RE: IBM beckons Linux fans to server line

On Tue, 2001-12-18 at 21:38, jt wrote:
> Martin,
>
> Little quick on the trigger with that last one:  "I just seen the FreeBSD
> license" was intended to mean "I've seen BSD  license", as well as links off
> Gnu and/or OSI analyzing pros and cons of other different licenses.  Does
> OpenBSD and NetBSD operate using any of these?

Jt (and anyone else joining in)

I'm no expert on *BSD, but I think they all operate on similar licenses.
You can see the OpenBSD stuff at http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html -
NetBSD is at http://www.netbsd.org ,but their server appears to be down
at present (either that, or they're rejecting attempts to connect from a
Linux browser ;-) )

> Also, IMHO this was a REAL good quote from today's NEWS Wire Daily:
>
> OUT OF CONTEXT: OPEN SOURCE ENTREPRENEURS
> "Almost every person here [at a Linux 10th anniversary party at
> Sunnyvale Baylands Park in California] is an entrepreneur. Everyone
> who is developing software and sharing it in the hopes of that their
> code will become well known is putting their assets -- programming
> time and skills -- at risk. It's still an unproven business model."
> -- Eugene Clement, MandrakeSoft developer, as quoted by Inc Magazine
>
>
> Now I'm neither for nor against "Open" Source, ONCE IT'S PROVEN TO WORK...

Open Source (open code freely shared & collaboratively developed)
definately works - it just depends on what you want to achieve from it.
Despite its detractors (not looking at any one in particular <vbg>)
Linux is growing in popularity, and other open projects, such as Apache
are extremely successful.

What I assume you're alluding to is open source working *to make money*
Now that is an issue worth debating. Neither the GNU project nor Linux
were started with the aim to make money, though it didn't hurt if it did
along the way. Companies have grown up around Linux with the idea of
growing and making profits but it's not an easy thing. There's no
license to print money as opposed to the proprietary software industry -
you can't have a monopoly when everyone can freely get the software.

Personally, I think the way to make money from OSS is in the support
services that surround it. For hobbyists like me, or even a lot of Linux
based firms, community support is fine, even preferable. Companies
without in-house skills might opt to get a support contract, and plenty
of firms are willing to take your money for that (even IBM). It's
interesting that the likes of Caldera (who produce the OpenLinux
distros[2]) are now switching over to a subscription model for
commercial users of their Linux offerings.

> What I'm VEHEMENTLY against is team of FSF/OSI/Linux.  Primarily for this
> reason:
>
> It used to state on the OSI website (don't know if it still does) something
> pretty much verbatim like "We're not against the strategy of RMS, but
> against his tactics."  (RMS' strategy being that ALL SOFTWARE SHOULD BE
> FREE, BY DEFINITION, and in fact that ALL intellectual property rights
> should be eliminated.)

I know of RMS desire for software to be free (free availability of the
code, not necessarily free in monetary sense) but I haven't seen
anything specifically against IP. In fact the FSF (Free Software
Foundation) says to avoid using the term as people mix up the issues of
copyright, patents and trademarks. Software patents, at least in their
current implementation, serve the industry very badly, with the
exception of the big companies. Copyrights & trademarks are another
issue, which the FSF (and many others) do support very strongly.

> OSI continued "If we change the name of this thing
> from "Free Software" to "Open Source", the business community will eat it
> up..."  Linus and ESR have teamed up with this promotion.  However, the name
> change did little to alter the basic proposition.  That basic proposition is
> something that's NEVER BEEN TESTED IN THE MARKETPLACE.

Ahh, Marketplace - what's in it for me. That's not where free software
started, even though it's where some of it is trying to go.

> It's extremely counter-intuitive, to me anyway, that ALL SOFTWARE SHOULD BE
> FREE, BY DEFINITION.  I could be biased, because I get paid to write
> software.  That's how I make my living.  That's how I put bread on the
> table... so I don't much cotton to this proposition.  Like I said, I'm
> biased in that respect.

You need to remember the environment where RMS came from in this
respect. At that time Unix code was freely shared between developers and
it was when the commercial interests took precedence that he started out
to provide a free alternative. Linux was started as a small project to
give Linus Torvalds a free Unix-like OS for his PC - the commercial
variants were just too expensive for an individual.

I also think you're overstating the case saying *all* software should be
free. What was wanted was a choice - to be able to run a free (open)
version and not be forced to run a proprietary version because that's
all that's available. If someone prefers closed software over open
software that's fine. What sucks is only having the option of closed
code and being at the mercy of the vendor at upgrade time, etc.

Case in point. My wife has bought some educational software for our
kids, as they have started using a computer at their pre-school.
Unfortunately it won't run on my Win2k laptop and I only have Linux on
my desktop boxes. I either buy a copy of windows (around USD200/135GBP
retail Win98 - the kid's box is below recommended spec for XP), 'aquire'
a copy or stick to my principles and send the software back. If the code
were available, it would be easier to port to linux, and chances are
someone would already have done so. In fact I'd happily pay extra for a
Linux version. Their is quite a bit of educational software for Linux,
but nothing like the amount there is on MS.

> ===> But my MAIN issue is that this has never been proven to work, in the
> marketplace...
>
> Yet Linus and ESR have the business community eating out of their hands, and
> developers bowing down to them like they're Lords and Masters.  From what
> I've seen, Linus and ESR don't mind the self-promotion...

If you read the Linux kernel mailing list, you'll see that the other
developers (or Linus/ESR to each other) *do not* bow down to them like
Lords and Masters. Just had a qick hunt through today's messages, but
there doesn't seem to be any juicy arguments there - somedays it can be
quite entertaining. I don't know C (just an RPG geek) but the manner in
which issues get discussed & resolved (or not) is an eye opener. I don't
think I've ever seen this list get quite so colourful :)

As far as self promotion goes - it helps the 'cause' as a by product.
Just think what it could do for the iSeries if IBM promoted Frank in the
same way ;-)

> NOT saying that NOTHING GOOD comes from "Open" Source...!  Just that the
> ESR/Linus version of it is neither open nor free...  I don't like that kind
> of marketing, myself...  But, again, my main question is whether there is
> some sound reasoning to think that this WOULD be a good idea, and that it
> WOULD work...

I disagree :) I think it's both open *and* free, and that's why I chose
the GPL for my free software. I release it free and I'd like it to stay
that way. If it were under a BSD style license, you could take it, and
improve it, then charge me for the improved binary! You gain :) I lose
out :( Under the GPL everyone can benefit from the improvements.

My main 'product' was developed for the same reason Linux was. I wanted
software to do a job, the only options were get a commercial package
(five figures USD) or write my own. As I've benefitted from others code
in magazines or postings to places like this, I wanted to contribute
back. Hence opening it up and letting others have it for free. That's
not to say the commercial options aren't a good idea, just too expensive
for what I needed and could justify ;-)

> Again would appreciate any links to the contrary (other than ESR's writings,
> which I visit from time to time).
>
> jt

I'll hunt around for some of the more unbiased links that I've seen
recently. I'm no Linux zealot or MS basher either - I just think it's a
lot more fun to use than that other OS, and it's the closest to running
an iSeries at home. Lots of command line and solid as a rock - and no
stupid paperclip getting in my way[4] :)

If you want a good book on the the background to Open Source & Linux,
get hold of Glyn Moody's 'Rebel Code' Here's a link to it on Amazon,
though I'm sure you'd get it via the referrer at midrange.com if going
to Amazon (can't get through to David's site at the moment, so can't
give a proper url.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0738203335/qid=1008718952/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/002-0712665-7020000

Regards, Martin

For those following this thread not steeped in the ways of the 'Source'
[1] Richard M Stallman, known to most by just his initials, started the
GNU (GNU's Not UNIX) to create a free version of UNIX - see
http://www.gnu.org
[2] Distro - short for distribution. Supporting packages, installer, etc
around the Linux kernel & GNU plus other user space[3] software.
[3] No, not a *USRSPC ;-)
[4] Okay, maybe I do bash MS a bit after all ;-)
--
martin@dbg400.net  jamaro@firstlinux.net  http://www.dbg400.net
/"\
DBG/400 - DataBase Generation utilities - AS/400 / iSeries Open        \
/
Source free test environment tools and others (file/spool/misc)
X
[this space for hire]  ASCII Ribbon Campaign against HTML mail & news  /
\