Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?
From: hutch-- (hutch_at_movsd.com)
Date: 12/15/04
- Next message: Beth: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Next in thread: arargh412NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Reply: arargh412NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 15 Dec 2004 02:45:26 -0800
Bob,
I doubt that our viewpoints differ that much apart from preference. I
am very much a person who interfaces with other individuals rather
than a member of the great collective which in part shapes my views on
these matters.
When many people whinged about Windows years ago, eventually enough
people did something about it and produced LINUX as an alternative. I
don't remember the actual details of so long ago but from memory it
was licenced as GPL from very early and the result is an operating
system that is fully independent that was created by programmers who
were happy to work under that licence.
In the context of having created LINUX from scratch, I see it as
reasonable that GPL fully control their own creation and I would
consider any attempt to white ant it or take it over for some other
purpose unreasonable conduct as it was not created for another purpose
and the programers who did all the work did not write it for another
purpose.
LINUX has proven itself in the server market as a reliable and viable
operating system and it is beholding to no-one else except the sum
total of programmers that worked to create it.
On the other end, Microsoft were originally hired by IBM to write the
operating systems for early IBM PCs and they produced early Windows
completely on their own bat without prior dependence on anyone elses
code. Now we all know the history of Microsoft not being willing to go
down the road of OS2 and the eventual split between Microsoft and IBM
where Microsoft pursued the development of their Windows operating
system and eventually controlled a large share of the market by doing
so.
The types of distinctions I draw here is if you make it, its yours and
I apply the same rule to LINUX as I do to Windows. If Corel for
example decided that they were in a position to white ant LINUX, take
it over and turn it into a commercial operating system, they would not
have my support as the people who created it did not write it for that
purpose.
Likewise when projects under a GPL licence try and white ant Microsoft
by producing copies or replacements for their operating system or
components, I don't support that either and it is for a very simple
reason, in both cases of LINUX and Windows, a very large number of
people are involved in the development of both who don't come from the
other camp and inflicting either view on the other camp disadvantages
many.
The LINUX developer would be pissed off with the licence
considerations of commercial software and the normal non-disclosure
agreements just as the Windows developer would be pissed off about
someone being able to take over their code and/or algorithm design.
There are abuses on both ends, some in the commercial market will rip
you off faster than a rocket if they think they can get away with it
while the other end have an element that will bludge what they can and
foulmouth what they can't.
I mentioned the toys I still have time to maintain because even
posting them as licenced freeware, I still people wanting the source
when I have made the capacity available long ago for those who want to
write their own. The pursuit is not the capacity to create but control
of the concept and it is because they don't want to do the work to
create their own.
The humour is that most of my private toys are not directly buildable
from source alone and require multiple post build operations to finish
them so they could not use it anyway.
I can live with BOTH LINUX and Windows but I don't support cross
licencing of either as they are incompatible systems produced in
different ways for different goals.
Regards,
hutch at movsd dot com
- Next message: Beth: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Previous message: Beth: "Re: [ Attn: Randy ] Ad-hoc Parsing?"
- Next in thread: arargh412NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Reply: arargh412NOSPAM_at_NOW.AT.arargh.com: "Re: Is Microsoft anti-GPL ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
