| 1 |
Etaoin Shrdlu <shrdlu <at> unlimitedmail.org> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> What you're saying here is not a secret, in fact these are all more or |
| 5 |
> less well-known facts. Yes, they probably did violate some open source |
| 6 |
> license. However, I don't see how having had closed source products |
| 7 |
> would have prevented them from doing what they wanted to do anyway. |
| 8 |
> And furthermore, what does all this have to do with "making money with |
| 9 |
> open source"? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
I just do not see the harm in letting a small (sub 1 million dollar company) |
| 13 |
build a product and not provide any details or what they did or |
| 14 |
how they did it. In the end, their success is more likely related |
| 15 |
to how slick their marketing campaign is or how well conceived the |
| 16 |
product/service is or how good their support is or some other twist. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
The GPL goes a long way to discouraging/preventing many of the serfs |
| 19 |
from ever trying.... IMHO. I believe that the GPL is the spawn of satan. |
| 20 |
I think the 'serfs' (the greater gentoo community) would be better |
| 21 |
off with a BSD style license related to Gentoo technologies and |
| 22 |
still use GPL software, as the individual chooses. After all, most |
| 23 |
of the BSD variants and derivatives (except those RTOS that large |
| 24 |
corporations use in some of their products) Still manage to use |
| 25 |
GPL software. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Obviously, you think that GPL is a panacea. OK we agree to disagree. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
seeya |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
James |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives