1 |
On Monday 14 January 2008, James wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu <at> unlimitedmail.org> writes: |
4 |
> > The GPL does allow to sell your product (as opposite to giving it |
5 |
> > away for free). Why should Montavista be sued if they respect the |
6 |
> > GPL? As long as they distribute the source code with their products |
7 |
> > (which admittedly I don't know), they are fine. Just because the |
8 |
> > sources are not downloadable from their site, does not mean that |
9 |
> > they should be sued. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> Ummm, I guess you are new to a space that I have worked in for a very |
12 |
> long time. Let's make this simple. Why don't you just pose as |
13 |
> a company that need MV's EL (embedded linux) and ask for a listing of |
14 |
> all of the wonderful thing you can do with MV EL that are superior |
15 |
> to the public offerings of EL. Then ask them from their sourcecode |
16 |
> to these 'enhancements'. They are not alone, they are just |
17 |
> one of the companies selling a RTOS based on EL..... |
18 |
|
19 |
Have you ever used their products? Do you know for sure they don't give |
20 |
you the code? (I'm just curious here, I don't want to be unnecessarily |
21 |
polemic) I'm asking because in their site they say that they also give |
22 |
you some development modules (for eclipse) and tools for rebuilding the |
23 |
system, so this would seem to imply they also give you the source code. |
24 |
|
25 |
> > It seems to me that the difference is not between small or big |
26 |
> > companies, but rather between those who obey the GPL and those who |
27 |
> > do not. |
28 |
> |
29 |
> Naive, you are! Big companies have lawyer, lobyist and often |
30 |
> politicians in their pocket. Over the years most people, at least in |
31 |
> countries that pretend to have democracy, have seen this. Remember |
32 |
> how the Democratic politicians and state where going after MS and then |
33 |
> most of the issues got settled by republican. Yet the EU still slapped |
34 |
> MS with lawsuits and punitive damages? If you think small companies |
35 |
> are treated just like big one, you are very naive and no amount of |
36 |
> evidence will change your mind..... Just ask most anyone that's been |
37 |
> in small business before. |
38 |
|
39 |
What I know is that big companies have had their defeats too, and if that |
40 |
has happened some times in the past it might happen again. This does not |
41 |
mean, of course, that it will actually happen (I'm not *that* naive). |
42 |
And, IMHO, carrying on with bad practices just because the world around |
43 |
you behaves that way does not make you a trustworthy company (but it's |
44 |
true that it does let you make lots of money). |
45 |
|
46 |
> You are talking about device drivers here, not products that have a |
47 |
> hidxden OS and use linux as the RTOS inside the product. Verifying |
48 |
> what is acutally inside of a close (RTOS) system is difficult, at |
49 |
> best, and often impossible it the firmware engineer wants to make it |
50 |
> difficult for other to analyze. |
51 |
|
52 |
I don't have enough knowledge of the embedded world to speak here, so you |
53 |
might very well be correct about this. |
54 |
|
55 |
> There is a group of firmware engineers that have publically stated |
56 |
> that they write for free any device driver for any company using EL. |
57 |
> To paraphrase that person, <the problem is not finding coders to write |
58 |
> device drivers, it's convincing companies to open source their drivers |
59 |
> or allow their products to inter-operate with OS drivers> |
60 |
|
61 |
Agreed. But a closed source driver can be released either by a big |
62 |
company or by a small one. |
63 |
And if linux gains popularity, refusing to open source a driver might |
64 |
actually turn out to be a bad thing for the company, since they will |
65 |
lose interoperability (read: customers) more and more (at least for |
66 |
general-purpose hardware modules; for embedded or specialized hardware |
67 |
things might be different). |
68 |
|
69 |
> > Other companies have been sued or notified, but not just because |
70 |
> > they were big or small, but because they failed to obey the GPL |
71 |
> > (xterasys, monsoon, fortinet, d-link...you can find tons of cases |
72 |
> > just by googling a bit), someone even admitted their faults, |
73 |
> > In some cases, the companies were declared guilty. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> true, but it does not affect the point I'm trying to make. What you |
76 |
> are talking about is a drop of rain, in an ocean. |
77 |
|
78 |
Maybe. |
79 |
|
80 |
> > > What the GPLv3 is doing is effectively keeping the little guys |
81 |
> > > from building products ~100% based on linux and open source. They |
82 |
> > > have not stopped a single well funded company (or an entire |
83 |
> > > country like China) from using linux and open source as they |
84 |
> > > choose. |
85 |
> > |
86 |
> > Why should they have been stopped? |
87 |
> |
88 |
> I'd just like the charade to end. GPL keeps the serfs on 'massa farm' |
89 |
> It does not stop billion dollar entities from doing whatever they want |
90 |
> with EL or any other OS (open source) software. |
91 |
|
92 |
Again...why should these billion dollars be forbidden to circulate, or do |
93 |
whatever, as long as the open source software rules are respected? |
94 |
You seem to imply that a (free) software license is a way to stop people |
95 |
from investing or making money. |
96 |
|
97 |
> > Making money, even lots of money, with linux is not prohibited. What |
98 |
> > is wrong is when someone does not obey the GPL, and that's what LJ |
99 |
> > wants to do: to discover companies that try to benefit from the work |
100 |
> > of the linux community without giving anything back (I think you are |
101 |
> > referring to the "linux incognito" initiative here). |
102 |
> |
103 |
> OK, then why does the GPL not make a simple rule change. If you have |
104 |
> grossed over 1 million dollars on your linux product or service, then |
105 |
> you have to open source your code. |
106 |
|
107 |
The GPL states that you must open source your code (more exactly: you |
108 |
have to provide access to the sources along with the binaries, which |
109 |
does NOT mean that the source code must be opened to the general |
110 |
public), no matter if you grossed 1 dollar, 100 dollars, 1 million, or |
111 |
gave it away for free. |
112 |
|
113 |
> That way the little guys can make some money on an idea and a little |
114 |
> bit of code before having to publish their work. Beside how much |
115 |
> useful code do you think a small entrepreneur really has? |
116 |
|
117 |
That's the point. The small entrepreneur who focuses only on the code is |
118 |
doomed to failure. As you noted, there are lots of hungry coders out |
119 |
there that can code the same things better and in less time, even |
120 |
without looking at your code. Code needs maintenance and upgrading, and |
121 |
for the small entrepreneur with little resources that is all wasted |
122 |
time. It's better IMHO to let the community do the dirty work (thus |
123 |
opening the code and letting the coders play), and focus on the value |
124 |
added services that can be offered for that piece of software (for |
125 |
example, customization, training, technical support, etc.). For a small |
126 |
entrepreneur, this is (IMHO) a way to stand out from the crowd, rise |
127 |
above the others and give a brighter image of himself, rather than just |
128 |
writing some code and keeping it secret, hoping that nobody else steals |
129 |
your "idea". |
130 |
|
131 |
> The kernel is full of expert coder that are pushing to get their code |
132 |
> into the kernel. There is not a shortage of code or coding experts. |
133 |
> What the GPL has effectively done is keep the serfs on the farm |
134 |
> shoveling manure, IMHO. |
135 |
|
136 |
Many (albeit not all) of those "serfs" actually work for big companies |
137 |
which make big money with open source. |
138 |
|
139 |
> Remember I espouse this opinion as one who has had financial success, |
140 |
> works out of his garage, and picks his next business ventures, as I |
141 |
> please. I'm not some unemployed college kid looking for my first |
142 |
> job...... |
143 |
|
144 |
Neither am I. Neither are all the people who have studied the topic and |
145 |
have written articles or books about the economy of open source. Neither |
146 |
are all the people who work for companies that make money with open |
147 |
source (redhat, novell, and, more and more, sun, ibm, intel...). |
148 |
|
149 |
> > > The very best way (IMHO) to promote democracy and freedom is for |
150 |
> > > the people to have a way to make money as entrepreneurs and small |
151 |
> > > business people. Keeping Linux bottled up, via the GPL is just |
152 |
> > > plain nuts! Besides that, Linux only bottled up for the little |
153 |
> > > guys, HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies used linux every |
154 |
> > > day in products or high end services, such as phone/networking |
155 |
> > > gear. Who is suing them? |
156 |
> > |
157 |
> > Nobody, because they obey the GPL. |
158 |
> |
159 |
> *(WRONG)* |
160 |
|
161 |
Can you elaborate? |
162 |
Among the biggest player today in the linux world are ibm, intel, and |
163 |
sun. They are increasingly migrating towards opening their code (see eg |
164 |
java). Although not always GPL, they are releasing a lot of their code |
165 |
under OSI approved licenses. |
166 |
|
167 |
> Your naive to the point of being astounding. If you think that the |
168 |
> Industrial Military Complex has not modified you precious GPL code, |
169 |
> then we are all in Deep Doo. You might want to find some old farts |
170 |
> that have been around the track a few times and have some private |
171 |
> conversations with folks that have experienced technology in a deeper |
172 |
> environment that you obviously have not experienced. |
173 |
> |
174 |
> Beside how do you think the US government is dealing with the |
175 |
> 'informational security threat' posed by the internet? Here's one |
176 |
> piece of code the US government did publish (and fund) SELINUX. Ever |
177 |
> heard of that? Common, use your imagination and connect the dots...... |
178 |
|
179 |
What you're saying here is not a secret, in fact these are all more or |
180 |
less well-known facts. Yes, they probably did violate some open source |
181 |
license. However, I don't see how having had closed source products |
182 |
would have prevented them from doing what they wanted to do anyway. |
183 |
And furthermore, what does all this have to do with "making money with |
184 |
open source"? |
185 |
-- |
186 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |