| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Screwing the GPLScrewing the GPLPosted Aug 19, 2004 10:04 UTC (Thu) by rakoch (guest, #4666)Parent article: IBM files another summary judgment motion
Everybody here seems so happy that IBM uses the GPL to squash SCO. And indeed, this could strenghten the GPL considerably if it's going the way we wish.
The motions show that IBM's lawyer's are anything but naiive. What if IBM is playing a double game and is asking for too much with the hidden aganda to squash the GPL. That way they'd get rid of SCO and the GPL with one single blow. Ironically with the help of the community. It'd be more comforting to know that IBM would shoot itself in it's corporate foot than relying on IBM's goodness. Anyone has more insight in what IBM has to gain or to loose?
-Rudiger
(Log in to post comments)
Screwing the GPL Posted Aug 19, 2004 11:50 UTC (Thu) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] Nothing I have read in IBM's two recent PSJ's suggest IBM has a hidden agenda tosquash the GPL. That would be to use an old phrase, bitting the hand that feeds them. Something SCOG is totally blind to. McBride was right in an indirect way about GPL. the only way to get rid of it is to legally invalidate the existing copyright laws. I for one do not see that ever happening.
Screwing the GPL Posted Aug 19, 2004 12:56 UTC (Thu) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] Or maybe it is a triple game, IBM got SCO to file the case so that they could file this counter charge to get it squashed. Or maybe its a quadruple game with Microsoft getting IBM to get SCO to file the case so that they could file this counter chage to get it squashed.
At some point we have to wear our alluminum foil hats and be done with it.
Screwing the GPL Posted Aug 19, 2004 14:14 UTC (Thu) by stumbles (guest, #8796) [Link] And the cat tat ate the rat, that ate the cheese that..........Tinfoil hats indeed. Mine is electrified.
Screwing the GPL Posted Aug 19, 2004 14:22 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] I'd say what IBM has to gain is this: the company has contributed large amounts of code to Linux with the understanding that it would only be redistributed under the terms of the GPL. IBM has made those contributions for its own business purposes, and, by all indications, those purposes are being well served.IBM did not make those contributions so that a small, failing company could attempt to steal them and levy a tax on the users of that code. Allowing such an action would be to let others profit unfairly from IBM's contributions, add costs for IBM's customers, and destroy the development community which has given IBM such a great platform for the sale of hardware, proprietary add-ons, and services. From this point of view, it would appear that IBM has a clear interest in upholding and demonstrating the validity of the GPL. No tin foil required.
Screwing the GPL Posted Aug 19, 2004 16:47 UTC (Thu) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] The only right IBM, or anyone else, has to distribute Linux is what is granted under the GPL; more importantly, the only way that IBM gets the benefit of non-IBM development on Linux is that the GPL makes licensing that work to IBM (and everyone else) acceptable to others.
If the GPL were invalid, IBM would be left without a suitable operating system to distribute to many of their customers. If the GPL were unenforceable, IBM would lose 99% of the developers for the projects they ship. Being rid of the GPL would be about as good for IBM as being rid of outsourced hardware production. They already failed to produce all of the necessary software they shipped when they started shipping DOS; the GPL gives them a better deal than third-party proprietary software.
For that matter, IBM doesn't even have its own Linux version that it could make proprietary should the GPL turn out to be unenforceable; they ship Red Hat or SuSE, and contribute the code necessary to make it run on their expensive hardware. They'd need a completely different business model and a mostly different employee set to gain at all.
|
|
||||||||||||