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
