4 ms·

> One person involved with the Linux Foundation ...there are a lot of people involved with the Linux Foundation, what didn't help in this case is that the one

> One person involved with the Linux Foundation ...there are a lot of people involved with the Linux Foundation, what didn't help in this case is that the one person involved with the Linux Foundation who came up with this piece of Ballmer-era nostalgia is the Linux Foundation's Senior Director of Open Source Consulting. It's a pretty major PR blunder. It rubs people the wrong way because it basically repeats the anti-Linux arguments which used to be promoted by a lot of companies that were heavily-invested in proprietary software -- some of which are Linux Foundation members today. The terms aren't exactly innovative. 20 years ago or so they were used liberally (and, I think, coined) by a particularly disliked company from Redmond, and their marketing material (thinly-veiled as whitepapers, sometimes from partner companies) read pretty much like this guy's piece. This is basically a blast from the past, except 20 years ago we'd see it on Microsoft's website under some Get the Facts stamp, not on the Linux Foundation's website.

AnkhMorporkian 10y ago
I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted. I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns. Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source. So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.

AnkhMorporkian 10y ago

I apologize for the late reply, I have been out of state making a pitch, and enjoying the scenery after it was accepted. I can see your viewpoint. I do remember the anti-linux Microsoft days, and I did not enjoy them as a company back then. However, I do think viral is an apt description of the license, despite the objections in this thread. As I mentioned before I left, I think viral is a good description of GPL. Viral is a feature, not a consequence. If you choose GPL, it's because you want that viral nature. If you're a company, you'll have to weigh that license against your business concerns. Zealots may say something like "every piece of code should be open source in all circumstances", but pragmatists will realize that some code just doesn't make sense as open source, and making all derivatives of that open source. So, long story short, someone who is in charge of open source consulting should understand better than anyone else that the GPL isn't appropriate for all companies. If the changed code is patented, GPL isn't appropriate in any circumstance, like it or not.