Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 10:18:59 -0600 From: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com> To: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: commercial software (definitive) Message-ID: <199805161623.KAA09892@pluto.plutotech.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 May 1998 09:41:10 GMT." <355d5c06.1764517@mail.cetlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> I like an "encumbrance" which prohibits others from hiding the source >>> code of derivative works. >> >>The truth of the matter is, the hiding rarely happens. > >If so, then the GPL works just as well, "encumbrances" and all. No, the GPL removes choice. My point is that in most cases, a company will choose to release the code they developed to the community, but if denied the choice to keep some portions of the code proprietary, they will simply go off and buy a commercial solution instead. Rarely does the "free" part matter. The company wants to use the most flexible and powerful solution. Part of FreeBSD's charm is that its license is almost as easy to deal with as that of a commercial product, and its quality is often better. Consider also the ease with which we can release our code. We don't have to worry about ensuring that with every minor bug fix release we update our ftp site. We don't have to publicize where the code is. We don't have to ensure that the code is available for 3 years even if the company goes under. Ken and I can simply stick the code up for download somewhere, post a message about it, and forgo the legal liability the GPL would bring. >> There is no doubt in my mind that we simply would not have >>been able to get our product to market as quickly as we did if we did >>not go the embedded UNIX route. What made it possible to go this way? >>Licensing terms that didn't scare our lawyers off > >It's sad there are executives who don't know how to take charge of >their own lawyers. OTOH, there are plenty of lawyers who can work >with the GPL to produce an equivalent result. Sit down with two lawyers and have them both interpret the GPL for you. Both will have a slightly different take on it. The license is large and complex. If you are an executive and are told that this "infective" license may remove your rights to in-house developed intellectual property and force you to provide your technology to competitors, you aren't going to choose a more flexible solution? Giving away intellectual property for free doesn't earn the company any money. >>The code we are "hiding" you wouldn't want to touch anyway and most of >>it is userland code that would not be subject to licensing restrictions >>anyway. > >Then there's little real basis for objection to the GPL. Just because you wouldn't want to touch it, doesn't mean that our competitors would not gain by seeing it. The code adds nothing to generic FreeBSD. >>We could hide things like CAM, but what is the incentive? > >More support for the GPL. If there is no incentive to hide, why >object to license terms which prohibit hiding? In the case of CAM, this is more of a personal issue for me. Ken and I are allowed to set our own licensing terms on that code. At least for me, I want CAM to be used by the widest possible audience, and the GPL would prevent a commercial entity from incorporating that code into their product. The GPL simply isn't free enough to suite my goals. This is one of the reasons I start laughing at GPL arguments like, "Well what if MS 'steals' the code and puts it into it's product". You can't steal something the "owner" wants to give away. >>By releasing the code into the community, we get far greater test >>coverage than we could internally and increase the pool of developers >>that can maintain the code. > >Sounds like GPL to me. No. It's a company making the choice to release its intellectual property to the extent it benefits the company, not because of some silly license. >>You don't need to force business to share. > >OTOH, why do business need to hide? Hmmm. So if Pluto gave away all of it's hardware and software designs to a competitor, don't you think they might have a better chance of competing with us? Business isn't like kindergarten. >>A solution to what problem? Pluto would have gone with an RTOS if the >>licensing terms didn't work out, so in my opinion, you either get what >>the corparate users decide to contribute back, or you get nothing at all. > >True, but that's a result of traditional corporate management and >thinking, which is changing. I'd like to see some concrete proof of this using a business other than a software distributer like Red Hat. -- Justin 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?199805161623.KAA09892>