For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License
Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
robin at roblimo.com
Fri Sep 26 12:39:10 UTC 2003
>I have no problems with it...like I said, I'd be happy to have a check from
>IBM too. Its just time to end the mythology that Linux is something that
>people who are above "money" sell. Linux is a business product. It makes
>money. It makes more money as it is advertised, promoted and sold, etc.
>Linux salesman are capitalists, not philanthropists. I don't see a
>difference, nor do I think it is objectionable.
Nor do I. Industry consortiums and standards-setting bodies are entirely
legitimate. In a commercial sense, I see Linux as an industry standard
not unlike the SAE's fastener specifications. Naturally, a company that
wants to make bolts or screws that only work with its own proprietary
nuts, washers, and tightening tools is going to decry the standards used
by other companies in its industry, and if that company is an
industry-dominating one, there are going to be conflicts.
Think railroad tracks or, as Bob Lefkowitz wrote last year about time
standards, railroad schedules and clocks. Railroads all had their own
time standards in the 19th century until a standards body called "the
U.S. government" set up uniform times and time zones. The reason we have
standardization in screw threads, rail gauges, and clock settings is not
philanthropy, but as an aid to commerce and invention. And it is cheaper
for many companies to get together and develop a single industry-wide
standard in association with academics and government partners than for
each company to develop its own. I consider Linux and vertical open
source packages (GPL or not) in this same light. There is nothing evil
about this. Companies that decide not to follow the standards tend to go
away in the long run. And there is nothing evil about this, either. We
call it "capitalism" and rather like the idea of corporate innovation
and evolution here in my country, the U.S.A.
>Aside from all that, you were at the conference when Bruce Perens conceded
>that the GPL has commercial limitations.
*NEWS FLASH* - GPL has commercial limitations!
Ken, I advise you and your employers not to release any software you
write under the GPL. Instead, use a *BSD-style license or perhaps a dual
licensing scheme. I think you will be much happier. And developers who
prefer the GPL will use it to license their software, and we will all be
happy. Here in the US of A creators of new works get to choose for
themselves the terms under which they distribute their creations. We
Americans like this kind of freedom.
And if you don't like the terms under which Linux is licensed, don't use
Linux. Simple as that.
Just because I own and like my Jeep Cherokee doesn't mean I want to
force you to buy one. I fully support your right not to use Linux or
other GPL-licensed software.
Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
(waving large flag in bright Florida morning sunshine)
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss