Microsofts new way of bashing Linux
news at pointerstop.ca
Fri Jun 16 19:24:56 BST 2006
Michael T. Richter wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-15-06 at 21:40 -0300, Derek Broughton wrote:
>> >> Which is just wrong. The GPL is there to protect your intellectual
>> >> property.
>> > Exactly how does the GPL "protect" my intellectual property? As far as
>> > I can tell it gives my intellectual property to everybody for free.
>> Not at all. It asserts that the IP is yours, and remains yours. Nobody
>> else can take it for themselves (as they can under a BSD license). Sure,
>> if you GPL it, you can't make much money selling it (though you _do_ have
>> every right to do so if you can find a buyer).
> Ah. So... it protects my intellectual property by kindly permitting me
> to keep my name attached to it. I can't realistically do anything else
> to profit from it like sell it, but I can have my name attached to it.
Stop trolling. You know better. Nobody forces you to release your software
under the GPL. Some of us _like_ to release under the GPL, because we have
better things to do than spend the rest of our lives maintaining code that
has nothing to do with our core business. GPL is, for instance, the ideal
license for things like drivers - it allows vendors to maintain ownership
without limiting the usefulness of the hardware. I have never understood
hardware vendors who close-source the driver software.
>> All that means is that Bill's method is very good for making _huge_
>> amounts of money. For many people, that's not all life is about.
> Do you think the guy who runs Red Hat wants huge amounts of money or
> just moderate?
Do I care? They've chosen their business model, Bill's chosen his, and I've
chosen mine. I'm never going to be as rich as Bill Gates. I don't care.
I very much doubt the guys that own Red Hat will get that rich - apparently
they don't care either.
More information about the sounder