[Cumbria] Legal development of free software

[Michael Saunders]

On Sat, 15 Mar 2003, Nick Hill wrote:

> 1) IBM is a large corporation. It has deep pockets. It has a large
> patent portfolio.

Yes, that is true. And many followers of the whole SCO debacle are
pointing at IBM's colossal patent warchest -- they can no doubt
countersue SCO into the ground.

> From this, it can be seen that IBM, through these proposals, will
> gain far more control of free software.

You make interesting points and I understand what you're saying, but I
see something wrong with this line of view:

IBM is making money off Linux, which is developed by masses of Free
Software programmers. It's not in their interests to sweep up lots of
patents and use it against the people developing their software; they
destroy its value (and already have AIX as their own playground).

> IBM will, effectively, inherit free software.

Why would they want to? Those that have actually understood the whole
Free Software concept, and done well from it, haven't tried to alter
it. Red Hat releases its installers, configuration tools etc. under
the GPL (unlike SuSE and others), because they know that giving the
customer maximum control is best.

Similarly, IBM aren't currently offering their own distro with
proprietary bits -- they're adding new code (and the kernel developers
have been happy with their behaviour) and respecting the community.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being naive; IBM is out to make money and
some still don't like them because of their actions in the 80s. But
it's pointless to assume that they want to somehow take control of
open source development.

It's totally counter-productive.

At the moment, they have the 500,000 coders you mention working on
great software. They get to package it up, sell consulting, support
and large servers running it, and things are well.

Now, if they take the road you describe, in abusing software patents
and trying to wrestle control of Free Software, it'd be a pointless
move. All the talented developers would disappear. They'd be left to
maintaining the code themselves, which is what they have now with AIX.

Same situation with BSD. A company can take the code and use it in a
closed product, but if their enhancements never make it back into the
main tree, the software they use as a base won't improve.

So it's not in IBM's interest to seize control. 

> Unless apache comes under the total stewardship of a very rich
> corporation such as IBM, it will cease to be competitive soon.

People have been saying that for years.

> I predict Linux as we know it, will become another SCO, under the
> exclusive stewardship of IBM, to do with it as they wish.

How can you compare a free OS to a company? Presumably you mean things 
like OpenServer, and not SCO itself. Even then, they're worlds apart.

> IBM would benefit if the projects they are poring money into were 
> effectively proprietary. Perhaps IBM know this already??

This makes no sense. If IBM wanted to go along these lines, they 
would've taken up FreeBSD and maintained their own closed fork.

Again, it's not in IBM's interests to do this. Assuming control of 
Linux and OSS development would be pointless and redundant -- the 
whole value that companies are seeing in Linux is BECAUSE it is free 
and GPLed; the second IBM tries anything like that, it destroys the 
inherent value in OSS and fewer people will be interested in it.

IBM have been around for a long time, and are still hugely successful. 
They know that the market wants free, FREE software, and are not going 
to destroy that long-term market and lose thousands of developers for 
the tiniest of short-term gains.

I see the points you're making, but this apocalyptic scenario with IBM
at the helm is too far-fetched and crazy for their business.

Mike

-- 
Michael Saunders
www.aster.fsnet.co.uk