme, IMHO. The reason that Gentoo and all of those souls
> that develop and support it is floundering on near financial failure,
> is the tenants (goals) that others have brain washed onto the masses,
> IMHO.
>
> The very best way (IMHO) to promote democracy and freedom is for
> the people to have a way to make money as entrepreneurs and small
> business people. Keeping Linux bottled up, via the GPL is just
> plain nuts! Besides that, Linux only bottled up for the little guys,
> HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies used linux every day in
> products or high end services, such as phone/networking gear.
> Who is suing them?

Nobody, because they obey the GPL. Or should they be sued only because 
they are big companies?

> Hell, the US DOD uses Linux like crazy...  Who are we kidding with
> the entire GPL schrade?  (Keep the serfs where they belong, methinks).

They are just *using* linux. What laws are they breaking? Why should they 
be sued?
-- 
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list