IBM/TurboHercules can be resolved with license; no need for abolition
Posted Oct 1, 2010 6:19 UTC (Fri) by FlorianMueller
In reply to: IBM/TurboHercules can be resolved with license; no need for abolition
Parent article: Red Hat Responds to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Request for Guidance on Bilski
@gnufreex, this isn't the first website on which we have disagreements, but please note that this here isn't #boycottboy's website but instead a really good discussion community -- and adjust your behavior accordingly.
So MySQL was exploiting Red Hat's distribution channels. Are they parasites?
They benefited from it, but they developed MySQL and Red Hat distributed it because it was useful and at some point in strong demand. I can't see any particular action here that could be considered "parasitic". Note the word "action", which is different from just having permitted through an open source license that Red Hat redistributed it.
So your idea is that only Linus Torvadls and Richard Stallman should make money of off GNU/Linux, and everybody else are parasites?
Starting a project is usually just a part. The kind of innovative effort that politicians want to protect with intellectual property rights would include the entire product development and taking the overall risk of market acceptance.
It's great that Linux became a success without that protection. I repeat: it's great. But in connection with intellectual property rights, the question is whether this would work for the economy at large. Since IPRs affect the economy at large, this means that accomodating Red Hat is not an option.
You are basically advocating for converting open source to proprietary software because you only know to think by proprietary terms.
Wrong. I want both to compete with each other. But open source will have to compete under the framework of an intellectual property rights regime that must suit traditional innovation models, and open source must respect that system and find its place within it, such as by obtaining patent licenses where necessary (video codecs, unless VP8 is proven to really be unencumbered by third-party patents).
It is also very hypocritical that you praise MySQL's business model but you cry foul because Oracle bought it
I raised legitimate concerns, and if those concerns hadn't been worth investigating, the EU (plus "neutral" Switzerland) and China wouldn't have delayed their approval for five months beyond US DoJ approval nor would Russia have delayed its approval by almost another two months beyond EU/China and imposed formal remedies on Oracle. So I apparently had a point.
Those were competition concerns. They have nothing to do with the shareholders of a company making money. Competition/antitrust concerns are all about the public interest in effective, undistorted competition -- nothing else.
when GPL-fear-mongering business model of MySQL AB makes money to you, but when someone else buy it, you want to un-GPL it.
The lie that I wanted to "un-GPL" MySQL was originally propagated by GroklXX, a website that also said Oracle was going to be a great owner of Sun's patents until Oracle decided to use some of them against Google. I have debunked the outrageous un-GPL lie to the fullest extent. You can find my rebuttal here, including links to several documents I used during the merger control process and in which you can see I vigorously defended MySQL's GPL-based business model and advocated its continuation (but under a different owner than Oracle).
to post comments)