Is Linux For Losers?

Forbes.com ^ | 06.16.05 | Dan Lyons

[antiRepublicrat]

Blah blah blah, your claim they could pay off the FSF was wrong, and you said it was an option.

It all depends on what kind of deal they can work out. The FSF cannot legally force anyone to release their code under any license. No judge would allow that to happen, and would probably force the FSF to accept compensation for violated IP along with corrective measures such as a recall.

Of course, with millions of routers sold, the cost to Cisco would have been HUGE! It's much cheaper to release a few grand worth of code under the GPL. Still, their choice.

[Golden Eagle]

No judge would allow that to happen

And you have a perfect crystal ball into the mind of any judge in this country. Sure, I believe you. /SARCASM

[antiRepublicrat]

And you have a perfect crystal ball into the mind of any judge in this country.

No, I know basic law. You are really reaching into the absurd on this one.

Here's a quick example. Let's say I decide to market a firewall to small businesses, beefier than the standard Linksys. I use a micro-ATX and install Linux and various GPL tools, as well as Apache. I write a small intranet application to configure and monitor the firewall. I do not comply with the GPL.

A couple years later, I get a letter from the FSF. I immediately comply by including the GPL source code on future shipments, post the source code to my web site, and email all my clients (who I already have on a mailing list) telling them it's there. I'm now off the hook, completely. Why? I didn't make a derivative work of GPL code, just redistributed that code intact. My software is only bundled with the GPL code.

Now let's say I did the same thing using Windows (I know it's an idiotic idea to do that for a firewall, but it's just for argument). Microsoft would probably bankrupt me.

But what if I'd modified that GPL code? That's where the only question in the GPL comes in. What is a derivative work? If I modified and redistributed, it's definitely derivative. Otherwise, it depends on how I link my libraries.

In any case, my work is my own, and I didn't want to release it under the GPL. But it is part of GPL software, so I cannot redistribute it without violating copyright. I now have a decision to make: remove the GPL code from the system or make my own code GPL in order to get a license. Nobody, not even the FSF (which is, BTW, relatively underfunded), can force me to decide one way or the other.

These are really questions people should consider before they choose any license to base their software on.

You have shown your complete misunderstanding of the GPL many times on this board. Either understand it or quit commenting on it.

[Golden Eagle]

You are really reaching into the absurd on this one.

Actually, my position is fully backed by the fact that anyone the FSF has targeted has had their code taken from them and released. If/when someone is ever able to buy their way out of it, your original claim that they can do so may have merrit. Until then, it will remain baseless.

[antiRepublicrat]

, my position is fully backed by the fact that anyone the FSF has targeted has had their code taken from them and released

No one has had any code taken from them in a GPL violation. Some settled by releasing code. Others didn't have to release any code because they didn't create derivative works.

If/when someone is ever able to buy their way out of it, your original claim that they can do so may have merrit. Until then, it will remain baseless.

No one has paid because it is cheaper to release their little bit of code under the GPL. Finally reading the license for once (and I bet you haven't) will tell you that your position is rediculous. Try this part:

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.

So even if you create a derivative work, they only want the distribution of it covered by the GPL. IOW, if you want to distribute, you have to comply. If you don't want to distribute, no compliance necessary.

Until then, it will remain baseless.

Only based in law, the GPL, and statements by the FSF attorneys.

I still think it's absurd that you claim to support strong copyrights, yet you don't think writers of GPL software should be able to enforce theirs.

[ShadowAce]

I still think it's absurd that you claim to support strong copyrights, yet you don't think writers of GPL software should be able to enforce theirs.

Absurd? Only if you think in logical terms. GE wants to retain all control of his code, but he also believes that taking other code as a base to work from is perfectly permissible. So he prefers the BSD license where that is permissible.

He just hates the fact that the GPL actually enforces copyrights of others.

[Salo]

I support the rights of the owners of the property to do with it as they please within the law. If I wish to distribute my code using the GPL license, it's my right. If I choose the BSD license, that it also my right. If I sell binaries only, that, too is my right. There is nothing wrong - legally - with MS doing business with Viet Nam. I would note that it puts MS on the same moral plane as any linux vendor who does business with totalitarian regimes.

If you don't mind me asking, why do you buy MS products when they engage in similar practices as linux vendors when it comes to dealing with the axis of evil?

[clyde asbury]

I'm sorry if it came across that way. .. My point was that Windows is just as difficult, if not more so, than Linux to install.

You're right, of course. I haven't installed Windows since the early 1990s.

You post some great articles, and I always respect your comments. I don't know much about Linux, but most of it I've learned on FR, and most of that on threads you and a couple of others have posted.

Other Linux users do seem to be on a jihad against anything Microsoft. If you are a Windows user and you've never tried Linux and never even set up an /etc/lilo.conf file, then you're an idiot.

I like using Linux and believe its use would spread faster and to a greater extent if the Linux jihadists would either learn to be nicer, or simply shut up.


And that's why I think OS threads are boring. Thanks for listening.

[N3WBI3]

never even set up an /etc/lilo.conf file, then you're an idiot.

Oh no im an idiot... ;) I came to Linux after GRUB had got a strong foothold over LILO..

[clyde asbury]

Oh no im an idiot... ;)

I believe that was established about 30 comments ago. :)

[N3WBI3]

ouch!

[chronic_loser]

Other Linux users do seem to be on a jihad against anything Microsoft.

My own views on MS have evolved over the years. To its credit, MS has gotten where it is by a combination of activities, the foremost of which is MEETING CONSUMER NEEDS, but I also compliment them on knowing how to market to those needs. Now, I view them as any hegemonistic, bloated, noncompetitive entity who uses its money and power to stifle competition rather than engage the fray in competing. Another way to say it is that little guys all believe in raw capitalism till they reap the results of capitalism. Then they become protectionists. Part of this is the result of having a virtual monopoly in the marketplace. Being the only dog in the show always leads to sloppy product, unresponsiveness to customers, seeking to "squeeze" your customer base..., in short, abrogating the very things that got you at the top of the heap in the first place.

At the root(!) of the matter, a vigorous alternative to Windows is a GOOD thing for us the consumers, and for MS.

This situation is, imo, confused by the general muddy howls you get in any internet setting by zealots. Then you set this against the absolutely ruthless market behavior of MS in stealing software and attempting to intimidate by sending Ballmer to open source conferences with FUD threats of "competitorts" on the flakiest of patent claims. So, you already have some pissed off consumers. Then you get otherwise reasonably intelligent persons who magically morph into double digit iq cretins on this issue, bawling out that Linux is somehow "communist" because of the GPL or because Red China uses it. Compound this with insane jeremiads which claims that Linux is infected with the Planned Parenthood/Democratic Party/Nambla crowd because some of them use it on their servers just like [cough] Free Republic does. All we are missing is Dick Durbin claiming that Pol Pot used a proto-Linux to keep his government records, or that Hitler would have loved linux to keep prisoner roles.

That kind of talk deserves nothing but contempt. Internet being what it is, it gets what it deserves. Leads to lively talk that can resemble a "jihad," I suppose.

[ShadowAce]

...a vigorous alternative to Windows is a GOOD thing for us the consumers, and for MS.

This has always been my position. I get very happy at every Linux improvement and release because it means more competition (and a better OS, of course). My ideal world would consist of a very heterogenous environment, with Windows, Linux, and Apple all getting a decent share. It helps competition, which in turn improves products of all three platforms.

A world that only has MS as the dominant player is not very safe--either from a virus POV, or a customer service POV. Since MS is currently very dominating on the desktop, I may come across as overly jubliant when something happens to them, but I am honestly only coming at it from the above viewpoint.

[N3WBI3]

a vigorous alternative to Windows is a GOOD thing for us the consumers, and for MS.

One only need to look at firefox to see this. MS had all but stopped doing anything significant to ie until FF started to take some serious bites out of its market share. Now ie Is adding some of the features from FF (tabs, popup blocking) and I am sure MS is trying to come up with some of its own new things to differentiate their offering. Competition has made ie a better browser!

[Knitebane]

According to your rules, articles from outside the country are to be distrusted.

So why are you so hot to trust the Moscow Times?

And since "the sensitive part" isn't specified (just says that it's 3%) and since the kernel and system libraries take up much more than 3%, closer to 30%, I'm not sure what they, or you, are trying to prove.

Let's spin it the other way, shall we?

From your article:

Under the program, governments will be able to access 97 percent of the blueprints for Windows versions used to run desktop computers, network servers and hand-held devices for analysis and testing.

And no matter how you spin it, 97% is not just a "peek."

It's selling out to the commies.

[Knitebane]

Since Linux came along and started giving not only the right to view the Linux code,

No, it's since Billy bent over for his fellow Chicom comrades. Linux has nothing to do with it. If it did, Billy would have just published his code under the GPL. Anything else really doesn't do anything to make Windows more competative with Linux.

but the right to foreign governments to even resell it under a different name like China does when they rename and resell Red Hat Linux from the US as "Red Flag" over in China.

Which is how it was designed, unlike Windows which was always proprietary. Noone is allowed access to Windows source code...except for Bill's Chinese comrades.

This was a response by Microsoft to the Linux giveaways, but only gave them peeks at it under special circumstances

Liar. 97% of all of the Windows source code is not a "peek", it's a sell out.

Peddle your Redmond-based garbage elsewhere, spin-boy.

[chronic_loser]

He has been banned. Sheesh. It was evil people like you that drove him to it. Damned communist.

[Salo]

Well, I've never managed to get myself banned. :-) Of course, FreeRepublic does run on linux.....

Obviously just can't control yourself, no news to anyone that knows you.

[Golden Eagle]

The PRC has complete and total access to the Windows source code at any time they wish with a direct connection. They don't have to take come to Redmond to look at it. They've got all of it, every day, all day.

You are completely wrong and I've already pointed it out once. Here it is again since you'd rather sling insults instead of admiting you were wrong.

NY Times

[Knitebane]

Well, of course we all trust the NY Times, right?

Microsoft employees disagree with both you and the NY Times. Insiders at Microsoft have reported a function VPN from China to the internal Microsoft development servers.

But let's for a moment assume that the NY Times article is completely accurate...

The Chinese Communists have complete and total access to 97% of Windows source code.

97%

And Bill & Co. just gave it to them. I suppose that's the least that he could do for a fellow traveler, eh comrade?