>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).
I see what you mean ... depends on whether you consider changing the licensing of a piece of software to be "doing something with it". Lawrence's original contention was that "nothing gets into the Linux kernel without Torvalds' say-so", which is only true because "Linux" is a brand name. If IBM want Linux (to take a suitably contentious example) to have support for DirectX in the kernel and Linus doesn't want it to, then IBM have the right (protected by the GPL) to fork the code and create their own pseudo-Linux kernel.
>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).
I am given to understand by the sort of pals one comes across in the line of things that this is less of a protection than it used to be, because "object request brokers" (programs dealing with the interaction between other programs) have rendered obsolete the concept of 'linking' which the GPL relies on for its 'viral' nature (basically, if your program is 'linked' to a GPL one, it has to be GPL itself, and 'linking' is a fairly specfic computer concept).
If, for example, IBM were to "help" their installed "IBM Linux" user base by gradually moving all of the useful functionality out of the GPL kernel and into proprietary extensions, it is not obvious that the GPL would stop them doing this if they went about it in the right technical way. This would give them something more or less as useful to them as a proprietary product -- for IBM's clients, a Linux that won't run Oracle properly is as good as useless.
But I also get the impression that the talmudic interpretation of computer licences is less important than the general issue of whether an attack on intellectual property is an attack on capitalism. Some of the things Stallman has said seem to suggest something in this line, but it seems pretty far-fetched to me. Intellectual property is a convenience of some types of capitalist economy; the fact that, as you point out, most of the development is these days carried out by wage labourers suggests to me that capitalist economics without intellectual property are perfectly conceivable.
dd
===== ... in countries which do not enjoy Mediterranean sunshine idleness is more difficult, and a great public propaganda will be required to inaugurate it. -- Bertrand Russell
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie