Open Source capitalists

Matt Cramer cramer at unix01.voicenet.com
Wed Aug 29 11:10:55 PDT 2001


On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, [iso-8859-1] Daniel Davies wrote:


> But this fact is much less overwhelming than it might seem. The point about
> the "Linux kernel" is true, but only because Torvalds owns the brand name
> "Linux" (in the absolutely conventional sense that it is a registered
> trademark, which he owns). IBM can take the kernel and do what they like with
> it, as long as they don't call it "Linux".

Um, not quite. The kernel (the part that is actually "linux") is GPL'ed, which means code derived from it must also be GPL'ed. IBM can only do what they like with the kernel if it is permitted by the GPL (Version 2, June 1991).

You may be thinking of the BSD style license, which basically permits anything. Thus IBM could take something with a BSD license (e.g., FreeBSD), modify it, and sell the software as their own IP, sans source code, and with whatever license they desire. However software derived from GPL'ed software (like linux) must be freely licensed and include source code (amongst other things - see http://www.gnu.org).

When M$ moans about "open-source" software what they really hate is the GPL. The Internet Software Consotirum's BIND, which basically runs all name resolution on the internet, is "open source" software. It is also free-of-charge from the ISC. But it is ** NOT ** GPL'ed. BIND has a BSD-style license. That doesn't bother M$, since they are free to exploit BSD-licensed work and turn it into their own IP. However if they try and exploit GPL'ed work, they will be forced to GPL anything they get from it. The M$ business model is NOT compatible with public licensing of software, while IBM's is. M$, rightly so, fears that they will be forced to use GPL'ed work to stay competitive. So they whine that the GPL "stifles innovation" (as if M$ has ever had a *SINGLE* innovation) and rattle the saber to try and get the state to legislate against the GPL. As insane as Congress is, I doubt that would be that insane (to make GNU-style public licenses of software illegal).

open-source != free != GPL'ed

It is *NOT* notable that capitalists are using open-source software (they've been doing that as long as there has been software). What seems to be notable is that companies are using GPL'ed software. It isn't the philosophy of open-source software, but the phenomenon of public licensing that should be of interest.

Someone else mentioned that open-source software is being written in the unis. I'd have to call BS on that. In my experience most of the useful open-source software is coming from for-profit companies, or coming from people whose for-profit employer encourages them to work on those efforts. The people working on open-source software are not doing it out of altruism.

Matt

-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ PGP Key ID: 0x1F6A4471 aim: beyondzero123 yahoo msg: beyondzero123 icq: 120941588

"Hold your fire" - that's what I told the FBI.

-Kool Keith



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list