Posted on 05/03/2005 5:36:11 AM PDT by ShadowAce
The first nine letters would have sufficed.
they bundle, but yuo cant get a copy of redhat w/out the support so saying that redhat charges for both is like saying MS charges for both because they provide security updates..
maybe not specifically or technically, but effectively they are set to $0 and restrained to $0.
i love open source but as a developer i do see both sides of the issue. open source gives me the ability to learn and do things that back in the 80s and early 90s would have cost me more than i could afford to do on my own. but it has also cause a shift in how people like myself get paid -- the dollar value of the lines of code i write has effectively been eliminated and revenue primarily is derived from services, training, and support.
I think you are looking at the wrong villain.
Hint: look at the one that is taking up 90% of the market. There's your problem.
yes, i agree. but "the one that is taking up 90% of the market" is part of the reason oss exists at all. to counter the monopoly.
apache has what percent of the webserver market? companies used to sell webserver software. the netscape browser used to cost $50. jboss has driven the price of bea's application server down by a huge factor. etc. etc. etc.
again, i'm not saying any of this is "wrong" or "bad" -- it's just the way it is.
oss has affected the enterprise market more than others - which is fine with me because in my opinion software companies in that market used to charge outrageous amounts for crap.
yet some developers are still in the mindset of an earlier time. they think you should be able to write a nice little algorithm and retire off of it. that just isn't the world we live in today.
Is this from The Onion or something? How does one go about suing a form of contract? Where do you deliver its summons?
There is no software vendor that controls 90% of the market.
Really MS office is worth 0? Oracle? BEA? NetBackup? PhotoShop?
More uncertainty and controversy surrounding open source software like Linux, shouldn't surprise anyone.
I am as certain of the outcome of this one as I was of the SCO case. If it doesn't get laughed out of court, it will most certainly lose.
Quotes from Jokelaw, LOL. How about this quote from your link instead:
"And everybody on the dark side attacks Groklaw these days, including Ms. O'Gara, not just Daniel Wallace. I'm starting to figure out it's coordinated, not random. They seem to just pass the baton around, taking turns like Nazi interrogators in World War II beating prisoners..."
Beyond pathetic, especially from someone who spends their life defending IBM (who has a documented history of supporting the Nazi's).
Who do they think they are? Musicians? :-)
You better be a damn good salesman, since they have to give that code away for free whether anyone wants to actually pay for it or not. I'm sure you'll twist and squirm and give all kinds of supposed exceptions, but you might as well not waste your time, since the bottom line is if you want to "distribute" it, you have to give it away whether you are actually able to sell any copies of it or not.
As opposed to Microsoft and Sun who have a long history of supporting the Chicoms...
The irony is that the Chicoms are arguably a more murderous regime than the Nazis were.
So you want the right to take someone else's code and sell it as your own without attribution and without adhering to their contractual terms?
Does that about sum it up?
I doubt that's what he actually said, since he and the other Linux pushers around here want to keep that part hush hush. But you saw right through it, even though now he's twisting it all around to act like you weren't on to their little game. So to answer your question, yes, if you GPL your code, once it's released others can redistribute it for free without a dime back to you. Not to mention, they wouldn't have necessarily had to pay for it to begin with, and probably didn't if they didn't want to. They could have just sent the FSF lawyers over to threaten lawsuits if you were trying to sell it, but weren't also simultaneously giving it away for free.
Which is not much more than the Red Hat logos, if anything. CentOS is proof of this, within 2 weeks of RH releasing their latest version, a legally free copy was available for download from CentOS, and RH couldn't do a thing about it. That's why many want this GPL license revoked, not to mention the author of the GPL is a flaming anti-American leftist (www.stallman.org).
Exactly what is happening, these open sourcers want us to scrap the long time "sales and service" model and go to their new "service only" one. Which is really an ignorant way of doing business, since superior products typically don't require much service at all.
The SCO case is not over, as you infer. IBM is still handing over more evidence, last I heard, with the jury portion of the trial still several months off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.