Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 08:39:10 -0400 From: Robin 'Roblimo' Miller User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3) Gecko/20030313 CC: license-discuss@opensource.org Subject: Re: For Approval: Open Source Software Alliance License To:license-discuss@opensource.org [Replying to Kenneth Brown of the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute:] >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)