Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 14:42:23 -0700 From: Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Bzdik BSD <bzdik@yahoo.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Perens Replies (was Ivan Leybovich) Message-ID: <20010613144223.A17646@perens.com> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20010613143637.047be740@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Brett, On Wed, Jun 13, 2001 at 02:48:17PM -0600, Brett Glass wrote: > Oh, and because users can get the functionality for free, any developer > who licenses the code from the original developer for use in a commercial > product is paying money for something whose market value has been reduced > to zero. Not a wise move. What the developer is paying for is the privilege to not engage in sharing _their_ part of the product, which, I assume, has some value to them or they would not be developing it. I suppose you could say they are sharing in a different way - the $$ generally go into the Open Source product they are licensing. > Also, remember that GPLed additions to the original code that are > contributed by third parties are not covered by the license. So the > licensee usually cannot get the most up-to-date code. Yes, this is usually the case, but developers who want to have the option to dual-license handle contributions differently. See, for example, Reiser's filesystem work for the Linux kernel. > Does Ms. Fiorina know that you're advocating something that both hurts HP > and unnecessarily costs it money? Carly and the management team are very supportive of my Linux and Open Source activities. One reason that this is is easy for HP is because we make hardware, which has a very clear revenue return attached to it. Software is generally an enabler for hardware sales rather than a goal in itself. One of our software vendors has become so big that it thinks it can call the shots for _our_ company, and we'd rather have the freedom to chart our own course. We have also suffered because that vendor doesn't always deliver what they say they will, and we've made plans that have failed, costing us Billions, because of that. Thus, we pursue Linux enthusiasticaly. With free software, we get a lot more control over the software end. thus a lot more freedom to chart our own course. We have found the Linux folks to be easy to work with, and we feel that both sides are getting a good deal from that collaboration. We are happy to deal with BSD-licensed software. We find it's often to our own advantage to apply the GPL to our own work, and we are happy with the quid-pro-quo there is in working with other GPL developers. If you are attempting to make money solely by selling software, you'd find it a lot more difficult to pursue an Open Source business model than HP does. I can do things within HP that Red Hat can't afford, because I have a different way to pay for them. > How convenient [regarding having no BSD spokesperson on "stand together"] Remember that Larry and Guido signed, and their licensing philosophy is much closer to the BSD camp. Well, who do you think I should ask next time? The prerequisites are: Excellent name recognition. Experience and aptitude with press and public relations. They have to have put their flaming days behind them. Respect of the other people who are signing. The two who come to mind are Brian and Jordan, and I have not heard from Jordan in so long that I wonder if he's still active. I sincerely don't believe that Theo or you are ready for this sort of role. Thanks Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010613144223.A17646>