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

[Geoff Teale]

Steve wrote:
------------
> 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.

In a practical sense, yes we have to compromise to earn a living - but there
is a chance that a lot of businesses will move around to different licensing
schemes as they become more commercially viable and customers demand source
access (if not true Open Source).

> 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 certainly feel less is being done with FreeBSD - thats a big reason why I
don't run it - I don't need a server, I need a productive desktop
environment that allows me to explore new territory - LINUX is that
environment.  My point about FreeBSD was that it makes a very good,
dependable and (now again) scalable server platform.  It's a workhorse.

<snip> 
> 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.

I agree that it is a useful tool, but from a business point of view how do
you convince businesses to swap - do they really want to hear that it's
going to cost them a license fee of £299 per desktop to run the same OS they
are now, only more slowly, just so they can use a LINUX desktop.  If you are
in a large company that is moving everyone over and has a few people who
still need to run Windows apps then yes, this is a great idea, but if every
desktop in the company needs VMWare then it's going to get expensive and
businesses won't like that.

> 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.

Agreed, but companies also hate expenditure and to get anything done you
have to have an argument so strong it can't be smashed by a competing
manager pointing out that your spending a load of cash just to replicate the
current position.  I look forward to a solution that would allow people a
_free_ (as in beer as well as in speech) or lowcost solution to this problem
- VMWare tried that, didn't make any money out of it and then pushed their
prices up to make up the shortfall - I think maybe they went for the mass
market too soon.
 
> Please explain why you are so much against VMware as a risk 
> reduction and
> a transitional tool.

I'm not against it, I just don't think businesses will do that unless it is
heavily discounted!

> > > These are of course all my personal views and aren't likely to be 
> > > popular around here.
> > 

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

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

I ahve no problem with companies making money from free software - what I
had a problem with is a license scheme that allows companies to use and
improve code that is freely available but then not provide that freedom to
others or make any payment back to the providors of the source - I know this
is the preference of the Authors but it pisses me off.  The GPL stops that
from happening, this I like.  

For me releasing code under the BSD license would be a bit like me selling
people rides in your car (Steve has a _nice_ car :-)  )  and not letting
have any of the profits.  You worked hard to get the car, I did not, I get
all the financial benefit, you get nothing but more miles on your clock,
plus now everyone gets what you worked hard to get (and thus they experience
is devalued - nobody thinks there's anything remotely cool about riding in
your car anymore).  These people could have got you to give them a ride in
your car for free, but they didn't know it was your car, cause I sprayed it
red and stuck lotus badge on the front.  You could have gained lots of
friends, but you didn't, I now have lots of friends who think I'm wonderful
because as far as they're concerned I'm giving them something they couldn't
have got elsewhere.

-- 
geoff.teale at claybrook.co.uk
tealeg at member.fsf.org

"and the mighty multinationals
have monopolized the oxygen
so it's as easy as breathing
for us all to participate"
- Ani DiFranco "Your next bold move"



The above information is confidential to the addressee and may be privileged.  Unauthorised access and use is prohibited.
 
Internet communications are not secure and therefore this Company does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message.
 
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
 
Claybrook Computing Limited is a subsidiary of Claybrook Computing (Holdings) Limited
Registered Office: Abbey House. 282 Farnborough Road, Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 7NJ
Registered in England and Wales No 1287205
 
A Hogg Robinson plc company