FreeBSD 5.0, GPL vs BSD license (was) Re: [Sussex] From Ball To L inux.

[Steve Dobson]

Mornin' Geoff, Neil and the lerkers out there too.

On 20 Jan 2003 Geoff Teal wrote:
> Neil wrote:
> > I personally have issues with the 
> > GPL or more accurate Stallman and his position on software licencing.
>
> I think a lot of people think RMS is too radical, this is the root of
> the Open Source / Free Software divide.

Agreed, RMS is in the luckly position that he can hold such a radical view.
Foor the rest of us mortals we have to take a more pragmattic point of view.

> > I prefer FreeBSD for servers due to it's consistancy and it's 
> > stability. Again that's a personal thing.
> 
> I'm actually inclined to agree with you, especially since FreeBSD now has
> decent support for SMP - it can regain it's reputation as a high-load
server
> platform.

Again I have to agree here with both of you.  FreeBSD is consistant, but is
that
due to a smaller kernel hacking group?  Is the reason it is consistant
because 
less is being done with it?  A point for discussion, but it is my PoV.

> > I don't think either Linux or FreeBSD are ready for the business 
> > desktop, but then that is because a lot of the people I work with have 
> > bespoke applications written for Windows or Mac OS that the developers 
> > aren't going to port to X windows in a month of Sundays. It's a fact of 
> > life I'm afraid and something that isn't going to change anytime soon.
>
> A also agree that this is a weakness.  If you have an investment in
internal
> development or buy products like Act then your first question is how do I
> get this to run on LINUX/BSD..etc..?  Running something like VMware is not
> an option - in most cases this would defeat the point of the excercise -
> indeed any licensing costs you have to add in to convert make the whole
> operation less viable.  However there is a realisation of this problem in
> the community and work is being done to get things in place.  It's an
> interesting point and I'm keen to see how things develop.

Neil: The bespoke applications issues is a problem.  How do you get people
to
switch to Linux if they still need Windoz?

Geoff: Why is VMware not an issue?  Cost should be the driver here should it
not?  At the end of the day VMware is just one more license to buy.  If it 
allows me to run all my old applications on this new platform then that has
to be a good thing(TM).  That way I can move all my commodity applications
(like mail) to Open Source - that saving in license cost may pay for the 
VMware site license.

You appear to want to switch on mass to OSS; why?  Big changes are risky!
Most companies want to reduce risk.  VMware could be one way to manage that
risk.

Please explain why you are so much against VMware as a risk reduction and
a transitional tool.

> > These are of course all my personal views and aren't likely to be 
> > popular around here.
> 
> I don't think of this as a popularity contest, I'm keen to hear other
> peoples opinion (much as it may seem like I'm mouthing off), I genuinely
> want to hear someone address what I see as FreeBSD's weakness (it's
license)

Agreed, more comment from the luskers out there would be good.

> - I don't approve of the idea that all of that hard work is open for big
> companies to reap and make profit on without passing on the same
> opportunities.

IBM is a good example of this.  $1,000,000,000 per annum investted in 
Linux, and they say that they get it back!

Steve