MESSAGE
| DATE | 2006-11-17 |
| FROM | Ron Guerin
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Sun and the GPL
|
Billy wrote:
>
> On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:30 PM, Ron Guerin wrote:
>
>> Ruben Safir wrote:
>>> Sun to release OpenSolaris under the GPL?
>>>
>>> 11/14/2006 6:50:35 PM, by Ryan Paul
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> Sun's current interest in the GPL is likely a result of Green's
>>> influence.
>>
>> Uhm. No. Actually no need to speculate about it, since Schwartz already
>> told us what their current interest in the GPL is. The Microsoft-Novell
>> deal has shown them the error of their ways.
>
> I don't know what this means.
You'll see the response to Ruben first, but..
And in closing, I want to put one nagging item to rest.
By admitting that one of the strongest motivations to select the
GPL was the announcement made last week by Novell and Microsoft,
suggesting that free and open source software wasn't safe unless a
royalty was being paid. As an executive from one of those companies
said, "free has to have a price."
That's nonsense.
Free software can be free of royalties, and free of impediments to
broadscale, global adoption and deployment. Witness what we've done
with Solaris, and now, what we've done with Java. Developers are free
to pick up the code, and create derivatives. Without royalty or
obligation.
Those that say open source software can't be safe for customers - or
that commercially indemnified software can't foster community - are
merely advancing their own agenda. Without any basis in fact.
They're also fighting a rising tide.
(Jonathan Schwartz)
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/fueling_the_network_effect
Obviously Schwartz is still not quite hitting all the marks. For one,
what we usually mean by Free Software is without royalty, but it's the
obligations that keep the software free. He does seem to have come to
the conclusion that he was wrong before, about what sort of ecosystem
the GPL provides.
- Ron
|
|
