[gentoo-user] Re: Daniel Robbins' come back ?

[James <wireless@tampabay.rr.com>]

Thufir <hawat.thufir <at> gmail.com> writes:


> > 2. Keep licensing more in line with the BSD license for Gentoo centric
> > technology (thus encouraging entrepreneurship as defined by the
> > individual while simultaneously respecting GPLv2 and maintaining
> > compliance with GPLv2.   GPLv3 is a poor idea, IMHO. GPLv3 can be made
> > easily available and leave GPLv3 compliance/responsibility up to the
> > individual. In fact software licensing and compliance should always be
> > up to the INDIVIDUAL, IMHO.

> Absolutely not -- For BSD licensing please use BSD.  I see no reason why 
> everything Gentoo related can't be GPL v2 -- after all, the kernel 
> certainly is.

It runs a little deeper than this, particularly when you look at how is doing
what. For example

There are Dozens of corporations willing to sell 'embedded linux' to you.
Yet the core of their offering is the same linux you used (with some tweaks
at the kernel, HAL and a few other places). How does Monta Vista get 
to sell embedded linux without being sued?

I really don't think this is the place to discuss licensing but the BSD
vs GPLv(2/3) is a hugely complicated issue. Lots of small companies are
being quietly sued for building products related to embedded linux.
But, none of the large corporations that do the same or worse are being
sued....?

And, oh, just so you know, Monta Vistas original RTOS was a rip off
of BSD.


(Do your own research)

> I wouldn't want to see entrepreneurs take Gentoo, *improve* it, and then 
> not contribute those improvements back to Gentoo itself.  That's what the 
> GPL versus BSD is about, to my knowledge.

Again you miss the point. If some small company builds a product, they
are not going to want to stray very far from the linux kernel tree. The
most they do is write a device driver. If they have some real 'magic' you
just put a second sub $1 micro processor on the circuit board and locate
your "magic" therein. It's as easy as eating pie. Publish your gpl code
on the big micro and hide your magic in a small proccessor/DSP/FPGA/PAL.
There are many other schemes to get around GPL, including writing your
own boot loader. (not as difficult as it sounds).


What the GPLv3 is doing is effectively keeping the little guys from building
products ~100% based on linux and open source. They have not stopped a single
well funded company (or an entire country like China) from using linux
and open source as they choose.   This is a very huge reason for the
current state of affairs for failed technology companies (particularly in
the USA), at the present time.  The Linux Journal has a big campaign to
locate "linux inside" of products, basically asking folks to 'rat out'
companies using linux to make a buck.  <insert your own conspiracy theory
here>

You still believe gplv3 is a good thing? I think *GPLv3* is the spawn of
Satan, and that's the reason most of the kernel devs did not go for that
*horse hockey*!

> That being said, it would be fantastic if the Gentoo Foundation found 
> ways to make money :)

It will never happen as longs as "myths" such as the ones you espouse
reign supreme, IMHO. The reason that Gentoo and all of those souls that
develop and support it is floundering on near financial failure, is the 
tenants (goals) that others have brain washed onto the masses, IMHO.

The very best way (IMHO) to promote democracy and freedom is for
the people to have a way to make money as entrepreneurs and small
business people. Keeping Linux bottled up, via the GPL is just
plain nuts! Besides that, Linux only bottled up for the little guys,
HP, IBM, and thousands of other companies used linux every day in 
products or high end services, such as phone/networking gear.
Who is suing them?

Hell, the US DOD uses Linux like crazy...  Who are we kidding with
the entire GPL schrade?  (Keep the serfs where they belong, methinks).



James








-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list