Re: [oc] Inquiry

[Nicolas Boulay <nico@seul.org>]

Le Vendredi 9 Mai 2003 23:44, Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
> Thank you for not making me mad again... ;o)
>
> To cut it short, I snip out the "philosophical opposing attitudes", you are
> in FSF camp, and I am in Apache camp, and I leave it at that.

:)

>
> On Thursday 08 May 2003 08:54 am, cyrano@nerim.net wrote:
> > Niclas Hedhman <niclas@hedhman.org> a écrit :
> > > Also, it doesn't say that all code I develop I have to send back to
> > > Microsoft,
> >
> > Neither GPL. GPL imply code back to the custmers when you modify existing
> > code.
>
> I don't understand how you can say this, since you later say;
>

When you code under linux, you don't have to give back code. You only have to 
do it if you reuse GPL code.

> > (if
> > you find glib a nice library and avoid reinventing the wheel you must
> > write GPL code)
>
> And "GPL code" means revealing all source.
>

yep. Here, is the strategy "to force" the developpement of free software. 
Produice good code in GPL, if you want to use it, you must also produice GPL 
code. The both previous statement are not opposed at all.

But i don't see why it impossible to sell GPL code.  You could always sell the 
implementation of a feature or support. If you only improve Apache and 
nothing around, "at the end", you will only have a good web server and 
nothing else. With GPL, you will have a complet system.

> > > > Funny. You use Apache, some piece of work that could cost you
> > > > billions to develop but you find anormal to help the project a
> > > > little.
> > >
> > > Not only can you not read, you don't know math either. Tomcat, for
> > > instance,
> > >
> > > doesn't cost billions to develop. You are off by several magnitudes.
> >
> > I speak about the estimated cost of linux by common economical methode
> > published some years ago.
>
> Excuse me. Again, READ. "You use APACHE, some piece that could cost you
> billions...". Apache has not developed Linux.
>

That is a "fast writing", but redevelopping apache will cost at least some 
dozen millions dollars (or euro :) without doubt.

> > Websphere is opens source. It's a bunch of software. I can't find quickly
> > a global licence.
>
> ??? Websphere Application Server costs somewhere around USD30k per license
> (I think it is per CPU, but could be wrong).
> You are probably meaning the Eclipse project, on which the Websphere IDE
> (don't remember the brand name) is based on. http://www.eclipse.org
> Big difference.
>
> > > Commercial developers, like myself, will not survive on love alone.
> > > Everyone,
> > > Linus included, needs to generate income, one way or the other.
> >
> > ? Linus did not live of linux. Other majors linux developpers work for
> > various compagny, like Red Hat, Suse, IBM,... They live for there
> > experties.
>
> Ok, let's get this straight. Whatever Linus is doing right now (probably
> still at Transmeta), he wouldn't be doing if it wasn't for the success of

He is also a very good coder...

> Linux. What we consider Linux is 10% or less Linux, and 90% or more GNU.
> Most resources at RH, Suse, IBM and other supporting companies of Linux,
> are working on GNU codebase, not Linux which is "only" a kernel.

But this company make a living by produicing GPL code. That's all what i say.

>
> > No that's freedom. True one. Don't you blame you're gouvernement not to
> > have the liberty of killing your annoying neighbourg ? That's a
> > philosophical point. To enhance liberty of every one, you must restrict
> > it a little bit. (forbiden to kill to have the right to live)
>
> ;o)  I am from Sweden, and Liberty was lost a bit more the 1000 years ago,
> when you were no longer allowed to kill "Women and Children", "People going
> to, In or returning from church" and "People at home". Tough laws ;o)
>

So you understand my point. BSD does not provide more freedom than GPL.

> Seriously. I think there are a LOT of splendid OSS code out there. Only a
> small fraction of it, gets the attention a la Linux et al. I also believe
> that out of that "unknown sea of gold nuggets", the author would be more
> happy that someone USE it, instead of turning their back on it, because the
> license is not to the User's taste (let's call it that).

That's the continuous fight against RMS and Linus.

Licence are important for the "future". Look at wine problem, look at BSD 
code. Microsoft use a lot of BSD code, without any thanks. Few years ago, OSS 
have been FUDed a lot. And beside that, they use BSD code ! I don't think 
that bsd project have seen any bug correction in return.

BSD licence is a generous idea. But "reality" shows that is not a so good one.

nicO

>
> Niclas
>


--
To unsubscribe from cores mailing list please visit http://www.opencores.org/mailinglists.shtml