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

[Jil Larner]

May I suggest you split the discussion if you continue about licensing,
so we can keep a clear topic on Daniel's come back ?

Thanks

Etaoin Shrdlu a écrit :
> 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