3 ms·

This was the basis of the "open source" split from "free software". His examples are interesting, but of course don't apply to projects that were closed in the

by 10ren 18y ago

This was the basis of the "open source" split from "free software". His examples are interesting, but of course don't apply to projects that were closed in the first place (adobe/google/microsoft/oracle/ibm - anyone making serious money from selling software). And for closed source projects, dropping the GPL would also change the game as a whole in other ways, perhaps unexpected.

bitdiddle 18y ago
Exactly, I remember these arguments then, the bottom line is the open source "movement" was all about promoting the superior development model. RMS, Eben Moglen, and others warned against this. I also recall thinking this was just some folks looking to monetize their GNU/Linux work. The arguments about scale are interesting. For an IBM the GPL is just fine, they have the size to compete against anyone with value added services on top of Linux. For smaller, open source projects I've seen them prefer apache 2.0, I speculate because it encourages commercial growth. When you're IBM someone has to grow pretty big to pose a threat. For their other closed products they continue to enjoy great revenues. They can put the resources into keeping them best of breed. At the end of the day I believe the GPL best serves the rights of individual programmers and a moral argument can be made that software, just like mathematics, should be free. Notice that mathematics is also largely a collaborative effort, it's very seldom done well by isolated individuals.
- astine 18y ago
  IBM uses the GPL as a weapon. Linux growth hurts Microsoft and provides them a platform push their own products without Microsoft's involvement. Ordinarily however, IBM considers it's greatest asset it IP, and they see 'GPLing' their software as a threat to their IP. They are actually rather ambivalent towards the FOSS ideology.

3 ms·

This was the basis of the "open source" split from "free software". His examples are interesting, but of course don't apply to projects that were closed in the

by 10ren 18y ago

bitdiddle 18y ago
Exactly, I remember these arguments then, the bottom line is the open source "movement" was all about promoting the superior development model. RMS, Eben Moglen, and others warned against this. I also recall thinking this was just some folks looking to monetize their GNU/Linux work. The arguments about scale are interesting. For an IBM the GPL is just fine, they have the size to compete against anyone with value added services on top of Linux. For smaller, open source projects I've seen them prefer apache 2.0, I speculate because it encourages commercial growth. When you're IBM someone has to grow pretty big to pose a threat. For their other closed products they continue to enjoy great revenues. They can put the resources into keeping them best of breed. At the end of the day I believe the GPL best serves the rights of individual programmers and a moral argument can be made that software, just like mathematics, should be free. Notice that mathematics is also largely a collaborative effort, it's very seldom done well by isolated individuals.
- astine 18y ago
  IBM uses the GPL as a weapon. Linux growth hurts Microsoft and provides them a platform push their own products without Microsoft's involvement. Ordinarily however, IBM considers it's greatest asset it IP, and they see 'GPLing' their software as a threat to their IP. They are actually rather ambivalent towards the FOSS ideology.